Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Equivocation and Evolution

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says


Evolution has several meanings*:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.

For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.

It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.




* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

4 Comments:

  • At 3:42 AM, Blogger onein6billion said…

    There's not much point in trying to reply to your idiocy.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Translation:

    onein6billion is totally clueless and chooses to remain that way.


    That is par for the course- when reality is injected into the debate all morons run for cover.

     
  • At 1:09 AM, Blogger onein6billion said…

    "It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable."

    This is pure ignorance. The fundamental "prediction" is that there will be a "tree of life". This has been confirmed many times over. And there was Tiktaalik - predicted and found.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The ignorance is all yours-

    Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists


    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

    As for Tiktaalik well more recent evidence demonstrates they were looking in the wrong place and time. Ya see ole ignorant one other scientists found evidence for tetrapods in strata older than Tiktaalik, meaning tetrapods already existed and Tiktaalik is just another population.

    see earliest four limbed animals

    Also Tiktaalik was not a prediction based on an accumulation of genetic accidents.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home