Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Ok, I read this paper. Here are my comments.
1. No where in this paper is there a refutation of one single piece of actual evidence that supports the ToE.
2. This is stated in the paper:
ToE is incorrect since ToE cannot conclude or claim if a swan is black or white, unless, ToE knows the differences between the two colors. Which means, ToE’s proponents had chosen a black swan (non-intelligently guided change and process) by ignorance of the two (intelligence and non-intelligence) and ignorance of reality.
You don't need to know the difference between white and black to identify what black is. Just like the evidence for the natural unguided aspect of the ToE is supported by good direct evidence abd is not dependent on the any understanding of an intelligence. Non intelligent natural laws have been demonstrated to cause evolution.
3. Another quote:
The incorrect claims/conclusions from ToE are the claims that all good, beneficial, helpful and allowable alleles or traits (or anything that should be passed) could produce new species or new living organisms from Evolution. Proponents and scientists of ToE had grounded and based ToE to non-intentionally guided change or non-intelligently guided change/process, but even though you did not read or did not review my discovery of intelligence, you could easily tell that non-intelligence cannot produce/make good, beneficial, helpful and allowable X. That is simply impossible, for it would be a violation of the law of logic: the law of contradiction or law of non-contradiction, that is, A = B, a contradiction.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no beneficial or detrimental changes in evolution. If we humans put something on it as survival is good and non survival is bad then by definition all good changes lead to survival. What is your evidence that non intelligent process cannot produce beneficial (survival) traits? This is just an assertion that I don't see how it violates the laws of logic.
4. If intelligence is A, and intelligence is good, beneficial, helpful and allowable, then, non-intelligence is B, and non-intelligence is not good (bad), not beneficial (destructive), not helpful (lethal) and not allowable (forbidden).
Just another assertion.
5. Thus, all other definitions of intelligence are all wrong. They should be replaced by this new definition2. Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.
You just defined your idea into existence. This is not science or how to determine truth.
6. But errors or mistakes, by definitions and applications are useless, lethal and dangerous. And errors or mistakes too cannot pass or transmit all good, beneficial, helpful and allowable alleles or traits (or anything that should be passed). That is simply impossible since how could an error transmit or pass non-error?
This is just one of many examples of simple argument from incredulity throughput this paper.
7. There are many more issues with this paper but as I stated in point 1. No where is there any refutation of the actual good evidence that supports evolution, it just states there is not any. I would recommend to look at the ways to falsify the ToE and work on that. Such as:
Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:
- If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
- If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
- If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
- If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
- If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
- If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
