ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 24, 2018

The pseudoscience of Darwin

Fred is tormenting the true believers with observable facts again:
Science is supposed to be objective study of nature, impelled by a willingness to follow the evidence impartially wherever it leads. For the most part it works this way. In the case of emotionally charged topics, it does not. For example, racial intelligence, cognitive differences between the sexes, and weaknesses in Darwinian evolution. Scientists who do perfectly good research in these fields, but arrive at forbidden conclusions, will be hounded out of their fields, fired from academic and research positions, blackballed from employment, and have their careers destroyed.

A prime example is Richard Sternberg, a Ph.D. in biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. He is not a lightweight. From 2001-2007 he was staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2001-2007 a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

Hell broke loose when he authorized in 2004 the publication, in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an organ of the Smithsonian Institution, of a peer-reviewed article, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher taxonomic Categories by Stephen Meyer. It dealt with the possibility of intelligent design as an explanation of aspects of Darwinism not explainable by the conventional theory. This is a serious no-no among the guardians of conventional Darwinism, the political correctness of science.

At the Smithsonian, he was demoted, denied access to specimens he needed in his work, transferred to work under a hostile supervisor, and lost his office space. In the ensuring storm of hatred, two separate federal investigations concluded that he had been made the target of malicious treatment.

Predictably, the establishment dismisses Meyer’s idea ass “pseudoscience”:

Wikipedia: The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the pseudo-scientific concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

Pseudoscience? Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence. For most readers this assertion will seem as delusional as saying that the sun revolves around the earth. This is because we have been indoctrinated since birth in the Darwinian myth.
Like Fred, I am an evolutionary skeptic, not because of intelligent design or most of the issues that Fred raises, but because I have never observed any evolutionist able to demonstrate an adequate ability to address, let alone successfully answer, the direct questions about evolution posed to them. Instead, they always - always - attempt to turn the discussion to the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand instead.

That is why I am still a skeptic concerning the secularism's epic myth, despite having read every book ever published by Richard Dawkins, despite having read Wilson, and Gould, and Shermer, and Hauser, and a number of other well-regarded evolutionary popularizers.  At this point, it might be more accurate to say I am an evolutionary skeptic because I have read those books and been astounded by the panoply of obvious logical flaws, evasions, and handwaving that I have encountered in them.

I was pleased to recently run across one of my favorite quotes, from the Pharyngula days of yore:

Keynesian economics, like evolutionary biology, has an outstanding record of success, and has become the foundation for a vast amount of productive work in its field. 

Labels: ,

77 Comments:

Blogger Scott C September 24, 2018 5:13 AM  

The biggest question I have for evolutionary biologists is how the DNA molecule evolved. That's what's driving the whole process of descent with modification.

Blogger GammaCatch September 24, 2018 5:16 AM  

Science became a Religion a long time ago and it does not want any competitors.

Blogger Warkicker September 24, 2018 5:51 AM  

"At this point, it might be more accurate to say I am an evolutionary skeptic because I have read those books..."

My undergraduate degree was zoology with emphasis on evolutionary biology, before getting an MD. That turned me more into a skeptic than anything else.

Blogger Howard Stone September 24, 2018 6:25 AM  

Evolutionism is the government cheese of religions.

Blogger Rabid Ratel September 24, 2018 6:29 AM  

I read the comments on the original post by Fred. The best proof the commenters have is that Fred is no scientist, and thus should not be allowed to comment on evolution. That does sound familiar ...

Blogger The Lab Manager September 24, 2018 6:50 AM  

I'm more of an agnostic with an engineering education, but I agree that evolutionary theory as proposed by the scientism cult has lots of wholes as pointed about Fred over the years. Anyone who can read and do some reasoning can see that they don't have an answer. We can do lots of crazy stuff manipulating genes and such but can't make anything resembling even a virus in a vat of organic chemicals which is the starting point of life on earth according to evolutionary scientism.

Blogger dienw September 24, 2018 7:05 AM  

Fred says:"The ardent of evolution, like Christians, base their creation myth from a sacred book, The Origin of Species, both resting on about as much evidence. Thereafter they assume what is to be proved."

Damn good thing he didn't write Jews or Hopi Indians; can you just imagine the furor.

Blogger Steve September 24, 2018 7:10 AM  

I am an evolutionary skeptic, not because of intelligent design or most of the issues that Fred raises, but because I have never observed any evolutionist able to demonstrate an adequate ability to address, let alone successfully answer, the direct questions about evolution posed to them. Instead, they always - always - attempt to turn the discussion to the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand instead.

This. Similarly, I started to become skeptical of the narrative because of ID. Not that I'm convinced by ID, I see it as an amusing thought-experiment-type proposition, no more or less ridiculous than Schrodinger's felicide.

It was the reaction to Intelligent Design that clued me into there something being a bit wrong with the Darwinites. Instead of the logical, cool-headed, dispassionate weighing of facts and logic you might expect from scientists, they immediately went insane and started spewing pea soup while screaming curses, before climbing up the wall and doing unpleasant things with crucifixes (crucifii?). I'm exaggerating, but not by much (it was actually chicken soup).

Coupled with the work of Dr. Richard Dawkins, which amounts to EFF YOU, DAD!, it's obvious that evolutionists are deeply broken people who have extreme difficulty separating science from their personality problems. Phrenologists, alchemists and phlogiston fans were never this mental.

Blogger Paddy J S September 24, 2018 7:10 AM  

It's a creation myth for atheists. I too am sceptical about it. The dogmatic way they villify their critics and smug way they go about is intensely suspicious. Also it's another 19th century theory

Blogger Jemison Thorsby September 24, 2018 7:28 AM  

Maybe I'm not widely read enough, but I've never seen a Darwinist try to substantively explain how the molecules in our bodies go from being "star stuff" to self-consciousness as part of a body that is clearly more than the sum of its chemical parts.

Blogger Stilicho September 24, 2018 7:30 AM  

Much of their sense of self-worth, their smug certainty of superiority to flyover rubes is based on Darwinism. Most do think it disproves the Bible and Christianity when, even if it were true, it does not. Further, it allows them to pretend they are more intelligent than anyone who questions the length of time speciation requires, questions the lack of apparent speciciation today, questions why darwinian evolution stopped at the neck of homo sapiens (just for the lulz), or questions how darwinian evolution could possibly have taken place as posited in the mere 13 billion years the earth has been around. Their reactions to such questions are telling indeed,

Darwinism is the religion of midwits and atheists because they are midwits and/or atheists.

Blogger prati sara September 24, 2018 7:31 AM  

Science was overrun by SJ warriors almost a century ago.

Blogger Alex The Great September 24, 2018 7:40 AM  

What do y’all think about the 6000 year / genetic entropy theory?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 24, 2018 8:00 AM  

Have a Darwinian explain the Blank Slate Theory. My idea of real fun would be to place a white Darwinian prog in front of a crowd of the Glorious People of Color and explain the ToE.

White progs are yesterday's people, they admit this, they are the best proof that Darwinians ever had, and irony abounds.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) September 24, 2018 8:04 AM  

Keynesian economics, like evolutionary biology, has an outstanding record of success, and has become the foundation for a vast amount of productive work in its field.

oy. vey.

according to EVERY precept of Keynesian Economics, Carter's Stagflation wasn't supposed to be possible.

which is why the Chicago School Monetarists and Friedmanites rose to control the Federal Reserve;
due to the UTTER failure of Keynesian "principles".

and yet, even though Keynesianism was thoroughly rejected by experience and result the Economic schools have never stopped teaching it.

so much for the "self correcting nature" of !Science!

Blogger Ford Prefect September 24, 2018 8:05 AM  

Awesome quote to end the posting. I laughed so loudly, I probably disturbed my neighbours.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 24, 2018 8:20 AM  

Alex The Great wrote:What do y’all think about the 6000 year / genetic entropy theory?

Matches the bible, fewer holes in it than in goo-to-you. It'll do 'til something better comes along.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 24, 2018 8:23 AM  

bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) wrote:and yet, even though Keynesianism was thoroughly rejected by experience and result the Economic schools have never stopped teaching it.

When I taught macro, I told them that it was not true, but it was useful. That bothered the undergrads enormously.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) September 24, 2018 8:31 AM  

speaking of Econ Claptrap masquerading as !Science!, International Trade has been widely extant since AT LEAST 1200 BC.

you know the Bronze Age? Bronze is an amalgam of Copper and Tin.

problem: the Med has insufficient sources of Tin to support multiple civilizations using Bronze widely.

but they did.

so, where did the Tin come from?

most likely, Afghanistan.

https://youtu.be/bRcu-ysocX4?t=16m30s

Blogger bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) September 24, 2018 8:43 AM  

18. Ominous Cowherd September 24, 2018 8:23 AM
When I taught macro, I told them that it was not true, but it was useful. That bothered the undergrads enormously.



ah, yes.

we shall assume a spherical cow ... called "Animal Spirits" ... at the same time that we assume that people make Rational economic decisions.

Blogger Blunt Force September 24, 2018 8:48 AM  

Science is whatever SJWs say it is.

I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model.

First, the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished.

..that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted.

https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 24, 2018 8:57 AM  

bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) wrote:we shall assume a spherical cow ... called "Animal Spirits" ... at the same time that we assume that people make Rational economic decisions.

It's about that bad. It's not taken seriously in grad school, but every politician and editor believes it all, so to understand their lies, you must know the framework from which the lies hang.

Blogger Blunt Force September 24, 2018 9:01 AM  

Strangely enough, the very people that decry "faith in myth" are also the ones investing so much faith in unproven theory ( i.e. myth)

“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Blogger pyrrhus September 24, 2018 9:08 AM  

The major problem with evolution, indirectly referenced by Fred, is that favorable mutations are extremely rare, so that groups of favorable mutations evolving at the same time are statistically impossible. Even more so if one mutation would be unfavorable without the presence of the others. For example, the purported evolution of the long necked Giraffe from the short necked version that existed 10 million years ago, which involved hundreds of major changes to the animal. There is simply not enough time, if it could happen at all. The same is true for the evolution of life on earth, where the simplest answer is that it was seeded, probably accidentally, by life on comets or other debris.

Blogger pyrrhus September 24, 2018 9:16 AM  

Consciousness is the third rail of atheistic Darwinism, of course....Only man is conscious, and there is no apparent evolutionary benefit to it. The termites have been here for hundreds of millions of years, and will be here when mankind is extinct.

Blogger K G September 24, 2018 9:20 AM  

How can establishment atheists believe in both Darwin’s evolution and racial equality?

Blogger pyrrhus September 24, 2018 9:49 AM  

"How can establishment atheists believe in both Darwin’s evolution and racial equality?"

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Leftism is a religion in which logic simply does not matter.

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 9:49 AM  

"Instead, they always - always - attempt to turn the discussion to the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand instead."

Let em. That plays right into the hands of believers. 1)Evilution is magic for the innumerate there are literally not enough seconds on their new revised QE er, umm timeline and at a rate alot faster that that airhead movie Annihilation which would pose even more problems since there would literally be no time or even use for breeding since "Wonder Twins Power Activate!" would be getting in the way.

2) Public Skrools: Really they want to go there. Yeah leftards have nothing to do with public schools its the Alt-Right that runs them and the teachers union *rolls eyes*

"Keynesian economics, like evolutionary biology, has an outstanding record of success, and has become the foundation for a vast amount of productive work in its field."

And both lies are behind a tremendous amount of evil in the world and both liess HAVE TO keep inflating the numbers.

Blogger Roddie Piper September 24, 2018 9:54 AM  

99% of today's "scientists" are leftists, and leftists only believe in Darwin when mocking Christians for not believing in Darwin. Leftists everywhere think it a moral duty to impose heavy taxes on productive citizens and pay unproductive layabouts to make babies. What could be more anti-Darwinian than that?

Leftists say, no, we only oppose eugenics and "Social Darwinism". What's that supposed to mean? That by waving their hands, they exempt Homo sapiens from the natural laws that govern all other life on Earth?

I wouldn't go as far a calling Leftism a religion, as it has no coherent doctrine (Socialism? Death to white men? Sexual freedom for everyone except children while we asses the strength of the pedophile vote?) It's just an endless search for anything of value they can toss in the fire to win votes.

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 9:55 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Avalanche September 24, 2018 9:55 AM  

Part of my comment over there:

... questioning evolution is NECESSARY for evolution to be science.

That sentence alone should be 100% acceptable to anyone who holds himself out as using science. ("Believing science" is a worrisome phrasing, no?) Reacting -- as the Neo-Darwinian Evolution-"believers" do -- with shrieks of horror and screams of "burn the witc… er.. the unbeleiv… er … the pseudoscientist!" makes them NON-scientists!

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 9:56 AM  

"Leftism is a religion in which logic simply does not matter."

Literally. The lefTARDS in North Korea use the terms sin(s) when somebody doesn't obey Dear Leader completely enough. And lately the 5th column media label Trump or Kavanaugh "unrepentant".

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 9:59 AM  

"I wouldn't go as far a calling Leftism a religion.

I would, its a suicidal/death cult which is the only thing coherent about it since its from God haters.

Blogger michimartini September 24, 2018 10:02 AM  

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith smashed evolutionary pseudo-science to pieces in the 70s. It has been a Zombie ever since. It is something atheists need to soothe their emotional pain.

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 10:08 AM  

Evilutionary lies lag central banking lies for obvious reasons they can afford to "revise" their lies but they will be spouting trillions of trillions and quadrillions of years soon enough.

What you do, do quickly lefTARDS. John 13:27

Blogger Avalanche September 24, 2018 10:11 AM  

@19 "insufficient sources of Tin to support multiple civilizations using Bronze widely.
but they did.
so, where did the Tin come from?
most likely, Afghanistan.
"

Or not?


And from: https://grahamhancock.com/wakefieldjs1/
The Shipping of Michigan Copper across the Atlantic in the Bronze Age (Isle Royale and Keweenaw Peninsula, c. 2400BC-1200 BC)
...
Summary
Recent scientific literature has come to the conclusion that the major source of the copper that swept through the European Bronze Age after 2500 BC is unknown. However, these studies claim that the 10 tons of copper oxhide ingots recovered from the late Bronze Age (1300 BC) Uluburun shipwreck off the coast of Turkey was "extraordinarily pure" (more than 99.5% pure), and that it was not the product of smelting from ore. The oxhides are all brittle “blister copper”, with voids, slag bits, and oxides, created when the oxhides were made in multiple pourings outdoors over wood fires. Only Michigan Copper is of this purity, and it is known to have been mined in enormous quantities during the Bronze Age.
...

(Very interesting: search "oxhide copper reels" and check the pix!!)


And:
www.science-frontiers.com/sf090/sf090a01.htm
"For some 1800 years, beginning abruptly about 3000 BC, some industrious peoples mined ore equivalent to 500,000 tons of copper from Michigan's Isle Royale..."

And:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/rick-osmon/missing-prehistoric-michigans-12-billion-lbs-of-copper/
Original article Lew discusses: http://ancientamerica.com/missing-prehistoric-michigans-half-billion-pounds-of-copper/ )

Blogger Lurker September 24, 2018 10:17 AM  

"And there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted."

Yeah forget that "right-wing" truth based in mathematics.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 24, 2018 10:20 AM  

pyrrhus wrote:The same is true for the evolution of life on earth, where the simplest answer is that it was seeded, probably accidentally, by life on comets or other debris.

Pan-spermia is just a fancy way to say it's turtles all the way down.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 24, 2018 10:25 AM  

Gould, and Shermer, and Hauser, and a number of other well-regarded evolutionary popularizers.

Gould was "well-regarded" by the NYT Book Review, sure.

By his fellow paleontologists/ evolutionary biologists? Not so much.

Blogger SAPPER September 24, 2018 10:27 AM  

I have been a skeptic of Darwinism since I realized statistically, the chance of positive mutations occurring within 100's if not 1000's of areas in a organism in a short defined time frame is statistically impossible. Unless God is involved.

Blogger Thumos September 24, 2018 10:29 AM  

Darwinism is dogma because it unmoors society from divine morality. It's useful/necessary for the push towards globalism which requires a lack of the inherent sanctity of life that Christianity teaches.

I mean how does the establishment justify "human rights" and other liberal dogmas with a darwinist anthropology? It doesn't square at all and it should be critiqued and mocked relentlessly.

Blogger Greg Hunt September 24, 2018 10:34 AM  

Cornwall.

Blogger Peter Gent September 24, 2018 10:35 AM  

K G wrote:How can establishment atheists believe in both Darwin’s evolution and racial equality?
It requires the cognitive dissonance necessary to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Once you go there, the logical barriers have been destroyed and it becomes entirely self-serving.

Blogger 357Delta September 24, 2018 10:39 AM  

If naturaliatic Darwinian evolution is true then people are no more abnormal than a termite, but the proponents of the idea are the first to tell you that you are abnormal and need to change your behavior; particularly your moral behavior.

It also completely destroys the idea of Progress which so many cling to so tightly.

Blogger Nostromo September 24, 2018 11:13 AM  

There is but one God, and Douglas Adams is his prophet.

Blogger RobertT September 24, 2018 11:15 AM  

It has been my observation throughout life, that when people can't support their claims with facts or solid logic, they were all insignificant wastrels looking for attention.

Blogger Nostromo September 24, 2018 11:20 AM  

That would make Terry Pratchett John the Baptist?

Blogger Gordon Freece September 24, 2018 11:33 AM  

You don’t have a basic understanding of the ideas you think you’re refuting. Neither does Fred.

How can you tell when Amazon reviews are fake? The reviewer triumphantly denounces stuff that’s not in the material he’s denouncing.

Do you respond by reading the text aloud to the guy? No. You just say “we both know you’re yelling at clouds here”.

Good point to bear in mind: Vox is usually right. People who are usually right can at times be spectacularly wrong.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 24, 2018 11:40 AM  

The funny part is how much the atheists get wrong about Darwin.

Admittedly, that is most likely because almost none of them have ever read Origin of the Species.

The first thing they always get wrong is that he didn't invent Natural Selection. It was a known and recognized force long before Darwin was born.

But it was a conservative force. One that weeded out defectives.

According to Darwin's Theory, change in species would gradual with many generations of in-between species, that would be found between one critter and it's great-grandcestor.

The fundamental problem with Darwinism is that none of these in-between species have been found.

In Darwin's day, you could get away with saying paleontology is a new science and we'll find them eventually. But you can't say that today.

They just don't exist.

Blogger VD September 24, 2018 11:49 AM  

You don’t have a basic understanding of the ideas you think you’re refuting.

Do you think evolution should be taught to elementary schoolchildren?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener September 24, 2018 11:51 AM  

Full retard: being brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is settled science and consequently ridiculing the concept of intelligent design, while simultaneously marveling at pop physics' conjecture that we're all living in some kind of simulation.

Blogger Resident Moron™ September 24, 2018 12:19 PM  

Oddly, I saw no attempt at refutation in the OP, which makes Freece’s foolishness doubly ironic.

Nevermind.

... they will be spouting trillions of trillions and quadrillions of years soon enough.

They’ve been doing this for quite a while now.

What else is the multiverse but 13 billion years times a billion universes of similar age? It’s an evasion of the evidence, exactly as was Darwin’s original excuse. He didn’t have any evidence so nobody can claim they believed him on that basis. He explicitly attacked the evidence as being faulty BECAUSE it didn’t support his theory - which must be true a priori because feelz.

Poor old Stephen J was honest enough to try and fix evolution by making it fit the evidence and for his fundamental honesty was despised and rejected by both sides.

You’d think he might have developed some empathy for JC, eh?

Blogger Nate73 September 24, 2018 12:55 PM  

@8: Why do you say Dawkins work is based around father hatred?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 24, 2018 1:14 PM  

"What do y’all think about the 6000 year / genetic entropy theory?"

As soon as the word "entropy" is used, I'm far more on-board with it than the panoply of different and usually hypothetical processes masquerading under the vague term "evolution". Simply because evolution and one of the laws of thermodynamics can't fit in the same paradigm.

I tend to refer to it as divergent degeneration, though.

"You don’t have a basic understanding of the ideas you think you’re refuting. Neither does Fred."

Says random-a** person #1 in exemplarily dishonest fashion, projecting his own flaws and characteristics on other people. Come now, we both wish you even rose to the level of yelling at clouds here, rather than burying your head in the sand.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 24, 2018 1:19 PM  

Nate -- when is Atheism NOT an expression of father hatred? For that matter, when is mud-sharking NOT an expression of father-hatred?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 24, 2018 1:38 PM  

I mean, I have to agree with Dirk on this one. If it's not a congenital mental defect, it's generally going to be "I HATE YOU DAD, YOU'RE DEAD TO ME" writ large.

Blogger John Hampton September 24, 2018 2:34 PM  

Read 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' by Sean B. Carroll. This loyal Darwinist unintentionally demonstrates that Darwin's random mutation-natural selection cannot be the process through which life appeared and developed. All of the most important DNA in animals - the tool kit genes that determine structure and location - predate the Cambrian explosion, which means that natural selection had no chance to have any influence on their development. In the words of Prof. Carroll, the latest finding in the field of Evolutionary Development [Evo-devo] were "entirely unanticipated", call for "a complete rethinking of animal history", and have "forced biologists to rethink completely their picture of how forms evolve." When people have to 'rethink completely' what they believe about evolution, that means they were completely wrong.

Blogger Blade September 24, 2018 3:11 PM  

Did VD ever elaborate on the flaws of biology he has issues with? I studied bio in college, and didn't notice any obvious flaws or inconsistencies. Is he saying lamarkian evolution is better than darwinian evolution, or something?

Blogger Dirk Manly September 24, 2018 3:32 PM  

Blade.

How about NO evolution.

Blogger SirHamster September 24, 2018 4:10 PM  

Blade wrote:Did VD ever elaborate on the flaws of biology he has issues with? I studied bio in college, and didn't notice any obvious flaws or inconsistencies. Is he saying lamarkian evolution is better than darwinian evolution, or something?

VD didn't say anything about biology. His position is that Darwinian evolution does not stand on its own merits as a theory. This is demonstrated by the way its proponents continuously turn the discussion to "some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand instead."

Lamarkian evolution's merits or lack thereof do not change the feasibility of Darwinian evolution.

"Best we have" doesn't make Darwinian theory sound.

Blogger Lucas Evans September 24, 2018 4:35 PM  

I don't think evolution directly conflicts with intelligent design. Denying the existence of evolution is pretty silly. We don't have a complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms, but we have direct, recent examples. Lactose tolerance in certain human populations is a classic example of evolution.

Blogger Mark Stoval September 24, 2018 5:30 PM  

I was trained in math, and married a woman trained in biology. I studied the evolution question for decades on my own.

I came to the conclusion that intelligence does not arise from random chance. Life on earth is the product of some intelligence or some force that acts in an intelligent manner.

All hard, factual data points toward my conclusion. The problem for "science" is that if intelligent life arose via some intelligence then that leads us ultimately to God as first cause.

Can't have that now can we? /snark

Blogger Blade September 24, 2018 5:31 PM  

But that's nonsense. We clearly see life changing and evolving to become different. I know everybody here wants to immediately adopt VD's opinions with no thought, but denying any sort of evolution exists makes make you a lunatic. The majority of bilogists may be fools, but that does not mean their observations are wrong. If you object to darwinian evolution, please state your preferred alternative.

Blogger John Best September 24, 2018 5:52 PM  

Been having a rather low grade conversation on a forum today about whether psychology is science, it clearly isn't science as the scientific method doesn't come into it. Then they are saying things like being a sociopath or psychopath are genetic. All the people arguing with me hate God. So that always seems to be the reason why things are pushed and science is the argument they us, from abortion, genetic engineering, people being born gay or people being pedophiles. Whenever you mention God they lose it and get very triggered.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 24, 2018 6:02 PM  

"Denying the existence of evolution is pretty silly."

The word is intentionally used vaguely, and refers to multiple different things, most of which are false or contradictory to that which is observable. It is therefore more accurate to deny it entirely rather than to accept it entirely. The silly one is you.

"We don't have a complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms, but we have direct, recent examples."

Absolutely untrue.

"Lactose tolerance in certain human populations is a classic example of evolution."

No, it's an example of a degeneration that is situationally beneficial. Like airplane pilots with no legs being better able to withstand gravitational forces without losing consciousness.

In the case of lactose, the tolerance would be wasted energy in an environment in which lactose was not consumed as an adult, and the lactose tolerance is not an increase in information -- it is rather a loss of the information that would normally phase out lactose tolerance for adults. It is a form of neoteny caused by degenerative information loss.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 24, 2018 6:06 PM  

@63

"But that's nonsense. We clearly see life changing and evolving to become different."

Really?

When has ANYONE ever witnessed the origination of a new species during ANY time of recorded history?

Note: an anti-biotic resistant strain of XYZ bacteria vs non-resistant strains is no more a new species than dachshunds vs. other breeds of dogs. And there's little to no evidence that domesticated dogs are even a separate species from wolves.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 24, 2018 6:09 PM  

"But that's nonsense. We clearly see life changing and evolving to become different."

No, we can see genetics being expressed differently and adapting to certain situations.

The word "evolution" has two primary uses. One is "change", and the other, as in "an evolution", means "altered state".

Certainly change occurs. The word "evolution" is, however, consistently used in dishonest fashion. People say "you deny that evolution(change) occurs? Look at it right there!" when the example of someone denying "evolution" was actually them denying "perpetual improvement of a complex system by random processes".

To be perfectly clear, evolution as in "perpetual improvement of complex systems by random processes" is a clear and inarguable violation of the basic laws of thermodynamics, namely entropy, and thus utter nonsense. It's a modern fantasy cult which believes in Lady Luck as their creator deity, that somehow more can be consistently won than lost, which is absurd when juxtaposed with reality.

Blogger Michael Maier September 24, 2018 7:18 PM  

Blade wrote:But that's nonsense. We clearly see life changing and evolving to become different. I know everybody here wants to immediately adopt VD's opinions with no thought, but denying any sort of evolution exists makes make you a lunatic. The majority of bilogists may be fools, but that does not mean their observations are wrong. If you object to darwinian evolution, please state your preferred alternative.

"We do not know and neither do you. Because of logic and math."

There's your alternative.

Blogger DonReynolds September 24, 2018 7:28 PM  

Speaking only for myself, the difference between pseudo-science and science would seem to be important, so how the two are separated into the sheep and the goats, would also seem to be important.

Science is somewhat insecure. It requires constant verification, a certain lingering doubt, haunted by the belief that an even better explanation might come along later, even if that later is centuries later. Science is never settled and there is nothing sacred about science, because it is not a religion, and it is not heretical to challenge what is commonly accepted in science. It would be considered part of the healthy skepticism, that is very much a part of science. I would even say that science IS inquiry...it IS questioning and challenging. That is science. Scientific knowledge is always growing and extending and refining and improving on what was known before. Science may be the only thing that is truly evolutionary, yet we have "scientists" who deny science any evolutionary aspect.

Can I prove this assertion? Perhaps with two words....Issac Newton. Had Newton been elevated to unquestionable heights, there would never have been an Albert Einstein.

It would seem ONLY a pseudo-science can be born or created, full-grown and matured and whole and perfect in every way, unquestionable and fixed, perhaps even sacred.....where the most enlightened and complete authority on the subject is often the originator or the person who manages to popularize or profit the most by it. All those who follow can only bow and scrape, imitate and defend against all opponents of the original way and purpose, most especially those unfaithful and disloyal who would change it from within. There is your pseudo-science, which is not science at all, but a science topic made into a new religion.

Men built ships for thousands of years. It was always science that enabled them to build better ships than they had before, but it was always possible for men to build the same ships as those that had been "perfected" in the past.

Blogger Michael Maier September 24, 2018 9:18 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:Science is never settled and there is nothing sacred about science, because it is not a religion, and it is not heretical to challenge what is commonly accepted in science.



..... Since when? The history of science is littered with examples proving this assertion wrong.

Blogger Blade September 24, 2018 9:39 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Really?

When has ANYONE ever witnessed the origination of a new species during ANY time of recorded history?


Broccoli. Humans selectively bred broccoli, kale, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts into existence over several thousand years. Next you'll say that doesn't count either because humans had a hand in it, but you know it's nonsense. What you're saying is "show me examples of this event with these caveats which cannot happen in this time-frame, happening during this time-frame." That's incredibly dishonest and you know it.

Azure Amaranthine wrote:when the example of someone denying "evolution" was actually them denying "perpetual improvement of a complex system by random processes".

Where the hell did you get that definition from? No biologist would the term "improved" when talking about evolution as a whole. Do you disagree with the observation that genetic mutations and reshuffling are random? Do you also disagree that well-adapted traits are selected for by survival and reproduction? if not, then you must acknowledge that this directed process is done using randomization. It's really not that hard or controversial to grasp.

All the anti-evolution arguments I see in the comments here are either complete nonsense fueled by ignorance, or blatant dishonesty.

Blogger DonReynolds September 24, 2018 9:52 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:DonReynolds wrote:Science is never settled and there is nothing sacred about science, because it is not a religion, and it is not heretical to challenge what is commonly accepted in science.



..... Since when? The history of science is littered with examples proving this assertion wrong.


I know of no such history. The history of science is recorded as a series of discoveries, sometimes as theories, some of which prove durable and others are supplanted or replaced by new discoveries or theories. I know of no other history of science.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( it is the burden of Women to need to improve the Men around them. it is the burden of Men to need to ignore the Silly Bints ) September 24, 2018 10:15 PM  

42. Greg Hunt September 24, 2018 10:34 AM
Cornwall.



if you watch my referenced video, he mentions Cornwall and deprecates it.

which does NOT mean that it cannot be Cornwall, but which IS irrelevant to my point: International Trade has existed for literal millennia
...
and hasn't done a damn thing to stop a single war.

therefore, anyone who makes the 'International Trade Is An Instrument Of Peace' argument is lying their asses off.


71. Blade September 24, 2018 9:39 PM
Broccoli. Humans selectively bred broccoli, kale, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts into existence over several thousand years.



ah.

so your argument is that Negroes, Asiatics, Caucasians and Negritos are all different species.

you so racist.

Blogger Didas Kalos September 24, 2018 11:30 PM  

@ Blade So what you are saying is that humans took an oak tree and made broccoli out of it? Or even better : are you saying that humans took a frog and made broccoli. Please clarify.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 25, 2018 2:52 AM  

"Broccoli. Humans selectively bred broccoli, kale, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts into existence over several thousand years. Next you'll say that doesn't count either because humans had a hand in it, but you know it's nonsense."

Selective breeding is altering the expression of already present genes. It adds nothing from an information standpoint. In fact, it is usually deleterious to the organism in-and-of itself, due to the inbreeding required.

And, even if it did add new information, there is quite literally a human designer causing it. This argument is retarded. That even you can see the glaringly obvious flaw in your argument does not mean that it is not a flaw -- quite the contrary!

"Where the hell did you get that definition from? No biologist would the term "improved" when talking about evolution as a whole."

Yes they would, and yes they do. Some dictionaries actually include the word in their definitions o the term evolution, your monolithic ignorance to the contrary.

"if not, then you must acknowledge that this directed process is done using randomization."

You're hilarious. You try to attack my statement using "improved" because it might possibly imply an agent of improvement, and then you use the term "directed", which not only possibly but rather necessarily implies a director.

"It's really not that hard"

I would tend to agree, but you are evidence to the contrary.

"or controversial to grasp."

This entire page as well as your incompetent squealing to the contrary.

"All the anti-evolution arguments I see in the comments here are either complete nonsense fueled by ignorance, or blatant dishonesty."

You're boring. Your assumption that all other persons think and behave the way you are is incredibly mundane among imbeciles. Stop flailing about your own inadequacies in the deep end of the pool, so that the nice lifeguard can take you back to where you belong -- in the intellectual kiddie section. I promise you'll be more comfortable.

At any rate, you're too uninteresting, stupid, and/or mentally incoherent to be worth any more of my attention.

Blogger SirHamster September 25, 2018 2:39 PM  

Blade wrote:I know everybody here wants to immediately adopt VD's opinions with no thought, but denying any sort of evolution exists makes make you a lunatic.

Hey liar, personal shaming attacks don't work too well here.


If you object to darwinian evolution, please state your preferred alternative.

And here you provide an example of an "attempt to turn the discussion to ... some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand instead." This is done because of the weakness of evolutionary theory.

Objections to Darwinian evolution do not need to provide and justify alternatives to it.


Your attempts to distract from evolution's weaknesses by making personal attacks and changing the subject are so predictable that your behavior was described in the OP and re-quoted to you, and you still couldn't help yourself.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 25, 2018 5:48 PM  

@71

"Broccoli. Humans selectively bred broccoli, kale, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts into existence over several thousand years. Next you'll say that doesn't count either because humans had a hand in it, but you know it's nonsense. What you're saying is "show me examples of this event with these caveats which cannot happen in this time-frame, happening during this time-frame." That's incredibly dishonest and you know it."

None of those are NEW SPECIES.... and YOU know it.

Now that you've brought up dishonesty..

Selective cultivation for specific traits is NOT the creation of a new species, and no more than the the doberman pinschers is a new species after cross-breding rottweilers with greyhounds.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts