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?
FrankenJoe realizes everyone knows his IDiot claims are full of shit.
Hmm… how many words would I have to know in order to know more than 50 sentences?
Are that and tat separate words or are they the same word with two different spellings?
Context matters 😎
I’m thinking of getting a tattoo that read’s “I agree with tat!”
Make sure the “a” is very clear
But I agree with tut too.
Frankie, what you don’t understand is that “the relative complexity of ATP is a prerequisite for its great versatility in the living cell.” The reason that ATP was chosen by evolution now become obvious. Therefore, evolutionism is true.
Even an IDist can see the force of this argument. Are you sure you are arguing for intelligent design?
Evolution just stumbled upon this molecule that not only met but also exceeded all evolutionary expectations. Like magic.
It’s a shame Mung is so lonely and desperately for attention he has to stoop to sucking up to Frankie/Joe. Sad.
I would love to know how blind and mindless processes figured out that in order to get ATP from ADP and P you had to squeeze them together.
Frankie, you need to stop ignoring the power of magic. If magic can do it, there’s no reason to invoke a designer.
Mung,
Funny how your designer does it by magic 😉
If you are serious about that you could have a look at Nick Lane’s ideas on serpentinization in white smokers. He goes into quite a bit of detail in his book The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is?. I’m about a third of the way through it myself and I think it covers this aspect of “chicken-and-egg” quite well; it’s very wide ranging with lots of references to the primary literature.
I read it, Alan. He doesn’t have any idea how ATP synthase arose via blind and mindless processes. He just doesn’t think it is a problem.
His white smoker concept needs quite a bit of work to get from that to living organisms
Wagner also talks about those vents in “Arrival of the Fittest”. But he appears to recognize the problem of going from that to a living organism.
Neither Wagner nor Lane knows how nature figured out that ADP and P need to be squeezed together to form ATP. Catalysts don’t normally work that way.
A magician and a comedian. 🙂
After rather quickly skimming three days of comments, it seems that they are the root cause of your contributions here.
LoL! It seems that is how you do science, Patrick- blindly and mindlessly
FrankenJoe thinks the Gravity Fairies push the planets around because no one has proven blind and mindless gravity.
FrankenJoe thinks the Erosion Fairies carve river canyons because no one has proven blind and mindless erosion.
FrankenJoe thinks the Plate Tectonic Fairies form mountains because no one has proven blind and mindless plate tectonic movement.
FrankenJoe isn’t the sharpest crayon in the box. 🙂
And speaking of blind and mindless, enter adapa.
Joe can’t actually operationalize his ‘contested’ version of evolution. The boy has no scientific ability. D-, go away and do some work.
LoL! Richie can’t actually formulate an argument. Total FAIL, But thanks for the laughs and the comment count
How does the calcium in my tap water know how to cluster into spots of chalk on my kitchen wares when the water evaporates? EVOLUTIONISM CAN’T EXPLAIN IT, MUSTA BEEN DESIGN.
There are “evolutionary expectations” for ATP?
I’d like to know how blind and mindless processes manage to get such an even covering of snow on my lawn. Every snowflake guided just so. Nothing short of miraculous.
… and how do photons from stars know where to find my eyeballs? They’re tiny!
Really? So if clouds cover your entire lawn and snow falls from those clouds at an even pace you wouldn’t expect that?
They don’t. Light floods the space
Rumrat- your position can’t explain water nor calcium. You lose
Frankie,
You don’t even know how to test the hypothesis that blind and mindless processes didit.
Frankie,
You don’t even know how to test the hypothesis that light floods the space. It’s no good looking someplace else – the Guided Photons will find you!
That isn’t my claim so I don’t have to. However using the EF I would infer it was the result of law/ necessity. Nothing else is required
Perhaps you don’t but others could actually see that light floods the space
Allan- yours can’t explain light, no snow, nor gravity- all it can explain are diseases and deformities. Those are the entailments of blind watchmaker evolution.
The last storm seemed to put more snow where I needed to shovel. That god can be a dick.
Snow plow drivers are the real dicks.
Too funny- Does Richie really think that I made up evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? Really?
I think you’re unable to separate it meaningfully from the alternatives by way of unique entailments. Prove me wrong if you can.
LoL! Richie, you are not even wrong– and I posted the entailments for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes above. Add to those change and stasis and that about sums it up.
You did? Paste them in your next comment, there’s a good chap.
You have tiny eyeballs?
It’s on this page- find it for yourself
Balls- he meant to say that he has tiny balls.
All you seem to have written is “diseases and deformities”. Is that your entailments?
Those are all the entailments I can work out for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
What do you have? Show your work
So those are the unique entailments for “blind and mindless” evolution?
Those entailments are not exclusive to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. I know that front-loaded and Intelligent Design evolution are also OK with change and stasis.
Make your point, Richie.
You’re making my point for me.
You’ve moved to “change and statis” from “diseases and deformities”.I see you can’t create unique entailments. You are unable to employ science.
Moved a comment to guano. Please try to avoid personal insults directed at fellow members.
LoL! @ Richie- After this I am following Mung’s advice and you go back on ignore::
This is what I said, Richie:
LoL! Richie, you are not even wrong– and I posted the entailments for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes above. Add to those change and stasis and that about sums it up.
You lose
You can’t even read, so who cares what you think, Richie? You think I made up evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- your posts are just ignorance on a fishing trip. And it’s up to you and yours to say what the entailments of your position is.
It seems that no one can when it comes to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That is the point of this thread. Thank you.
Frankie,
Well, what a hissy.
You claim “Add to those change and stasis and that about sums it up” but you before state ” Intelligent Design evolution are also OK with change and stasis.”. You are suggesting a ‘unique entailment’ that is not ‘unique’. Do you not understand “entailment”, “unique” or both?