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?
Phylogenetics does not support any mechanism. Not only that it doesn’t support common ancestry unless you can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between two allegedly related species, like chimps and humans.
Right. That hasn’t been explained to you like… fifty times before.
Yes and we know both are very, very limited in what effects they can bring about. There isn’t anything that we know about mutation and NS that says the process can produce the diversity of life.
Well alcohol will help you with your cowardice but not the willful ignorance
“Scientists have assembled a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and tell me the pieces form a picture of a sailboat on a lake. How can I test that?
When I look at this piece by itself all I see is a blue blob! When I look at this piece by itself all I see is a white blob!
Those dumb scientists, always trying to pull a fast one!”
Pity that nothing will help you with either your cowardice or ignorance.
Home schools do.
“One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.
Let’s turn the tables on Orr. Is natural selection falsifiable? He writes, “We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can’t, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution. . . .” This is a dangerously antiscientific attitude. In effect he is saying, “I just know that phenomenally complex biochemical systems arose gradually by natural selection, but don’t ask me how.” With such an outlook, Orr runs the risk of clinging to ideas that are forever insulated from contact with the outside world.”– Dr M Behe
Toaster repairman / brilliant ID scientist Joe just can’t remember where he put that positive evidence for ID.
The positive case and evidence for ID has been presented. This thread is about the positive case and evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. But I understand why you would want to avoid that topic
I don’t think you know how ancestry is tested. It’s a statistical test. There is no “standard sequence that validates ancestry”. And comparison between a putative parent and child can’t distinguish a parent from a full sib, for example. If you have samples from additional members of the family, it does become possible.
Similarly, phylogenetics is also a statistical test. If one tree explains the data enough better than any other tree (or no tree), you must conclude common ancestry. You know it’s occurred because there is no other way the data could have become what you see.
Have we at least established that you erred when you claimed that you had accepted common descent?
Question begging and again it doesn’t say anything about the mechanism. The OP pertains to the mechanism.
FrankenJoe, how do we test the positive case that blind and mindless gravity causes the Moon to orbit the Earth?
How do we test the positive case that blind and mindless erosion caused the Appalachian Mountains to wear down?
If Richie or anyone else doesn’t like the use of the word “evolutionism” then just ante up scientific hypotheses pertaining to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes and then test them. Whining and stomping your feet isn’t the solution.
Really adapa? How did you determine that blind and mindless processes produced gravity? How did you determine blind and mindless processes produced earth?
Do tell
Frankie,
I think its fine.
” Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
Like when you were writing for that YEC publication.
Frankie:
It certainly hasn’t worked for you.
No, you failed. We laughed.
You can test them exactly the same way as ID could test which processes the designer used to implement his design if ever they decided to do that. The same way the rest of science tests physical processes
FrankenJoe you cowardly evaded the questions. Try again:
How do we test the positive case that blind and mindless gravity causes the Moon to orbit the Earth?
How do we test the positive case that blind and mindless erosion caused the Appalachian Mountains to wear down?
Richardthughes,
Well, they did present it. It was idiotic gibberish, but they did present it.
It was idiotic at it’s founding–
Part I:
I see this wrist watch lying amongst the grass, and I can separate it by virtue of it’s having design.
Part II:
The grass has mitochondria and DNA and etc, so it has design too!
Part III: The earth is exactly the right distance for us! It’s also designed.
People with an IQ above room temp will spot the problem.
My pointing out that your position isn’t science is working for me. And all you can do is whine and stomp your feet.
If there are any lurkers then they see that you and yours have nothing
Frankie,
Is it? How? What is it achieving?
Keep telling yourself that. In all the decades you’ve been saying these things, has any lurker de-lurked and agreed with you that you have shown we have nothing?
A single instance would do. But of course, you won’t be able to show that as none ever have.
You comfort yourself with the idea that people who are not commenting agree with you, as almost everyone who does comment disagrees with you, or just points and laughs.
You have an illness. Seek treatment before you also waste what little remains of your life.
Yes, OM, we already know that you are a scientifically illiterate tard who couldn’t find scientific support for evolutionism if your life depended on it.
Thank you and yours for proving my point- that your position doesn’t have any science
Frankie,
Do you know more than 50 sentences?
That is incorrect. It won’t be fully tested until someone can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans. And tat needs to be unpacked at the genetic level.
Good luck with that
Richie, Do you anything about science? Obviously not. But thank you for running up the comment count. If you ever grow a pair perhaps you will post something on-topic and supportive of evolutionism. Very doubtful, though
Frankie,
I asked about entailments. You dodged. bwakakakaaaaa
LoL! @ Richie- this thread pertains to the entailments of YOUR position. And YOU dodged, as usual- chicken-shit. Thank you
Frankie,
So you don’t know. Got it. Keep using YEC phrases, creationist.
OK Richie pleads ignorance and stupidity. Anyone else care to try to find scientific support for evolutionism?
This thread is proving that you and yours are all noise, Alan. Not sure if that was what you were wanting, though
Quick timeline:
Chubs brings a creationist phrase to the party
Claims its “our thing” we should defend
He can’t operationalize it
Doesn’t know what unique, testable entailments it would have.
But we don’t know science!
All using his 500 word vocabulary!
LoL! Richie’s ignorance and flailing are neither an argument nor a refutation.
FrankenJoe keeps dodging the questions. BWAAAK! BWAAAK! buk buk buk BWAAAAK!
From Wikipedia:
Except for the fact the modern synthesis is not a scientific theory, this part seems to say evolutionism is OK.
adapa refuses to answer the questions:
How did you determine that blind and mindless processes produced gravity? How did you determine blind and mindless processes produced earth?
chicken-shit. But it’s OK for adapa top ask question begging questions…
BWAAAAK! BWAAAK! look at the chubby coward run! BWAAAAK!
Is plate tectonics a scientific theory?
How do we test the positive case that blind and mindless plate tectonic collisions caused Himalaya Mountains to form?
Speak up Joe, no one can hear your answers.
adapa, your ignorance and cowardice are not evidence for evolutionism.
But thank you for adding to the comment count
“You have no evidence for evolutionism like I have evidence for IDiot Design RIGHT HERE!”
😀
the stupidity:
Question begging. How did you determine that plate tectonics arose via blind and mindless processes?
From Wikipedia:
The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term “evolutionism” to describe “the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse.” It views this as a subset of scientism.
BWAAAAK! BWAAAK! the chubby coward runs away again! BWAAAAK!
We test evolution the same way we test plate tectonics, gravity, erosion, and every other physical process. If you’re too stupid to grasp that simple fact, too bad for you.
My reason for this thread is that I was hoping for something that we could take and compare to ID to see which one has the science and which is full of shit. It could also be both haz the science or both haz the shits. But so far it looks like evolution by means of blind and mindless processes haz the shits.
Now I can use it to show that evolutionists dismiss the evidence, hypotheses and inferences for ID for no reason but their personal ignorance.
It worked. Science has the evidence, ID and its chubby champion are full of shit.
Exactly, the the hypothesis of mechanism of plate tectonics can be tested without the knowledge of how it arose.I don’t need to know Abner Doubleday created modern baseball to hit a baseball. Just as you claim that ID can be tested without a mechanism to implement the design or how the designer arose.
bluffing and equivocation:
What “evolution” are you testing and how do you know? Why hasn’t anyone tested the claim that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase or vision systems? Or have they and it was a complete failure so it was hushed up?
If someone said plate tectonics and gravity produced New York city I would bet many people would ask for evidence for such a thing. If erosion, Plate tectonics, glaciers and other physical processes were said to produce Stonehenge I doubt people would listen.
And when people say blind and mindless processes produced living organisms and the diversity observed, we have the right to know what the science is behind such an obviously bullshit claim.
LoL! @ adapa- Yes, science has the evidence but your position doesn’t have any science.
Nice own goal