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?
There isn’t any evidence that nature produced grass, nor dogs nor corn. There isn’t any evidence that nature produced living organisms.
LoL! So now the OP about the entailments of evolutionism isn’t an OP about the entailments of evolutionism- HINT- that is what testability is about
Frankie,
Sorry failqueen,
You didn’t bring up entailments (let alone unique ones) at all. I did. Then you choked. Its painfully obvious that you’re learning as you go, and doing a poor job at that.
A theory is scientific if and only if it entails empirically testable consequences. (entailments) “Facets of Systems Science” page 594
keiths:
Frankie:
Don’t be modest,
JoeFrankie. You’ve solved the longstanding Corndog Problem!The problem of getting them out of your ass? Or is that not a problem for you? 😛
Gives a new meaning to the phrase pass the mustard.
Mung,
Special sauce/ toppings
So, what kinds of things DO you believe nature produced? Rocks? Mud?
How is the Evolutionism Testing coming along?
Umm, this is the thread you are supposed to be presenting evidence for what nature can do and how you can test it.
Nature- Stones, yes; Stonehenge, no. Obviously there is a limit to what nature can do.
As expected 😎
Just amazingly obtuse silliness from you Joe. Reproduction is evidence of nature producing grass (and all other life for that matter). That’s what reproduction is in fact: nature producing life. It’s not like humans are involved with even a fraction of the reproducing life on this planet Joe…or are you suggesting that there’s some…I don’t know…invisible elves guiding all of those gobs of grass pollen and shrub pollen and forb pollen and tree pollen and rhizomes and sperm and eggs and meiosis and…and…and…and all the other “mindless, random” processes of life?
Robin,
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] reproduction.
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] pollen.
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] quarks.
I’m waiting for Joe to say something like “natural isn’t a real word” or something equally asinine…
LoL! Nice projection, Robin.
And yet nature cannot account for reproduction. You lose. Did you know that the cell division process required for bacterial life is irreducibly complex?
Meiosis? And just how does blind and mindless processes account for that? Do tell or admit that you have nothing but question begging.
Don’t blame me for your failures, Allan. That’s just chickenshit nonsense.
I can hear it now:
“Blind and mindless processes created meiosis cuz without it organisms were dying from too much DNA which ruptured the nucleus.”
OK, how did it happen?
“Amazing obtuse silliness”
That is the extent of Robin’s and Allan’s science
Frankie,
Haha!
Take out the “whirr click”s, and they are your own words. Made my day, you have!
What a dipshit- of course they are my own words and they happen to be true. And yes, you have made my day. Thank you for proving that your position is science-free.
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] natural.
Nice projection o ye of the asinine comments. However can natural processes account for the origin of nature?
What does that even mean?
LOL! How can I “lose” anything? What I’ve noted is already accepted and taught as the foundation of biology in science. I have nothing to “lose” in this discussion Joe.
Maybe by “lose” you mean I haven’t convinced you of what is considered basic understanding in science. But…well…really…who cares?
Seriously? An article from some muppet fart ARN journal that hasn’t been published since 2001? Golly gosh…as if science hasn’t moved on since then…
Here you go Joe, a class on actual biology that even you can take:
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/THINKING_EVOLUTION/thinking_home.htm
(…and yeah…it does show the whole notion of “irreducible complexity of cell division is nonsense.)
And more…
http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(13)00197-9
Oh…and what have we here…?
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Color me unimpressed with Dr Joe Francis’ “research”…I’m surprised you didn’t reference Dr. Joe’s “work” with Answers In Genesis. LOL!
Again…what do mean be “account for that”? I’m pointing out meiosis is a blind and mindless process. That’s what “natural” means.
Well…I’m waaay off on my bingo card. I had Thursday:
Whoever had Tuesday picked for Joe’s meltdown wins this week…
Your position doesn’t have an explanation for reproduction. There isn’t any evidence that nature did it.
So what? No one teaches that blind and mindless processes didit.
What a cowardly response. You didn’t even read it and you damn sure couldn’t understand it. Find a mistake with it- I challenge you to try.
Nice bluff- care to make a case that any article there supports blind and mindless processes producing biological reproduction?
Nothing in your second link supports it either and Ken Miller has been proven to be totally wrong about IC. https://www.google.com/#q=behe+refutes+ken+miller
No, you are asserting it is a blind and mindless process. You don’t have any way to test the claim that meiosis arose via blind and mindless processes.
Only a dick would say that I am having a meltdown because Allan is a dipshit. But then again only a dick would say t6hat nature produced biological reproduction when abiogenesis is far from settled.
The article does not say how the modern replication system arose via blind and mindless processes. And it mentions the imaginary RNA world.
In no way does it refute the notion that the cell division process required for bacterial life is irreducibly complex.
And here is a list of selected responses to Ken Miller:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/a_list_of_selected_responses_t003388.html
Actually, there’s pretty good evidence for just that.
But let’s just take your claim at face value for a moment. And what…? It’s not like “god didit” is an explanation. So, those of us who are actually curious about such things have one of two choices: an inference based on actual processes and snapshots of how biological systems change over time or…nothing. I prefer a partial theoretical explanation to nothing.
Actually Joe, that’s pretty much exactly what all the accredited college biology courses teach. There is no valid, nevermind legal alternative.
I don’t have to waste my time. People like Ken Miller and Gene Koonin have already done it for me.
Once again Joe – I’m not posting here to convince you of anything; I’m simply noting what actual valid and legal science already does and teaches. It is absolutely no skin of my teeth if you don’t want to bother reading any of it. But if you can’t argue against it, then your posts are shown to be vacuous. And frankly, I’m good with that.
LOL! Like Behe’s a credible source!
HAHAHAHA! It’s a blind and mindless process by definition Joe! Unless your buddies in the ID world have suddenly done some phenomenal work and proven to the world that things like gravity and nuclear decay and tornadoes are all actually guided AND have shown what is guiding them, such systems will remain defined as simply unguided, mindless processes. It’s simply a factual assessment.
Yawn. Let me know if you come across a specific criticism of Miller’s assessment that I actually posted. A bunch of random criticisms by a bunch of Disco Tute folks, most who have abandoned ID, isn’t all that compelling.
And since Joe quoted him, I had to check:
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2013/08/682-joseph-w-francis.html
That’s pretty funny!
It’s remarkable what evolution can do on imaginary worlds.
It’s far more remarkable what the creationist’s imaginary friend can supposedly do…
…and can’t when it comes right down to it…
Nonsense. Please tell us how to test that claim.
ID doesn’t say that and saying something was the result of intentional design is an explanation
Clueless, totally clueless. The question is how they changed over time- by design or via blind and mindless processes.
LoL! Seeing that no one even knows how to test such a thing what the fuck do they teach?
Except they haven’t.
Except you haven’t shown that they teach blind and mindless processes didit. No one knows how to test such a claim
Compared to you and yours, he is.
That’s an ignorant statement, by definition, Robin.
And stop the gravity talk already. Your position doesn’t have anything to explain it.
With all of your blah, blah, blah you have FAILed to produce a testable hypothesis for blind and mindless processes producing meiosis or any other biological process. You are just a gullible chump.
Yawn, let me know when you find some actual science that refutes IC. Miller is a proven liar when it comes to ID. And you appear to be scientifically illiterate
And like an intellectual coward Robin still can’t find a mistake in the article I linked to. Holy shit if this is the way we are going to argue then fuck all of your references as they are biased assholes who couldn’t tell us how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes didit if their lives depended on it.
One more time- If you are going to say that it is blind and mindless processes then you have to test that claim. You just don’t get to baldly assert it. Science is not conducted via bald assertions.
If you want to say that meiosis arose via blind and mindless processes then you have to say how to test that claim and then actually test it. Science 101
Oh…if only that were true…
That there would be irony, right Joe?
…but do let us know when some ID supporter learns some trick other than bald assertion…
Will Joe ever bore himself, or isn’t he that bright?
What an ignorant statement given the fact that all you can do is baldly assert and will just hand-wave all arguments and evidence for ID.
If you want to say that meiosis arose via blind and mindless processes then you have to say how to test that claim and then actually test it. Science 101
And if you can’t then what’s your point?
It’s imagination all the way down…
He thinks he is winning,why should he stop?
What’s happening here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
So, a “not that bright” vote.
Glen Davidson
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] Tuesday
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] Winning.
Your position cannot explain [whirr .. click …] Boring.
‘Fraid Dover showed that ID is nothing more than assertions. And before that, Edwards vs Aguillard showed that “creation science” was nothing more than religious assertion. We’re all still waiting for the day when some creationist actually presents something…anything…besides a silly assertion…
LOL! ‘Fraid you’re wrong Joe. If only you’d taken Science 101. Let’s just have a look at good ol’ science, shall we?
Science[nb 1][1]:58[2] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2]
Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material universe; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, which study logic and mathematics.
Well…gosh Mr Wizard…it seems we’re discussing the natural sciences here. But what is that?
Why I’m glad you asked Timmy!
Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence.
But Mr Wizard, what do you mean by natural phenomenon then?
An excellent question Timmy!
A natural phenomenon is an observable event which is not man-made. Examples include: sunrise, weather, fog, thunder, tornadoes; biological processes, decomposition, germination; physical processes, wave propagation, erosion; tidal flow, and natural disasters such as electromagnetic pulses, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes.[1][2]
Well gee Mr Wizard! It seems that Joe guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It seems that there’s no need to separate out “blind and mindless” as far as processes go because…well…gee…science, particularly the natural sciences, are only concerned with studying “natural phenomenon”. Natural phenomenon like “biological processes”…you know…like meiosis.
Yes Timmy, that Joe guy is kind of silly isn’t he?
He sure is Mr. Wizard!
Oh…I think I made my point…
Mung,
LOL! You and yours…
Frankie,
So your own words, by your own admission, are chickenshit. It’s a shame you can’t see how funny that is – I love to spread good cheer.
Wow, what a totally ignorant comment.
LoL! It didn’t do that. The plaintiffs got away with lies, misrepresentations and bluffs.
And more holy shit question begging from Robin-
Please tell us how you determined that biological processes are natural as opposed to artificial. You have to have a way to test that claim, Robin. You don’t get to baldly assert that they are. And that means you have to demonstrate that nature produced living organisms and you can’t.
Look, I know you would love to define your way out of testing the claims of your position, but that is the chicken-shit way. And I understand why you choose it.