Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What - you didn't know that 'On the Origin of Species' had the byline of:

by Charles Darwin, Founder of the totally new creation account with an actual proposed mechanism; Debunker of Religious Fanatics; Slayer of Dragons; Winner of Poker; Collector of Pigeons; Wizard of the jaw-harp; Lord of the Dance

Lol! You can add to Darwin:

Lord of Ignorance
Master of the greatest show of Stupidity on Earth

Now compare to this: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What you have done is ignored my points 2-6 which state reasons that some of your conclusions are incorrect and then you just assert your conclusions are correct so I am wrong. Can you address my points 2-6 so we can start discussing your actual "proof" for your conclusions?

Seems like all you have done is say since birds fly then gravity cannot be true.

If you want people to understand your ideas you need to have an honest back and forth discussion with them and address their objections.

You have nothing to defend since I already crushed the main root of Evolution.

 

[KWED]

I discovered intelligence. Read first my basis so that you can know who I am and what capabilities that I can.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

This was in the first paragraph... "The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact."
It clearly is part of reality. We can observe it happening under controlled laboratory conditions.
Any "scientist" working in the fields of evolutionary biology would know this.
So you are not a "scientist" of any kind.
Judging by the claims you make and the way you make them, I suspect you have no genuine scientific training or qualifications at all.

 

[John53]

Now, did you observe in reality a non-intelligent guided change or intelligently guided change? Before you answer that, what is the definition and limit of intelligence that you had used? What experiment did you make to test that definition?

Now compare to this: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

I used intelligence = problem solution solution with a probability of 3 then dropped an egg through some tissue paper and came up with 8 or was it 10 because it was a long time ago but 8 or 10 or something like that then I ate the egg and proved evolution to be true and correct according to the new ToE. Where's my Nobel?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This was in the first paragraph... "The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact."
It clearly is part of reality. We can observe it happening under controlled laboratory conditions.
Any "scientist" working in the fields of evolutionary biology would know this.
So you are not a "scientist" of any kind.
Judging by the claims you make and the way you make them, I suspect you have no genuine scientific training or qualifications at all.

Shall I repeat again? Know my discoveries first, before you post. Thank you.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I used intelligence = problem solution solution with a probability of 3 then dropped an egg through some tissue paper and came up with 8 or was it 10 because it was a long time ago but 8 or 10 or something like that then I ate the egg and proved evolution to be true and correct according to the new ToE. Where's my Nobel?

Lol!!!

 

[John53]

Lol!!!

How dare you laugh! I am a scientist and I have nailed it, I used roofing nails because I'm a genius. I'm the only person who understands this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have nothing to defend since I already crushed the main root of Evolution.

When do you get your Nobel?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You have nothing to defend since I already crushed the main root of Evolution.

I am not defending anything. I took the time to read your entire paper, explained why I thought your conclusions (crushing the main root of evolution) were flawed and all you do is refuse to engage with my objections and just claim that I am wrong and you are right. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be able to defend your ideas when others have objections. You said in the OP that you want discussion, was this true?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Now, did you observe in reality a non-intelligent guided change or intelligently guided change?

My response to this is (and pay attention now): WHO CARES?

Seriously, why does this matter? Why would I go into a situation where I was simply and honestly trying to catalog and observe WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE TO OBSERVE and inject a question of "I wonder if this is intelligently guided or not?" That DOESN'T MATTER. If you're trying to get an honest read on what is there, in front of you, in order to understand it, measure it, and ultimately model it to provide others with useful information, then why does it matter what's going on under the hood.

Now... if you are trying to observe, measure and catalog "what's going on under the hood" - well, then that is a different story. But that's NOT what "evolution" itself is about. Or rather, it IS about that, but for a higher order "hood." I hope you understand what I am saying - but I can't be sure you'll pick up on the nuance of my meaning here, because you seem so very lost in many other ways with your modes of thinking.

Before you answer that, what is the definition and limit of intelligence that you had used? What experiment did you make to test that definition?

No need to answer it. You want to prove that something is "intelligently guided?" Go get yourself some evidence. Until then... there is no reason for me, or someone like me, to care. None.

 

[viole]

A messed reality is when you mixed both natural and intelligence in one theory.

Which is exactly what “evolutionists” do not do. Methodological naturalism, remember? Actually, many things in nature look terribly stupidly designed, if there was really a design behind it. So, there is not only ID. There is also a lot of SD,

ciao

- viole

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

My response to this is (and pay attention now): WHO CARES?

Seriously, why does this matter? Why would I go into a situation where I was simply and honestly trying to catalog and observe WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE TO OBSERVE and inject a question of "I wonder if this is intelligently guided or not?" That DOESN'T MATTER. If you're trying to get an honest read on what is there, in front of you, in order to understand it, measure it, and ultimately model it to provide others with useful information, then why does it matter what's going on under the hood.

Now... if you are trying to observe, measure and catalog "what's going on under the hood" - well, then that is a different story. But that's NOT what "evolution" itself is about. Or rather, it IS about that, but for a higher order "hood." I hope you understand what I am saying - but I can't be sure you'll pick up on the nuance of my meaning here, because you seem so very lost in many other ways with your modes of thinking.

No need to answer it. You want to prove that something is "intelligently guided?" Go get yourself some evidence. Until then... there is no reason for me, or someone like me, to care. None.

It is frightening to read your comments, if you are really serious.

1. If you do not care about SCIENCE, and you care so much of your religions, you will never ask question of reality, like intelligently guided change or non, as in Evolution. It shows that you are concerned too much on your own religion and not Science. You are starting a religious wars in Science.

2. Observe? You cannot understand, measure, and ultimately model anything in Science if you do not know the two competing scenarios, like intelligence or non-intelligence, especially in change and origin of species in Biology, as being discussed by Evolution. You are doing religion. You are starting a religious wars in Science.

3. You cannot observe, measure and catalog in Science, especially in the topic of change and the origin of species (or life) as endorsed by Evolution, if you do not know intelligently guided change or not. You must first understand what is intelligence and non-intel and apply that to Biology. By not doing that, you are starting a religious wars in Science.

People like you are not doing real science, or probably uneducated in real science. You are starting a religious wars in Science. STOP IT...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Which is exactly what “evolutionists” do not do. Methodological naturalism, remember? Actually, many things in nature look terribly stupidly designed, if there was really a design behind it. So, there is not only ID. There is also a lot of SD,

ciao

- viole

You cannot have methodological naturalism if you do not know about intelligence and non-intelligence since humans understood these two naturally. Thus, what is intelligence?

 

[tas8831]

You cannot have methodological naturalism if you do not know about intelligence and non-intelligence since humans understood these two naturally. Thus, what is intelligence?

You cannot discern the real <id> if you cannot use Ostrich eggs in your experiments.

 

[tas8831]

Here is a thought to consider because there is nothing in the Bible to say that God did Not use some form of evolution where lower-life forms were involved, however Not where human life is involved.
Adam was formed or fashioned from the already existing dust of the ground. (Gen.2:7)
So, biblically speaking where humankind is concerned there was No evolution involved.

You could have just written that you cannot address the material.

 

[viole]

You cannot have methodological naturalism if you do not know about intelligence and non-intelligence since humans understood these two naturally. Thus, what is intelligence?

Of course you can. Since intelligence is not part of any explanation under methodological naturalism.in the same way stupidity isn’t.

Methodological naturalism denies conscious intention as an explanation of natural phenomena.

and honestly, I am not sure where you see any intelligence. What is so intelligent in designing something like, say, a lion?

ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

Let us COMPARE Evolution to reality in biological world.

As I had posted in my linked OP, that the biological cell cannot permit the change that will alter the label in classification of living organisms. For example, if the first life is in genus level, then, the biological cell will never change it to family level, since Important Selection will never permit the change. Thus, there is no new species, no new genus, no new family, and no phylogenetic tree and no Evolution. Thus, evolution is wrong and falsified.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

So.... You cannot address the evidence I presented, got it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nature in it self is intelligent

Nature has a brain? Where is it kept?

 

[Wildswanderer]

What is so intelligent in designing something like, say, a lion?

You try designing an efficient killing machine without using any intelligence and tell us how it goes. Perhaps you could just ask nature to have an accident that would create your biological killing machine. I would not hold my breath.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It is frightening to read your comments, if you are really serious.

Maybe it is "frightening" to you, because your chosen narrative, and all you have built your hope on for providing "evidence for god" or some magical "logical argument" that someone proves that an intelligence like "god" must exist - all of that comes under heavy fire if I am correct about the idea that examining a thing within reality, cataloging/modeling it based on observation need not first start with the (arbitrary) question of whether or not an intelligence is behind its existence or function. That question DOES NOT NEED TO BE ASKED. If you want to ask that question, and investigate that avenue of thought/evidence, fine. Go right ahead. Let us know how it turns out! But you're STILL going to need to rely on OBSERVATION of what IS PRESENT IN REALITY. Otherwise, if that isn't what you're relying on to make your analysis, then it is YOU who is "NOT DOING SCIENCE." That's a fact.

If you do not care about SCIENCE

I didn't say this.

and you care so much of your religions

I don't have a religion.

you will never ask question of reality

Why wouldn't I? What are you even talking about? You know, I like to go on walks, and in the morning. Well sometimes it gets so cold all of a sudden, and I started to notice that it tends to happen a bit before the sun starts peeking up above the horizon. So I started to ponder why that might be. Why IS it coldest just before dawn? Well... I thought and thought, and I came to the idea that as the sun tangentially crests over some further away horizon than my own (in my locality), those light beams will first hit the sky above my position. And as they do so, they will stimulate the water molecules hanging in that higher, colder air, and some of those water molecules will collide, and become larger water droplets, and therefore become too heavy/massive/dense to remain suspended in that air. Thus, they will fall down to Earth. And so, the sun hitting the air above me, right before it actually breaks over the horizon causes extremely cold precipitation to drop down to the Earth. Same with frost on grass. I have been out and have literally seen the frost develop, and again - just before the dawn of the sun over the horizon.

You are starting a religious wars in Science.

Uh... no I most certainly am not. This is just crazy talk.

Observe? You cannot understand, measure, and ultimately model anything in Science if you do not know the two competing scenarios, like intelligence or non-intelligence

This is so goofy. I shouldn't even have to tell you how dumb this is. OF COURSE you can measure or observe literally anything you want without concern for whether there is some "ultimate intelligence" behind it all. Of course you can. And people have been doing that... for years and years. Do you honestly think the person that discovered that germs/bacteria/viruses were the cause for much disease stopped short before they presented their findings and said to themselves: "But wait!! Does god exist, and is he behind the creation of viruses?!?! I need to take this all back to formula if I don't know the answer to that!" Of course not. That would be dumb. It would take a monumentally dumb person to halt progress just because "god" or "unknowable cosmic intelligence". Dumb. You hear me on that? Dumb. Super dumb. Dumbest thing I have heard. Well... almost. It's in the running for top spot. No... you present your findings, because they accurately model and describe reality, and it will save lives. Who cares if "cosmic intelligence" is behind it? Why does that matter? You are presented with reality, and reality is what it is, such that you can share your findings with anyone.

You cannot observe, measure and catalog in Science, especially in the topic of change and the origin of species (or life) as endorsed by Evolution, if you do not know intelligently guided change or not.

This is just not true. Like I said before, it's dumb. This is a dumb idea you have. It makes no sense, and isn't, at all, how the EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL endeavor of scientific discovery has already been carried out for centuries. No one stops short of discovery because they can't answer whether or not some "cosmic intelligence" is behind it all. Barely anyone who is doing these sorts of things even cares. And for good reason. It is a total non-starter.

By not doing that, you are starting a religious wars in Science.

What the hell does this even mean? "Starting a religious wars in science." What does that mean? Again... I have no religion. You would probably like to characterize my lack of belief in "god" as some "religion" - and I get it, you have nothing better to present, and it frustrates you - I really do get it. But don't take it out on me. I am not doing anything.

People like you are not doing real science, or probably uneducated in real science. You are starting a religious wars in Science. STOP IT...

I don't even "do" science. And, apparently, neither do you, really. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.