tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3844606287848731418..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Independent Evolution of EyesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44940264068047264922014-04-03T10:35:42.471-07:002014-04-03T10:35:42.471-07:00Helena:
he attacks a fake and non-existing evolut...Helena:<br /><br /><i>he attacks a fake and non-existing evolutionary theory!!!</i><br /><br />Can you give an example?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24835938851470540252014-04-03T10:08:38.025-07:002014-04-03T10:08:38.025-07:00So, no logic?? It makes sense when said by a creat...So, no logic?? It makes sense when said by a creationist! You are frank at least: anoutspoken enemy of reason.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162226541686164865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32293515720180403852014-04-03T10:05:58.179-07:002014-04-03T10:05:58.179-07:00I'm astonished at the level of dumb arguments ...I'm astonished at the level of dumb arguments here. The author of the blog accuses people of straw man argument even when he attacks a fake and non-existing evolutionary theory!!! Really scary is the number of morons supporting him...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162226541686164865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78775704762745907992014-04-03T10:02:18.076-07:002014-04-03T10:02:18.076-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162226541686164865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49145345563625726292010-03-04T03:19:15.733-08:002010-03-04T03:19:15.733-08:00Ilion, whoever that is and I suspect we will never...Ilion, whoever that is and I suspect we will never know. <br /><br />Your "translation" is nothing of the sort. Your "logic" is nonexistent. My comment had to do with "expectations" and nothing more. The major defect in Darwin's fantasy was its "reasonableness" which collapsed immediately when tested empirically. Besides, "logic" has no place in science, never did have, and never will have. I can't think of a single application for logic in the advancement of science. Neither can anyone else!<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.com<br /><br />To correct my typo, it was Boris Ephrussi.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9138645287847560932010-03-03T20:24:05.368-08:002010-03-03T20:24:05.368-08:00"It is a mistake to expect any aspect of scie..."<i>It is a mistake to expect any aspect of science, especially the living world, to be either reasonable or logical.</i>"<br /><br />Translation: <i>knowledge is impossible</i>.<br /><br />^^ And that, boys and girls, is "your brain on evolutionism" (in the manner of the old PSA with a cracked egg being likened to "your brain on drugs").<br /><br /><br />Of course, the assertion that knowledge is impossible is also an assertion of possessing knowledge.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8131141008274843602010-03-03T15:19:30.063-08:002010-03-03T15:19:30.063-08:00It is a mistake to expect any aspect of science, e...It is a mistake to expect any aspect of science, especially the living world, to be either reasonable or logical.<br /><br />"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."<br />anonymous<br /><br />"An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."<br />Botris EphrussiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52493683307419096252010-03-03T14:09:25.628-08:002010-03-03T14:09:25.628-08:00Charles: "I don't understand the critic y...<b>Charles:</b> "<i>I don't understand the critic you made about my post. Does it mean that you think there are no mutation that can confer protective effect against disease?</i>"<br /><br />Charles, my critique is about your <i>reasoning</i>; specifically. that you are engaging in illogic, which is irrational.<br /><br />"Darwinists" like to assert "facts," and question-beg "conclusions" -- all the while insisting that no one may look into the issue of their illogical and irrational resoning. I decline to be distracted: until "Darwinists" are willing to consistently *reason* the <i>only</i> issue before us is their anti-reason.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52560614252049219762010-03-03T04:15:13.797-08:002010-03-03T04:15:13.797-08:00I not only believe that there WAS a "telos&qu...I not only believe that there WAS a "telos" to evolution, namely the appearance of a rational being, I believe that the process is now complete with the contemporary biota. I believe speciation is at a standstill as is the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. There is nothing in the neo-Darwinian scheme that ever had anything to do with the history of life on this planet. Natural and artificial selection, sexual reproduction, Mendelian and population genetics, these are all incompetent to produce new life forms. They can only generate intra-speciic variations doomed to ultimate extinction. They ensure that extinction as the fossil record has testified time and again. Without extinction there could never have been evolution, a phenomenon now complete.<br /><br />The perfect model for phylogeny is ontogeny, the development of the individual. Just as the transition from the egg to the adult is governed entirely by information already present in the egg, so, I have proposed, was the same true for the earliest life forms which must have contained all the necessary information for all of evolution. We have no idea how many such primary life forms were involved. Leo Berg postulated tens of thosuands as I have indicated. For all we really know he was correct.<br /><br />Of course this concept is anathema to the traditional Darwinian who believes he has already discovered the mechanism for phylogenesis and now looks no further for answers. Everywhere the Darwinian looks he sees evolution in action when in fact all he may be observing is adaptation within the narrow confines of fundamentally immutable and terminal species. <br /><br />If there are still life forms capable of progressive change, I am certain that they will never achieve that goal through the devices the Darwinians have proposed. Darwin's Victorian fantasy, like each and every one of Richard Dawkins' recent fantasies, had absolutely NOTHING to do with the great mystery of organic evolution. Phylogeny HAD to have been guided somehow. How that was done must now become a primary goal of evolutionary science.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88455176180832912732010-03-02T12:51:45.473-08:002010-03-02T12:51:45.473-08:00Ilíon:
I don't understand the critic you made...Ilíon:<br /><br />I don't understand the critic you made about my post. Does it mean that you think there are no mutation that can confer protective effect against disease?<br /><br />Charles.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08434149812251973198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36166207162563994602010-03-02T10:56:33.214-08:002010-03-02T10:56:33.214-08:00Charles,
The core commitment of 'modern evolu...Charles,<br /><br />The <i>core commitment</i> of 'modern evolutionary theory' -- the one point upon which it cannot ever compromise -- is that all "evolution" (*) is <i>random</i>, that there is no <i>reasoned cause</i> to "evolution," that there is no <i>telos</i> to "evolution."<br /><br />Furthermore, your objection to what Mr Davison said reflects the all-too-common habit of 'modern evolutionary theorists' to argue from ignorance, and to <i>assume</i> their "conclusions."<br /><br /><br />(*) the quote marks around the word 'evolution' are because Darwinists have always misused and misappropriated the word; it actually means something quite different from what Darwinists insist it does.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30190464073146921002010-03-02T08:59:47.115-08:002010-03-02T08:59:47.115-08:00jadavison:
"It is very difficult to identify...jadavison:<br /><br />"It is very difficult to identify a beneficial mutation in any higher organism."<br /><br />There are many alleles known to confer a protective effect against diseases. For example:<br /><br />Prion Protein Alleles Showing a Protective Effect on the Susceptibility of Sheep to Scrapie and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.<br /><br />Charles.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08434149812251973198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8684772672795772032010-03-01T14:14:12.477-08:002010-03-01T14:14:12.477-08:00The vast majority of allelic (Mendelian) mutations...The vast majority of allelic (Mendelian) mutations are either deleterious or neutral. It is very difficult to identify a beneficial mutation in any higher organism.<br /><br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25200914265472257852010-02-27T15:45:08.415-08:002010-02-27T15:45:08.415-08:00I am not in a corner, pathetic personage.
And I d...I am not in a corner, pathetic personage.<br /><br />And I don't dance to your primative tune.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3475049250259072762010-02-27T11:32:08.315-08:002010-02-27T11:32:08.315-08:00Ilion -
"Well, no. I simply stated that you...Ilion - <br /><br />"Well, no. I simply stated that you will (as "Darwinists" alway do) present some question-begging and/or special-pleading and expect that I will be impressed."<br /><br />If that were truly the case, why did you not take me up on my challenge? You would have nothing to lose.<br /><br />You are simply trying to backtrack because you have backed yourself into a corner. Which is fine. But don't assert there is no evidence for random mutation when the truth is that you evidently just don't want to hear it.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59434892861703268542010-02-27T08:28:25.957-08:002010-02-27T08:28:25.957-08:00Ilion
I would quote you in my long list of adver...Ilion <br /><br />I would quote you in my long list of adversaries but since I have no idea who you are, you don't qualify. However let the record indicate that Ilion, whoever he is, continues, as he always has, to dismiss John A. Davison as of no consequence. While Ilion holds forth here, there are some blogs at which he is no longer welcome due to his chronic, crass behavior.<br /><br />I love it so!<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69895746198541493272010-02-27T05:21:19.271-08:002010-02-27T05:21:19.271-08:00Ilíon does his best to ignore boring posters -- th...Ilíon does his best to ignore boring posters -- those who have nothing to say, and say it often -- whether they be "Darwinists" or not.<br /><br />But, unfortunately, sometimes, against his wishes, his eyes see their vacuuous posts.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8022985265974125002010-02-26T20:26:04.901-08:002010-02-26T20:26:04.901-08:00Ritchie: "What a cowardly reply."
What ...<b>Ritchie:</b> "<i>What a cowardly reply.</i>"<br /><br />What a foolish assertion.<br /><br /><b>Ritchie:</b> "<i>You show your lack of confidence in the accuracy of your position by your reluctance to put it to the test.</i>"<br /><br />Well, no. I simply stated that you will (as "Darwinists" alway do) present some question-begging and/or special-pleading and expect that I will be impressed.<br /><br />You Darwinistic folk are a boring as a certain anti-Darwinist who has shown up.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68670818421832814062010-02-26T12:48:25.242-08:002010-02-26T12:48:25.242-08:00Abimer
My insistence that natural selection is an...Abimer<br /><br />My insistence that natural selection is anti-evolutionary is not unusual at all and isn't even original with me. Neither is my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Others have proposed the same notions. One such was Leo Berg, in my estimation one of the greatest evolutionists of all time.<br /><br />"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.... Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."<br />Nomogenesis, page 406<br /><br />Others, notably William Bateson and Reginald C. Punnett had made similar claims even before Berg. Unfortunately (for them), the Darwinians still pretend that their several critics never existed. Their posture is a scandal which I greatly enjoy exposing here and elsewhere.<br /><br />"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."<br />Thomas Carlyle<br /><br />I recommend my several essays which bear on many of the matters being discussed here. They are available on the Essays button on my home page. I will be happy to answer any questions they may evoke. I especially recommend "What's Wrong With Darwinism."<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75981021535634242882010-02-26T12:48:23.505-08:002010-02-26T12:48:23.505-08:00Ilion -
"I think I've told you before, R...Ilion -<br /><br />"I think I've told you before, Ritchie, I do not answer to your agenda or to your quaint assumptions.<br /><br />We both know that any "death blow" you imagine you have is highly dependent upon your tired old "Darwinistic" assumptions and on the over-all ignorance of Science! on the particular matter."<br /><br />What a cowardly reply. <br /><br />You were the one you said: "Darwin's fanboys need it to be true that genetic damage can, and frequently does, result in novel functional genes and from them novel phenotypes." A bold statement. But apparently you will not stand by it. My challenge came from nothing but logical extrapolation.<br /><br />You show your lack of confidence in the accuracy of your position by your reluctance to put it to the test.<br /><br />Now, remind me, between science and faith, which is the one which repeatedly puts itself to the test, and which does its level best to avoid being tested?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72033173697049826632010-02-26T12:21:08.490-08:002010-02-26T12:21:08.490-08:00"Let my enemies devour each other."
Salv..."Let my enemies devour each other."<br />Salvador DaliAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84815430025930564682010-02-26T12:14:07.857-08:002010-02-26T12:14:07.857-08:00Abimer said:
"I responded to your claims, yo...Abimer said: <br />"I responded to your claims, you clown ... <br />yada yada yada quack quack woof woof..."<br /><br />"Frankly, I cannot be bothered talking to you, with your perpetual insults (lame, infantile, you cheated, negligence). Blah blah. "<br /><br />Indeed, blah blah and whining is all we get from you here.<br /><br />You're a little suck that cannot take the truth and has no arguments and therefore shouts, "Ad hom!" in order to avoid presenting any realistic argument - a ubiquitous tactic among those of your ludicrous persuasions.<br /><br />So stay away poor boy, your arguments are merely amusing at best.<br />Same old Darwinian bull shitting.<br /><br />If you had at least understood your opponents statements... but too hard for you I guess huh.<br /><br />When you learn the difference between an observation stated directly and "insult" maybe you'll grow some day.<br />If you want real insults I'll be more than happy to oblige you.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45527593379845410212010-02-26T12:02:14.524-08:002010-02-26T12:02:14.524-08:00Always the same thing. Darwiners never face up to...Always the same thing. Darwiners never face up to simple facts, avoid the obvious, confuse speculation for evidence and have nothing but just-so stories based on other just-so stories, or tiny micro evol events to back up their humongous macro evol. claims.<br /><br />Your response is poor indeed Rob:<br />"Intermediates are preserved in the fossil record, can be inferred by phylogeny, and in the case of molecules, have even been resurrected and experimented on."<br /><br />Obviously you don't even understand the point!<br />Why do you ALWAYS presume Darwinism true then infer as though it were? That's exactly what you just did!<br /><br />I said, "...and = begging the question"<br />You say, "Good Presumption" <br /><br />That doesn't even qualify as an answer just avoidance of a fact.<br /><br />"Find something without a progenitor. I.E. something designed de novo."<br /><br />Well gee Rob what is this suppose to be? Can you actually provide an argument that refers to the point in question?<br /><br /> "Do murder victims come with a tag saying murdered. Evidence plus reason."<br /><br />First off, yes, it does happen! But this again is no answer at all.<br /><br />Evidence + reason is precisely what every side of the debate thinks they are using so your point is moot.<br />There is precious little reason in the Darwinian mindset.<br /><br />When you say, 'evidence plus reason' - you of course mean, in the neo-Darwinian hypothesis context, "this skeleton looks like some of this other older one and like some of this younger one, therefore must be intermediate". <br /><br />Another logical fallacy used by Darwiners all the time! <br /><br />Again, every living thing is intermediate in your inane theory so how could a Darwinist ever NOT claim anything is intermediate?!!<br /><br />This is not hard Rob - should I dumb it down more or what?<br /><br />Then you imply the use of the forensic design inference technique which you implicitly deny by your own beliefs! Strange. Its valid for determining cause of death but not for bio origins.<br /><br />I said, "..empirically speaking, is that like produces like ..."<br /><br />So what do you point to? <br />"Corn, Primrose, Drosophila, Rhagoletis"<br /><br />Unbelievable! You went to TO and picked up a small list of their inane "proof" by extremely minor "speciation" or rather adaptation or variation within the kind.<br /><br />This is not proof or even evidence of Darwinism by any means whatsoever since even the most staunch creationist knows mico evolution exists!<br />Where is the evidence for anything like macro? <br /><br />There is not a shred of it in existence and you know it, as does every other Darwinist.<br /><br />There are precisely ZERO emprical experiments demonstrating that adaptational mechanisms in the genome, within a taxonomic family, can produce a different family all together. None.<br /><br />The most complete experiments to date are probably Lenski's, but that is SO VERY FAR from anything remotely near macro evolution its amusing to hear you Darwiners blabbing away on it!<br /><br />So then I get your refs concerning the alleged evolution of sight. <br /><br />But I only need to remark the use of "could have" -as I have learned to expect- to see that what they're really saying is, "We don't know but this sounds good" - speculation passed as evidence, ad infinitum ad nauseum in Darween literature!<br /><br />"The arguments laid out are simple and compelling."<br />Only for the highly gullible like yourself who think conjecture and extrapolation constitute compelling arguments.<br /><br />"Everything you cite as "Fact" is false." <br />Go ahead, make my day. Prove it.<br />I think you well know that everything I said is the simple truth.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64776694784256764242010-02-26T07:49:43.308-08:002010-02-26T07:49:43.308-08:00I think I've told you before, Ritchie, I do no...I think I've told you before, Ritchie, I do not answer to your agenda or to your quaint assumptions.<br /><br />We both know that any "death blow" you imagine you have is highly dependent upon your tired old "Darwinistic" assumptions and on the over-all ignorance of <i>Science!</i> on the particular matter.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89172876037878678882010-02-26T06:25:01.769-08:002010-02-26T06:25:01.769-08:00Ilion -
"Listen to you! You folk can be so ...Ilion - <br /><br />"Listen to you! You folk can be so droll, at times."<br /><br />That is not an answer to my question.<br /><br />Do you or do you not acknowledge that evidence that random mutation can produce novel genes is a death blow to your position here?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com