-
In spite of all the rhetoric* from evo proponents, there is nothing to the theory of evolution. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch.
How do I know they have nothing?
It’s really very simple. Read lots of evo proponents and supporters. Read lots of their writing.
What do you not see?
Think about it for a second… as prolific writers as many of that group are, don’t you think that if they had anything that actually supported the theory of evolution, any research data, any lab experiments, anything, that they would be trumpeting it as loudly and as often as possible?
Every post, every comment one every blog, every signature would have the evidence and links to it.
And that’s the one thing you don’t see in any evo writing. None of it. Oh sure, they talk about maths and sciency sounding words and maybe hash out some philosophical implications, but they don’t have any data. None.
They don’t have any tests. They don’t have anything.
After almost two centuries, there is still nothing that any evo proponent can point to and say, “See, this data indicates blind watchmaker evolution, because this value of this experiment is x, where a value of y would indicate evolution.”
It really is as simple as that.
(mocking ogre)
Actually it has lots of things, as you finally concede when beaten with them, before retreating with "but that is also consistent with baraminology / design", you naughty creationist.
ReplyDeleteActually it has nothing as evidenced by the cowardly avoidance of the following three questions:
ReplyDelete1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
And again your ignorance of baraminology/ design is not a refutation.
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via design?
ReplyDelete2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an design?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an design?
Occams razor, you lose.
Thank you for proving that the theory of evolution has nothing and that you are still a coward.
ReplyDeleteAnd again Occam's razor favors one design over multiple just-so genetic accidents.
Thank you for proving that Intelligent design has nothing and that you are still a coward.
ReplyDeleteAnd again Occam's razor shows design offers nothing over, yet required more entities than multiple just-so genetic accidents.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving that Intelligent design has nothing and that you are still a coward.
Strange that I have demonstrated it has something and you choked on it- just as cowards do.
RichTard:
And again Occam's razor shows design offers nothing over, yet required more entities than multiple just-so genetic accidents.
Actually your position required multiple entities and multiple just-so genetic accidents. Not only that there isn't any evidence for gnetic accidents accumulating in such a way asto give rise to useful, functional multi-part systems. So you have nothing.
The only thing you've 'demonstrated' is that your rhetoric is as bad as your science.
ReplyDelete"Actually your position required multiple entities and multiple just-so genetic accidents."
The 'entities', in this case forces and mechanisms really, we know to exist in biology and we see them at work today.There is no reason to doubt they existed in the past. So we're not adding a new entity, just using existing ones. Design adds a new entity, and fails.
Joe
ReplyDeletedon’t you think that if they had anything that actually supported the theory of evolution, any research data, any lab experiments, anything, that they would be trumpeting it as loudly and as often as possible?
In fact it's simply that you can't see the wood for the trees. And you are standing in the middle of a forest.
The evidence for evolution is there. You just pretend it exists.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThe only thing you've 'demonstrated' is that your rhetoric is as bad as your science.
You must be talking to yourself or perhaps one of your evotard buddies.
"Actually your position required multiple entities and multiple just-so genetic accidents."
The 'entities', in this case forces and mechanisms really, we know to exist in biology and we see them at work today.
Nope- the entitities are multiple organisms that the theory of evolution needs to get started. As for those mechanisms Rich mentioned, well they have never been observed constructing any useful, functional multi-part system.
There is no reason to doubt they existed in the past. So we're not adding a new entity, just using existing ones.
No doubt they were doing the same thing we observe them doing- mostly breaking things and never constructing useful, functional multi-part systems.
Design adds a new entity, and fails.
Design is the requirement and your position has failed
OM:
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for evolution is there. You just pretend it exists.
Actually you are the one doing the pretending and the equivocating. And that is because you are a coward.
Now run along and go talk to Stratus- you are not welcome here.
Occam's Razor - something you don't understand.
ReplyDelete"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
You add a designer, that adds no extra descriptive narrative. So you fail. Selective forces aren't added, they're observed.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteOccam's Razor - something you don't understand.
Again wityh the fucking projection.
"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Exactly!
You add a designer, that adds no extra descriptive narrative.
Dawkins said it is a totally different type of biology, meaning it changes everything.
Selective forces aren't added, they're observed.
Never observed to construct useful, functional multi-part systems- you fail, big time.
They're observed to make changes we'd expect given the timeframe of observation.
ReplyDeleteYou're periously close to "I've nevere seen a cat give birth to a dog"
No designer is ever observed. Occam's razor. Sorry.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThey're observed to make changes we'd expect given the timeframe of observation.
What they are observed to do cannot be extrapolated into doing seemingly miraculous innovative adaptations. Yet it is.
RichTard:
You're periously close to "I've nevere seen a cat give birth to a dog"
Again your diatribe is meaningless. You don't have anything. Deal with it.
No designer is ever observed.
Not required. If we observed the designer then Occam's razor doesn't apply you moron as design is then a given.
A designer isn't required for ID? Tell me more, Joe. I'm intrigued.
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
ReplyDeleteA designer isn't required for ID?
Yes a designer is required, no we don't have to observe the designer before inferring one existed.
You said something about OBSERVING a designer and I said that isn't required. But thanks for continuing to prove that you have serious mental issues.
We infer a designer existed based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.
"Yes a designer is required"
ReplyDeleteSo you're adding an entity, then?
Yes a designer is required, no we don't have to observe the designer before inferring one existed.
ReplyDeleteYou said something about OBSERVING a designer and I said that isn't required. But thanks for continuing to prove that you have serious mental issues.
We infer a designer existed based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.
RichTard:
So you're adding an entity, then?
Not adding anything beyond what is required.
Adding an entity would be in addition to what is required.
You're asserting a designer is required, yet you can't answer the 3 questions you pose to evolutionists from a design perspective. Given that explanatory power is not enhanced, your designer is not required.
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
ReplyDeleteYou're asserting a designer is required, yet you can't answer the 3 questions you pose to evolutionists from a design perspective.
1- I am not asserting anything. The evidence points to a designer requirement.
2- Those questions are not relevant to a design perspective.
3- That you can't answer them- and avoid answering the at all costs- pretty much sums up your position- nothing to offer-> empty, devoid of content.
Joe G, although you clearly won the debate, as even Ogre seemed to agree with your position, you reverse the argument by calling your opponents "evo proponents" and "evotards". Worse yet, you finished the reversal of Ogre's blog with the word "evolution" as what apparently you considered a reversal of ID.
ReplyDeleteI am an evotard and my opponent is not evolution. I am an evolutionist and an IDist. Darwinists do not represent science. In fact, as your blog stated it, they avoid science desperately.
Why go to the trouble of an official debate only to accuse your enemy of being an evo proponent? Read the name of your own debate: ID is not anti-evolution. You were correct in taking the right side, but your rhetoric says something else.
1. Yes you are - and just did again
ReplyDelete2. How convenient - ID has no explanitory power..
3. I hope you pay reciprocating bill royalties for his phrases. As you can't answer them from an ID perspective, I don't feel obligated to even try.
RichTard:
ReplyDelete1. Yes you are - and just did again
No and no
RichTard:
2. How convenient - ID has no explanitory power..
ID has plenty of explanatory power. You are just too ignorant to understand it. Freakin' Dawkins says it changes everything.
OTOH obviously your position doesn't have any explanatory power as evidenced by your continued cowardice.
RichTard:
3. I hope you pay reciprocating bill royalties for his phrases.
I doubt they are his.
RichTard:
As you can't answer them from an ID perspective, I don't feel obligated to even try.
Your position needs to answer them and can't, whereas they are irrelevant to ID. But seeing that you are an ignorant fuck you can't understand that.
So it ain't that you don't feel obligated to try, it is that you cannot because your position is shit.
1- I am not asserting anything. The evidence points to a designer requirement.
ReplyDeleteThat is not an assertion because 1- Your position has failed to produce an explanation and 2- The criteria for design has been met-> ie the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.
But your whining is entertaining.
Joe, if ID can't answer any questions, what good is it to us?
ReplyDeleteRich:
ReplyDeleteYou're asserting a designer is required,..
No, it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that a designer is required.
Rich:
yet you can't answer the 3 questions you pose to evolutionists from a design perspective.
They are irrelevant to a design perspective. They are relevant to an evolutionary perspective.
Rich:
Given that explanatory power is not enhanced, your designer is not required.
Of course it is enhanced- Dawkins said we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- IOW it means all the difference in the world.
And seeing that you refuse to answer the questions you prove the point in the OP- Thanks.
Evolution has plenty of evidence supporting it. However, Darwinism and other accidentalist concepts are truly running on empty.
ReplyDeleteThats why they try so hard to combine random accident with the observations of intelligent evolution. They hope to use evidence of intelligent evolution as evidence for random mess, as Ogre bumblingly attempted.
ID is the only theory of evolution that is fully supported by the scientific method. ID is predictable, repeatable and testable.
Actually they (try to) say that when those accidents are sorted via natural selection we have a designer mimic.
ReplyDeleteYet when faced with the evidence we get promissory notes.
I realize your blog was a spoof of Ogre's blog, but what you say in it is actually very true. Darwinists never produce any evidence for their bizarre assertion that random accident causes functional order.
ReplyDeleteThey dont even understand the question, or at least they pretend not to, let alone being scientific enough to imagine a way of proving random mess over intelligence as a cause of life.
Anybody can "say" anything, but the challenge for Darwinists is to prove that there are accidents causing functional improvements.
ReplyDeleteSelection is not a factor in this, because we are talking about what causes functional improvements, not whether or not creatures with improvements would live.
We are discussing cause, not result. Selection is a result.
Anybody can "say" anything, but the challenge for Darwinists is to prove that there are accidents causing functional improvements.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have that mutations are not random with regard to fitness and are in fact directed?
OM:
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have that mutations are not random with regard to fitness and are in fact directed?
Why do you ALWAYS have to avoid supporting your position?
Thank you for continuing to prove the point of the OP.
Rich, when challenged that random mess Darwinism as N-O-T-H-I-N-G as evidence, logic or math, you claim it has "lots of things". Can you perhaps name ...oh I dont know, dont want to overburden a Darwinist... name ONE thing?
ReplyDeleteOM, once again you dodge a request for proof that random chaos leads to complex functionality. Instead you ask for proof it doesnt.
Well, ID is loaded with proof and, unlike you materialists, we actually use the scientific method, not religious beliefs.
Hmmm, how bout just for ironic justice we start with the "biologist" Darwin's own Galapagos Finch? Repeated observations show that the bird's beak will genetically change based on the weather in any given season. Hatchlings in a drought season get the genetic change needed to shape their beaks to accomodate the limted nut diet.
The gene has been isolated and is indeed a genetic modification. The genetic editing is predictable, reliable and present in all lineages. It comes and goes as needed, when needed. This is a mutation to a gentic code of 3 billion base pairs and a 64 character alphabet, to there are literally quintillions of possible mutations.
But we keep getting this one. Not random in the slightest. Intelligent genetics, just as we have been telling you.
Imagine that.
Is there any point in asking you, a Darwinist, again for any evidence to support random mess? I will accept any evidence at all of any randomness in any aspect of life whatsoever, not just evolution or genetics. Life is essentially the absence of randomness. Good luck.
Joe
ReplyDeleteWhy do you ALWAYS have to avoid supporting your position?
The evidence that a dice is fair is found in the results given when it is tossed. A bias indicates an unfair dice, when sufficient trials have been performed.
Your position is that the dice is biased. You should be able to point to data showing that. Yet you don't. You turn the claim around and apparently it's for me to prove the dice is fair. I never said it was not, it was you that said it was biased and as such the person making the claim has to prove it.
Until you prove otherwise, the dice is fair.
Why do you ALWAYS have to avoid supporting your position?
ReplyDeleteOM:
The evidence that a dice is fair is found in the results given when it is tossed. A bias indicates an unfair dice, when sufficient trials have been performed.
Your position is that the dice is biased.
Your position is that the dice is fair.
Time for you to demonstrate that it is dice and it is fair.
OM:
Until you prove otherwise, the dice is fair.
Yet no one has shown it is dice.
Obviously your position's "methodology" is "anything BUT design!"
Ya see it is up to U to support your claims.
Dr Spetner has writtn a book saying the deck is stacked- "Not By Chance"- for example transposons carry the code for the enzymes required for them to move- ie jump positions.
I have told you that several times and apparently you are too stupid to grasp it.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteJoe, if ID can't answer any questions, what good is it to us?
Just because it doesn't answer your irrelevant questions doesn't mean it doesn't answer any questions.
Also the design inference means we are looking at a totally different type of biology.
Joe
ReplyDeletefor example transposons carry the code for the enzymes required for them to move- ie jump positions.
And therefore design?
Righttttttt......
Joe
ReplyDeleteTime for you to demonstrate that it is dice and it is fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics
To understand the mechanisms that cause a population to evolve, it is useful to consider what conditions are required for a population not to evolve. The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation of the sperm or egg, and random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization.[3] Such a population is said to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium as it is not evolving.[4] Hardy Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature. Genetic equilibrium is an ideal state that provides a baseline to measure genetic change against.
Allele frequencies in a population remain static across generations, provided the following conditions are at hand: random mating, no mutation (the alleles don't change), no migration or emigration (no exchange of alleles between populations), infinitely large population size, and no selective pressure for or against any traits.
It's been done Joe. Now you have a Wikipedia account why don't you go and edit that page using your superior knowledge to show everybody where they've been going wrong all these decades.
Joe
ReplyDeleteJust because it doesn't answer your irrelevant questions doesn't mean it doesn't answer any questions.
What questions does it answer then?
for example transposons carry the code for the enzymes required for them to move- ie jump positions.
ReplyDeleteOM:
And therefore design?
There isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can do such a thing and it has a specification.
Time for you to demonstrate that it is dice and it is fair.
ReplyDeleteOM links to wikipedia
Nope, that didn't do it.
Just because it doesn't answer your irrelevant questions doesn't mean it doesn't answer any questions.
ReplyDeleteOM:
What questions does it answer then?
It changes the whole game as we are looking at a totally different type of biology. IOW it should answer all the questions that your sorry-ass position has failed to.
OM, you run from science with your "dice is biased" analogy. You think that only one side has the burden of proof. Is this why you fail to produce any arguments supporting your case? Everyone must prove their hypothesis or shut up. Thats science. No default truisms. Prove it or shut up.
ReplyDeleteIf the dice were getting an even percentage of all 6 numbers then there would be no claim of bias. Unfortuntely for your case, we observe only the needed number rolled every time.
Did you think about this before you used this analogy?
Rich, we dont have to guess about features forming fully functional or not. We can observe evolution taking place and see first hand.
ReplyDeleteHere's what never happens: Formation of a tooth socket in the jaw, followed by primitive root structures, followed by pulp, then nerves, then more capillaries generations later, and finally sealing over with enamel.
What DOES happen when teeth evolve is that we get full teeth at a time. If you get one or two, you know matching sets are always on the way in a few generations, but always as full teeth. All of the many genetic changes to form a full tooth are in place genetically before a master gene activates them.
And you can absolutely predict matching teeth coming along later each and every time.
Fossil evidence indicates the same happens with bones, ligaments and tendons. The entire network of interdependent parts is not expressed phenotypically until it is ready to be fully functional.
Intelligent genetics is what we always observe. Errors are a rare exception caused by chemical or radiation contamination that are quickly corrected, with or without selection, often with the use of intelligent correcting enzymes.
This is what we see happening.
IA
ReplyDeleteUnfortuntely for your case, we observe only the needed number rolled every time.
In what way?
Do you have evidence that mutations are not random with regard to fitness?
Please do tell.