Alan Fox contradicts Jonathan Burke

-
Whoopsie - Alan Fox finally admitted that Darwin's is not a scientific theory as it does not contain any method of testing its claims. Then Alan went mental and said  the goalposts moved to "scientific" theory. Alan was proven wrong in that regard and hasn't posted since.

OK so Darwin's isn't a scientific theory and no one else has posited one. That means I am correct in saying that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution.

Biologos is full of shit and the skeptical zone is run by ignorant assholes.

An Evolutionary Tale- The Power of Accumulating Mistakes

-

Evolutionists, like Dawkins, would have us believe the following is not only possible but inevitable given the starting point and the mechanism. Well at least we know what makes each novel what it is- a specific ordering of words that achieves a desired result. 

On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote

I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."

I raise my eyebrows.

Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." 

Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."

I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

"Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."

I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"

"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."

The above is from David Berlinski's the Deniable Darwin - an oldie but goodie that I can't help thinking about every time someone spews universal common descent is a fact.

The question is do evolutionists really think the above scenario is possible? It seems to me the answer would be yes. But don't forget these people think "The Island of Dr Moreau" is a documentary showing what changing DNA can do to forms.

Richard Dawkins and The Greatest Lies on Earth- Chapters 1 & 2

-
UK Jerad said I should read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth". But having already read several of his books I know that dawkins' is nothing more than a pathological liar who doesn't even seem to understand science. This book is no different. The first two chapters are full of lies and bullshit. Dawkins proves he doesn't understand natural selection- he thinks there is actual selecting going on and he sez that artificial selection, which is an actual selection process, is the same as natural selection, which is a process of elimination (chapter 2). Unfortunately for Dawkins Ernst Mayr set the record straight in "What Evolution Is":

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

Dawkins tries to conflate the two and fool his readers. Too bad reality demonstrates he is the fool.

Dawkins also sez that evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, but yet he never cites the theory- never. And he never says how to test its claims, scientifically. And to top it off he makes the same mistake Darwin did- he thinks Creationists accept the fixity of species- he calls it the immutability of species. But this is far from true as Creationists since Linne have accepted that speciation exists. Creationists accept the fixity of Kinds, which Linne put at the level of Genus. The mistake was OK for Darwin but it shows Dawkins doesn't care about facts.

One of Dawkins' thought experiments has us starting with rabbits and going back in time- one generation at a time. He sez that by going back far enough we will reach the common ancestor of mammals which he thinks is a type of shrew. And once we get to the shrew from the rabbit we can then go from that shrew to say a leopard- small steps at a time. Unfortunately for Dawkins there isn't any science behind his thought experiment and imagination isn't evidence.

He thinks that such macroevolution is possible due to the amazing amount of phenotypic plasticity exhibited by dogs. Little does he realize that said amount of phenotypic plasticity means we cannot tell if a fossil is a transitional or still the same species.

So with the first two chapters Dawkins spews lies and bullshit in order to try to confuse the readers and support his position. Typical but still sad.

Jonathon Burke, Ignorant asshole

-
Jonathan Burke is a regular poster on Biologos. However from his posts he is an ignorant asshole. For example natural selection is blind and mindless which is why Dawkins called it the blind watchmaker. And every scenario that says NS is the prime evolutionary mechanism is also saying the blind watchmaker didit. And yet when I said that to Jonny boy he claims that I have been corrected many times! What a fucking lowlife loser! This fuckhead doesn't have a clue.

Jonathan also lies when he said Darwin said how to test his claims and he provided detail- Darwin diodn't know the details and he never said how to test his claims.

Jonathan Burke, Biologos, is one sad loser.

UK Jerad Chokes, as usual

-
No Jerad, you do not get to post on my blog seeing that you cannot support your claims and can only hurl bullshit around. You are a total loser for failing to link to the alleged theory of evolution. You are totally ignorant of science and you are too fucking stupid to understand simple explanations.

And to top it off you are a pathological liar and coward. Those are your best points.

And one more thing:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

Buy a dictionary, loser.

Biologos- Home for Cowardly Liars and Losers calling themselves "christian"

-
Well that was fun. I went to Biologos to see what theistic evolutionists have to say and all they can say are lies and bullshit. Those people are as bad as evoTARDs when it comes to having an honest and open discussion.

Out of one side of their mouths they say that blind watchmaker evolution isn't science and then turn around and say the scientific theory of evolution is the blind watchmaker thesis! Then they lie about Darwin having ways to test his claims. And when I call them on their lies I get booted- well I also said they weren't christians which hurt their little non-christian hearts.

When I said ID is not anti-evolution one moron said I was being disingenuous even though he hadn't read my essay that I linked to. Then another chimed in saying evolution is defined as universal common descent and because there are IDists who argue against it that means ID does too. Total dipshit.

I can only conclude that theistic evolutionists are a clueless lot. They say that God didit but they also say that we cannot make that determination. It is pathetic to limit yourself like that but they seem to relish it.

Theistic evolutionists, dipshits without a clue. "christians" like that are one of the reasons I no longer consider myself to be a christian.

"Global warming fails the random natural variation contest"

-

The article Global warming fails the random natural variation contest , is about a challenge issued to scientists who insist that human activity is the sole cause of warming. It seems that no one could show that such a claim is true by using the data.

Humans have prospered during the warmer periods, humans need plants and plants are prospering with the added CO2. The added CO2 is too small, relatively speaking, to have a major impact on climate. The math shows that is the CO2 were doubled from 280ppm to 560ppm that would only add about 0.6C if all else remained equal.

If we are doing harm then it is with the construction of huge urban areas that produce islands of heat.

Science Refutes Jerad

-
Jerad says that varying genes is all that is required to explain the diversity of life. Too bad science refutes that claim:
-
Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution.

What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth. Changes in eye color does not explain the vision system nor the type of eye nor the organism. An albino dwarf with sickle-celled anemia is what we can get when mutations accumulate. Not quite what evolutionism requires.

We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”*

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?

You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

And that is another reason why Doug Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" is absent a mechanism and also why it fails-> there aren't any known mechanisms for producing macroevolutionary change because no one even knows what it entails.
 


* we are just what emerges from the somehow coordinayed interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn’t change what type of organism comes out)

What Gene Variation CAN Do

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless. They think that they can just declare that varying genes can lead to the diversity of life on Earth. That is untestable bullshit and there is evidence against it- Voles- A lot of micro but no macro

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.  

Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:  

•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.
•In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.
•In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals. 

A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant. 

"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.  

In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.  

Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.

Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.