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

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

How to Test Blind Watchmaker Evolution?

-
Does anyone have a clue? I have posted how we can test ID's claims. But my bet is that no one knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, produced the diversity of life.

Anyone?

posted by Joe G @ 12:42 PM  

22 Comments:

  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger JV said…

    As always . . .

    Without any physical evidence of design being implemented or a process that affects mutations all the biological diversity we observe is due to unguided processes. Those processes create a tree/bush of descendents which can be checked via genetic analysis, physical comparisons and geographic distributions. Any of those factors can be checked and if there is a serious gap that is NOT due to the imperfect biological record than that would be a problem.

    Finding a irreducibly complex biological form would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Finding a biological form in the fossil record that is CLEARLY out of place would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Find a biological form that had a lack of precursors that cannot be reasonably explained would contraduct the unguided hypothesis.

    Performing experiments such as that carried out by Dr Lenski and his lab and finding a change for which the genetic changes could not be traced would be a black mark against the unguided hypothesis.

    Finding physical evidence of design being implemented would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Find a physical mechanism that responds to environmental conditions and affects mutations which did not have a clear development process would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Finding any kind of documentation from biological designers elucidating their techniques and goals would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Find equipment and facilities used by designers to implement design would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Hearing from the designers themselves would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Determining that an entire genome had some developmental use would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As always you are WRONG. YOU do NOT have a mechanism capable of producing what we observe. YOU lose.

    Irreducibly complex biological structures have been found. There isn't any unguided hypothesis.

    Dr Lenski's experiment was a perfect example of built-in responses to environmental cues.

    Typical cowardly bullshit from Jerad

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You need a POSITIVE case, Jerad. The following proves your ignorance:

    Finding a biological form in the fossil record that is CLEARLY out of place would contradict the unguided hypothesis.

    Unguided evolution doesn't say anything about the sequence of organisms expected. And unguided evolution cannot even account for the organisms that were fossilized.

    You can't even get to replicating RNA's. Until someone comes up with a method to scientifically test your scenario it just isn't science.

     

  • At 1:44 AM, Blogger JV said…

    As always you are WRONG. YOU do NOT have a mechanism capable of producing what we observe. YOU lose.

    If you can't find a physical guiding mechanism . . .

    Irreducibly complex biological structures have been found. There isn't any unguided hypothesis.

    Those structures are disputed. Keep trying.

    Dr Lenski's experiment was a perfect example of built-in responses to environmental cues.

    Then why did it happen to only one strain?

    Typical cowardly bullshit from Jerad

    You asked a question, I tried to answer it.

    Unguided evolution doesn't say anything about the sequence of organisms expected. And unguided evolution cannot even account for the organisms that were fossilized.

    It says you shouldn't find a modern form in an ancient strata. It says you shouldn't find an ancient form in a more recent layer. It predicts when (which layers) intermediate forms like Tiktaalik will be found.

    You can't even get to replicating RNA's. Until someone comes up with a method to scientifically test your scenario it just isn't science.

    That wasn't what your original post was about.

     

  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, if your side doesn't have a mechanism that is capable and you and your are incapable of testing your claims, then you don't have any science.

    No one disputes there are IC biological structures. No one with an education, anyway. And those who do dispute IC don't have anything to account for the structures in question.

    Why did it happen to only one strain? Why don't all students get the same answers on their tests seeing that they are taught the same thing?

    Unguided evolution does NOT say what you claim. And you will NEVER be able to support your trope. Unguided evolution does NOT make any predictions. You are a confused liar. Unguided evolution definitely never predicted Tiktaalik.

    And if you don't get replicating RNA's then your whole position is total shit.

     

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Again, if your side doesn't have a mechanism that is capable and you and your are incapable of testing your claims, then you don't have any science.

    You can test it. Even Darwin knew that.

    No one disputes there are IC biological structures. No one with an education, anyway. And those who do dispute IC don't have anything to account for the structures in question.

    Almost everyone disputes there are irreducibly complex biological structures.

    Why did it happen to only one strain? Why don't all students get the same answers on their tests seeing that they are taught the same thing?

    The point is the E coli Dr Lenski was using all came from the same root strain so, if there was some kind of mechanism in the cells that guided mutations all the strains should have changed the same way at the same time. But they didn't.

    Unguided evolution does NOT say what you claim. And you will NEVER be able to support your trope. Unguided evolution does NOT make any predictions. You are a confused liar. Unguided evolution definitely never predicted Tiktaalik.

    Biologists predicted they would find a fossil like Tiktaalik in the strata they searched and they did. Unguided evolutionary theory said there had to be a life form in the gap between known fossils and one was found. A designer could have forced a jump between the two known fossils so ID does NOT predict a bridging fossil.

    And if you don't get replicating RNA's then your whole position is total shit.

    I was just responding to your original post. If you want to discuss RNA that's a different topic.

     

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can test it. Even Darwin knew that.

    Liar. Darwin couldn't test it. No one can

    Almost everyone disputes there are irreducibly complex biological structures.

    Liar

    The point is the E coli Dr Lenski was using all came from the same root strain so, if there was some kind of mechanism in the cells that guided mutations all the strains should have changed the same way at the same time

    Bullshit. The point is VARIATION is the key to survival and the pother strains were doing just fine.

    Biologists predicted they would find a fossil like Tiktaalik in the strata they searched and they did

    Tat had NOTHING to do with blind and mindless processes.

    Unguided evolutionary theory said there had to be a life form in the gap between known fossils and one was found.

    Liar. Unguided evolution can't even account for the existence of Tiktaalik

    I was just responding to your original post.

    The RNA world is part of the blind watchmaker thesis.

     

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Liar. Darwin couldn't test it. No one can

    Almost all working biologists disagree with you.

    Almost everyone disputes there are irreducibly complex biological structures.

    Liar

    I should have said almost all working biologists disputes that irreducibly complex biological structures have been found.

    The point is the E coli Dr Lenski was using all came from the same root strain so, if there was some kind of mechanism in the cells that guided mutations all the strains should have changed the same way at the same time

    Bullshit. The point is VARIATION is the key to survival and the pother strains were doing just fine.

    I don't think you understand the implications of the experiment and how it contradicts your beliefs.

    Biologists predicted they would find a fossil like Tiktaalik in the strata they searched and they did

    Tat had NOTHING to do with blind and mindless processes.

    Since no one can point to how design was physically implemented or a physical mechanism that affects mutations it's all down to unguided processes.

    Unguided evolutionary theory said there had to be a life form in the gap between known fossils and one was found.

    Liar. Unguided evolution can't even account for the existence of Tiktaalik

    The prediction was made and the fossil was found. ID can't make a prediction like that because there's no way to predict what an unknown, undetected designer will do.

    I was just responding to your original post.

    The RNA world is part of the blind watchmaker thesis.

    Your original post was asking for examples of how the unguided evolutionary theory can be tested. I gave you some examples. If you want to move to a different topic and discuss the RNA world (which I did not bring up) then that's fine will me. But, at the moment, RNA world is just a guess, it may be shown to be incorrect.

     

  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Almost all working biologists disagree with you.

    Liar

    I should have said almost all working biologists disputes that irreducibly complex biological structures have been found.

    I don't care as they don't have a mechanism that can produce what we observe.

    I don't think you understand the implications of the experiment and how it contradicts your beliefs.

    I understand it. It doesn't contradict anything that I have said. You are clearly just a lying loser.

    Since no one can point to how design was physically implemented or a physical mechanism that affects mutations it's all down to unguided processes.

    That doesn't follow.


    The prediction was made and the fossil was found

    It had nothing to do with unguided evolution. Unguided evolution can't even produce eukaryotes.

    The designer has been detected, asshole. The DESIGN did that.

    Your original post was asking for examples of how the unguided evolutionary theory can be tested. I gave you some examples.

    You gave your ignorant opinion. And it is wrong and proves that you are just an ignorant troll. And unguided evolution goes back to the RNA world.

    There isn't any way to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Your posts just prove that point along with proving that you are clueless and desperate

     

  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Almost all working biologists disagree with you.

    Liar

    Quite true as is easily verified.

    I should have said almost all working biologists disputes that irreducibly complex biological structures have been found.

    I don't care as they don't have a mechanism that can produce what we observe.

    It's still true that all most all working biologists dispute that irreducibly complex biological structures have been found.

    I understand it. It doesn't contradict anything that I have said. You are clearly just a lying loser.

    You can't explain that one strain out of a lot that started with the exact same genome changed to better exploit the environment and the others did not. IF they were all 'programmed' to evolve then why didn't they all change?

    Since no one can point to how design was physically implemented or a physical mechanism that affects mutations it's all down to unguided processes.

    That doesn't follow.

    Explain how, with the lack of evidence of guidance, you can come to any other conclusion than unguided.

    The prediction was made and the fossil was found

    It had nothing to do with unguided evolution. Unguided evolution can't even produce eukaryotes.

    Well, no ID proponent made that predictions. In fact. most ID proponents argued with the prediction and the interpretation. So how do you explain the situation.

    By the way, that was a test of evolutionary theory: the theory predicted something which was found.

    The designer has been detected, asshole. The DESIGN did that.

    So . . . the designer created a system that would mimic unguided processes? Why would the design require the presence of Tiktaalik?

    You gave your ignorant opinion. And it is wrong and proves that you are just an ignorant troll. And unguided evolution goes back to the RNA world.

    Unguided evolution may NOT go back to RNA world, that is just one guess/hypothesis.

    There isn't any way to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Your posts just prove that point along with proving that you are clueless and desperate

    ID cannot predict the presence of transitional forms like Tiktaalik because it can't be known ahead of time if the designer found a way to skip that transitional form. But unguided evolutionary theory requires such a transitional form. So, the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik was a successful test of unguided evolution.

     

  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Quite true as is easily verified.

    I am waiting. Verify it.

    It's still true that all most all working biologists dispute that irreducibly complex biological structures have been found.

    So you say and yet cannot verify.

    Explain how, with the lack of evidence of guidance, you can come to any other conclusion than unguided.

    YOU don't have any evidence for unguided evolution. You don't have a mechanism. And you don't have any way to test it. You lose.

    You don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. So you lose.

    You don't have a mechanism capable of producing Tiktaalik, so you lose.

    If unguided evolution doesn't go back to the RNA world, you lose because you have NOTHING to get life started.

    Look, Jerad, all you are doing is lying like a little bitch. You don't have a mechanism that is capable. And seeing that your side is all about the how, you lose because you have no idea about the how. Over 150 years since Darwin and your side is still just a bunch of ignorant punks.

    There isn't any way to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Your posts just prove that point along with proving that you are clueless and desperate

     

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I am waiting. Verify it.

    Check the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin list. Count the number of working biologists on that list (in the 10s, maybe a couple hundred). Then estimate the number of working biologists in the world (in the hundred of thousands at least).

    YOU don't have any evidence for unguided evolution. You don't have a mechanism. And you don't have any way to test it. You lose.

    No guiding mechanism or guider has been found. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. No irreducibly complex biological structure has been found. Most genomes are littered with detritus of dead and broken genes. All experiments conducted match an unguided paradigm. The bio-geographic distributed of known species matches an unguided paradigm. "Poor" design (when superior versions are clearly available) indicates an unguided process. No 'out of place' fossils have been found. Transitional forms are predicted and found.

    You don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. So you lose.

    You don't have a mechanism capable of producing Tiktaalik, so you lose.

    Universal common descent with variation and selection.

    If unguided evolution doesn't go back to the RNA world, you lose because you have NOTHING to get life started.

    There are other hypotheses.

    Look, Jerad, all you are doing is lying like a little bitch. You don't have a mechanism that is capable. And seeing that your side is all about the how, you lose because you have no idea about the how. Over 150 years since Darwin and your side is still just a bunch of ignorant punks.

    Are you saying your side doesn't care about the 'how'? Is that why no one is doing any research regarding when or how design was implemented?

    There isn't any way to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Your posts just prove that point along with proving that you are clueless and desperate

    Clearly untrue.

    If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.

    Disputed by a vast majority of working biologists.

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOU don't have any evidence for unguided evolution. You don't have a mechanism. And you don't have any way to test it. You lose.

    No irreducibly complex biological structure has been found.

    LIAR

    Universal common descent with variation and selection.

    Fuck you, loser. What gets varied? You cannot say because you are a coward

    Are you saying your side doesn't care about the 'how'?

    I am saying that your side is all about the how and has nothing. Clearly the how for ID is well above our knowledge- JUST AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR YEARS, YOU IGNORANT ASS.


    There isn't any way to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Your posts just prove that point along with proving that you are clueless and desperate

    Clearly untrue.

    Fuck you, liar.

    If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.

    Disputed by a vast majority of working biologists.

    And yet what I said is true. If they had something they would publish and yet peer-review is devoid of such explanations.

    You lose

     

  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger JV said…

    LIAR

    Anyone can check it out.

    Fuck you, loser. What gets varied? You cannot say because you are a coward

    I thought you had read lots of books on evolution. For breeders, and Darwin, it was the observable physiological variations. But we know there are genomic variations as well.

    I am saying that your side is all about the how and has nothing. Clearly the how for ID is well above our knowledge- JUST AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR YEARS, YOU IGNORANT ASS.

    Oh right, so we can't possibly understand the 'how' so we won't bother. Got it. Not a science stopper at all then.

    AND, if we can work towards an understand of the 'how' why isn't anyone doing that? Please answer that question.

    Fuck you, liar.

    Love how you do science.

    And yet what I said is true. If they had something they would publish and yet peer-review is devoid of such explanations.

    Obviously untrue as any objective survey of the available literature will show.

     

  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anyone can check it out.

    Except you, obviously.

    I thought you had read lots of books on evolution. For breeders, and Darwin, it was the observable physiological variations. But we know there are genomic variations as well.

    You are an idiot. That is too vague. You have to do better or admit that you are ignorant.

    Oh right, so we can't possibly understand the 'how' so we won't bother.

    No, asshole. We are not on your asinine agenda. There are more important questions to answer FIRST. And don't ask what those are because we have been over and over it.

    And AGAIN, YOUR side is all about the how and no one is working on it.

    Love how you do science.

    Likewise, asshole. All you are doing is lying and bluffing.

    Obviously untrue as any objective survey of the available literature will show.

    Then it is strange you cannot present anything.

     

  • At 2:00 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Anyone can check it out.

    Except you, obviously.

    I don't need to as I already have done. And if you want to be lazy and not bother it's okay with me.

    I thought you had read lots of books on evolution. For breeders, and Darwin, it was the observable physiological variations. But we know there are genomic variations as well.

    You are an idiot. That is too vague. You have to do better or admit that you are ignorant.

    What do you want? Breeder select based on physiological differences between generations.

    Oh right, so we can't possibly understand the 'how' so we won't bother.

    No, asshole. We are not on your asinine agenda. There are more important questions to answer FIRST. And don't ask what those are because we have been over and over it.

    You're not answering any questions currently. It's okay with me but you're not doing any science.

    And AGAIN, YOUR side is all about the how and no one is working on it.

    You guys don't care about how it sounds like.

    Obviously untrue as any objective survey of the available literature will show.

    Then it is strange you cannot present anything.

    Do you need everything spoon fed? Someone has to lead you around like a toddler? Good luck with that.

     

  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I checked it out and that is why I know that you are a liar.

    Your side never answers any questions, dipshit.

    Your side is all about the how an has NOTHING.

    And all you can do is lie like a bitch and bluff like a coward.

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger JV said…

    I checked it out and that is why I know that you are a liar.

    A vast majority of working biologists disagree with you.

    Your side never answers any questions, dipshit.

    You not agreeing with or not understanding the answers doesn't count as non-answers.

    Your side is all about the how an has NOTHING.

    A vast majority of working biologists disagree with you.

    And all you can do is lie like a bitch and bluff like a coward.

    A vast majority of working biologists disagree with you. And they publish research, do experiments, write books, give lectures, deal with criticisms from their peers and basically get one with doing some work. And you do . . .

     

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Your alleged vast majority cannot refute what I post. You are just a liar and bluffing coward.

     

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger JV said…

    LoL! Your alleged vast majority cannot refute what I post. You are just a liar and bluffing coward.

    Enjoy your diminished corner of denial.

     

  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Enjoy your cowardly ignorance, asshole

     

Post a Comment

<< Home