Why Can't We Just Test Evolutionism and Be Done with the Question?
-
It has been over 150 years and still evolutionism remains untestable and is supported only by a minority, ie those with a specific world-view.
It does not have a testable hypothesis and it does not have any positive evidence to support it. Every time I ask for such things I get either a volley of evotardgasms or equivocations. But nothing to support the position. Strange, that.
So how about it, can evotards actually stand up for their position? Or is all they have is to lie and bullshit about ID?
Experience says they can only lie and bullshit about ID...
It has been over 150 years and still evolutionism remains untestable and is supported only by a minority, ie those with a specific world-view.
It does not have a testable hypothesis and it does not have any positive evidence to support it. Every time I ask for such things I get either a volley of evotardgasms or equivocations. But nothing to support the position. Strange, that.
So how about it, can evotards actually stand up for their position? Or is all they have is to lie and bullshit about ID?
Experience says they can only lie and bullshit about ID...
posted by Joe G @ 9:18 AM
22 Comments:
At 12:02 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Lenski.
Done.
Bye.
At 1:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Lenski's experiment(s) have nothing to do with evolutionism you equivocating and ignorant coward.
Why do evotards think their ignorance means something?
At 4:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
At 5:50 PM,
Joe G said…
And wikipedia admits it is not a credible source.
Let's see random inputs, inputs drive the outputs.
Whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. And as the Kingsolver paper demonstrates there really isn't a whole lot on natural selection and what we do have sure as hell doesn't support the wikipedia diatribe.
At 5:56 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce"
Yes - differentialy. Lenski showed fitness increasing. And even replicted it. Over on the evodice thread at AtBC, we're showing it again.
thanks.
At 6:10 PM,
Joe G said…
"Whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce"
RichTard:
Yes - differentialy.
For several reasons.
Richtard:
Lenski showed fitness increasing.
Artificial selection. And that STILL isn't a test for the claims of evolutionism you moron, cowardly equivocator.
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Lenski- positive evidence supporting baraminology. But RichTard, being an ignorant fuck, refuses to understand taht.
Pathetic evotards...
At 6:46 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Describe and experiment you wouldn't consider 'artificial selection'. You conflate 'experimental design; with 'outcome design', and you know it.
It seems 'baraminology' is fine rapid evoluition and speciation.
At 7:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
Describe and experiment you wouldn't consider 'artificial selection'.
One in which an expermenter has his/ her hands off. Perhaps start the thing and look in, but not an experiment in which one selects what it wants and then selects the pressure. Geez go out in the field and observe.
Richtard:
You conflate 'experimental design; with 'outcome design', and you know it.
It wouldn't matter as the Lenski thing didn't do much of anything. And the biggest thing they did observe was observed before.
Richtard:
It seems 'baraminology' is fine rapid evoluition and speciation.
The "species" concept is ambiguous at best, but yes ever since Linneas Creationists have accepted speciation.
But thanks for admitting that you are ignorant of your opponents' positions.
At 7:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Again "fitness increasing" does not mean accumulated genetic accidents didit.
At 7:34 PM,
Joe G said…
"Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?"
At 7:24 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, your magical fitness increaser is what again? Nothing in your quote of Lenski said anything about fitness increase nor how it might happen.
By subtracting unfit, you CAN make the unfit less common and you can even make the fit more common in terms of percentage of the remaining population, without adding any fitness. But unless you have something that adds fitness, you havent added fitness.
By subtracting unfit, you CANNOT add to fitness of any individual and you CANNOT increase fitness in any way.
At 7:34 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Evodice? Are you seriously still stumbling over that stupidity?
Please tell me this isnt more "keep the highest" bumbling.
If you roll a bunch of dice and then subtract the lower numbers you do not increase the numbers on any of the remaining dice. No 3 becomes a 4, no 6 becomes a 7. The average number rises only by default, not by any increase.
I thought we went over this....
At 9:32 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Lenski did a great job of proving intelligent design. He essentially calculated a formula that was guaranteed to end in the desired conclusion. He left nothing to chance and set it up step by step, by working backward from his desired conclusion, which he called "EQU".
At each step, he gave it 26 options, with one option being the right one, and as many attempta as needed to pick the right one by chance. It could not fail.
He got cocky and eliminated a step, giving the experiment irreducible complexity. It failed to achieve "EQU", which ID's claimed proved Behe's argument. I disagree with my fellow IDists on that one, because they still could have attained EQU, but it would have taken far far longer.
At 9:51 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Lenski made classic Darwinist errors, which I will address one at a time. First, he used a test that CAN cause a desired result by chance to simulate causing results that can NOT be caused by chance.
He carefully allowed a nearly 4% chance of upgrade while in biology, the odds are deep into the realm of statistically impossible. Yes, we can set up scenarios where a partially random, partially intelligent experiment causes desired results, otherwise we would never be able to play a game of cards.
Why Darwinism fails is that he is suggesting completely unguided random collisions of particles can cause complex interdependent systems and that is simply beyond any mathematical hope.
Lenski merely bypassed the major argument against Darwinism by ramping up the odds of success to something known to be attainable by luck.
May as well keep tossing dice.
At 12:11 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Of course the biggest knock on Lenski's experiment was his "reward all" error. Only a small percentage could improve, but all answers were good enough to survive. It is just a matter of how good.
When you made the same error on your dice experiment, I called it the "every child gets a prize" experiment.
This does mimic biology, since well over 99% of all mutations fit the form, function and context of the lineage, but this doesnt fit the accidentalist model, where the failures rate should be indistinguishable from 100%.
In fact, in radiation experiments, the failure rate among mutations is near 100%. If all genetic changes were errors as used to be thought, then the failure rate for radiation induced mutations would be the same as our normal mutation rate.
On Lenski's intelligent design, he has nothing but selection, although some results are selected more favorably than others. He refused to vary his selection process to ascertain how different selection criteria could raise or lower his success rate, but he wouldnt have liked the results. The more stringent the selection criteria, the lower the success.
At 12:21 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Hey, Lenski, where is the STOP button?!!
Lenski did respond to the challenge of not stopping the process once he attained his optimum result. Rather than stop there, critics asked him to keep the random generation rolling, with all of the same parameters, to see what happens to his peak performance.
To his horror, the optimally evolved "EQU" faded away far more quickly than it took to form in the first place. Despite cheating heavily on high selection and high chance of success, DEvolution struck immediately, or at best, after two maybe three generations.
...and it just got even worse after that.
To translate that to the biological world, we should see disappointing downturns in both selectable and non-selectable traits. With 2 million species on earth, we should see these downturns vastly outnumber any upgrades or even stasis.
At 12:37 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
I'll go ahead and also add my usual attack on all such experiments: Darwinists use intelligent agency such as reproduction and metabolism of energy sources as a crutch to support random mess as their cause. Lenski's failure similarly assumes replication and as many attempts as needed.
Rich made the same error when claiming he could roll a 7 on dice. He said if he had gene duplication, he could do it. Well, random accident and selection dont get you gene duplication, sorry.
Rich, if you really want to show something remotely resembling your claim that unintentional chaos causes intelligent intent, you will need Lenski's experiment to program itself. You will need a computer to accidentally form from haphazard rocks tumbling; luckily tapping into a source of electricity and then programming itself. Good luck.
At 10:28 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Evodice? Are you seriously still stumbling over that stupidity?"
Why don't you come over to the thread and see for yourself.
At 7:12 PM,
Joe G said…
To see what? Evotards spewing more nonsense?
Yeah, evotardgasms are evidence these days....
At 11:07 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
If you don't take part, or look, you'll never know. But then again, you're all about preserving what you believe in the face of evidence, aren't you?
At 3:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is strange that it is the evidence that confirms my point of view.
Evotards are afraid of the evidence...
Post a Comment
<< Home