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.


  • 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

  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger SM (Surrey UK) said…

    I am in agreement with Joe, who has rightly identified the complete banality and unscientific nature of Dawkins' rants on evolution, both in his books and elsewhere - none of which he can support, yet, because of powerful brainwash and agenda politics, he is worshiped as a pseudo-priest/god. He had better become humble and learn something of Truth before he dies. Deliberate withholding of fact (and the willful covering over of evidence of fact, which he indulges in) is the same as a lie. And he has many lies is his books which deceive so many like Jerad. But then Jerad wishes to follow, not think and struggle with evidence for himself. Hence he has none to submit when challenged, nor can he discuss his views with coherence.

    This is why it is pointless arguing with an evolutionist: They are sold-out to the 'fact' which they keep repeating as a mantra, but refuse to acknowledge the most basic requirements of scientific enquiry using the standard scientific method; simply a system of rigorous honesty in designing an experimental set of activities to test an new question, recording all outcomes, and documentation of all results, no matter how unsuccessful at answering the question or hypothesis.

    The problems with evolutionary theory are many, and cause the rest of us -in science, or retired from it, who are actually interested in truth, immense difficulties in discussion with other scientists.

    Evolution theories (and there are plenty of sub-components) are a central root of a world view which quite simply states that it is a fact that all living things must have come about by natural processes and there can be no exceptions, as that would be unscientific, regardless of evidence. (We "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" as one honest commentator once said). We are dealing here with biological evolution of species, which is generally the theory that most mean when they use the term, but cosmologists also use the term for galactic and stellar events. And there is of course the problem of the origin of first life from supposed chemical components, which some have referred to a biochemical evolution, but many prefer abiogenesis. All fine and boring so far, I am sure, but the above definition demonstrates the first problem, which is that:

    1. Unlike many other theories in science, the theory dictates the way it will interpret all evidence - by naturalism - because only that line of enquiry of truth can be permitted. Now - This would be absolutely fine where empirical work is carried out meticulously if, and ONLY if scientists were honest about what the evidence demonstrates when they come across that which appears to contradict their underlying assumptions, or invalidate their hypothesis. / (cont'd next post).

  • At 7:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. But I am sure you already knew that

  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger SM (Surrey UK) said…

    Thanks Joe. I think the blog is very useful. A lot of time has gone into exposing the anti-science rubbish that evolutionauts believe. Your stuff is good. I have another two sections of my "response to Dawkins and UK Jerad." I am ashamed that my fellow countrymen are so ignorant of scientific endeavour. Hope that it's ok to post, but I will not be offended if it is too much and you reject it! Moving on from previous post:
    - To take an example for illustration of a clear contradiction: Fossilized wood, deeply embedded in sedimentary rock that is supposed to be tens of millions of years old, tends to show radiocarbon ages of tens of thousand of years (1000's of times too young) where the fossilized remains found in the same beds of rock are supposed to be millions of years old. The wood always has an strong carbon 14 signature of well under 100,000 years.The same is true of giant dinosaur bony remains - the bioapatite samples showing similar and very consistently young ages rages for such remains. Now, evolutionists never measure radiocarbon ratios, because the rule this out as irrelevant as "the samples are too old" for any use of that technique. Their problem is that, where the technique is used, the laboratories doing the assessment is absolutely happy to carry it out and ensure that contamination cannot be the cause of such significant results, in the way they usually deal with samples far more likely to be contaminated, such as wooden furniture, and bones found in earthen tombs, where clearly microbial action and flushing of carbon through loose sediment causes much greater error, and is allowed for in the estimation. No-one, however, bats an eyelid, when such 'dirty' samples are subjected to analysis and published. One word applies: Bias.

    2. The second problem is related to the first: There is an industry running the enquiry mechanisms which is in fact a powerful cult pretending to be innocent, orthodox science: There has developed a powerful, well-oiled machine, a rigorous cult (more like an 'occult' system of deception) which stops at nothing, so long as it appears legal. Nothing is too low for it to stoop to, in terms of exposing and spoiling the perfectly good and well qualified, productive careers of anyone who steps outside the boundaries of what it has circumscribed as science, in researching, facilitating, and providing comment or simply raw evidence for the origins of living things. The Evolution Cult members close ranks, and attack those who, until a moment ago, had good careers, were doing validated, peer-reviewed research, and whose reports and management spoke of in glowing terms.

    The cult's aims are simple: The preservation and improvement of the favoured theory' -the Darwinian synthesis, or (they will tell you "new developments" in evolution theory, which is the same thing to them) - to explain the immensity of the unfathomable depths of complexity of life, which all scientists know that they shall never plumb fully using any approach. The Evolution Cult members are utterly dedicated to the underlying principles of their theory (which is actually a set of untested hypotheses).
    The results, at an academic purity level of resolution of scientific activity are: Powerful protectionism and propaganda statements in the evolution industry's MSM / press, fruitless conflicts between scientists about what is admissible as evidence in a piece of work, career blackmail and 'black-balling', and the unwarranted determined continuance of nurturing the central Darwinist ideas as dogma, rather than following the evidence. All this cultivates the downward spiral of deception and rottenness in the 'science'. Speaking out on, or questioning the dogma, can cost one's job and spoil an otherwise promising career./(cont'd final post)

  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger SM (Surrey UK) said…

    So, then, the central Dogma of essential tenets are unquestionable. This point is neatly illustrated by one commentator here who asked :"You can't show anyone how mutations are directed can you?" -demonstrating his presuppositional bias that is one of the most fundamental evolutionary tenets; that: All biological evolution is 'driven by mutation and natural selection'. Yet, to date this is undemonstrated; there being no consistent evidence to show that genetic mutation (genetic damage events) have provided an evolutionary advantageous change leading to a new design which cannot be explained by rapid population variation from existing genes which are expressed differently and which may revert to the former expression. All this, in fact is obvious to those like myself who have been farmers and scientists: Variation being something all plant and animal breeders have known about for thousands of years, and where all such 'evidence' is entirely within the envelope of such phenomena, and are best explained as the (otherwise well known) phenomena of variation and adaptation, leading to greater speciation of existing types of genera/species. Why?

    First, Occam's razor of simplest explanation. Second; all attempts to induce actual point mutations in a test species have always, ALWAYS failed to produce any useful change to the organism and weaken it. Mutations are almost always damaging, and where this is rarely not the case (notably induced mutations in inbred E.coli), the event has only caused a minor change, without in any way changing the nature of the organism, or giving it greater capacity for life in its normal environment. In other words: Yes, we can carry out selective breeding of organisms, and when we do, this is evidence for the actions of built-in variability at work, not evolutionary level change. Evolutionists usually refuse, or are completely unable to acknowledge this fact, which demonstrates there is little point in discussing complex issues with them, such as the origin of man, specific things such as sight, or bat's wings (or any other kind of wing), whilst they deny the Herd of Elephants running around the Room of REAL empirical science.

    Sadly, we cannot make headway, whilst lies persist. We shall go on exposing the unscientific nature of evolutionism regardless. We cannot allow this deception the luxury of its pretence to good science, and there is a lot else at stake.

  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is all about indoctrination. However, my kid beat them at their own game- being an IDists and scoring in the top 1% in the State school assessment testing in biology.

  • At 9:21 PM, Blogger SM (Surrey UK) said…

    It certainly is. No-one has the courage to take on the government machine here in Britain, and increasingly illiberal, lawless and Godless place. But - Great to hear that. A kid growing up with some muscle and character!!


Post a Comment

<< Home