Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[gnostic]

Bait and switch or are you confused again. When you talk about Darwin’s evolution you are talking about abiogenesis and macroevolution and not microevolution.

If you have read Darwin's journal about his journey around the world on HMS Beagle (The Voyage Of The Beagle, published in 1839), then you will see that his observations showed signs of both macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and no hint of abiogenesis of whatsoever.

When he actually talk of "Natural Selection", "common descent", evolution, in his books - On The Origin of Species, 1859 - The Descent Of Man, 1871 - and various books about animals and plants, none of them talk of first life or abiogenesis, and based on his observations, it talk of both macro-evolution and micro-evolution...

When you talk about Darwin’s evolution you are talking about abiogenesis and macroevolution and not microevolution.

...your talk of abiogenesis and not micro-evolution is nothing but straw-man and utter nonsense.

If you have read The Voyage Of The Beagle (1839), particularly on the islands of Galápagos, then you would see that his observations of groups of mockingbirds on each island were different, are observations of micro-evolution, as were of his observations of tortoises on different islands. Both the tortoises and mockingbirds were of different species, when you visit different islands; these observations of their physical characteristics of these animals show evolution was of micro-sort, not macro-evolution.

So saying that Darwin's evolution is only about macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, only demonstrated you have ignored or failed to understand his books and observations.

So please, provide sources that Darwin never talk of micro-evolution.

 

[Shad]

You should point your commentary to the person who introduced the Hardy-Weinberg Law. All I was saying is, Dr. Lee Spetner in more knowledgeable than any of these guys as far as studying mutation at the molecular level.

I was just pointing out that the equation is pure mathematics. At best it is a counter-argument against evolution which is falsified repeatedly as a control group. The law is not saying much about evolution directly since it ignores the majority of secondary principles in the theory. The equation is neither pro nor con.

Based on ideology and not on scientific theory.

No its based on the theory of selective breeding which has evidence in cattle, cats, dogs, chickens, pigs, etc. It is just applied to humans rather than animals. It is just not a program endorsed by society and/or nation on a large level.

Or maybe you did not understand the question..

No you were comparing the bombing of Japan with evolution. These have nothing to do with each other even remotely thus your point is a non-sequitur and red herring.

Explain localized entropy

A concentration of energy at a point or object. A hot pan is localized energy. A pan which was heat but is not cool is not longer as localized as it was since it's energy has dissipated.

Evolution & Entropy - Second Law of Thermodynamics
A Student?s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy
Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The 2nd LoT is one of the basic principle of nature like the Law of Gravity. The 2nd LoT cannot be understood without Entropy. George Carlin understood entropy very well, you should watch him.

The links above show how wrong you are. These laws are not theories even. George Carlin was a comedian, I do not care what his opinion is.

Bait and switch or are you confused again. When you talk about Darwin’s evolution you are talking about abiogenesis and macroevolution and not microevolution.

Nope since you are talking about one concept, abiogenesis as the origins of life, with evolution, the changes within living organisms. This is a fallacy of conflation. When we talk about evolution we are talking about changes in life not the start of it. It is your misunderstanding and projection based on your ignorance of both concepts that is at fault, not I. You confused two concepts as one.

 

[JM2C]

Of course there were and are. I can even give you an example of a new body part being formed: the cecal valve in Italian wall lizards. A population of these lizards was put on an island, left there for decades, and were then examined later to search for changes. One of those changes was the evolution of a cecal valve, whose function is to slow down the progress of food to allow it to digest more completely. The ancestral population had no such organs: it was truly the observable development of a new body part.

They can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. It was just an enlargement of muscles in the valve between small and large intestine that was already there.

The same thing as the E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive, and the same thing happened; they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.

The local lizards disappeared overtaken by the introduced lizards and if you read Lenski’s E.coli the same thing happened after E.coli started the citrate diet, they became strong and all those E.coli feeding on glucose with the same mechanism disappeared also. No new genetic information on both.

If you take a group of skinny malnourish people from a starving country and bring them to a country that is rich in food and nutrients, and leave them there for 100 years, they will change in appearance too, and just like the lizards, you won’t see a trace of them from the time they came into that country that is rich in food and nutrients after 100 hundred years. Did they gain any NEW GENETIC INFORMATION? NO, because the mechanism was there already and it’s just a matter of exercising that mechanism.

If you a have a manual four speed four-wheel drive and drive it only on rough mountains or very rough countries in a low range mode most of the time, you won’t be able to use all the gears because the most you could use in that mode is up to the 2ND gear only at slow speed, [I’m talking about a 67’ Land Rover series 2A] but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the 3RD and the 4TH gear mechanisms.

Now, when you hit the pave road for the first time, not in a low range mode anymore but in high range mode, you would be able to use the 3rd gear and the 4TH gear mechanisms.

Now, think of each GEAR as NEW INFORMATION AND NEW MECHANISM.

Did you go to a mechanic, before you hit the pave road, and ADD THE TWO NEW GEARS INTO YOUR TRANSMISSION?

NO, because the mechanisms, i.e., the 3rd gear and the 4th gear, were always there, it just wasn’t use.

IOW, NO NEW GEARS, NO NEW MECHANISM AND NO NEW INFORMATION.

 

[JM2C]

No, that's not how evolution works at all. Do you think your body would find a way to metabolize rocks if that was the only food available? No, it wouldn't. You would starve to death.

We are talking about E.coli eating glucose and citrate as food and human as regular food and lactose. You can’t feed E.coli and human with rocks and rocks is never categorized as food to both. One could eat organic soil to cure crohn’s disease but never rocks.

 

[JM2C]

First of all, E.coli is a modern bacterium and was therefore not the ancestor of any animal.

Are you sure about that? Several types ofE. coliexist as part of the normal flora of the human gut and have many beneficial functions, such as the production ofvitaminK2. They also prevent harmful bacteria, known as pathogenic bacteria, from establishing themselves in the intestine.

 

[JM2C]

Another straw-man. Evolution doesn't work that way...

Bait and switch

They demonstrate the existence of beneficial mutations, a necessary feature for common descent.

And what is that one progenitor for all life forms that was based on Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species?

 

[JM2C]

No, we debate (or should be) using the works and evidence found by others thatareauthorities in the field of biology to formulate our arguments (as well as avoiding logical fallacies).

I thought I was doing that…

Alright, fine, but it's a headache looking through like 7 or 8 posts trying to gather all of your quotes...

It’s easier to concentrate that way.

That there is a global conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat.

There is theory and scientific theory and there is gossip. I’ll take the theory over gossip but prefer the scientific theory.

 

[leibowde84]

False. You have made the CLAIM. You have not made the argument. I get that this is what you claim. It is the root of all subjectivty according to you. Why is it or how is it the root of all subjectivty? What is the evidence that there is any kind of soul at all?

In the middle ages people believed in putting leeches on people, burning witches and drilling holes in peoples heads to get rid of demons. I don't think the middle ages is in any way a good source material for some kind of "truth". It was called the "dark ages" for a reason.

I reject that it is supernatural. I believe in a process in which people have freedom to choose. That freedom comes from their own cognitive abilities and sentience. Not from a mystical magical unicorn soul.

They are all factors. Do you not believe in factors? You think that if someone suffered horrid childhood abuse and then became an abuser themselves that their childhood abuse had nothing to do with their status as an abuser later in life? Do you discount all of psychology? Can you begin to grasp the concept of "freedom" that has factors?

Actually I just linked it to you. I also could link you to a field of neuro-psychology which studies choices and choice making.

I don't pretend to know the worth of anyone. As fact or as opinion. No scientist does. Who attempts to determine peoples worth are people who want to judge them on arbitrary religious based criteria.

I don't get what his issue is with this. Throughout all of his comments he makes the same claims over and over but fails to support them with evidence, meaning that he has not really provided a valid argument.

 

[leibowde84]

That is the same thing as requiring evidence for the opinion that the painting is beautiful. Subjectivity does not work based on evidence forcing to a conclusion, that is objectivity which works that way.

Obviously you reject subjectivity, as has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, where this one instance of your requiring evidence for a subjective issue is just 1 of many, many, examples.

Why would you expect anyone to accept your claim when you have failed to support it with evidence that shows it is the case. People can make endless claims about any subject matter, but without supporting evidence, they are merely blind claims.

 

[leibowde84]

You are just talking gibberish, requesting absolute proof that the painting is beautiful.

lol. Straw man. We are asking for supporting evidence, not absolute proof. I am assuming that you understand the difference.

 

[leibowde84]

Your explanation has the logic of being forced, not the logic that it can turn out several different ways.

That is what evolution theory did to your mind, it made you incapable to deal with freedom. That is what happens to your kids when you send your kids to an evolutionist school, their minds turn weak, their spirit down.

He has evidence to back up his position. You have not provided any evidence to back up yours; instead, just making unsupported claims. See how that works?

 

[leibowde84]

You can blame the school not teaching you about how choosing works, for any problem you might have.

You need to stop talking nonsense, and learn basic knowledge about how choosing works.

Right back at ya, slick.

 

[Shad]

It is demonstrably no freedom at all. It cannot turn out any other way given the initial parameters.

Negative since sentient objects have a greater degree of freedom. It is your misapplication of freedom and treating it as the same for both non-sentient objects and sentient objects which is the problem. It is your error, not mine

You deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

Nope since I have differentiated between sentient and non-sentient. Strawman and lying again since your concept of freedom is flawed but you are unable to acknowledge this since it has become an ideology backed by nothing but your sophistry

 

[leibowde84]

I find it unconvincing. You calculate to say you are angry based on the facts of good and evil. You explicity reject subjectivity, you require evidence for agency of decision. It must mean you calculate and not choose. That's emotion according to you, it's not emotion according to creationism..

Every argument must be supported with evidence, or else it is not really an argument, but a mere claim.

 

[leibowde84]

How it works is, you deny freedom is real and reject subjectivity, then what you say is worthless in my opinion.

At least he provides evidence for his position. You have just made unsupported claims.

 

[JM2C]

Yet the fossil records does record increases in complexity and development of certain anatomical traits over time that fully supports macroevolution: the oldest unicellular fossils are older than the oldest multicellular fossils, the oldest invertebrates are older than the oldest chordates which are older than the oldest true vertebrates which are older than the oldest true vertebrates with jaws, and so on.

How can you support macroevolution when you can’t even find the missing links or “transitional forms” to support this baseless theory.

Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record


“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

 

[Shad]

I don't get what his issue is with this. Throughout all of his comments he makes the same claims over and over but fails to support them with evidence, meaning that he has not really provided a valid argument.

It is due to his Islamic ideology which must be defended at all costs since it based on emotion and identity rather than evidence.

 

[Shad]

How can you support macroevolution when you can’t even find the missing links or “transitional forms” to support this baseless theory.

All forms are transitional forms.

Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.

He was proven wrong by paleontology and modern evolutionary theory. If you have to go back over a century to a source that is far removed from modern knowledge you have nothing more than a strawman.

 

[JM2C]

Again, you are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. That's a fallacy.

So we could avoid misunderstanding in the future; tell me Darwin’s view of evolution; Was it from inorganic to organic to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal?

 

[leibowde84]

So we could avoid misunderstanding in the future; tell me Darwin’s view of evolution; Was it from inorganic to organic to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal?

You do understand that the theory of evolution has changed quite a bit since the time of Darwin, right? Why is Darwin's views on evolution relevant rather than looking at modern evolution theory. I don't think anyone here is limited to arguing only for what Darwin believed to be the case. That would be ridiculous. The great thing about the scientific method is that theories are constantly being improved upon.