Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)
-
Testability is the main thing a concept needs in order to be considered science. If your claims cannot be tested then science doesn’t care about them. Enter evolutionism, also mistakenly called the theory of evolution, ie the concept that all biological diversity evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction starting from some much simpler biological replicator, which in turn evolved from much simpler molecular replicators.
None of that can be tested. Not only that the sub-claims are also untestable. Biology is full of biological systems, subsystems and structures. These too need to have testability, yet they do not. Evolutionists hide behind father time and think that excuses them from the testability criteria science requires. All that does is prove theirs is not a scientific position.
No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off. Evolutionists are fine failing on their own and don’t need no steenking help from Dembski!
So how can we test your claims, evolutionists? And why, in the absence of testability, do you think your position qualifies as science?
Also, there is a total lack of logical arguments for blind watchmaker evolution. All evos have are lies and bluffs. They are a despicable bunch of cowards.
posted by Joe G @ 10:38 AM
21 Comments:
At 1:55 AM,
Jerad said…
Every time someone finds a fossil in a dateable strata it's a test of evolutionary theory. If someone finds a fossil that is clearly in the 'wrong' layer big questions would arise.
Every time someone examines a biological system or sub-system the theory is being tested. If you can find a clearly irreducibly complex biological structure then large doubts will arise.
Every time a virus mutates the theory is being tested.
Lenski's long term experiment is a test of the theory.
Maybe you should set up your own experiment like Lenski's. Or maybe you should go find some fossils. Or maybe you should keep trying to find something irreducibly complex. Maybe you should do some real work.
At 7:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Every time someone finds a fossil in a dateable strata it's a test of evolutionary theory.
No, it isn't. Fossils don't say anything about the mechanism
Every time someone examines a biological system or sub-system the theory is being tested.
Bullshit. Only your ignorance says it is
If you can find a clearly irreducibly complex biological structure then large doubts will arise.
IC systems, subsystems and structures have been found. And no one knows how blind and mindless processes didit.
Every time a virus mutates the theory is being tested.
Nope. ID is OK with mutations
Lenski's long term experiment is a test of the theory.
LoL! Then the "theory" fails as the experiment shows there are severe limits to evolution
Notice how Jerad didn't even address the OP
At 4:09 PM,
Jerad said…
No, it isn't. Fossils don't say anything about the mechanism
It's a test of the overall paradigm. The test of the undirected portion is different.
IC systems, subsystems and structures have been found. And no one knows how blind and mindless processes didit.
No irreducibly complex systems have been generally accepted. Now, what real scientist do when their ideas are being contested (like Lynn Margulis) is they go out and do more work and find more evidence and establish their case. but, oddly enough, ID proponents don't do that. They just bitch and moan and whine without going into the lab and doing some work. Why is that?
You don't know, or are even attempting to answer, how the designer(s) did it. You have a clear double standard.
Nope. ID is OK with mutations
You just can't figure out where they come from. You, personally, seem to think that all positive mutations are directed and all negative mutations are non-directed. But you, personally, haven't made a good mathematical argument to back that up.
LoL! Then the "theory" fails as the experiment shows there are severe limits to evolution
What? If something doesn't happen in 30 years or so then it won't? Really? That's the merchant of doubt, the liar for God approach: look, the evo-tards can't demonstrate it in a short period of time so you should doubt them. Is that how you do science then?
Oh, I forgot . . . you don't actually do any science do you?
I am addressing one aspect of the OP.
At 12:09 AM,
William Spearshake said…
Joke: "Notice how Jerad didn't even address the OP."
How do you address something that has been addressed in thousands of peer reviewed papers? Suggest that you get a library card?
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
wee wee:
How do you address something that has been addressed in thousands of peer reviewed papers?
Except it hasn't been addressed. You are just an ignorant liar
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
It's a test of the overall paradigm.
Nope. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that left the fossils
No irreducibly complex systems have been generally accepted.
Of course they have.
You don't know, or are even attempting to answer, how the designer(s) did it
Don't have to. Design detection and study come first you ignorant ass.
You just can't figure out where they come from.
And all you can do is baldly declare they are random. yet you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for culled random mutations producing ATP synthase
If something doesn't happen in 30 years or so then it won't?
It's GENERATIONS, dumbass. And if things don't happen with asexually reproducing organisms after 50,000+ generations what do you think that says about sexually reproducing organisms?
I am addressing one aspect of the OP.
Nope. Try again
At 10:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of ATP synthase by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of vision systems by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of eukaryotes form prokaryotes by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of meiosis by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
This list could go on and on. It can match wee willie's bluffing every step of the way.
At 10:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Lenski's experiment is around 70,000 generations now. How many are required for new protein machinery to arise?
At 7:31 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joke: "Except it hasn't been addressed. You are just an ignorant liar"
The ironclad Joe response. Don't provide examples, call the person an ignorant liar. How has this approach been working for you?
At 12:20 AM,
William Spearshake said…
Joke: "Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of ATP synthase by means of blind and mindless processes."
Five seconds on Google and I find this.
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003821
"
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of vision systems by means of blind and mindless processes."
This one only took three seconds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23727979/
"Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of eukaryotes form prokaryotes..."
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2010-11-5-209
"Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of meiosis..."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023345311889
"This list could go on and on."
I'm sure it could. But master Google seems to be able to refute your claims with little effort.
"It can match wee willie's bluffing every step of the way."
If you are suggesting that your list is nothing but bluffing, I concede defeat to the master.
At 1:47 AM,
Jerad said…
Nope. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that left the fossils
Inheritable variation and environmental selection. Plus, with organisms like bacteria there is a lot of gene swapping.
Of course they have.
Nope, not generally accepted. Not in the peer-reviewed literature.
Don't have to. Design detection and study come first you ignorant ass.
And NO ONE is even trying to do more. You yourself cannot point to an ID research agenda. Because there isn't one.
And all you can do is baldly declare they are random. yet you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for culled random mutations producing ATP synthase
Mutations have been analysed and there is no solid, credible evidence that they are directed. And, unlike in the ID community, researchers are trying to figure out how things like ATP came about via blind, undirected processes. You can see that by searching for research results. ID, on the other hand, isn't even trying to do any meaningful research.
It's GENERATIONS, dumbass. And if things don't happen with asexually reproducing organisms after 50,000+ generations what do you think that says about sexually reproducing organisms?
Typical denier behaviour: you haven't seen it yet so we're going to say it will never happen.
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of ATP synthase by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
Deny, deny, deny.
Not one peer-reviewed paper discusses the evolution of vision systems by means of blind and mindless processes. No one knows how to test such a claim.
Deny, deny, deny.
Lenski's experiment is around 70,000 generations now. How many are required for new protein machinery to arise?
Gee, why don't you ask your designer(s)? Or, better yet, find that extra programming you say exists and is directing mutations?
You've just blown your own hypothesis out of the water by saying if something didn't happen in 70,000 generations then it won't happen. Which means your extra programming is not going to do it either.
You really haven't a clue what is going on in the cell and even your made-up model can't explain or predict what's going to happen.
At 12:21 PM,
Joe G said…
wee willie:
Five seconds on Google and I find this.
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003821
Where is the part that deals with blind and mindless processes? Or are you proud to be an equivocating coward?
You do realize that it isn't enough to show that the genes for ATP synthase proteins have alleged homologs and therefore it evolved?
This one only took three seconds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23727979/
And still nothing that pertains to blind and mindless processes
The same with all of your references, wee willie. It's as if you are proud to be willfully ignorant.
At 12:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Inheritable variation and environmental selection.
And? How did you determine tat could produce the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes?
Plus, with organisms like bacteria there is a lot of gene swapping.
Strange tat bacteria always remain bacteria.
Nope, not generally accepted. Not in the peer-reviewed literature.
Your ignorance means nothing, Jerad. Even Larry Moran accepts IC exists. He just thinks blind and mindless processes can produce it.
And NO ONE is even trying to do more.
How do you know? Your position isn't exactly doing anything.
Mutations have been analysed and there is no solid, credible evidence that they are directed.
How would you know? You couldn't assess the evidence if your life depended on it.
AND there aren't any testable hypotheses with respect to blind and mindless processes. At least Intelligent Design evolution is exemplified by genetic algorithms. Your position has nothing.
Look, morons, if living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry then you are saying that scientists are dipshit losers for not being able to create living organisms. It should be easy as we now know the chemistry and yet nothing but hopes and dreams.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
wee willie:
The ironclad Joe response. Don't provide examples, call the person an ignorant liar. How has this approach been working
It works fine. How am I supposed to provide examples of something that doesn't exist?
Produce a testable hypothesis for the evolution of ATP synthase via blind and mindless processes
No ATP, no living organism. So without ATP there wouldn't be any duplicating genes.
At 1:14 PM,
Jerad said…
And? How did you determine tat could produce the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes?
Over 150 years of research and data and the fact that there is no credible evidence for designers or that mutations are guided or directed.
Strange tat bacteria always remain bacteria.
Hang about for a few million years and see. If you're right that's despite that extra programming you insist exists. I guess it's pretty limited then. Too bad you can't say what it actually does, where it is, how it's encoded or how it affects mutations.
That is a good point actually: how could extra programming in a cell affect mutations? What exactly does it do? Please be specific.
And what about viruses which aren't in cells and yet still mutate?
Your ignorance means nothing, Jerad. Even Larry Moran accepts IC exists. He just thinks blind and mindless processes can produce it.
I'd like to see your reference for that!!
How do you know? Your position isn't exactly doing anything.
If anyone in ID is working on such things then please link to it.
How would you know? You couldn't assess the evidence if your life depended on it.
Says someone who can't even do Sophomore level mathematics.
AND there aren't any testable hypotheses with respect to blind and mindless processes. At least Intelligent Design evolution is exemplified by genetic algorithms. Your position has nothing.
All the evolutionary hypothesis are based on blind and mindless processes. I'm glad you think we're in the matrix if you think computer algorithms prove your notions.
Look, morons, if living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry then you are saying that scientists are dipshit losers for not being able to create living organisms. It should be easy as we now know the chemistry and yet nothing but hopes and dreams.
Hey, guess what? The scientists are learning to do those things!! After only a few decades of understanding the mechanisms. Pretty cool.
Meanwhile you think that some undefined and unknown designers did something at sometime which created unknown, undefined and undetected extra programming in cells which . . . does what exactly? Does it affect mutations or not? Did that extra programming, which much mutate and change from generation to generation, dictate all biological development on earth?
Show us how, exactly, your hypothesis is better.
At 1:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Over 150 years of research and data and the fact that there is no credible evidence for designers or that mutations are guided or directed.
That doesn't even address what you were responding to. Are you retarded?
And? How did you determine that could produce the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes?
Hang about for a few million years and see.
If you have to hide behind father time then c;early you don't have any science to support your claims
That is a good point actually: how could extra programming in a cell affect mutations?
The same way a computer program affects the one's and zero's on a computer buss
I'd like to see your reference for that!!
Go ask him. That is what I did.
All the evolutionary hypothesis are based on blind and mindless processes
Bullshit. It's as if you are proud to be an ignoramus
The scientists are learning to do those things!!
Yes, your faith in them is widely known. But faith is all that you have.
Meanwhile you think that some unknown populations of prokaryotes received some unknown changes at some unknown time and place, for no reason, and here we are.
At 2:24 AM,
Jerad said…
If you have to hide behind father time then c;early you don't have any science to support your claims
You're right, I should throw in the towel after a few decades like you do.
The same way a computer program affects the one's and zero's on a computer buss
I didn't know cells have RAM chips and wiring and a CPU and an electronic power supply. The truth is you haven't got a clue of where the extra programming is, how its encoded or how it affects development and mutations. Not a clue.
Yes, your faith in them is widely known. But faith is all that you have.
It's okay with me if you deny that which you can easily look for.
Meanwhile you think that some unknown populations of prokaryotes received some unknown changes at some unknown time and place, for no reason, and here we are.
Using known processes and without the need to create God.
At 10:42 AM,
Joe G said…
You're right, I should throw in the towel after a few decades like you do.
Your position has had over 150 years and all of the resources. And you still have nothing to show for it
The truth is you haven't got a clue of where the extra programming is, how its encoded or how it affects development and mutations
And yet I have posted about it.
It's okay with me if you deny that which you can easily look for.
It's OK with me that you are a bluffing coward
Using known processes and without the need to create God.
Except there aren't any known processes that can produce prokaryotes and there aren't any known processes that can take populations of prokaryotes and get eukaryotes. Yours is a total failure
At 6:04 PM,
Jerad said…
Your position has had over 150 years and all of the resources. And you still have nothing to show for it
Who do you expect to take you seriously when you deny all the research and data? Seriously?
And yet I have posted about it.
And yet you can't find it, or explain how its encoded or specify how it influences biological development. Or, as we've seen, why some strains of E Coli in Lenski's investigation develop a capacity while others don't even though he started with a single type. I guess the programming changed as well eh? And how did that happen? Must be those pesky designers, hanging about, sticking their noses in. But if you've got a better explanation please let us know.
Except there aren't any known processes that can produce prokaryotes and there aren't any known processes that can take populations of prokaryotes and get eukaryotes. Yours is a total failure
What's wrong with step-by-step modification? Why wouldn't that work?
You deny and deny and deny but you can't actually show that unguided processes aren't up to the job at hand unless they can't 'do it' with in a few decades. Typical deniers for God behaviour. Be a merchant of doubt. Try and convince those sitting on the fence that 39 or 40 or 50 years is long enough to show that those guys are wrong. That's the scheme isn't it?
Meanwhile you can't find the extra programming in the cell. You can't say how it's encoded. You can't say how it affects mutations or biological development.
You live on a promise and a pray. That's being a denier for God.
That is not the same as accepting that naturalistic processes known to exist, acting over long stretches of time, are capable of instigating great changes. Backed up with the genomic, bio-geographic, fossil and morphological evidence. No need for some undefined and unfound designers. Who leave no labs or latrines or waste dumps behind. Designers who seemingly continue to meddle in the development of life on earth for what reason exactly?
Your biggest question: why would your designers give a fuck abut life on earth? Why? Thank about that.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Who do you expect to take you seriously when you deny all the research and data?
Please reference the alleged research that I am denying. Or admit that you are a bluffing fool
And yet you can't find it, or explain how its encoded or specify how it influences biological development.
Whatever. You and yours can't find anything.
What's wrong with step-by-step modification? Why wouldn't that work?
It has never been demonstrated to do the job. It can't even be tested.
No one uses blind watchmaker evolution. It is useless- more useless than you.
You can't even figure out how to test the claims. And no one is trying to find out how blind and mindless processes did it
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Thank you for proving my OP to be true
Post a Comment
<< Home