Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

How can you make such a claim? Eugenics is inspired by Evolution and would not exist without Evolution.

Galton had discovered what he called regression to the mean, which posed a dilemma for him. How was natural selection going to work if traits under selection were always regressing to the mean? In his book, Natural Inheritance, Galton came up with a solution. Evolution had to occur by discontinuous changes that could not revert to the mean. Darwin’s vision of evolution by tiny incremental steps would be thwarted by regression to the mean. The changes that drove evolution must be discontinuous ones.

See the article below

Cousins: Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics - Gillham - 2009 - Significance - Wiley Online Library



Seriously?

See the link below for the article “VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA: NAZI RACIAL IDEOLOGY” on the Holocaust Encyclopedia as published by The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive Holocaust resource online.

"The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war—even constant war—was a part of nature, a part of the human condition."

“The Nazis defined Jews as a “race.” Regarding the Jewish religion as irrelevant, the Nazis attributed a wide variety of negative stereotypes about Jews and “Jewish” behavior to an unchanging biologically determined heritage that drove the “Jewish race,” like other races, to struggle to survive by expansion at the expense of other races.”

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)


See # 1031

Evolution is a natural process that exists. Your argument amounts to blaming thirst for genocide.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin said almost nothing about humans. He knew that such a radical view about humans would damage his general argument about evolution. But in his Descent of Man (1871), he applied his theory of evolution to humans to complete his original argument in the Origin of Species. He focused entirely on the evolution of human beings. In his Descent of Man, Darwin attempted to explain everything human as an effect of natural or sexual selection. Morality was no exception. He wanted to address skepticism regarding natural selection being insufficient cause to account for human’s moral and intellectual capacities.

Darwin argued that natural selection was the cause of morality as certain traits proved beneficial in the struggle for survival. Which is self-contradictory in the sense that the allegedly evolved trait “sympathy” acts against natural selection but Darwin argued that in a tribal competition or conflict, the tribe with more sympathetic faithful members who aid and defend each other succeed and conquer the other. HE MADE TRIBAL AND RACIAL CONFLICT THE ENGINE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION. A very dangerous principle that legitimizes racial extermination as the natural law to move forward not just in the past, but the future as well.

He predicted that along with driving “the anthropomorphous apes” to extinction, the more evolved races furthest from the apes will continue to exterminate the less evolved savages closer to the apes. He expressed that clearly in his words ”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

He observed that as a result, “the break will be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

In the closing lines in “The Descent of Man.” Darwin wrote: “ For my own part I would as soon be descended from ….a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen…..to the very summit of the organic scale ; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.”

Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

Darwin is considered to be a scientist, social philosopher and shaper of modern consciousness. Anyone who has glanced at “The Descent of Man” (second edition) could make such an assertion that racism was evident in Darwin’s writings.


The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

See the link below for New York Times article “Darwin in Full” with respect to racism in Darwin’s writings.

Darwin in Full - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

See the link below for “The Descent of Man.”

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)



False generalization. Not all knowledge is equal. Some knowledge can be false and with a damaging influence.



Irrelevant nonsense, I’m not arguing that Darwin invented the atomic bomb. I’m arguing that Darwin’s ideas especially with respect to the so-called scientific racism, negatively impacted humanity and inspired false justifications for wars/genocide in the sense that humanity should embrace the natural course of history.

See the link below for the article “What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany?” I don’t want hear any nonsense of the kind it wasn’t Darwin but the blame is on Herbert Spencer. It’s irrelevant. The issue at stake is the damaging influence of the evolutionary ideas, not people who contributed to that influence or people who committed the actual crimes.

What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany? | History Hit

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on World War

Social Darwinism | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on Nazi Germany

Social Darwinism - HISTORY



Irrelevant argument. This can be totally another discussion. You’re making a False Dichotomy.



False. Further synthesis is advocated by the top synthesis in the field not me. My concern is limited to informing others of the status of the ToE (MS) today which can be summarized that the modern synthesis was disproved and no other theory was established. This is the current status of the ToE today. Obsolete contradicting fragments that had been disproved.



Nonsensical wishful thinking, why don’t you enlighten me and tell all of us what is your understanding or imagination of this alleged agenda? Speak your mind if you will.

Do you spend your entire week coming up with responses so you can swamp some anonymous people on an internet forum?

What is a "top synthesis in the field"?

You aren't informing anyone about science when you declare your opinions to be facts. The current status of the theory of evolution is that it is the accepted theory. See, now you are informed.

That these things have been disproved is your opinion. I don't agree with it. I don't need a gish gallop for that.

 

[cladking]

What a confused Nonsense?

Historical suffering of the Jews has nothing to do with racism/genocide crimes committed against the Jews by Nazi Germany (Holocaust) that was indeed driven by the nazi racial ideology that adopted social Darwinism.

See the link below for the article “VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA: NAZI RACIAL IDEOLOGY” on the Holocaust Encyclopedia as published by The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive Holocaust resource online.

Here is a quote about the Nazi Ideology of Race:
“The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war—even constant war—was a part of nature, a part of the human condition.”

“The Nazis defined Jews as a “race.” Regarding the Jewish religion as irrelevant, the Nazis attributed a wide variety of negative stereotypes about Jews and “Jewish” behavior to an unchanging biologically determined heritage that drove the “Jewish race,” like other races, to struggle to survive by expansion at the expense of other races.”

See the link and get yourself informed of the facts. I think your fallacies argument is not driven by ignorance as much as it’s driven by bias. Stop your nonsense argument.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

So many tens of millions of people died in or as a result of WW II and most people seem to have missed the lesson.

WW II isn't the result of Germans being evil and not even nazis. WW II is a lesson that teaches that everyone acts on his beliefs and people will believe literally anything at all if you dress it up pretty and use the proper presentation. Even the utter nonsense that Darwin preached through 19th century science and racist ignorance looks pretty when humans are the crown of creation and certain to evolve into something ever better.

We have been sold a bill of goods and will be paying for it for a very long time

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So many tens of millions of people died in or as a result of WW II and most people seem to have missed the lesson.

WW II isn't the result of Germans being evil and not even nazis. WW II is a lesson that teaches that everyone acts on his beliefs and people will believe literally anything at all if you dress it up pretty and use the proper presentation. Even the utter nonsense that Darwin preached through 19th century science and racist ignorance looks pretty when humans are the crown of creation and certain to evolve into something ever better.

We have been sold a bill of goods and will be paying for it for a very long time

I wonder which "biology" books you have been reading.

 

[cladking]

All observed change in living things is sudden is not true.

Do you have any evidence an individual dinosaur took millions of years to hatch, reproduce, or die.

I had a date once where dinner seemed to last forever but turns out I was still home before 8:00 PM.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seriously? This is ridiculous. The context here is evolutionary biology not your lineage.

In context of evolutionary biology, ones lineage extends some 4 billion years into the past.

The argument is about transitional forms/intermediate species

You mean like,.. every fossil ever found to various degrees?
Like Tiktaalik to name the most famous one which was actually found by prediction?

The alleged common ancestor as well as all transitional forms were all different species.

As opposed to what? Descendants that lived millions of years later? Yeah, they are different species (sub-species, to be specific). Kind of like how Spanish and French are different languages from Latin, yet both came from Latin and at no point in history did a Latin speaking mother raise a Spanish speaking child.
These past 2000 years, every newborn was raised speaking the same language as the parents that raised it as well as its peers.

And yet, Latin went extinct and turned into French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese.

Neanderthals were the same species as modern human.

Not really. Well, it depends on how you define "species".
If by "species" you mean "inability to interbreed", then yes they were the same species.
If however you use a definition where inability to interbreed isn't a factor, then they might be classified as a different species.

Generally though, Neanderthals and Sapiens are considered different enough to be referred to as different species.

"Species" is actually a pretty fluent / dynamic thing. Which, ironically, is what we expect in gradual evolutionary biology... The closer related populations are, the blurrier the "species lines" will become.

Ring species are a fine example of that.
If "ability to interbreed" is a requirement to belong to the same species, then check this out:

1 can interbreed with 2 => same species
2 can interbreed with 3 => same species
3 can interbreed with 4 => same species
4 can interbreed with 5 => same species
5 can NOT interbreed with 1 => not the same species?

See? Again, it's a dynamic / fluent thing, this species line.
If interbreeding is a criteria, then 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
Yet 5 =/= 1

Thus we end up in a contradiction.

Clearly the fact of "they can interbreed" is not a bulletproof way to identify a species. More factors must necessarily be considered.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing is random. Neither mutations nor the variables at play in nature.

First, that's quite a claim. Can you support it?

Secondly, I have a feeling that you don't really know what exactly is meant when saying that mutation is random.

To clarify: mutation is random with respect to fitness. You get that, right?

Why do I need any tactic at all? Is it to deceive myself or deceive others to believe something that I don’t? Would that make any sense? Think about it.

Because your rejection of evolution is religiously inspired and you need a "tactic" to ignore / dismiss the evidence of evolution in order to drag it down to your level of make-belief so that you then can say that your creationist beliefs are "at least" just as viable.

 

[gnostic]

@LIIA

I am no going to read and reply to every replies from you, because there are too many of them and they are too long.

I do want to address a few vital points about genetics, after the next 3 paragraphs.

You really should keep up-to-date with reality of this world, not some past occurrences of what you believe it the theory of Evolution to be. Your bias and your knowledge about Evolution is antiquated, outdated.

Nothing in the CURRENT theory of Evolution and that's including the Natural Selection mechanism, support racism, violence and war. Natural Selection isn't a political doctrine and it was never part of military strategy, and it wasn't even so, in Darwin's days.

Natural Selection and the rest of Evolution (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking) is purely biology, not politics or war, and it isn't even religion.

You can't imprint your DNA with any ideology, and pass the ideology into your descendants. Ideology is taught and nurtured, it doesn't transfer through, genetically.

There are limitations as to what the DNA and RNA can "SEQUENCE"!

DNA cannot sequence a person's belief, ideology, wisdom, intelligence, ambition, favorite color, favorite food, etc, and these won't ever reach descendants, because they cannot be passed on to other genetically.

That you think it does, show how little understanding you have, even with basic genetics.

Are you really that ignorance that you don't understand even basic genetics?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How the observed physical system came to existence is beyond science.

Why would that have to be the case?

It could be beyond science ability to investigate - I don't know.
But you pretend like you do know. So how have you determined that it is?

How the entire universe came to existence from nothing

You mean "ex nihilo"? Isn't that what creationists believe?

or life from nonliving matter under abiotic conditions is not attainable through science.

How have you determined this?
If a chemical process exists that results in viable self-replicating organic molecules, why would it be impossible for science to discover such?

These are serious claims you are making. But so far it's nothing but bare assertion.

A rational approach would be to avoid a single unfalsifiable hypothesis

You mean like "god did it"?

In principle, any change can be attributed to either one of the following two competing hypotheses:
A) Intelligently Guided Change.

How is this a viable hypothesis?
How can it be tested and how can the premises / assumptions be shown to be correct (the biggest one being that there even is an intelligence in the first place to do said guiding)?

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

False dichotomy.

Evolution (just like chemistry and physics) is neither "guided" nor random.
They might have random input, but the result is NOT random.

The circumstances by which O and H atoms meet each other might be random, but that the result is H2O is NOT.

If observations support “Intelligently Guided Change”, then it has to be accepted.

I agree. The problem is that no observations support such.

There’re no random changes in nature. Whether you like it or not, beneficial mutations are always directed. It’s never random.

Evidence required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a confused Nonsense?

Historical suffering of the Jews has nothing to do with racism/genocide crimes committed against the Jews by Nazi Germany (Holocaust) that was indeed driven by the nazi racial ideology that adopted social Darwinism.

See the link below for the article “VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA: NAZI RACIAL IDEOLOGY” on the Holocaust Encyclopedia as published by The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive Holocaust resource online.

Here is a quote about the Nazi Ideology of Race:
“The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war—even constant war—was a part of nature, a part of the human condition.”

“The Nazis defined Jews as a “race.” Regarding the Jewish religion as irrelevant, the Nazis attributed a wide variety of negative stereotypes about Jews and “Jewish” behavior to an unchanging biologically determined heritage that drove the “Jewish race,” like other races, to struggle to survive by expansion at the expense of other races.”

See the link and get yourself informed of the facts. I think your fallacies argument is not driven by ignorance as much as it’s driven by bias. Stop your nonsense argument.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Why are you whining about "social darwinism" when the topic is biological evolution?

 

[gnostic]

I had a date once where dinner seemed to last forever but turns out I was still home before 8:00 PM.

I’m sure that you date probably felt the same way, and was probably relief that it ended so soon.

Er, what?! Did I say that aloud?



I knew I shouldn’t let my fingers do the talking. It get me in so much trouble.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is what you repeatedly fail to understand. The argument is about the evident influence of the idea not the responsible people. But regardless if you insist to shift the argument to whether Darwin’s influence is responsible for Social Darwinism, then, he is absolutely responsible. Social Darwinism/survival of the fittest is absolutely a product of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas/natural selection.

No.

Evolution theory is just an explanation about how species develop over time. That's it.
Whatever "sociological" spin one wants to give that, has nothing to do with the mere facts of biology.

It's a theory that explains processes that all life is subject to.
It's not a theory that tries to tell us how to organize society.

The blame for "social darwinism" lies with the people who invented that nonsense.
Perhaps they were inspired by evolution theory, perhaps not. It doesn't matter.
Nothing in evolution theory says anything about "superiority" of races. That's all human racist ideology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with biology.

Only an ignorant would claim otherwise.

Actually, only a creationist with a religious agenda against mainstream biology would say such a thing.

It's yet another pathetic attempt to argue against a well-established theory that is perceived as a threat to their religion by trying to prey on emotion by blatantly lying about it and misrepresenting it.

Social Darwinism is with no shadow of a doubt driven by influence of Darwin’s evolutionary idea which proved to have very damaging impact on humanity whether you admit or not.

Right, right, because before Darwin, there was no such thing as racism.

Yes, Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and Darwin used it later in his writing. Regardless “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” is about the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.

Favored by the environment through natural selection. Not favored by Adolf or any other human or sentient being.

Darwin approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin focused on biology, but Spencer imagined that evolutionary thinking could be applied much more broadly to govern entire societies. Social Darwinism is absolutely a product of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. This is not a subject for argument. It’s a fact.

See the article below about the legacy of Herbert Spencer published by the Smithsonian Magazine.

The Complicated Legacy of Herbert Spencer, the Man Who Coined 'Survival of the Fittest' | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

See the link below for the nazi racial ideology that adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory, which was the cause and the justification for their crimes against humanity.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

So what? They were wrong.

Evolution theory is concerned with the facts of biology.
Not with organizing society.

I'll tell you what.....
I'll just grant you for the sake of argument that Darwin was the most evil and immoral man to ever walk the face of the earth. Let's just say that he was a drunk, a rapist, a racist, a drug abuser, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a thief, a robber and a mafia don who in his free time amused himself with torturing 5-year olds.

None of this matters to evolution theory and natural selection.
He was spot on with natural selection, regardless of the man he was. Regardless of how the Nazi's perverted evolutionary biology.

None of it matters. It's all strawmanning nonsense. A pathetic attempt at making an emotional plea against one of the best established theories in all of science.

It's a ridiculous argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have any evidence an individual dinosaur took millions of years to hatch, reproduce, or die.

I had a date once where dinner seemed to last forever but turns out I was still home before 8:00 PM.

Asking for negative evidence against ones case instead of providing positive evidence in support of ones case, is a great tell that no such positive evidence exists.


He asked you for evidence that "sudden change" occurs. Ever.

 

[cladking]

I’m sure that you date probably felt the same way, and was probably relief that it ended so soon.

I am pretty sure she did.

But like all observed change it was sudden in hindsight.

Like all change and all potential change it was very sudden.

There are no observed exceptions. This is the nature of life. Gradual changes are geological or glacial or other processes that don't directly involve life.

 

[gnostic]

Why are you whining about "social darwinism" when the topic is biological evolution?

I know.

Social Darwinism isn’t taught anywhere.

Not in any biology courses. Not even in any sociology subjects or philosophy classes, because they are so outdated.

Social Darwinism is a sociological philosophy, and have nothing to do with with biology.

But people like LIIA and cladking are stuck in WW2 mentality, confusing racism and hatred with biology, but biology plays no what people personally “like” or “dislike”, and they cannot transmit to their descendants via DNA.

And worse of all, they cannot learn even basic biology, let alone learn from their mistakes.

 

[gnostic]

But like all observed change it was sudden in hindsight.

Like all change and all potential change it was very sudden.

There are no observed exceptions. This is the nature of life. Gradual changes are geological or glacial or other processes that don't directly involve life.

Again...where are evidence for this?

You still haven’t presented even one evidence.

You are only repeating the same claim over and over again. Repeating claims are not evidence.

Claims without evidence to support them, are nothing more than personal opinions...

...and if you are obsessed with your own superior “genius”, your claims are nothing more than wishful thinking or deluded fantasies. Take your pick.

 

[Jose Fly]

@LIIA after reading through your latest posts, I'm wondering about a few things.

You cite Denis Noble a lot, which makes me wonder...do you agree with him that evolution occurs, universal common ancestry is true, and humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates?

You quote S.J. Gould as saying that there are no transitional fossils, which makes me wonder....have you ever run across this quote of his?

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."---“Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History”, p.260,​

You've been harping on the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were motivated by Darwinism, which leads to a few questions. First, are you aware that the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany? Also, are you aware the Hitler justified his atrocities by appealing to Christianity and building on the pervious anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther? And is it your argument that the validity/accuracy of an idea is based on the what it's used to justify? If not, what exactly is your point?

 

[gnostic]

A rational approach would be to avoid a single unfalsifiable hypothesis. In principle,

Er...what?!

Your are not serious, are you?

You not have only just show us you not being rational...you also have absolutely no idea, what “falsifiability” mean.

Falsifiable means a model is “testable”, that would mean the model qualify being a hypothesis.

The only qualification for an idea, concept or model of being “hypothesis”, is being “falsifiable”.

Now, “unfalsifiable” mean the model is “untestable”. Unfalsifiable would disqualify the model from becoming a “hypothesis”.

So a hypothesis cannot be unfalsifiable. There is no such thing as “unfalsifiable hypothesis”, because what you wrote is an oxymoron.

What I think you got wrong, is that you are thinking that a “refuted hypothesis” is the same as being an unfalsifiable one. If you do think that, then you would be dead wrong, and showed that you are clueless as to what falsifiable and unfalsifiable mean.

Let’s say that you are in the lab, wanting to test your hypothesis, by performing experiments. The fact that you can even perform even one experiment, mean the hypothesis is testable, regardless if the experiment support or don’t support the hypothesis.

So if say you perform 100 different experiments, and every results refute your hypothesis. Then you can conclude you have successfully test the hypothesis and shown that the hypothesis is improbable, a failed or “refuted” hypothesis, but it is still a falsifiable hypothesis.

My example showed that a falsifiable hypothesis has been refuted.

A refuted hypothesis don’t mean the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability mean having “the ability to test” a model...even if the evidence don’t support the hypothesis.

Now, let’s say that you cannot perform any test whatsoever. So in a lab, you have zero experiments, then your model or concept is unfalsifiable.

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable because it have zero evidence, there have never been any evidence.

Even Michael Behe, a strong supporter of ID, have admitted when being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005):

[Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

[Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.

[Rothschild] Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

[Behe] A. That's correct.

[Rothschild] Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

[Behe] A. That is correct, yes.

[Rothschild] Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

[Behe] A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

[Rothschild] Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

[Behe] A. Yes.

[Rothschild] Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

[Behe] A. Yes.

I have highlighted Behe’s answer in red to the 3rd question.

He admitted there were never were any experiments or calculations to support Intelligent Design...meaning there were never any evidence for Intelligent Design. And that’s what make Intelligent Design “unfalsifiable”, because it is “untestable”.

Source:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1​

 

[cladking]

But people like LIIA and cladking are stuck in WW2 mentality, confusing racism and hatred with biology, but biology plays no what people personally “like” or “dislike”, and they cannot transmit to their descendants via DNA.

Yes. I also confuse "skeptic" with someone who believes everything Peers say even if they contradict one another.

I confuse "consciousness" and "life" along with "omniscience" and 'ignorance".

You can't seem to understand all people act on their beliefs. If they believe the world is better off without your kind then your life is in danger. More and more people are skeptics who believe Darwin's word is gospel and those who don't believe are a danger to themselves and the species.

 

[cladking]

You still haven’t presented even one evidence.

I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.