Why Universal Common Descent Remains Outside of Science

 -

The concept of universal common descent remains outside of science for the simple reason it remains untestable. It remains untestable because we still do NOT know what determines biological form. And given the abstract of the paper, the problem will remain unsolved:

Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as irrelevant. A major question during the last decades has centered on understanding whether new advances in developmental biology are compatible with the standard view or whether they compel a new theory. Here, I argue that the answer to this question depends on which concept of morphogenesis is held. Morphogenesis can be conceived as (1) a chemically driven or (2) a mechanically driven process. According to the first option, genetic regulatory networks drive morphogenesis. According to the second, morphogenesis results from an invariant tendency of embryonic tissues to restore changes in mechanical stress. While chemically driven morphogenesis allows an extension of the standard view, mechanically driven morphogenesis would deeply transform it. Which of these hypotheses has wider explanatory power is unknown. At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.

With Intelligent Design both of those are incorrect, yet still part of the system. With ID morphogenesis is software driven, carried out mechanistically via chemical processes. But I digress...

Dr. Michael Denton once wrote:

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 

 We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is. That is we do not know what determines   biological form. That alone makes it really difficult to say one form can evolve into another, regardless of the underlying mechanisms. And it squashes the notion that you can say anything about evolutionary relationships via genetic comparisons. 

More importantly it proves the concept of universal common descent is untestable. And because it is untestable it is outside of science.

Peaceful Science is Lying Again

 -

Peaceful Science has become a bastion for lying liars and bullshit spewing cowards. A new thread pertaining to the Dover trial just popped up. It's full of lies. Like this one:

 Fifteen years ago, a public drama unfolded in Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2005, a school board tried to mandate teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in high school science class.

LIAR! The only thing mandated was that the teacher was to read ONE statement to the class. No one was going to teach ID. The people who say that are pathetic and lying like little bitches.

They go on to spew:

In December 2005, the Dover Trial came to an end, and could not have been worse for ID.

Wrong again, dumbass. ID was unaffected by the trial. Dr. Behe responded to the decision and proves the judge was clueless . Dr Behe concluded:

The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories. 

To this ay there still isn't any evidentiary or scientific support for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The concept is untestable.

 

From Molecules to Life? The Desperation, it Shows

 -

Nature can produce plenty of rocks and stones and yet nature cannot produce Stonehenges, castles or walled cities. Yet, when it comes to biology, nature can produce the molecules of life so it can produce life. Pure bullshit.

This is what happens when good science is subject to bullshit conclusions. From molecules to coded information processing systems is a HUGE leap. And Spiegelman's Monster is still an issue. Heck, getting biologically relevant replicating molecules in the first place is still a HUGE issue.

Again, the program and what they are doing is great science. Using a computer to speed up KNOWN processes is always a good thing. But jumping to faulty conclusions from that work isn't.

I know that there are people who really think that is how life arose. These are desperate people. They think Intelligent Design involves magic when they are claiming that nature produce coded information processing systems without wanting or trying to. It just happened, magically, of course.

Polar Bears and Climate Change

 -

When Al Gore started his climate crusade he made polar bears a focal point. 

When Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears. Today, only 30,000 remain.

Heh

Greg Cootsona on Intelligent Design: He isn't Even Wrong

 -

Surprise, surprise. Another ass who is ignorant of science and ID opines on both. Greg Cootsona: What about Intelligent Design.

It starts out bad and gets worse:

Intelligent Design, or ID, presents an alternative to young-earth creationism for those who resist the idea of evolution through natural selection.

ID does NOT resist evolution through natural selection. The fact is there isn't any evidence that evolution through natural selection can do what is claimed it can and has done. The science behind its efficacy is lacking. He goes on:

Three interlocking core convictions summarize ID, but certainly do not exhaust it as an intellectual project: 

1. Neo-Darwinism is inherently atheistic and materialistic. 
2. The intricate design of creation points to an intelligent designer (thus the movement’s name).
3. Evolution cannot be sustained on scientific grounds because of its inability to address key elements in nature, such as presence of information in DNA and irreducible complexity.

1- True.  2- Also true. 3- ID is NOT anti-evolution. The debate is whether or not evolution occurs by design or is it all blind and mindless.

Then a lie slips in:

In October 2004, the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania altered its biology curriculum to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. 

LIAR! The school was only going to read a statement to the students. No one was going to teach ID. Also ID is not an alternative to "evolution". It is an alternative to blind watchmaker evolution, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That is an untestable and unscientific concept.

It just gets worse:

Theologically, though, ID runs into significant problems. For one, we don’t have to believe that God’s creation is detectable through irreducible complexity.

ID is not about God. ID doesn't care about theology. And it is just that IC exists and as such requires an explanation. If you think that blind and mindless processes can produce it then ante up and demonstrate such a thing. Or admit the claim is unscientific because it can't be tested and shut up.

AGAIN- I do NOT care if you don't like ID. But the fact remains that there isn't a viable scientific alternative to ID. And it remains that to refute ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. And if you can't, then stuff it.

Greg Cootsona is just another ignorant ass.

 

A Model for Unguided Evolution?!?

 Over on Peaceful Science Mikkel sez:

I think scientists generally say that their models work without having an explicit designer component necessary to make sense of any observations.

Great. Too bad there aren't any models for unguided evolution's ability to create new proteins and new protein machines.

The ONLY predictions borne from unguided evolution are deformities and genetic diseases. No one can model it. No one can test the claim that unguided evolutionary processes produced anything but deformities and diseases. 

WHO Says to STOP Lockdowns as Primary Virus Control Method

 -

That's right:

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

The consequences of a lockdown are more damaging:

"Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said. “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. ... Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

And, on another note: Study says Lockdowns do NOT work :

Lockdowns have not had a big impact on coronavirus death rates around the world, scientists have claimed, and the health of nations beforehand was more important.

Dozens of countries have been forced to tell people to stay home and close shops in a bid to stop the Covid-19 pandemic since it broke out in January.

But now a study has claimed the drastic measures don't even work. They found that whether a country was locked down or not was 'not associated' with death rate.

Yup, the lockdowns were dumb. Panic makes people do stupid things.

To fight the virus all you have to do is follow the prophylaxis outlined in The EVMS Critical Care Protocol for COVID-19

That alone could have saved over half of the lives lost to COVID-19 

The Proud Boys International Chairman is a Black Man

 -

The left are so clueless. Proud Boys' International Chairman is a BLACK Man.

Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black.

Wow. But that won't stop the left from spreading lies about the Proud Boys 

More Stupidity @ Peaceful Science- Darwinism

 -

Peaceful science has a new post that just demonstrates their cluelessness: modern synthesis vs darwinism

It is ALL still Darwinism, ie evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes! We refer to it as Darwinism to honor the man who first brought it to light. But no, Darwin's ideas were not scientific and the modern synthesis isn't scientific.

With the modern synthesis there isn't anything to refute as all of it's claims are just bald assertions- evidence-free and untestable.

There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. Peaceful Science choked on that fact when I brought it up. They NEVER linked to the alleged scientific theory of evolution. They just banned me.

However, we can use the word "evolutionism" instead of Darwinism, if that makes them happy. It is all still untestable nonsense.

New Book Due Out in June 2021- "Climate Change- the Facts 2020"

 -

Pre-order Climate Change the facts 2020. It doesn't look good for Greta and the rest of the chicken-little alarmists.

It should be entertaining watching the morons go crazy and try to deny the facts

Timothy Horton is Still a Quote-Mining Faggot

 -

Over on Uncommon Descent I posted the following:

It’s estimated that 150,000 people die every day. So should we try to stop the days from coming?

People die. It is what we do. There are literally hundreds to thousands of different ways you can die each and every day. Do we shelter in place because of that fact?

Adapt or die. COVID-19 is just another thing we have to adapt to. And we can. easily. So I don’t understand the issue.

So what does Timmy the quote-mining faggot do?  It leaves out the last sentence and prattles on as if I didn't say it! Timmy spews:

That's fucking brilliant.  Everyone is going to die anyway so why take steps to prevent it?  Why wear masks to slow the spread of a deadly disease so other people don't die?  Heck, why even have hospitals at all since all they do is prolong the time until we die.

What part  of Adapt or die. COVID-19 is just another thing we have to adapt to. And we can. easily. So I don’t understand the issue, is timmy too stupid to understand?

Adapting means we are taking steps to prevent it, dumbass loser. Wearing a mask would be part of adapting, you ignorant asshole. Hospitals and doctors are part of adapting, you ignorant moron.

It's as if Timothy Horton is proud to be a quote-mining faggot and pathological liar.

Even Doctors can be Ignorant and Stupid

 -

President Trump went for a ride in the Presidential SUV to greet his fans outside of the hospital.

Via Twitter, Dr. James P. Phillips, an attending physician at Walter Reed, said the president’s choice of conveyance presented its own problems.

“That presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed against chemical attack,” Phillips wrote. “The risk of COVID-19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The irresponsibility is astounding.”

Phillips wrote in an earlier tweet that the agents in the car would now need to be quarantined for 14 days after having been put at risk of severe illness or death “for political theater.”\

 Umm, if the SUV is hermetically sealed then it is a given it has it's own filters, CO2 scrubbers and O2 supply. How long can people ride around in a car that is sealed and doesn't have that? Most likely the President's compartment has it's own air supply.

So the risk to the people outside of the Presidential compartment was very low to non-existent.

Flint- Another Clueless EvoTARD- Nested Hierarchies, AGAIN

 -

Over on the skeptical zone there is a joker named Flint who is totally clueless. Flint states:

Let’s assume that the tens of thousands of scientists who have examined the data and found overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence for nested hierarchy have all somehow been conned into seeing something you find “highly questionable if not outright false.

Evolution does not and cannot produce a nested hierarchy. Linnaean taxonomy is the observed nested hierarchy in biology and it has nothing to do with evolution: Linnaean Classification

The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

However: Trees for classification:  

 Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

Universal common descent via gradual evolution expects innumerable transitional forms. And those transitional forms would ruin any attempt to group organisms into nice neat categories as nested hierarchies require. EvoTARDs think that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree that all branching trees can be a nested hierarchy.

Evos are such an ignorant lot. And Flint epitomizes that fact.

PTaylor- Another Clueless EvoTARD

 -

Michael Behe has a new book coming out this year, titled A Mousetrap for Darwin. The clueless evoTARDs @ the swamp think he's crazy, of course. One of the little monkeys spewed:

With a title like that and a picture of a flagellum 'motor assembly' on the cover he seems to be expecting them to have forgotten Kitzmiller v Dover ever happened.

That trial happened. It just happened to prove that the judge was a clueless and ignorant moron. The plaintiffs got away with lying, bluffing and misrepresentations. As Dr. Behe said is his response to Judge Jones:

The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories. 

You can read Dr. Behe's entire response in his paper Whether Intelligent Design is Science. In that article Behe proves that the judge was a clueless moron on an agenda.

And in the end, with respect to unguided evolution, the Hitchens' Gambit applies- "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." That applies to all of the grand claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

So yes, the trial occurred. It just didn't have any impact on Intelligent Design for the obvious reasons.