You Keep Using That Word

_{Barry Arrington

February 22, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The March for Science is billing itself as “nonpartisan.” Here’s the first sentence of the second paragraph of their website:

We are scientists and science enthusiasts. We come from all races, all religions, all gender identities, all sexual orientations, all abilities, all socioeconomic backgrounds, all political perspectives, and all nationalities.

Yeah, that could have been written by someone at the RNC.

Inigo Montoya might say:

The whole purpose of the March for Science is to squelch opposition to certain dogmas that are currently fashionable among scientific elites. And I bet many of those same scientists would say that science is a self-correcting, ideology-free enterprise that prizes skepticism as one of its most important ideals. Well, if the attitude on display by the organizers of the March for Science is what they mean by “skepticism,” Inigo Montoya might say . . .

Comments

Pindi, TSZ has served as a front for abusive sites and stalkers; I will never have anything to do with it. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

RVB8, I suggest rather that the party of progressivist chic and fellow travellers have lost power for the moment, just when they thought utter dominance was in their grasp. But their reaction is what is worrying -- an ugly resort to undermining peaceful transfer of power after a legitimate election. A fair mind would see that that is a far more direct threat than anything coming from the incoming US President. Linked, the now blatant breakdown of major media houses into purveyors of Plato's Cave shadow shows is also a far more clear and present danger, as this discredits the means by which a widely scattered democratic community can inform itself. I would go so far as to view the latter as betrayal and corruption from within. This breakdown is precisely what is driving suspicion towards the many nostrums promoted as wonderful cures of all ills, dressed up in a shiny lab coat. Science, proper is in danger, not from the imagined Fascist dictator in the White House (a delusion that is a strong sign of how ever so many have lost grounding in common sense and are on a hysterical, media-whipped march of folly . . . ), but from those who have subverted it into a handy stalking-horse for their various agendas. In particular, what do you think will be the logical conclusion of many when they finally understand what ideologically redefining science as applied atheism and progressivism dressed up in a lab coat is? Especially when, through street and institutional agit prop backed up by media shadow shows, that is embedded in education systems? From this perspective the prospective march is actually confirmation of the rot: proof that "Science" has been hijacked by narrow agendas with disproportional influence because they have wormed their way into strategic positions in key institutions and play at creating a self-reinforcing network of agendas of the left. I suggest, that a sober assessment of where serious reforms are necessary by way of serious conferences would have been a more worthwhile agenda. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

With this new administration there is a very real threat that GW, and good secondary Evolution education will be ignored. This is actually not as big a deal as many scientists suggest under US Constitutional law. I don't for a second pretend to be in any way Constitutionally as literate as the posters here. However for years, at least since the George Bush II admin ducked Kyoto, States have basically been ignoring the Fedral lead. Many States have environmental laws and commitments that put many European states to shame. 'States Rights', is an admirable part of your Constitution, and I have long been an admirer of it. I am sure it will go into overdrive with this admin, as State Legislatures and businesses simply ignore The Trump, and write their own legislation.rvb8_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

You guys should take this conversation over to TSZ. That's where the really active debates are taking place these days. There's a mixture of materialists and non-materialists there. Lots of very smart people.Pindi_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Why do committed materialists, Darwinist's and climate change alarmists turn to pretension, posturing and now parades to defend their so called scientific theories? It’s because they do not have the evidence to support their views.john_a_designer_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

JAD, sadly, you are quite likely to be right. I must ask, just who or what is so threatening science that a march is appropriate? Or, does Science, here really mean evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers (often secularist progressives, cultural marxists and fashionable narratives, etc.) dressed up in the lab coat, the better to claim to be the new Magisterium? Do these folks realise that at a certain point in Germany, if memory serves, meetings were held and scientists were lined up to denounce Einstein's "Jewish" ideas. His quiet reply was, if he was wrong just one scientist would have been enough. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Leftists are the most intolerant people I have ever met. Also the most unhappy.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

The secular progressive left loves to hide behind a façade of counterfeit tolerance. They love the mantra “race, class and gender,” and they love to talk about “inclusiveness” as long as you agree what they believe about race, class, gender and inclusiveness etc. If you don’t they will vilify, demonize and marginalize you by accusing you of being intolerant, and then justify themselves by adding that they “don’t tolerate intolerance,” so they are justified in discriminating against those who discriminate. In other words, their brand of tolerance is to only tolerate those with whom they agree, which is hardly what early proponents of freedom of thought, conscience and belief had in mind. I suspect that is the way the organizers behind this so-called march actually think. Any kind of thinking which does not agree with their so-called view of “settled science” will not be allowed.john_a_designer_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

As stated in the post, the website says:
We are scientists and science enthusiasts. We come from all races, all religions, all gender identities, all sexual orientations, all abilities, all socioeconomic backgrounds, all political perspectives, and all nationalities.
(emphasis added) Does anyone really believe they have members from every single country??? Sloppy use of language at least, but most probably self-delusion on parade. This is a "feel-good" statement which has no basis in objective reality. That fact is about an unscientific as one can get.JDH_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

I think they are playing a little loose with "all", too. You'd expect a science march to be more scientific. Oh, wait. Andrewasauber_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

In regards to Wolfe's fifth test of a theory to determine if it is scientific,,,
Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?
This is a particularly interesting failure of Darwinian evolution to think about. Scientific theories have a history of deepening man’s understanding of Nature, and thus providing man with beneficial technological breakthroughs because of that deepened understanding of nature (For instance, Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon). Evolution, unlike those other scientific theories, has completely failed on this account to foster research or to deliver technological breakthroughs:
“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).) “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000). “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)
In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs. On the other hand, Intelligent Design, far from hindering science as Darwinian evolution has done, is found to be a 'driver of science':
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html
All in all, unlike Intelligent Design, Darwinian evolution does not qualify as a ‘real science’ in any meaningful sense of the term ‘real science’, but is more realistically classified, (at least how Darwinists treat it), as a unfalsifiable pseudo-science. An unfalsifiable pseudo-science that is supported solely by widespread propaganda in the media, by intimidation and censorship in academia, and most importantly, by unrestrained imagination in the ‘art of story telling’ in the literature, i.e. a false 'narrative gloss' in the literature that gives the erroneous impression that Darwinism is scientific.
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin
Of supplemental note: Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions of the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use Atheistic Materialism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination. It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be. Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
To reiterate, given Evolution's dependency on sheer imagination and shunning of empirical falsification, it would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution, and Atheistic naturalism in general, have turned out to be. Verses:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, from the basic Theological premises that it itself is dependent on in order to be a 'science' in the first place, is that Darwinian evolution uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the scientific legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our minds to be able to comprehend that intelligibility.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day, Darwinists are still dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of their Darwinian claims:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
To reiterate the first sentences of this post
If the March for Science were truly standing up for scientific integrity, and standing against the dogmatic insertion of pseudo-scientific religion into science by religious fanatics, then the March for Science should, first and foremost, be marching against Darwinian evolution and standing up for Intelligent Design.
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

In regards to Wolfe's fourth test of a theory to determine if it is scientific,,,
Could scientists make predictions based on it?
Actually scientists have made predictions based on Darwinian theory. Unfortunately for Darwinists, all the major predictions of Darwinian evolution have turned out to be false.
Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism's Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA (Part 10 of 10 with links to the other nine problems) - Casey Luskin February 19, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_10_neo-091191.html Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Of related note, many Darwinists have claimed that Intelligent Design does not make testable predictions and is therefore not scientific, but that claim, like so many other claims from Darwinists, is false:
A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Moreover, empirical evidence and numerical simulations tell us that “Genetic Entropy”, i.e. the tendency of biological systems to drift towards decreasing complexity, and decreasing information content, holds true as an overriding rule for biological adaptations over long periods of time:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 - video (Behe - Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 – Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via Dr. John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
And whereas Darwinian evolution does not have any known physical law of the universe to rigidly base its math on (in fact it is almost directly contradicted by the second law), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can base its math on the 'Law of Conservation of Information':
Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].” Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a non-falsifiable pseudo-science.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.” – Dr Michael Behe The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. - per Cosmic Fingerprints
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

In regards to Wolfe's third test of a theory to determine if it is scientific,,,
Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)?
Karl Popper of 'falsifiability' fame,,,
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge Karl Popper's ‘Science as Falsification’ - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4
,,, Karl Popper of 'falsifiability' fame stated this in regards to Darwinian evolution,,
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)
Attacked by Darwinists for this criticism, Karl Popper recanted, but then in later interviews he reasserted that Darwinian Evolution is unfalsifiable:
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
Tom Bethell, who recently wrote 'Darwin's House of Cards', also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory.
Tom Bethell on Karl Popper's rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – video - 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352
In the minds of Darwinists, evidence is simply never allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory.
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter PhD.
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable by direct experimentation, as other overarching theories of science are, is because Darwinian evolution does not have a rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science have. A rigid mathematical basis that can be rigidly tested against in order to potentially falsify it.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
The main reason why no scientist has been able to develop a rigid mathematical basis for Darwinian evolution that can be tested against and potentially falsified is because there are no known physical laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there simply is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a rigid mathematical basis on:
“biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.” - Ernst Mayr - The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Here is an interesting reference that, (in spite of Darwinian evolution failing to have a mathematical basis to rigidly test against), falsifies Darwinian evolution anyway using the math of population genetics.
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to in order to rigidly base its math on, as other overarching theories of science have, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity/information can be easily had:
Video: Why Evolution is Different – Granville Sewell – February 22, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VL-23hyqAI Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell – May 2012 – article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/ The Common Sense Law of Physics Granville Sewell – March 2016 Excerpt: (The) “compensation” argument, used by every physics text which discusses evolution and the second law to dismiss the claim that what has happened on Earth may violate the more general statements of the second law, was the target of my article “Entropy, Evolution, and Open Systems,” published in the proceedings of the 2011 Cornell meeting Biological Information: New Perspectives (BINP). In that article, I showed that the very equations of entropy change upon which this compensation argument is based actually support, on closer examination, the common sense conclusion that “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.” The fact that order can increase in an open system does not mean that computers can appear on a barren planet as long as the planet receives solar energy. Something must be entering our open system that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example: computers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/the_common_sens102725.html
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

In regards to Wolfe's second test of a theory to determine if it is scientific,,,
Could other scientists replicate it?
Stephen Jay Gould argued that if it were possible to ‘rewind the tape of life’, the history of life would not repeat itself. 'The world would be unfamiliar, and most likely lack humans'. The reason Gould argued that he would expect a totally different outcome for life is because of 'randomness'. Completely free and unguided randomness, is held to be the driving creative force behind Darwinian evolution. In fact Richard Lenski himself, in his Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), held that the infamous citrate adaptation he observed was a non-repeatable contingent event and that it was therefore undeniable proof for Darwinian evolution. Yet, in an experiment Lenski did not take kindly to, Scott Minnich came along and falsified Lenski’s claim that it was Darwinian evolution by showing the adaptation was repeatable and that it was therefore not a random event,
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
Besides Minnich falsifying Lenski’s supposed proof of ‘non-repeatable’ Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution’ is also falsified by numerous instances of so called ‘convergent evolution’.
Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017 1. C4 photosynthesis. According to 'science' it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy! 2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to 'science' humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence! 3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing. 4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous. 5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?) 6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times! 7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds. 8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure. 9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males. Etc.. etc.. etc.. http://sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.fi/2017/02/claims-about-convergent-evolution-are.html
Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of unexpected ‘convergent evolution’:
Map Of Life – Simon Conway Morris http://www.mapoflife.org/browse/
In reality, the appeal to ‘convergent evolution’ by Darwinists, instead of being a realistic ‘scientific explanation’, reflects the unscientific nature of Darwinian evolution in that unexpected empirical findings are never allowed to falsify the supposed ‘scientific’ theory of Darwinian evolution:
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin February 9, 2015 Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,, Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. So what does this do to the main assumption of tree-building that biological similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor? With so many exceptions to the rule, one has to wonder if the rule itself holds merit.,,, - per ENV Darwinism Versus the Octopus: An Evolutionary Dilemma – Eric Metaxas – September 08, 2015 Excerpt: What’s the difference between evolutionary theory and an octopus? Well, one is a slippery, color-changing escape artist that can get out of any tough situation and the other is an aquatic invertebrate.,,, The key to this uncanny intelligence is the octopus’ so-called “alien” nervous system, brain, and eyes. But these features are not alien to the animal kingdom at all. In fact, they’re quite common in higher vertebrates. The octopus genome shares key similarities with ours, including the development of high-powered brains and “camera eyes” with a cornea, lens, and retina. Now here’s the problem for evolution: according to Neo-Darwinists, we’re not related to octopi—at least not within the last several hundred million years. That means all of these genes, complex structures, and incredible capabilities came about twice. The researchers who sequenced the octopus genome call this “a striking example of convergent evolution,” or the supposed tendency of unrelated creatures to develop the same traits in response to environmental pressures. Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying a miracle happened twice? But the octopus isn’t the only such miracle. “Convergent evolution” is all over nature, from powered flight evolving three times to each continent having its own version of the anteater. Think about that. As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature! But as Luskin argues, there’s a better explanation for a tentacled mollusk having a mammal’s brain and human eyes. And that explanation is common design by an intelligent Engineer. And like all good engineers, this this one reused some of His best designs. Now that explanation isn’t going to satisfy Darwinian naturalists. And they’ll probably keep on invoking “convergent evolution” when faced with impossible coincidences in nature. But hopefully knowing a more straightforward explanation leaves you forearmed—or should I said “eight-armed”? http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/darwinism-versus-the-octopus-an-evolutionary-dilemma.html
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

If the March for Science were truly standing up for scientific integrity, and standing against the dogmatic insertion of pseudo-scientific religion into science by religious fanatics, then the March for Science should, first and foremost, be marching against Darwinian evolution and standing up for Intelligent Design. Darwinian evolution simply does not qualify as a real science but is more realistically classified as a pseudo-scientific religion for atheists. Tom Wolfe, in his fairly recent book 'The Kingdom of Speech', stated:
"There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution... well... no... no... no... no... and no." - Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
To flesh these five standard tests out a little bit, in regards to the first test
Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it?
Dawkins infamously stated:
"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/dawkins_print.html
Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is also an atheist, concedes there are 'presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.'
“,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
James Shapiro, main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group "The Third Way", makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold's statement:
“The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
Likewise, in an exchange with me here on UD, Larry Moran also reluctantly conceded he had no observational evidence for Darwinian evolution:
Larry Moran, a professor of Evolutionary Biology, quoting Futuyma: “The theory of genetic drift … includes some of the most highly refined mathematical models in biology.” Me: “can you be kind enough to point us to the exact experiment that verified that those ‘highly refined mathematical models’ were actually talking about reality instead of just Darwinian pipe dreams?” Larry Moran: “That’s like asking to show how the mathematical models of physics predict the formation of Venus. Do you realize how silly that sounds?” Me: “Not nearly as silly as you saying that unguided material processes could EVER build a flagellum given all the time in the universe. Which is still yet orders of magnitude not as silly as you saying unguided material processes created your ‘beyond belief’ brain.
And indeed, no one can seem to find an example of Darwinian evolution generating a completely new gene or protein, much less a molecular machine. In fact, as far as observational, experimental, evidence is concerned, Darwinian evolution is falsified:
Michael Behe - The observed (1 in 10^20) 'Edge of Evolution' - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide “It turns out once you get above the number six [changes] -- and even at lower numbers actually -- but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth.” - Doug Axe PhD. on the extreme Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.html
On the other hand, although exceedingly difficult to achieve because of the complexity being dealt with, Intelligent Design has been accomplished in biology:
Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design! - Fazale Rana - June 2011 Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required: "...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2" If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely? In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs (protein-protein interactions) requires intelligent agency to arise. http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html
bornagain77_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

"all abilities" Stupid people included, *obviously*. or not? Andrewasauber_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Yes, Barry, I would agree that the concerns are more associated with the left than the right. But still, is there any part of that that the RNC would feel it wouldn't want to support (or - if I may be unduly cynical about politics in general - at least look like its supporting)? If you want to look at this another way, wouldn't making it clear that you do not support this statement suggest that you are a bigot (towards one group or another)? I'm sure that a lot of members of the RNC are not bigots, so wouldn't it be helpful to make this clear?Bob O'H_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Bob, If you cannot recognize the political tenor of that sentence, you are quite hopeless. I suspect you do and are only pretending not to. Either way, rising to your bait would be counterproductive.Barry Arrington_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Yeah, that could have been written by someone at the RNC.
I'm curious - what part of the quote do you think the RNC would object to?Bob O'H_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply