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?
Well as “intelligent design evolution(ism?”) is a wholly parasitic endeavor that wants to claim the strength of evolution for design – I think it is incumbent on you to meaningfully separate the two.
Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design evolution. I don’t know of any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, does anyone?
Frankie,
Any human endeavor is designed, but the concept was copied, not created.
LoL! Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design evolution because they are goal-oriented targeted searches. They actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. That is the antithesis of blind and mindless processes.
So no, GAs are not examples of IDE just cuz a human designs them. Talk about ignorance and desperation
Frankie,
We made them by copying evolution.
I’ll refer to your earlier comments on GAs to show you have no clue.
LoL! GAs could not be a copy of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes because they do not mimic blind and mindless processes. GAs are the antithesis of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
So if someone was copying natural selection they were copying a cartoon version of it.
I will just refer to Richie’s current droolings to show it doesn’t know jack about GAs.
And BTW, everything I have said about GAs I have supported. Richie? Not so much. Heck Richie was a cheerleader for Patrick until Patrick tried to pass of AVIDA as a GA. That shows how little Richie knows about them
Oh dear.
Ignore not working Joe?
The only substitution is that filter – human expectations replace the environment. Even then we can randomize expectations and they still find niches – just like real evolution. No fixed expectation, just adaption.
Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design evolution because they are goal-oriented targeted searches. They actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. That is the antithesis of blind and mindless processes.
Lather, rinse, repeat
Artificial selection is an example of IDE- it produces organisms that no way natural selection could. Natural selection is only good at undoing what artificial selection has produced.
Reasserting nonsense after debunking: how creationist.
Frankie,
So is it front loaded or direct interventionism?
Asserting debunking in the absence of such, how evoTARDgastic.
Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design evolution because they are goal-oriented targeted searches. They actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. That is the antithesis of blind and mindless processes.
I defy anyone to debunk that
They model blind ,unthinking processes.
but that’s absurd on it’s face. How can one blind mindless process model another blind mindless process?
The process that is doing the modelling can’t be blind and mindless, and it it’s not blind and mindless then there’s no reason to think it’s modelling something that is.
That’s just silly talk. 🙂
Have you ever seen an electronic dice machine? Or an electronic coin toss machine? That’s how.
They model games of chance
Which are….. wait for it……. blind and mindless.
Except for the people playing them, of course. And they are not examples of blind and mindless processes actually producing anything.
newton, GAs are actively searching for a solution or solutions to the problem they were written to solve. That is far from blind and unthinking
Your position can’t explain … croak … me …
Genetic algorithms aren’t blind , they are a models. I doubt genetic algorithms think like a humans do, they don’t have brains. That help?
The process of creating the algorithm is not blind and unthinking. If I turn a wooden bowl the process is not blind but the product is.
It think the reason to assume it is modeling something blind and unthinking is that we have no reason to think it is not. What are your reasons to think otherwise? Are you under the impression that everything that is the result of thought ,thinks?
Allan Miller,
Yes Allan, another pointless post. Can’t actually post anything of substance so might as well try to make fun me of pounding the facts.
Thank you
So the process the computer uses thinks?
Maybe it is just his computer making fun of you, since it is not blind or mindless
The programmer did the thinking
That’s correct. Models are conceptual. A blind dumb mindless computer cannot model anything. It can, however, execute the instructions of an algorithm that someone intelligent has created.
Uhh…hold the phone…
There’s no way artificial selection – intelligent or otherwise – could work in any capacity unless there’s a natural biological mechanism for genetic selection in the first place. Or is Joe suggesting that human breeders are somehow putting the genetic traits in dogs, horses, cats, fish, sheep, frogs, mice, corn, apples, carrots, lettuce, and the variety of other plants and animals we breed?
Robin,
Rivers are designed because… canals!
That’s why we come here – because it is so entertaining watching you “pounding the facts”.
Question begging
What I am saying is that there is no way natural selection could produce corn nor the different breeds of dogs nor corndogs.
Well you guys are proving my point- so thank you
Bingo !
And apparently corn and dogs are designed because…. corndogs.
What? No they are designed because humans designed them via artificial selection and cross breeding followed by more artificial selection.
LOL! Seriously…is that the kind of bizarre argument that Joe is trying to make? Good grief…
LoL! Good grief indeed. Richie’s just slinging shit to see what sticks. Looks like some stuck on you.
HAHAHAHAHA! It can’t be question begging Joe – it’s an observation of fact! What could humans select for if there was nothing to select for?
You really need to look up what “question begging” means some time…
But nature DID select and produce corn Joe! It’s simply a type of grass (teonsinte) of which there are a number of natural varieties! And it created a number of breeds of dogs before humans started going further with it. Humans only learned to breed various dogs (and sheep and goats and chickens and cows and all sorts of other animals) by noticing that nature produced various examples already. It’s not like we humans invented breeding.
C’mon Joe…at least attempt some basic due diligence before posting completely loopy claims.
It is, Robin- how are you defining “natural” in “natural biological mechanism”?
Your problem is you refuse to understand what IDists say
No, humans did
How are you defining “natural”? More question begging.
Pathetic fighting retreat from a scientific illiterate who has been found out. Come back when you can meaningfully separate your ill formed conjecture from the science that precedes it.
Corn for kids so my opponents can understand:
Frankie:
What? Natural selection can’t produce corndogs?
Write that up and submit it to BIO-Complexity!
Natural selection seems to be an impotent process in the grand scheme of things. I am sure that isn’t news-worthy
Frankie,
No, you’re just a retard.
What’s Richie whining about now? This thread is to find out what the alleged testable entailments for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. But evolutionists are apparently too afraid to ante up. My next post will go over the entailments- unique entailments for ID. But I understand why evolutionists wouldn’t want to ante up and compare.
Talk about intellectual cowardice…
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Merriam-Webster
That’s because what IDists keep saying is nonsense.
HAHAHAHAH! Laughably false Joe! There are still natural corn plants growing throughout Central and South America Joe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zea_(plant)#Origin_of_maize_and_interaction_with_teosintes
See above.
No it wasn’t – I actually brought up entailments and then you choked. But keep lying – we expect nothing less.
I’d probably choke too if I tried to swallow my own entailments.
Mung,
You have to have some first 😉