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

Monday, July 20, 2020

29+ Evidences of Evolutionary Bullshit- Part 1

In Talk Origins' introduction to "29+ evidences for macroevolution" we read:
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
This is strange because most of the evidences are that of patterns. Mechanism determines patterns.

With evolution there allegedly isn't any direction. Populations can become less complex*, stay the same or become more complex. It all depends. It's all contingent serendipity. If you take a look at any phylogenetic tree, you see nodes that are branching point populations. These are neatly connected by lines. However, the reality of evolution says that all along those nice, neat connecting lines are populations that are also potential branching points.

Can evolution Make Things Less Complex?
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
The point being is that "evolution" predicts any pattern from a simple lineage to a very messy bush, web, net thing. Cladograms don't depict any of that. Cladograms model progression.

Patterns are determined by mechanisms. So by using patterns without declaring a mechanism you are being dishonest.


  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Champion Debater said…

    It's not dishonesty when that's what the evidence shows. Anyways, what I get from all this and your blog is that you are bewildered therefore evolution can't be true.

  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What the fuck? ID is NOT anti-evolution

    The evidence presented depends on the mechanism. The author said the evidence is regardless of the mechanism. That is dishonest.

  • At 11:43 PM, Blogger Champion Debater said…

    You're confusion of evidence and mechanisms is evidence of your state of mind (confusion) and not of dishonesty on the author's part.

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're confused, not me. You can't form a coherent argument. Mechanism determines patterns, That is a fact.


Post a Comment

<< Home