Weaknesses of Evolutionism- Part 1- The Origin of Life

-
Kevin ReTARD McCarthy has a series of blog posts in which he attempts to refute some website that has a list of weaknesses of evolutionism. The first post is here., the origin of life.

Evos love to say that the origin of life is separate from its subsequebnt evolution. However that is totally false. You cannot have an evolution of life unless you have life and how life evolved is directly linked to how it arose in the first place.

For example if living organisms arose by design then the inference would be that they were designed to evolve and evolved by design. It is only if living organisms arose via blind and undirected chemical processes that we would say that evolution occurs via blind and undirected chemical processes. IOW just as Richard Dawkins said, if living organisms were designed then we would be looking at a totally different type of biology. And IDists add that that biology would be information based.

Kevin then talks of hemoglobin. Unfortunately for him his position doesn't have anything to say about its origin nor its subsequent evolution. There is no way to test his position's claim that accumulations of genetic accidents produced it and al of its alleged variants.

Kevin then talks about Lenski. However I have exposed his ignorance wrt Lenski already.

So the origin of life is a huge weakness for evolutionism- as is the origin of the laws of physics and their constants.

But anyway it is hilarious to watch evos flail away at the origin of life and insist it has nothing to do with life's subsequent evolution.

Overselling Lenski

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless it is pathetic. Kevin ReTARD McCarthy is still sounding the horn for Lenski's E. coli. The moron doesn't understand what happened, even though it has been explained to him several times now.

For those who do not know Lenski, at MSU, has an ongoing experiment with E. coli- 50,000+ generations.

In all of those generations one plate produced E. coli that could get to and use citrate in the presence of oxygen-> E. coli have the ability to use citrate, if available, under anaerobic- ie the lack of oxygen- conditions.

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.

The point is that Kevin seems to be totally ignorant of all of that- meaning he didn't know that E. coli could utilize citrate under anaerobic conditions. And he seems to think, without support, that the mutations that brought about the change were random.

But then again Kevin thinks that natural selection actually selects.

So, no new proteins and no new functions- and taht is supposed to be great evidence for blind watchmaker evolution?


LoL!

You can read Kevin's ignorant spewage here

Patrick May, Ignorant of Science and Intelligent Design

-
Patrick May is proud to be an ignorant tool. His continued spewage is:

Neither Upright BiPed nor any other ID proponent have ever answered some very simple yet essential questions:

■What did the designer do?

■When did the designer do it?

■How did the designer do it?

■Where did the designer do it?

■Who or what is the designer?

Unless and until these questions are answered, ID isn’t an explanation of anything and is certainly not a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

Define evolution and provide testable hypotheses

What did evolution do?

When did evolution do it?

How did evolution do it?

Where did evolution do it?

But I digress. Patrick's questions are neither simple, essential nor even relevant. As I have been telling these scientifically illiterate evoTARDS over and over again:

Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any SCIENTIFIC determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

THAT is exactly how it is done with archaeology and exactly how it is done with forensic science. And BTW, Intelligent Design is about the detection and study of design in nature.

So Patrick doesn't know anything about science and he doesn't know anything about Intelligent Design. But he does know how to be a belligerent asshole.

Notes From The Septic Zone

-
The things anti-IDists say never cease to amaze me. One drooling imbecile who has many sock puppets recently posted a new low, even for him. It starts:

A topic I’ve been rolling around for a while now is ‘How completely can ID be described without once referring to Evolution/Darwinism (i.e. any non ID explanation of biological objects)‘?
 

Didn't Paley do something like that over 200 years ago? Also ID would refer to evolution, as in designed to evolve and evolved by design. And the only reason darwinism or the the modern synthesis is even mentioned is because those are the accepted explanations (that don't explain anything). Which brings us to the "any non-ID explanation of biological objects"- those don't exist. Not in a scientific context anyway.

So, along those lines, if we were to “forget” all we know about biology and the origin of species etc, what would “Intelligent Design” look like?
 

That's just dumb as ID is based on our knowledge of biology and cause and effect relationships. So if we just forgot about evolutionism, ID would flow naturally from biology. THAT is what ID would look like- a correct rendering of what we observe.

How well could it be described? To what depth?

As well as we can describe biology with the technology at hand and to the depth that technology takes us. The language in peer-reviewed journals would just no longer be metaphors (just as we have been sayin').

Would it actually then “explain” anything?
 

Yes, it would explain what we observe.

As if, as Behe thinks, the “designer” just edges things (somehow) over the edge, then they’d still end up with exactly what we have now. And, the strange thing is, we have that now. So without Darwin Behe could never have written his book. Odd.
 

Behe wrote the book because Darwinism, it all of its forms, exists, because not one of those forms has any science to support its claims and because ID is a better explanation for the evidence.

But yes, we would still have what we do now, it's just that now we would have an actual explanation.

Freaking evoTARDs too cowardly to support their position but plenty proud of their ignorance to attack ID with it.

This just in- Patrick, aka mathgrrl, chimes in:

More generally, I’d like to see an ID proponent detail the observations they are attempting to explain, provide an hypothesis to explain those observations, and describe the tests that would serve to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
 

We have done that, Pat. Where the hell have you been? OTOH your position hasn't done any of it. Perhaps you should start there.

ERVs- Why They Are NOT Evidence for Common Ancestry

-
Evos don't have any evidence to support the transformations required by their position so they rely solely on circumstantial evidence to make their case. Unfortunately for them that circumstantial evidence can be used to support alternative scenarios or, in some cases, not even support the evoos' claims.

ERVs are such evidence that does not fit their claims despite all of their yelling and screaming to the contrary. ERV stands for endogenous retrovirus.

The claim is a virus infects an organism and gets into its gametes. The gamete is not dameged enough to make it non-viable and it is able to reproduce. The offspring that gets the ERV can then pass it on to its offspring and then it can spread an become fixed in the population- meaning all organisms in that population would have it. Never mind all of the luck that goes into having something that is not an advantage becoming fixed- meaning it ain't science.

But anyway, what we find today are NOT complete and intact ERVs. We find remnants of what we think were ERVs, ie they "look like" ERVs.

Also, it appears that ERVs have preferred integration sites, which means similar organisms can be infected at a similar locus without any common ancestry connection.

So it remains that until evos can actually come up with some evidence that supoorts the transformations required, universal common ancestry is untestable and not science.



See also:

ERVs, no help to evolutionism