Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)

Posted on by

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. 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]

    And we are still waiting for those testable explanations and predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

  2. Allan, to 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.

    I’ll bet everyone but Frankie got a good laugh out of that. I know I did.

  3. Frankie: You people have to be the biggest intellectual cowards ever

    LoL! Too funny. I was going to say that you needed to wait because keiths hadn’t weighed in yet. And then right on cue!

  4. keiths:
    Allan, to Frankie:

    I’ll bet everyone but Frankie got a good laugh out of that.I know I did.

    It was funny reading Allan’s mangling of what was said. I find evoTARD desperation to be hilarious. That is why I find you to be especially amusing

  5. Mung: LoL! Too funny. I was going to say that you needed to wait because keiths hadn’t weighed in yet. And then right on cue!

    After Robin’s dumbass, ignorant, question-begging diatribe, I felt that the time was right.

  6. newton, I don’t think that I am winning. There isn’t any doubt about it. Robin is frantically trying to define its way out of having to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That alone proves you guys aren’t interested in science, which requires that the claims be testable and tested.

    You people’s comments reek of intellectual cowardice and desperation.

  7. Frankie: LoL! It didn’t do that. The plaintiffs got away with lies, misrepresentations and bluffs.

    LOL! You keep telling yourself that Joe!

    And more holy shit question begging from Robin-

    …and more meltdown from Joe…

    Please tell us how you determined that biological processes are natural as opposed to artificial.

    It’s in the definition Joe. If it ain’t man-made, it’s natural.

    You have to have a way to test that claim, Robin.

    Not so Joey-Joe Joe:

    Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence.

    Them blind and mindless processes…that’s what science studies there Joe.

    You don’t get to baldly assert that they are.

    I’m not…it’s definitional Joe.

    And that means you have to demonstrate that nature produced living organisms and you can’t.

    Sorry Joe…that would be Science 101. Oh well…

    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.

    Want some cheese with that whine Joe?

  8. Robin,

    Umm, it’s a matter of record that the plaintiffs lied, misrepresented and bluffed their way through the trial. It’s an evidential thing

    Please tell us how you determined that biological processes are natural as opposed to artificial.

    It’s in the definition Joe

    BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Just cuz someone defined it as such doesn’t make it so, Robin. It has to be demonstrated, which no one has.

    And that means you have to demonstrate that nature produced living organisms and you can’t.

    Sorry Joe…that would be Science 101.

    Yes, you are and yes it is. YOUR reference says the claims must be testable .

    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]

    And we are still waiting for those testable explanations and predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    And still waiting.

  10. Frankie: Not so. SETI isn’t looking for man made signals and yet they are looking for artificial signals. And an artifact is anything made by an intentional agency- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/

    Not this old chestnut, Joe. SETI haven’t yet found any EM signals that cannot be explained as coming from natural processes. If and when SETI have found a signal that is not explainable, an anomaly, that will be the time for hypotheses that could include an intelligent civilization as a source. Any talk of what such a signal might be is pure speculation. First find your unexplainable signal. Horse first then cart!

  11. Alan Fox: SETI haven’t yet found any EM signals that cannot be explained as coming from natural processes.

    Irrelevant to the point, Alan. Care to try again and actually address what I posted? Seth Shostak of SETI said they will determine they found ET on the basis of “artificiality”. I think I will go with what he says about the subject.

  12. Frankie: Irrelevant to the point, Alan. Care to try again and actually address what I posted? Seth Shostak of SETI said they will determine they found ET on the basis of “artificiality”. I think I will go with what he says about the subject.

    Care to provide the link to Seth Shostak so we can see what you are referring to. My point is there can be no explanatory hypothesis without some data. If Shostak were proposing a hypothesis that postulates intelligent life elsewhere without supporting data (and there is none, so far) then he would be no different from an ID proponent.

    I’m skeptical of your claim.

  13. Robin,

    It’s in the definition Joe

    I’m not…it’s definitional Joe.

    Science by means of definitions is dogma

    Them blind and mindless processes…that’s what science studies there Joe.

    Blind and mindless processes don’t produce artifacts nor commit crimes. And yet science studies both artifacts and crimes.

    But then again you are confusing dogma with science.

  14. Alan Fox: Care to provide the link to Seth Shostak so we can see what you are referring to. My point is there can be no explanatory hypothesis without some data. If Shostak were proposing a hypothesis that postulates intelligent life elsewhere without supporting data (and there is none, so far) then he would be no different from an ID proponent.

    I’m skeptical of your claim.

    Wow, you just have no idea what I am saying and I find that to be very funny.

    What type of signal do you think SETI is looking for if not artificial? There listening for something, Alan- can we at least agree on that? And seeing that SETI stands for (the) search for extraterrestrial intelligence, what do you think they are searching for using radio telescopes?
    http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html

    If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes.- Seth Shostak, SETI

    And don’t get all excited about Seth’s dissing of ID. He has been shown to be very wrong in that regard

  19. LoL! “Real data” that shows what, exactly? Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution.

    Real data that shows Richie can equivocate without shame. But thanks for the comment count

  20. Frankie:
    LoL! “Real data” that shows what, exactly? Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution.

    Real data that shows Richie can equivocate without shame. But thanks for the comment count

    A few points.
    Stop stroking it to comment count., It isn’t validation, much as you attention whore.

    Where is the design (outside of the experiment). At what point does the design inform evolution, or was the designer meddling from afar or between camera shots?

    Or, does evolution just work.

  21. LoL! It’s equivocation all the way down for Richie. How many times do we have to go over this, Richie? Why is it that you are incapable of understanding what you are so vehemently opposed to? Why do you refuse to learn and think that willful ignorance is a good place to argue from?

    Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution, Richie. How much intervention is required?

  22. Frankie: Genetic algorithms are examples of Intelligent Design Evolution, Richie. How much intervention is required?

    Genetic algorithms have their objective function in their source code.

    You fail again.

    Now back to the example – where is the design?

    Do you know?

    Is there any?

  23. Where is the design (outside of the experiment).

    The organisms.

    At what point does the design inform evolution, or was the designer meddling from afar or between camera shots?

    Gibberish- I need someone to translate your imbecilic dialogue.

    Or, does evolution just work.

    The question is does evolution happen by design or is it willy nilly

  24. Genetic algorithms have their objective function in their source code

    Yes and so do organisms. Or do you have any evidence that nature can produce living organisms from just matter and energy? If not then you are just question-begging. And not even YECs doubt that bacteria can evolve into bacteria and gaining anti-biotic resistance. Most times that comes from breaking internal machinery.

    There isn’t anything in that experiment that shows IC systems evolved, let alone evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.

  27. Richardthughes: Genetic algorithms have their objective function in their source code.

    But it’s only those with no objective function that really model blind, mechanical, mindless evolutionism. 🙂

  28. What, Richie? You can’t test the claim that nature produced living organisms? Then you shut the fuck up.

  29. Frankie,

    You made the claim. Get to your lab “That doesn’t count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there” and test it ““Name ONE GA expert here- besides me (yes I have used and written them)” report back when you’ve finished,

    Bye!

  30. Mung: But it’s only those with no objective function that really model blind, mechanical, mindless evolutionism.

    It simply has to flourish in an environment of our choosing.

  31. Richie, cupcake, this thread is about you and yours FAILing to support the claims of your position. I don’t need a lab as it is obvious that living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry.

    You are just a flailing failure. You want desperately to turn the onus on your opponents when yours is the first to the plate. If you are afraid to take some swings then get out of the way.

  33. Mung: Organisms certainly appear to flourish whether they are evolving or not.

    Crystals flourish in certain environments. Memes flourish in certain environments. And evoTARD nonsense seems to be flourishing.

  35. Frankie,

    Nice try Kellyanne.

    You made a claim. Now look at you squirt ink / point elsewhere / shit your pants. Vintage Joe – make him say something specific, get meltdown.

  36. Mung: Organisms certainly appear to flourish whether they are evolving or not.

    Not the extinct ones. What changed for them?

  38. Thank you, watch the comment count flourish in this evoTARD environment. And watch as the evoTARD house of cards is exposed as unscientific dogma.

  39. Mung,

    OK Mung, it’s your turn to take out the trash. You have chided me for playing with it so what’s it going to be? Or do we just let it all sit and fester?

  40. Frankie,

    Comment count. You’re such a sad case. Go look at untelligent reasoning for your worth when you’re not a parasite.

  41. Thank you Richie. I see that you are commenting but clearly you don’t have anything to say as it isn’t getting through my imbecile filter. But thanks for adding to the comment count.

  42. LOL! Mung just wants to shit-stir so he’s egging Joe on.

    Joe is so ronery and desperate for a friend he’ll gladly suck Mung’s tiny ****

    What a match made in ID heaven. 🙂

  44. Frankie,

    You’re welcome. Have another:

    Evolution is the dominant explanation for the diversity of life. Its in text books. It is taught everywhere. It replaced creationism which was crap for all manner of reasons.

    But along comes this new kid who says that the objective function for life is in its code. And, what’s more – by his own admission he has the skill to crack this code and a lab many would be jealous of. Which nobel prize should we award him – he’s eligible for a few! How many biology textbooks will have chapter(s) on Gallien’s Law? What a time to be alive.. with only two small problems:

    (1) – It’s not there
    (2) – You’re a well known bullshitter who wildly overstates his own very limited abilities and is only here for our amusement.

    Awwww.. so close.

Leave a Reply