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

Friday, December 23, 2016

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.

6 Comments:

  • At 3:53 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    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.

    Deny, deny, deny. It doesn't matter how many books have been written, how many papers have been published, how much research has been done, how much evidence and data has been displayed you will just continue to stamp your feet, stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes. You are just like that woman that Dawkins interviewed who kept saying show me the evidence. You're a creationist stooge.

    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.

    We're talking long term species changes. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fuck you, Jerad. If you think there is evidence that a shrew can evolve into something other than a shrew then present it. Or shut up. You are just like those imbeciles in asylums. All you can do is drool and spew lies.

    We're talking long term species changes.

    Who's "we"? I am discussing Dawkins' book. Try to pay attention.

    And still Dawkins hasn't presented any genetic evidence that shrews can evolve into something other than shrews. It's as if he doesn't know what science is.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It's more like you are a denialist creationist and you continually refuse to acknowledge mountains of data you can\t understand. Why don't you try following up on some of the academic references in some of the books you read instead of just quote mining to see what research evidence there is?

    There is evidence but you're too lazy to look. You think it's got to be handed to you personally and explained in grade school language. I guess in your world the only science that counts is the stuff you understand. Thank goodness that isn't true or we'd never have transitors or quantum mechanics 'cause you can't do the math involved. Unless you'd like to show me how you can solve some PDEs with boundary conditions.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fuck you, Jerad. I am not denying anything. Just because you are a gullible loser doesn't mean there is actual scientific evidence to support blind watchmaker evolution.

    I have followed up by reading the references. If such evidence existed then you or someone else could link to it- yet no one has.

    So stuff your false accusations as it is clear that you are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 4:29 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    You pick a few 'results' and conclusions and then claim everyone and everything else is wrong. That's denialism and quite deluded. I hope you enjoy your special-pleading, denying Creationist buddies.

    I guess you can't understand the science then, no big surprise since you can't even do freshman level calculus.

    Have you figured out why lemurs only exist on Madagascar? Why penguins only live on Antarctica? Why whole lines of fauna only appear in South America? No, you haven't. 'They were designed to adapt' which means nothing. You can't show anyone how mutations are directed can you? You wave some vague inference and claim you've proven your 'extra coding' exists. Then show it. Tell us how it works. Tell us how it's stored.

    But you can't. It's all just made up special pleading and misinterpretation of other people's work. And you call it science.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fuck you, Jerad- If people cannot support their claims no one should listen to them and neither you, Dawkins nor anyone else can support the claims of evolutionism. Look, asshole obviously science is out of your league.

    Your position cannot explain lemurs. Your position doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond populations of prokaryotes GIVEN starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Yes unseen coding exists, What else can account for transcription, editing, splicing and translation- your side cannot show it is all just physics and chemistry. Why don't you rail against your position seeing that it has nothing but morons and liars to try to defend it?

    Special pleading? Your posts prove tghat is al you have. Nice own goal

     

Post a Comment

<< Home