Intelligent Reasoning

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The "Theory" of Evolution- Its Weaknesses and Holes

In the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, dishonest assholes Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch ask what are the alleged holes and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

You've gotta be kidding- yet they are not.

The following lists will be added to-

Weaknesses:

1- It cannot muster a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed mechanisms

2- It is too vague to be of any practical value- Variation? Variation to what exactly? No specifics have ever been produced.


Holes:

1- It cannot explain the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observed.

2- No one even knows whether or not those afore-mentioned differences can be accounted for via genetic differences.

3- It does not attempt to explain ORIGINS and ORIGINS have a DIRECT impact on any subsequent evolution.

Wow- those aren't just holes. They demonstrate the "theory" doesn't even deserve that status.

So I wonder if Eugenie and Glenn would be OK with science teachers informing their students about those weaknesses and holes?

posted by Joe G @ 10:06 AM  

30 Comments:

  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Based on exactly whose reasoning? Yours?

    Why didn't you list the actual responses?

     

  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Based on exactly whose reasoning?

    Anyone who knows anything about the subject.

    It is evident when people like you, Zachriel, Richie, Lenny et al., cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for the premise.


    Why didn't you list the actual responses?

    What responses?

    Does someone have a testable hypothesis for undirected processes? No.

    Does someone have a response that demonstrates we know exactly what varies? No.

    Does someone have a response that links the physiological and anatomical diffreneces observed with the genetic differences? No.

    So again I ask- what responses?

    Or is this just another one of clowny's vague assertions? I say yes it is.

     

  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Do you really think that Eugenie and Glenn A) Actually posed the question and B) Would print the responses?

    A) They didn't say if they asked the question about the holes and weaknesses.

    B) They sure as heck didn't print any responses.

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Why is that you don't appear at every biology conference and bring people to the light, Joe. Why are you hiding your light under a bushel? Do you hate the human race? Please, enlighten the world with your superior knowledge.

    why don't you go down to your local television station and demand that you be given a 5 minute (that's a VERY generous block of time) spot. Using that undoubtedly brilliant TV appearance as a starting point, you could then go on to revolutionize the world as we know it.

    What exactly is keeping you from doing this? Hmmmmm.

     

  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is that you don't appear at every biology conference and bring people to the light, Joe.

    I would say they- those at the conference- have enough issues. The points raised in the OP are a fine example.

    Am I supposed to remind them?

    Please, enlighten the world with your superior knowledge.

    Why don't YOU enlighten us by actually providing answers as opposed to acting like a little cry-baby?

    You can start with that testable hypothesis. You have had months to try to put one together. What could be holding you back? Hmmm...

    why don't you go down to your local television station and demand that you be given a 5 minute (that's a VERY generous block of time) spot.

    Because it would be a waste of time.

    Do you think that TV stations should grant every demand?

    Are you that naive or that stupid?

     

  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I didn't ask why the TV station didn't put you on, Joe.

    I asked why you don't go down to the station. That's really the mystifying part, Joe. If you have something so important--the overthrow of all of modern biology--why aren't you doing anything about it?

    Hmmmmm?

     

  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I asked why you don't go down to the station.

    And I answered you.

    So the REAL mystifying part is why you keep asking questions that have been answered.

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another thing that is mystifying is why you cannot address one point I made in the OP.

    A testable hypothesis based on undirected processes.

    If you have something so important--the overthrow of all of modern biology--why aren't you doing anything about it?

    1) Modern biology is not evolution via undirected processes

    2) It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution and another to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of blind, undirected processes which no one has observed.

    3) I am doing something about it. This is year one of "Intelligent Design Awareness day"- hosted by yours truly. One day of videos, lectures, and discussions to/ with local high school students.

     

  • At 12:44 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Then why accuse me of asking the wrong questions, Joe?

    Why don't you try to add information to conversations as they go, Joe? I understand that IDiots like yourself have exactly zero ability to think abstractly, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

    If you'd like to put that claim to the test (the one about your inability to think abstractly), any time, any place. You can name the test and the adjudicator.

    Now, why don't you answer the real question Joe? Why is it that you don't come out of your little shell and let thee world see your fabulous intelligence? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we had Joe Gallien to lead us? What's keeping you? Do you hate the world, Joe?

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then why accuse me of asking the wrong questions, Joe?

    How about a specific incident Erik?

    Then I could answer that question.

    Why don't you try to add information to conversations as they go, Joe?

    Erik YOU cannot even stay on-topic.

    Not one of your comments in this thread addresses the OP.

    IOW as I have said many times I can't have a conversation with a demented, dishonest and ignorant fuck such as Erik Pratt.

    As a matter of fact also evidenced by your comments you lack the ability to think.

    You are a parrot and a blind follower.

    So the REAL questions are why can't Erik Pratt stay on-topic and why has he never posted anything of substance?


    Now you want to challenge me to a thinking contest? You do not have the ability to think- abstractly or otherwise. Just because you can misrepresent reality is not a qualification. It just exposes your ignorance.

    So, sorry but I do not do battle against an unarmed foe.

    However if you do show up in New England again just let me know and we can take care of it. I will put up $10,000.00, you can match it and I will demonstrate that you are the mental midget everyone knows you are.

     

  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wouldn't the world be a better place if we had Joe Gallien to lead us?

    Probably because on my way to the top I would have purged it of dickheads like you.

    What's keeping you?

    Probably my keeper.

    Do you hate the world, Joe?

    No.

    Ya see Erik Pratt- it is YOUR position which is the minority view on this planet. And that minority is going to keep shrinking with the coming of more knowledge- just ask Anthony Flew?...

     

  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    abstract thought:

    thinking that is coherent and logical

    So is your inability to produce a testable hypothesis based on undirected processes (regardless of authorship), a strength, weakness or hole in your position?

    Is the inability to link the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences a strength, weakness or hole in the theory of evolution?

    Is coherent and logical thinking to be found amongst parrots and blind followers?

     

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that you don't come out of your little shell and let thee world see your fabulous intelligence?

    A) I have never claimed to have "fabulous intelligence".

    True I am much more intelligent than you, Richie, Zachriel, rishy, thorton et al., but that isn't really saying much.

    and B) I don't have a shell, little or otherwise, to come out from.

     

  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Gary H. said…

    Hey Joe, I like your blog. Honest, down to earth, straight to the point take no bull shit.

    Cool! Keep it up. The Darweenies need to be told the truth about their vacuous tripe.

    As far as tested as any other theory in science goes, one has to laugh out loud at those pretenses.

    I think I may just make a T-Shirt with the words, "Gravity is as tested as Darwinism" on it and then walk around at a few conferences of physicists or mathematicians and then film the laughter!

     

  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks Hitch,

    It is true you will NEVER hear a physicist saying that gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.

    It would be interesting to see their reaction to such a t-shirt.

    The drawback would be if other people saw it they may believe it!

     

  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Interesting thoughts, Joe. Could you name 3 people who are more intelligent than you? Related: do you think the following people are/were more intelligent than you?

    1. Stephen Jay Gould
    2. James Hutton
    3. Peter Woit

     

  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Could you name 3 people who are more intelligent than you?

    First define "intelligence".

    But that is moot because unless you plan on discussing the topic of this thread you will not get your comments published.

    That goes for any thread.

    IOW bye-bye Erik...

     

  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    PS Erik,

    I can name three people who are very stupid:

    1) Erik Pratt
    2) Rich Hughes
    3) Zachriel

     

  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger CJYman said…

    "1. Stephen Jay Gould
    2. James Hutton
    3. Peter Woit"

    I'm sure those three people are extremely intelligent, based on what is commonly understood as intelligent. However, it is the intelligent people who are best able to fashion a seemingly plausible argument for their preconceived biases in the face of contrary evidence. Sometimes, it is only upon closer examination of the evidence and assumptions that one can begin to tear apart an intelligently constructed argument/idea.

     

  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well put CJYman,

    Perhaps JoeG will see the relevance?

     

  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just how was it "well put"?

    And what relevance does it have to my OP?

    Please be specific.

    BTW I am still waiting for that example in which I accused you of asking the wrong questions.

    That way we can see if it is relevant to anything in this thread.

    Come on clowny- a testable hypothesis for undirected processes.

    Last year in Europe there was a meeting of 16 allegedly very intelligent people- the Altenberg 16.

    These people- biologists and philosophers- had the meeting because the theory of evolution is inadequate.

    Even they said what I have been saying for decades- nothing in the ToE that explains body form.

    Does this mean I am more intelligent than biologists because tey are now discussing what I have been saying for decades?

    I don't believe so. However it does support my claims made in the OP...

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hello Blipey,

    *You* obviously missed the relevance of my previous comment.

    It makes no difference how intelligence *you* think some people are compared to us "IDiots." Those intelligent people are just as suspect to pre-conceived biases. They are just sometimes better at hiding those biases, which can then skew the results of a lifetime of work.

    IOW, appeals to authority do nothing except show that certain authorities do indeed think such things. Authorities can and have been wrong before, it is just usually harder and it takes more digging to find out where they went wrong -- sometimes it is in their preconceived notions of how things "should be."

     

  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think I understand the relevance.

    The following three people have not presented a testable hypothesis for undirected processes in biology:

    1. Stephen Jay Gould
    2. James Hutton
    3. Peter Woit

    Further not one could/ can connect the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences.

    So the bottom line is it does not matter how "intelligent" one thinks those guys are/ were. They do not appear to have the relevant intelligence.

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G:

    "It cannot muster a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed mechanisms."

    I just finished a discussion on another blog where I asked the question, "How do scientists know that the random, undirected processes of evolution are responsible for the major transitions observed in the fossil record?"

    This is about the sixth time I have asked a question trying to get at the epistomology of the theory of evolution. In other words how do evolutionists know what they claim to know.

    I would ask how scientists would test if the proposed mechanisms can do what is claimed. No direct answer -- just the standard litany of "evidence" that includes the fossil record, genetic similarities, etc. And usually, I would get asked how would I propose to test for a supernatural creator?

    This is the sixth time that I have not gotten a direct, straightforward answer to my question.

    I find this series of non-answers very interesting -- very interesting indeed.

     

  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have received an answer-

    Reduction and simplification is the process that can be used to test a hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected processes.

    However I am also told it hasn't been done in biology.

    That said there are papers on replicating RNAs.

    Reduce and simplify.

    That is start taking away agency involvement, one step at a time.

    But anyway, all I ever get pertaining to the other questions are stuff about "evolution" and unverifiable stuff like whales and hippos share a common ancestor- that was confirmed by DNA similarity in extant organisms and "ankle-bone" similarity from fossils(?).

    The Positive Case for Design

    That's one. I have another and I have read two others.

    I just have to find those and I will put together a blog highlighting them.

     

  • At 9:09 PM, Blogger Our Founding Truth said…

    For Christians like myself, your two questions are a good starting point. It seems evolutionists don't have any answer for them, as far as I know, however, what does reduce and simplify mean?

    Joe G: Reduction and simplification is the process that can be used to test a hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected processes.

    However I am also told it hasn't been done in biology.

    That said there are papers on replicating RNAs.

    Reduce and simplify    .

     

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reduce and simplify-

    This means to see "how low can you go!"

    IOW what is the lowest something can be reduced to?

    If it can be reduced (and simplified) to matter and energy (and/ or their "dark" counterparts) then an intelligent agency is not required.

    This is basically the process one would use to determine irreducible complexity.


    In the RNA replicatiion paper what that means is they have the result.

    It took X to get the result.

    X includes agency involvement.

    Start eliminating agency involvement one-step at a time and see what happens.

    If agency involvement can be removed altogether- outside of the initial conditions- then RNA replication can be reduced to those initial conditions.

    Does that help?

     

  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Our Founding Truth said…

    If it can be reduced (and simplified) to matter and energy (and/ or their "dark" counterparts) then an intelligent agency is not required.

    This is basically the process one would use to determine irreducible complexity.>

    I see. If I was going to make certain statements from a starting point to challenge evolution, would those statements in your original post be the starting point, or are there other basic principles evolution cannot answer?

    Is tiktaalik a valid reason for natural selection?

    Thank you.

    OFT

     

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Do NOT challenge "evolution" because "evolution" can mean several different things.

    2- Challenge the premise of an accumulation of genetic accidents

    (accumulation includes selection)

    3- Tiktaalik is not a valid reason for anything.

    All tiktaalik can do is show that the organism once existed.

    That said the points in my OP are issues that the evolutionists can not answer.

    For example I have asked for testable hypotheses before and all I usually get are hypotheses for universal common descent.

    I then take those and turn them such that they now support common design and/ or convergent evolution.

    And that is why the theory needs something to separate itself from the alternatives.

    If it cannot then either drop it from biology classrooms or include the alternatives- common design and convergent evolution.

    Also those 5 points are just the "tip of the iceberg" so to speak.

    I say that because if I really wanted to I could extend that list.

    However there isn't any need to do so as those 5 points remain untouched.

    I once had a guy tell me that the evolution of the vision system can be accounted for by a handful of mutations.

    I asked him to name them.

    I never heard back from him.

    What I am getting at is "they" say "descent with modification" but they have no idea what gets modified- as in specifics. All they can do is say the genome gets modified and that is about as useless as it gets.

    The point being if you debate evolutionists make them supply specifics.

    And when they do you will see they are supplying nothing more than variation, which is "evolution" but they then conflate that with Universal Common Descent.

    To them anti-biotic resistance is their "proof" of UCD.

    But that is due to their mistaken notion that Creation and ID say that species are fixed.

    So that is the first obstacle- tearing down their strawman.

    I have been doing that for years but they have skulls thicker than the earth's mantle which makes them walking black holes- ideas go in but are never seen again...

     

  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger Our Founding Truth said…

    Thanks for the information Joe. I'll continue to browse this blog, and pass it on.

    OFT

     

Post a Comment

<< Home