Darwinism Intelligent Design

Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

Spread the love

He offers seven reasons for rational dissent and doubt:

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.
2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.
3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.
4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.
5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.
6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.
7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli

He offers a vid to back up these statements:

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: Science fiction writer is not a Darwin fan Vox Day: Notice that the evolutionary skeptic’s position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position.

The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd Hat tip: Ken Francis Francis is author, along with Theodore Dalrymple, of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

53 Replies to “Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

  1. 1
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Vox’s brutally thorough and thoroughly brutal seven-point fisking is rather unique in that it doesn’t require nor attempt an assaying of the biochemistry of life or genetics, or cosmology or statistics, but is based purely on history and logic.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    This guy presents some really solid logic that I never thought of before

    What is the statistical mutational rate was amazing

    But he is very solid and I have noticed a trend a lot of mathematicians aren’t Darwinian evolutionist, he fits that trend

  3. 3
    EricMH says:

    Darwinian evolution is obviously false from a mathematical perspective. No idea why it has stuck around so long, except as an atheist religious dogma.

  4. 4
    Tom Robbins says:

    Yes, this is a very beautiful in their simplicity – things that most of us have touched on, but typically ID spends a ton of time in the detail. Outstanding in his insight, but I think he fails to give credit where credit is do. Also what I heard as a slight against Mike Behe was surprising and unpleasant to me, and it sounded like he was again equating ID with Creationists. AND BTW, if you have ever watched Creationist scientists productions, or read their papers, I think it is more than fair to say they have done about as much research and have the same levels of faith as their atheists counterparts that support neo-darwinism real investigation and science to back up their claims than neo-darwinists that tell a lot of their own “just so stories” and called it research. Modern creationism studies DNA, the fossile record, keeps up on the latest genetic research, all kinds of evidence based logic – they get off in the weeds when they try to fit data into a literal interpretation of the bible, but modern day creationists have come across arguments that have given traditional evolutionists a fit, and forced them to explain themselves.

    So I get why he is trying to distance himself , but I did not enjoy what I perceived as a dismissal of Behes work.

    Also, I think the only way he would be able to collect these very logical and high level points, is through reading works by ID advocates, AND even creationists scientists critiques of Darwinism.

    I doubt he found this criticism and these facts all from non-ID sorts. I believe he simply stated things much more simply and from a new angle – or at least the first person I have seen to bring And irreducible complexity, in my opinion is a brilliant AXIOM for Biology,, and is part of ID’s criteria for determining design for certain, and although this Axiom is extremely simple to understand, but has some very complex descriptions of complex systems to make his point in his new book.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Vox’s unanswered question to the biologist he was debating (at the 20:00 minute mark):

    “What is the average rate of evolutionary mutation?,,, What is the average rate of evolution to put it most simply?”
    https://youtu.be/K9riDSpOvoI?t=1192

    What Vox was looking for in his questioning of the biologist was a universal “law of evolution” that could be scientifically tested against. All scientific theories are mathematically built on some type of universal law. Yet there simply is no law of evolution within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon.

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “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.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: 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.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, 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

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “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.”

    “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.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no known ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Evolution vs Entropy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaSE-Q8nDU

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution has no known universal law to appeal to, as every other rigorous and testable theory of science has, then Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a testable science in the normal sense of being a testable, ‘potentially falsifiable’ theory of science. In short, there is no rigid ‘falsification criteria’ (K. Popper) for Darwinism based on a universal law underpinning the theory of evolution.

    “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

    Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, basically tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science,,,

    A Philosophical Question… Does Evolution have a Hard Core?
    Some Concluding Food for Thought
    In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the disruptive effects that its application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24)
    “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”
    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    ,,,although Lakatos tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science, Lakatos was at least brave enough to state that a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena. And Lakatos was also brave enough to state that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”

    Imre Lakatos – Pseudoscience – Darwin’s Theory
    According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it:
    “A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it….The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one.”
    See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978.
    Lakatos’s own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky’s planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko’s biology, Niels Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin’s theory.
    Darwin’s theory
    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that
    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions..”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience

    Lakatos also went on to state that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosoph.....ranscript/

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”

    Thomas Kuhn
    Excerpt: Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ku?n/; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

    Inquiry-Based Science Education — on Everything but Evolution – Sarah Chaffee – January 22, 2016
    Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02534.html

    As Vox pointed out in his video, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.., are all ad hoc ‘epicycle’ theories that indicate a failure in the core theoretical framework of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain a certain phenomena.
    As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”

    Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....uples.html

    In fact, all the various ‘alternate’ theories to Darwinism, posited on James Shapiro’s “The Third Way” website, are in reality all ad hoc ‘epicycle’ theories that indicate a failure in the core theoretical framework of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain a certain phenomena.

    The Third Way – Shapiro and company
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

    The following article and video show why all these alternate ‘epicycle’ models, posited by Shapiro and others, also fail as an adequate explanation for the information found ubiquitously within biological life.

    Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism – Stephen C. Meyer – April 25, 2014
    Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution — theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,,
    I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life — such as those that arise in the Cambrian period.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....84871.html

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

    As to the specific ‘predictability’ falsification criteria set out by Lakatos and Kuhn (and mentioned by Vox in his video), here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the core failed predictions that go to the heart of Darwinian theory.

    Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/

    In fact, Darwinism is so bad as a scientific theory that it is able to explain, (i.e. predict), completely contradictory results with equal ease.

    “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 – Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine – December 2, 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rning.html

    And as William James Murray quipped in the following quote, “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? – Evolution explains everything. –”

    “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?
    Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. ORFan genes? Evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution.”
    – Evolution explains everything. –
    William J Murray

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    And even though Darwinian evolution is not mathematically structured on a universal law so as to make it easily susceptible to empirical falsification (Popper), Darwinian evolution can, nevertheless, be rigorously falsified. It just takes a bit more effort to do so than usual.

    Charles Darwin himself set out some falsification criteria for his theory. One example he set out is that Darwin stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189

    And that criteria for falsification, that Darwin himself set out, has now been meet by both Michael Behe and Douglas Axe.
    In his book “The Edge of Evolution”, Dr. Behe estimated, from observational evidence, that the limit for what Darwinian evolution could be expected to accomplish, in terms of building up functional complexity, was an event with the probability of happening of 1 in 10^20.

    “the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    “The number I cite, one parasite in every 10^20 for de novo chloroquine resistance, is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is a statistic, a result, a data point. (Furthermore, it is not my number, but that of the eminent malariologist Nicholas White.) I do not assume that “adaptation cannot occur one mutation at a time”; I assume nothing at all. I am simply looking at the results. The malaria parasite was free to do whatever it could in nature; to evolve resistance, or outcompete its fellow parasites, by whatever evolutionary pathway was available in the wild. Neither I nor anyone else were manipulating the results. What we see when we look at chloroquine-resistant malaria is pristine data — it is the best that random mutation plus selection was able to accomplish in the wild in 10^20 tries.”
    – Michael Behe
    https://evolutionnews.org/2007/11/rebuttal_to_paul_gross_review/

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans).
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Moreover, in 2014 Dr. Behe’s 1 in 10^20 statistical observation has now been born out empirically.

    Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014
    Excerpt: In The Edge of Evolution I cited the development of chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum as a very likely real-life example of this phenomenon. The recent paper by Summers et al. confirms that two specific mutations are required to confer upon the protein PfCRT the ability to pump chloroquine, which is necessary but may not be sufficient for resistance in the wild.
    *Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations where at least one step consists of intermediates that are deleterious, plus a modest selection coefficient of, say, 1 in 10^3 to 1 in10^4. Those factors will get you in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^20.)
    *Any adaptive biological feature requiring a mutational pathway of twice that complexity (that is, 4-6 mutations with the intermediate steps being deleterious) is unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth.,,,
    What’s more, Nicholas White’s factor of 1 in 10^20 already has built into it all the ways to evolve chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum. In the many malarial cells exposed to chloroquine there have surely occurred all possible single mutations and probably all possible double mutations — in every malarial gene — yet only a few mutational combinations in pfcrt are effective. In other words, mutation and selection have already searched all possible solutions of the entire genome whose probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, including mutations to other genes. The observational evidence demonstrates that only a handful are effective. There is no justification for arbitrarily inflating probabilistic resources by citing imaginary alternative evolutionary routes.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89161.html

    In regards to this empirical validation of Dr, Behe’s estimate, in the following video Dr. Behe comments, “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Limits 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.”
    27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    As well, Douglas Axe, as these following references make clear, has done work falsifying Charles Darwin’s claim that all of life can be explained by reference to “numerous, successive, slight modifications”. Specifically, Dr. Axe found that “the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds – Doug Axe – 2004
    Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

    Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
    Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html

    Douglas Axe – The Research (Part 2) 11-5-2016 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRj8vUMp03o&index=11&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8

    Dr. Axe’s work falls in line with other research verifying the fact that functional proteins are extremely rare. As this following reference makes clear, all the ‘realistic’ estimates for finding functional proteins are astronomically high:

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: these odds are impossible.,,,
    Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery.
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter PhD – September 25, 2015
    Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,,
    Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.”
    Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein.
    A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    These requirements dwarf the resources evolution has at its disposal. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70.
    Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ersus.html

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to how his work, and the work of others. falsify Charles Darwin’s claim, in the following video Dr. Axe states: “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
    – Douglas Axe – 200 Years After Darwin – What Didn’t Darwin Know? – (5:30 minute mark) video – Part 2 of 2
    https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

    Charles Darwin also offered this falsification of his theory

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

    And indeed, this particular falsification criteria from Darwin himself has been meet on several different levels,

    Several examples of of cooperative behavior that directly contradict and/or falsify the foundational Darwinian premise of ‘survival of the fittest’
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/getting-at-what-we-mean-by-truth/#comment-670690

    And, in regards to the sudden appearance of the many unique fossil forms in the Cambrian explosion, Charles Darwin himself stated: “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

    “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 308

    Stephen Meyer took up Darwin’s challenge and, building on Dr. Axe’s work on the rarity of functional proteins, (as well as the work of many others), wrote a book entitled “Darwin’s Doubt”. In that book Dr. Meyer demonstrates the insurmountable difficulty of extrapolating the neo-Darwinian mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as a explanation for the Cambrian Explosion:

    “In light of Doug Axe’s number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?”
    Stephen Meyer – 46:19 minute mark – Darwin’s Doubt – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778

    video – Darwin’s Doubt – recorded March 7, 2017 – In this webinar, Dr. Stephen Meyer will tell the story of the mystery surrounding this (Cambrian) explosion of animal life – a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information – stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells – to building animal forms. Meyer will show that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.
    http://foclonline.org/webinar-.....%99s-doubt

    Thus all of Charles Darwin’s main falsification criteria that he himself put forth have now been met. Yet, despite the fact that each of Darwin’s own falsification criteria have been met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.)

    Moreover, as if the preceding were not bad enough, Natural Selection itself,

    Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    https://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

    ,, natural selection itself, Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame, has now been shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed “Designer substitute’ that Darwin had falsely imagined it to be.

    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/pm.....MC4573302/

    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.
    – per biologicinstitute

    As Dr. Richard Sternberg states in the following video, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Even many leading Darwinists, such as Larry Moran, readily acknowledge that Natural Selection is now falsified by population genetics as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’.
    Without Natural Selection, Darwinists are, basically, now reduced to arguing, with their appeal to Neutral Theory, that pure chance, all by it’s lonesome, produced all the elegant Design we see around us in life.
    In the following article Larry Moran quotes Austin Hughes who states, ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    “many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection”
    Michael Lynch – The Origins of Genome Architecture, intro

    “a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance”
    Mae Wan Ho – Beyond neo-Darwinism – Evolution by Absence of Selection

    Thus, with Natural selection being tossed by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by empirical evidence), as the supposed explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from population genetics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in pervasively throughout life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.
    To call such a move on the part of Darwinists disingenuous would be an understatement.

    Thus, all of Charles Darwin’s falsification criteria have been met and even Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame. Natural Selection itself, has now been falsified.

    The Lord’s Day, Meet Darwin Day… and Shudder – February 10, 2017
    Excerpt: As he told geologist Charles Lyell, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it require miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”
    https://spectator.org/the-lords-day-meet-darwin-day-and-shudder/

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    A fuller treatment of all of the preceding falsifications can be found here:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    One more final note,,, Perhaps my favorite falsification of Darwinian theory comes from mathematics. Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some kind of transcendent “Platonic” realm,

    Platonic World vs Physical World
    https://i2.wp.com/abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif

    Mathematical Platonism
    Excerpt: Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

    ,,, and although every rigorous theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place,

    “No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically.”
    – Leonardo da Vinci

    ,,, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

    What is the difference between naturalism and materialism?
    Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,
    Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view.
    Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition – materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function.
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

    There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought.

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

    ,,,the phrase ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’ comes to mind in regards to this situation that Darwinists find themselves in regards to the immaterial realm of mathematics.

    As David Berlinski states, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Of note: ‘The word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘logos’. Logos happens to be the root word that we derive our modern word ‘logic’ from.

  10. 10
    doubter says:

    I’m an ID proponent, but I still have to point out what appears to be a serious misstatement by Vox Day in his list. It presumably will be pounced on by the Darwinians. I don’t see how he can claim in (4) “The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.”, when evolutionary computing and evolutionary algorithms have been very successfully used for years in engineering by many engineers. What Day should be pointing out is that evolutionary computing has been almost exclusively limited to optimizing structures of various sorts, never inventing intricate irreducibly complex mechanisms. It is fundamentally incapable of doing that sort of creative engineering.

    Many textbooks and papers on various limited engineering applications have been published. Examples include “Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications”. This was published more than twenty years ago (at https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540620211).

    Introduction: “Evolutionary algorithms are general-purpose search procedures based on the mechanisms of natural selection and population genetics. They are appealing because they are simple, easy to interface, and easy to extend. This volume is concerned with applications of evolutionary algorithms and associated strategies in different fields of engineering…..”
    Sample chapters:
    – Genetic Engineering and Design Problems
    – The Generation of Form Using an Evolutionary Approach
    – Evolutionary Optimization of Composite Structures

    A paper, “Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained Engineering Problems”, at https://cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zbyszek/Papers/eng.pdf .
    Abstract
    “Evolutionary computation techniques have been receiving increasing attention regarding their potential
    as optimization techniques for complex problems. Recently these techniques were applied in the area
    of industrial engineering; the most-known applications include scheduling and sequencing in manufacturing systems, computer-aided design, facility layout and location problems, distribution and transportation problems, and many others.
    ……………….
    This general discussion is followed by three test case studies: truss structure optimization
    problem, design of a composite laminated plate, and the unit commitment problem. These are typical
    highly constrained engineering problems and the methods discussed here are directly transferrable to
    industrial engineering problems.”

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Of interest is Vox Day’s free for download answer to new atheism, The Irrational Atheist: http://milobookclub.com/mart/TIA_free.pdf KF

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Doubter: genetic and evolutionary algorithms are paradigms of design in action, through incremental improvement to a well behaved model. This at best corresponds to so-called microevolution, it is irrelevant to body plan origin by blind watchmaker mechanisms and it is even more irrelevant to origin of cell based life on same. KF

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: There was an attempted science of evolution — eugenics.

  14. 14
    EricMH says:

    On the one hand Vox Day dismisses evolution because of shoddy evidence. On the other hand he claims in his 16 Alt Right principles:

    14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

    If evolution is not true, then there isn’t anything special about preserving a specific race. One’s skin color and genetic makeup is their least important characteristic. Much more important are things like culture and virtue, which he’d realize if he’s actually read much of the great works of western literature. The emphasis on race is part of the Darwinian legacy. Before white people were colonized by the Romans they were just a bunch of warring tribal people living in the hills, engaging in such time honored traditions such as paganism, cannibalism and human sacrifice.

    Additionally, if evolution is false, then the most likely theory is there was originally only one “race” and the multiple races we see today is a devolution, such as we have so many dog breeds today due to specialized breeding of original dog stock, most of which would quickly perish in the wild.

    This sort of inconsistent thinking seems odd, and I notice it a lot in “alt right” writing.

  15. 15
    EricMH says:

    It turns out his point #14 is a reference to something called “fourteen words”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day#White_supremacy

    which was a slogan of a white supremacist terrorist group called The Order modeled on a group from the Turner Diaries. Members of The Order murdered a Jewish talk show host Alan Berg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

    Due to Vox Day’s apparent support for the actual racist elements of the alt-right, I’d say even though he make good points regarding evolution, he’s not really a person the ID movement wants to align itself with.

  16. 16
    EricMH says:

    Also it’s hilarious the anti-semitic white supremacists in the alt-right who identify as Christian. Are they not aware the founder of Christianity was both Jewish and non-white??? They may be members of Mensa and have astronomical IQs, but such people do not seem to be very smart.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric at 14, my respect for Vox just plummeted. Racism is part and parcel with Darwinism not Design.

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    From Darwin to Hitler – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013
    Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology.
    http://www.csustan.edu/history.....hought.pdf

    But then again Vox pretty much dissed design, particularly Behe, at the beginning of his video. So I’m glad that he dissed design and Behe now that it has come out that he harbors, at least, racist tendencies if not outright racism.

    Moreover Racism, despite the fact that Democrats try to label anyone as a racist who dares disagree with them on any particular policy issue, has a long history in the Democratic party. Republicans, on the other hand, have a long history of fighting racism.

    Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (Dinesh D’Souza Interview)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NLjYmMKwgs

    Dinesh D’Souza LIVE at Yale University
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5slRBGv_88

    The only difference today with Democrats, in their use of racism to try to divide people, is that today it is the white race that is constantly denigrated and marginalized instead of black people and other races being denigrated and marginalized by the Democratic party. And irony of irony, the constant false charge of racism against whites from Democrats is exactly the tool that Democrats are trying to use to create a racial division in this country that, for the most part save for on the fringes, does not exist. It is a deceptive, sinister, and twisted type of racism that the Democrats are promoting today. A constant false accusation of Racism against white people that seeks to (re)divide the American people along racial lines instead of uniting them once again as one people, i.e. as Americans!

    For prime example, the Main Stream Media constantly harps on how terrible of a racist that President Donald Trump is (and how terribly racist his supporters are for that matter). Yet the plain undeniable fact of the matter is that if President Trump is a racist he is, by far, the worst racist President to ever exist.

    Economic gains show Trump is terrible at being a racist – 2018
    Let’s start with President Donald Trump. He is without a doubt the worst racist ever. Oops. I guess you thought I meant Trump is a terrible racist. Nope. I mean Trump is terrible at being a “racist.” Awful. The worst ever.
    After all, would a racist create the lowest black unemployment ever? Or the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever? Or the lowest female unemployment in 65 years? Or the lowest youth unemployment in 50 years?
    I’m betting we are also experiencing the lowest gay and Muslim unemployment ever. Everyone is doing great in the Trump economy — especially all the groups Trump supposedly hates.
    Racists must be steaming mad. The KKK must be sick to their stomachs. Nazis must be throwing darts at Trump’s face. Real racists have to be longing for the days of President Barack Obama, because his policies actually destroyed opportunity for black people. Obama’s policies were historically bad for minorities, women, gays and young people.
    But Trump? Trump is the definition of a “reverse racist,” because he’s making life better for all the people liberals claim he hates. Black business ownership is up 400 percent in the past year. Oh, the pain. The misery. This man is killing us.
    Trump is the best thing to ever happen to black people, Hispanic people, women, young people, gays and even Muslims. Everyone is benefiting from his “racism.” Trump is proving prosperity knows no color.
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/wayne-allyn-root/economic-gains-show-trump-is-terrible-at-being-a-racist/

    Yep, Trump the racist President, the worst racist leader to ever exist on earth. 🙂

    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

  18. 18
    EricMH says:

    I’ve heard the Republican party was initially formed to free the slaves, while there used to be (still is?) great overlap between Democrat and KKK leadership. Unfortunately, now we have David Duke promoting Trump and outright Nazis elected to Republican office.

    The communist playbook is to divide and conquer, and primarily through identity politics. Racism is the new class warfare.

    While his policies are beneficial to other races, much more so than Democrat policies, Trump definitely has sketchy connections with racists like Duke. Plus, his father-in-law is a card carrying communist. So, worst of both worlds are connected to Trump. Not a great thing.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    EricMH, that Nazis would be considered a right wing group is confused at best, outright deception at worst. Socialist is in their name, i.e. “National Socialism”, for crying out loud. ,,, Watch this video for a little more background info into that confusion.

    Dinesh D’Souza LIVE at Yale University
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5slRBGv_88

    If you want to charge that President Trump ‘has sketchy connections with racists like Duke’, and that he is therefore racist, you might do better that just make accusations? After all Obama had a ‘sketchy’ picture taken with Farrakhan

    Hidden photo of Obama and Farrakhan released in new book
    Hazel Trice Edney Jan 29, 2018
    http://www.phillytrib.com/news.....4acea.html

    Should I now claim that Obama was a racist because of that ‘sketchy’ picture with Farrakhan ? ,,, Of course not. We look to Obama’s actions instead of his ‘sketchy’ connections.

    Hopefully Eric, you can now see how easily tenuous connections can be blown out of proportion to support false and misleading allegations.

    Bottom line, according to Trump’s actions on the economy, not his ‘sketchy’ connections, if Trump is a racist, he is the worst racist ever!

  20. 20
    EricMH says:

    @BA77, yes Obama definitely had really bad connections with racists and terrorists like Ayers from the Weather Underground group that tried to bomb members of the US military. He also appointed pedophiles to be in charge of sex ed for the country. Plus, he also voted for some of the most pro-abortion legislation, similar to what NY recently legalized. So, Obama is not a good guy either.

    And yes, there is great irony in Nazis joining the Republican party and Democrats calling Republicans fascists, since fascism is socialism.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Despite Obama’s sketchy past in regards to racism, I’m just not buying the Obama and Trump are racist bigots line EricMH. I tend to give our presidents a measure of grace. They may make mistakes, they are human after all, but I have to give them the benefit of a doubt that they are trying their best with their God-given abilities to do as they best see fit for ALL Americans, not just a certain race of Americans.

  22. 22
    EricMH says:

    @BA77, that’s a good point. They should ultimately be judged based on their actions. We cannot know their heart. But, one action they both should take, and have not, is disavowing communist, terrorist and racist connections. I am quite surprised Trump is allowed to be President and have the required access to classified information given a member of his family is a registered communist. The Republicans appropriately made a huge deal out of Hillary’s use of personal servers for storing classified information. One of my friends was denied clearance just because his father-in-law is a Chinese citizen.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    So a family member being a registered communist is enough to disqualify someone from being President of the United States in your book? You do realize that Brennan, the former chief spook in the CIA, voted for a communist in the 70’s don’t you?

    But then again, seeing Brennan’s present efforts on MSNBC in trying to undermine our current president, you may have a point. 🙂

    All kidding aside, we can’t choose our family members (I’m sure some of my family members are not too proud of me).. Moreover, right after you rightfully admitted. “They should ultimately be judged based on their actions” you, none-the-less, fall back on trying to cast guilt by association. ,, That is not consistent reasoning!

    But if we look at Trump’s current actions, as even you admitted we ought to do in forming our judgments, then Trump is the worst ‘Putin puppet’ to ever come along:

    President Trump is tougher on Russia in 18 months than Obama in eight years
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight

    Not to mention Trump’s slashing of government regulations over business and industry, which is the very antithesis of the Communist/Socialist model.

    All in all, as Clinton once said, “It’s the economy stupid”. And in that regards, Trump, despite the constant assault on his character by the fake news media, is doing a rather fine job in bringing jobs back to America. And everybody in America, no matter what their race, benefits from that.

  24. 24
    EricMH says:

    @BA77, the associations they pick are actions. He chose to marry his wife knowing her father is a communist. So, Trump did choose his family members, in this case. And I’d totally be in favor of kicking Brennan out of the CIA, and locking him up to boot. Communists are taking over our country from the inside. They literally run the Democrat party, having taken it over in the 90s after removing the prohibition against communists in the party. Just a generation ago we were locked in a Cold War with the USSR, and the communists killed hundreds of millions of people over the past century! In addition, they were the first to legalize abortion, and communist countries currently lead the world in abortion rates, only equaled by the USA. There is something much more sinister about communism than mere economic policy, so much so that the Catholic Church claims Mary specifically came to earth to warn us about the “Russian error” right before the Bolshevik revolution.

  25. 25
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    There was an attempted science of evolution — eugenics.

    Referencing eugenics to try to discredit evolution does not make any sense. Eugenics is scientifically sound. It is nothing more than artificial selection conducted on humans. Scientific theories are amoral. Morality and ethics don’t come into play until we develop methods to test the theory.

  26. 26
    EricMH says:

    @BB, is there evidence that eugenics is scientifically sound? Historically, my understanding is it has merely served as a scientific sounding pretext for bigotry. If ID is correct, then eugenics cannot have a significant impact on human prosperity, since it is mind and not genes that is paramount for human flourishing.

    Sanford’s work on genetic entropy has shown there is no eugenic model that can effectively halt the degradation of the genome. To have any practical benefit each woman has to have something like thousands and thousands of offspring with only a few survivors, and even then the benefit is miniscule.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Yeah right Eric, get real! I seriously doubt that you would have ever turned down marrying Melania Trump if you ever had the chance to marry her, no matter what her father was.

    Melania Trump
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2019/01/25/melania2_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqsg9thOkvYqrruAbUVB4MBa8VRkFRlk2ArYs5C02HBp0.PNG?imwidth=1400

    Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her is not a man!

    Anyways. I’m done with this conversation, have a good day!

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    Referencing eugenics to try to discredit evolution does not make any sense.

    What? “The survival of the fittest” was the concept used to justify eugenics. It is just a statement of fact. And evolution by means of blind and mindless processes doesn’t have any credit to begin with.

    Eugenics is scientifically sound.

    What does that mean?

    It is nothing more than artificial selection conducted on humans.

    Defective people selecting and culling is never a good thing.

  29. 29
    hazel says:

    ba writes, “Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her [Melania Trump] is not a man!

    Wow, what a thing to say! No matter how loving or smart or kind or personable or interesting she might or might not be, she’s hot, so any “red-blooded” man would marry her!

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    You added, “No matter how loving or smart or kind or personable or interesting she might or might not be,”

    I did not put those factors in YOU did!. Of course if Melania had a unpleasant personality like you do Hazel, I certainly would NEVER marry her. 🙂 But Melania is, from what I can tell, all those things that you listed on top of being very beautiful.

    But to deny that being drop dead gorgeous is a major factor for men is to live in a fantasy land. But then again, you do tend to argue for atheistic propositions, thus fantasy land is apparently your home! Thus explaining why you would argue, against what is blatantly obvious for all to see, that beauty is not a major factor for men.

  31. 31
    Brother Brian says:

    EricMH

    @BB, is there evidence that eugenics is scientifically sound? Historically, my understanding is it has merely served as a scientific sounding pretext for bigotry.

    I think the motives behind eugenics was more nuanced that just bigotry. Yes, bigotry was definitely involved, but a healthy does of ignorance about genetics was also involved.

    We could completely eliminate genetic linked diseases like sickle cell, tay-sachs, Huntington’s, haemophilia, etc. by either sterilizing individuals who carry the genes before they can reproduce, or aborting them in the womb. The science behind this is rock solid. But just because the science behind an action is scientifically sound does not mean that it is morally or ethically sound.

  32. 32
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Any red-blooded man who would turn down marrying her is not a man!

    Anyone who would marry just because of a woman’s looks is dog paddling in the shallow end of the gene pool.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    “Anyone who would marry just because of a woman’s looks”

    Read post 30 for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.

  34. 34
    EricMH says:

    @BB, yes, that’s a good point. We could eliminate specific genetic diseases through eugenics. Perhaps we can also use gene editing, which seems much more ethically sound, as long as it doesn’t require embryo selection.

  35. 35
    Brother Brian says:

    EricMH@34, but just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. Those are questions that society as a whole must decide on. It is easy to say that genetic editing to eliminate lethal genetic diseases would be a good thing. But where do you draw the line? Haemophilia is terrible, but people survive with it. What about diabetes? Myopia? If anything is a slippery slope, this is it.

  36. 36
    EricMH says:

    @BB is there some ethical problem with genetic editing? Seems alright to me. I understand the problem with eliminating human life through embryo selection, or violating natural law by sterilizing people. But gene editing seems pretty innocuous in of itself. In fact, it seems the unethical option is to prohibit gene editing if it can be done without loss of life and in a responsible manner.

  37. 37
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Read post 30 for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.

    Read post 27, the one that I was responding to, for clarity. Read very slowly if it helps.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    OK, I re-read comment 27 and there isn’t anyone saying to marry her just for her looks. However, I do see where thread hijackers could try to slip that in- you know, to poison the well.

  39. 39
    Brother Brian says:

    EricMH, did your comment at 36 cross with the one I made at 35? Or did that one not address the issue?

  40. 40
    EricMH says:

    @BB it was in response to 35. I’m unaware of the ethical problem with gene editing.

  41. 41
    Brother Brian says:

    EricMH, the ethics would be with respect to what type of editing you are doing. I agree that I don’t see any ethical issues with editing to eliminate genetic diseases. But what about editing to change things like intelligence, skin colour, hight, muscular development, gender, etc..? At some point I suspect that you would get into some pretty serious philosophical and theological issues.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    The year 6565 is the year “you’ll be able to pick your son, your daughter, too, from the bottom of a long glass tube. (yeah)” 😎

  43. 43
    Brother Brian says:

    There is a Zager and Evans fan in our midst.

  44. 44
    AaronS1978 says:

    Really not sure if that type of gene editing is even possible, certainly not at this point, maybe for certain one to one genes, but for things like intellegence, even personality traits are dependent on a myriad of things, this includes shape of the gene, interplay with other genes, the cell containing the genes, both uterine and external environments, mutations, mutations caused and effected by the previously mentioned, and finally removal of a gene can have long term and unforeseen consequences.

    Plus it seems we can only remove genes at this point, in a previous post “creating more moral humans” I do believe there is no such thing as a super moral gene we can add, or turn the volume up on. I think the only way we could honestly do anything like that would be to remove genes that might lead to bad behavior, (again you will have a defective human very probably) and POSSIBLY make good behavior feel better to do, (but again this might lead to other things feeling terrible to do that wouldn’t be a bad behavior and other unforeseen consequences.)

  45. 45
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978 Yes, we are still a long way away from significant use of gene editing for effective gene therapy. But probably not as far away as some may think. I mentioned changing gender as an example above because this would require exchanging the Y chromosome with the X chromosome. Doing this on human embryos would raise some pretty significant ethical issues.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26485770

  46. 46
    AaronS1978 says:

    No I absolutely agree, ethical issues with that are profound, for me it almost starts with an instinctual disgust with it (how that’s possible not sure evolution wouldn’t have given me a gene to hate gene editing it’s blind and this is new)

    Secondly this risks are insane and can have a permanent negative impact on us as a species, it devalues us as humans and obsoletes our individuality, it inserts bias into something that was more of a lottery, the lottery was equal in a way to all, this new bias can be good, but it can be far more evil, and given our own understanding of our human nature I have no faith we would use that type of power responsibly.

  47. 47
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978, the technology itself doesn’t scare me. The potential benefits are huge. However, how we use this and any technology always comes with a risk.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    OK, look- “The Island of Dr. Moreau” is neither a documentary nor a “how to” guide.

  49. 49
    Brother Brian says:

    ET

    OK, look- “The Island of Dr. Moreau” is neither a documentary nor a “how to” guide.

    If you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, do so. If not, you are not worth talking to.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Brother Brian- Have you ever had anything of substance to say? You aren’t worth talking to, Brian. All we do is continually correct your nonsense.

    I understand that it bothers you because you thought “The Island of Dr. Moreau” was a science documentary but the truth hurts. Not my fault.

  51. 51
    Ed George says:

    BB@47 and previous. If the reported claims are true, a researcher has already conducted genetic modification on embryos. A doctor in a Chinese fertility clinic claims to have genetically edited embryos to give them a trait that would prevent them from being infected by HIV.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist

  52. 52
    Brother Brian says:

    Ed, I understand that there is some question as to the accuracy of this doctor’s claim. But, regardless, I have no problem with using genetic editing for this type of modification. My concern with this specific situation, if true, is that it is premature. We have not conducted enough research on these techniques, and possible consequences, in animals to justify extending it to humans. There is also the issue of whether or not the parents given the choice.

  53. 53
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    A doctor in a Chinese fertility clinic claims to have genetically edited embryos to give them a trait that would prevent them from being infected by HIV.

    The trait? An ability to think and reason. 😎

Leave a Reply