Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)

Testability is the main thing a concept needs in order to be considered science. If your claims cannot be tested then science doesn’t care about them. Enter evolutionism, also mistakenly called the theory of evolution, ie the concept that all biological diversity evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction starting from some much simpler biological replicator, which in turn evolved from much simpler molecular replicators.

None of that can be tested. Not only that the sub-claims are also untestable. Biology is full of biological systems, subsystems and structures. These too need to have testability, yet they do not. Evolutionists hide behind father time and think that excuses them from the testability criteria science requires. All that does is prove theirs is not a scientific position.

No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off. Evolutionists are fine failing on their own and don’t need no steenking help from Dembski!

So how can we test your claims, evolutionists? And why, in the absence of testability, do you think your position qualifies as science?

 

 

431 thoughts on “Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)

  1. Compared to adapa, acartia, ahmed, Alan Fox, keiths, Patrick, dazz, OMagain, Robin, Rumrat and Allan Miller my posts actually address the debate. You guys are just upset because I have exposed you as a bunch of scientifically illiterate poseurs who couldn’t support your position if your life depended on it.

    Can’t beat ’em might as well ban ’em. Strange that you don’t see that as being cowardly

  2. Allan “clueless” Miller:

    But if someone would let me know what it takes to be ignored by Frankie, I’ll get right on it.

    If you really want to know- just demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase and I will slip away and never bother you again. Promise.

  3. Frankie,

    You guys are just upset because I have exposed you as a bunch of scientifically illiterate poseurs who couldn’t support your position if your life depended on it.

    Yes! That’s it! Nail on the head time. Don’t let us detain you one moment longer.

  4. keiths:

    The rule about bannable offenses still applies to everyone equally. Frankie violated it.

    Prove it. Show us the rule that existed BEFORE that fateful post and show how it was violated.

  5. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    No, you hang up! No, you hang up! Mwah!

    Thank you for continuing to make my point. Too bad this blog is too obscure to have any effect- not enough lurkers to see how far evos will go to distract from having to support anything

  6. Alan Fox:

    There’s already a rule against spam. It’s whether a plague of repetitive and unresponsive one-liners can be called spam that is the issue for me.

    You post spam, Alan. Richie posts spam. OMagain posts spam. adapa posts spam. acartia posts spam. Patrick posts spam. keits posts spam. Neil Rickert makes unsupported accusations, which are spam.

    There may be only one or two posters who don’t spam.

  7. Alan Fox:

    I think we have a particular problem with a particular commenter who is not interested in dialogue. I think that commenter has had ample opportunity to demonstrate it and I think we should call a halt, at least temporarily. I suggest a suspension of posting privileges for, say 30 days.

    Only one? There’s Alan Fox, Patrick, keiths, Richie, adapa, acartia, OMagain, ahmed, dazz, Robin, newton, and more who fit that bill. Obviously Alan is very biased and prejudiced.

  8. Well folks, not sure what happened there. Frankie’s account is now suspended and disabled so that no further comment should appear. In fairness to JoeG/Frankie I should point out that he can be reached at his own blog – Intelligent Reasoning

  9. Mung:
    I guess it’s not just Lizzie who can screw up. 🙂

    I thought maybe I had not pressed update after changing access settings but they show as selected in the admin panel.

  10. Rumraket: This is a joke, right? He never actually said this, right? Right? Please tell me a grown man didn’t write this.

    Joe G wrote it. It’ll let you decide what constitutes a “grown man”

  11. Mung: Can you believe he left out Richardthughes and Pedant? Don’t be so quick to move up!

    I was omitted because he’s in awe of my insightful commentary, obviously.

  12. Frankie: Only one? There’s Alan Fox, Patrick, keiths, Richie, adapa, acartia, OMagain, ahmed, dazz, Robin, newton, and more who fit that bill. Obviously Alan is very biased and prejudiced.

    Wow. My bad. I didn’t even think to suspect that Acartia quote-mined Frankie just to make himself look good.

  13. In that blog post, Frankie writes:

    Guys, please hold your breath while waiting for me to send Patrick an email asking for reinstatement.

    Take your time, Frankie. Why not ponder it for a decade or two?

  14. Mung: Wow. My bad. I didn’t even think to suspect that Acartia quote-mined Frankie just to make himself look good.

    Mining is a proud and noble career. Where would Snow White be without those seven vertically challenged miners?

Leave a Reply