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. Holy shit! Mung, clean up on aisles 1, 2, 6, 9, 11 and what they did in the deli is just childish.

    On another note the imbecile filter is holding. Jane, back to you…

  3. Hmm, what’s going on in here!

    I guess we might as well leave you guys to it as there’s no blood on the floor.

    Attention, other commenters, enter at your own peril. Unless other admins object, I’m suggesting we treat this thread as an extension of noyau. Notwithstanding, usual rules apply elsewhere.

  4. Frankie:
    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

    You mean it’s a matter of your feverish delusional opinion…

    “Matter of record”…you’re a hoot Joe!

    BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Laugh all you want monkeyboy, but that’s the definition.

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

    Uh…no Joe. It’s definitional for science. That’s how it works. You want to change it…you’re gonna have to change reality.

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

    Not a problem…evolutionary theory has been through testing. You folks have yet to show what hypotheses didn’t pass.

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

    And still waiting.

    Yeah…and you can keep on whining while science moves on. Good luck Joe.

  5. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Science by means of definitions is dogma

    Science by means of Joe’s opinion isn’t science. So…I’ll stick with science.

    Blind and mindless processes don’t produce artifacts nor commit crimes.

    Science doesn’t assess anything about “guided or intentionally produced artifacts” or “intentionally committed crimes” Joe. Science studies specific man-made artifact making processes and techniques (archaeology) and physical and chemical (along with some geological, structural, and hydrological) processes and actions (forensics).

    Funny enough, I can understand the misattribution and misunderstanding when it comes to archaeology, but seriously Joe…you need to visit a forensics lab some time. They make NO assessments about “intelligence” or “intention” or anything like that. In fact, in most jurisdictions, it’s illegal for them to even consider such; they aren’t part of the legal system. Their sole role is to investigate “blind and mindless processes” such as the time it takes blood to coagulate or determining the velocity and angle of momentum of a projectile. That’s it Joe.

    You really could not do a better job of demonstrating just how clueless and useless ID is.

    And yet science studies both artifacts and crimes.

    Yes, but not the way you seem to think it does.

    But then again you are confusing dogma with science.

    …and you’re confusing fantasy with…well…who knows…

  6. Alan Fox,

    There one nugget of interest was Joe made a positive claim about ID that testable. Surprising a man of his limitless skills is not pursuing it.

  7. Frankie,

    it’s a matter of record that the plaintiffs lied

    There is a transcript. Could you point to the line where the plaintiffs lied for the first time?

  8. Robin: Science by means of Joe’s opinion isn’t science.

    LoL! As if your opinion matters

    Science doesn’t assess anything about “guided or intentionally produced artifacts” or “intentionally committed crimes” Joe.

    What an ignorant thing to say. Scientists figure out if a structure, object or event was the product of intent, Robin.

  9. Robin: You mean it’s a matter of your feverish delusional opinion…

    Nope, that is your uneducated opinion. I have supported my claim

    Not a problem…evolutionary theory has been through testing.

    Bullshit- there isn’t even a scientific theory of evolution. And you sure as hell cannot say how vision systems evolved. So you lose.

    You folks have yet to show what hypotheses didn’t pass.

    You folks have failed to produce testable hypotheses.

    Heck you think science is determined by definition . Too bad you can’t say how it was determined that biological processes are natural. And too bad you cannot test the claim that biological processes produced ATP synthase, nor bacterial flagella, nor vision systems. And they sure as hell cannot produce living organisms because they don’t exist until living organisms do.

    So it looks like your alleged evolutionary theory is just a bunch of bullshit

  10. Alan Fox:
    Hmm, what’s going on in here!

    I guess we might as well leave you guys to it as there’s no blood on the floor.

    Attention, other commenters, enter at your own peril. Unless other admins object, I’m suggesting we treat this thread as an extension of noyau. Notwithstanding, usual rules apply elsewhere.

    Fuck you Alan, you coward

  11. OK, just because Richie, adapa, acartia, ahmed and OMagain were all born without genital and are brain dead (just a coincidence I’m sure) that is not evidence for evolutionism.

    But thanks for playin’ and boosting the comment count

  12. From Robin’s frefebece:

    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.

  17. Why isn’t Joe in his lab using his programming skills to find the objective function of life?

  19. Robin didn’t name its source but it appears the dumbass is using Wikipedia as an authority of science.

    How fucking desperate have evoTARDs become?

    BWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. Neil Rickert: Based on Alan’s recent suggestion, I am not moving this to guano.

    You would have to move more than that comment, Neil. Or else you would be a hypocrite- oops, too late

  21. Neil Rickert,

    “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

  23. 400 is coming up!

    Thank you, evoTARDs- thank you for adding to the comment count and especially thank you for proving that you are all scientifically illiterate losers.

  25. 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 waiting

  26. Why isn’t Joe in his lab using his programming skills to find the objective function of life?

  27. Richardthughes:
    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.

  31. Richie ReTARDo, what the fuck is wrong with you? You call me an attention whore when it is obvious that is all that you are, you cowardly hypocrite.

    Nicely done, loser

  34. Richie- Richie ReTARDo, so cowardly he can’t even try to support anything. Good thing about that lack of genitalia

  35. From Wikipedia: “Stratus Technologies, Inc. is a major producer of fault tolerant computer servers and software. The company was founded in 1980 as Stratus Computer, Inc. in Natick, Massachusetts, and adopted its present name in 1999. The current CEO and president is Dave Laurello. Stratus Technologies, Inc. is a privately held company, owned solely by Siris Capital Group. The parent company, Stratus Technologies Bermuda Holdings, Ltd., is incorporated in Bermuda.

    Stratus Computer was a Marlborough, Massachusetts, based producer of fault tolerant minicomputers. It competed with computers from Tandem Computers and to a lesser extent Digital Equipment Corporation’s VAX.

    Starting in 1983, its computers were resold worldwide by Olivetti under CPS/32 brand. Then, from 1985 to 1993, its computers were resold by IBM under the IBM System/88 brand.[1] The company is now based in Maynard, Massachusetts.”

  37. You’re welcome. Have another, again:

    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.

  38. Thank you Mung- You were right, it is better ignoring the evoTARDs- well most of them anyway. This is much more fun than responding to their chicken-shit nonsense.

    Thanks again

  41. Richie, neither your ignorance nor your belligerence is evidence for evolutionism and against ID. You have to do better than that. Too bad that you can’t.

  43. Yup, he is at it again. Read the ignorant spewage:

     CSI (the S part) is defined as existing if natural explanations are ruled out.

    That is incorrect and proves Richie is a willfully ignorant asshole. CSI exists regardless of what caused it- See Dembski, “No Free Lunch” 2004. It is just that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via an intelligent agency. Add to that the fact that no one even knows how to test the claim that mother nature can produce CSI and we get a design inference.

    Not even in Dembski’s 2005 paper on “Specification” is there anything that says what Richie spews. The point of that paper was to see if specification alone can be used to warrant a design inference. And that is where what Richie says comes into play. Specification only warrants a design inference once stochastic processes have been ruled out for its existence.

    However Richie is way too stupid to understand that.

  44. Yeah, I know this doesn’t come as any surprise but Richie Tardboy Hughes is back spewing lies and equivocations. Take a look:

    We looked at evolution, and were so impressed we made genetic algorithms. These algorithms work incredibly well, and can take information from their environment and generate new information within themselves.

    Genetic algorithms model directed evolution and not natural selection and drift. Also they can only generate what they were programmed to generate meaning all the information was there from the get go. Richie is equivocating “evolution” with “natural selection and drift”

    Now for the lie:

    Even your Mungs and Joe Gs have effectively retreated to OOL, claiming that that is an insurmountable hurdle to ‘bootstrap’.

    All I have said is that without explaining the OoL you cannot say that blind and undirected processes produced the diversity of life. The observed IC structures that rule biology are, by themselves, still  an insurmountable hurdle to natural selection and drift.

    Unfortunately Richie the cupcake Hughes is either too stupid or too deceitful to understand any of that

  46. It doesn’t matter how many times Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, Occam’s Razor and parsimony are explained to Richie, he still manages to ignore it all. He also loves to equivocate. Case in point-> Over on TSZ The cupcake spews:

    Sal, have you read WEIT? How much of it is a negative case against design? Compare that to ID and how much is a negative case against evolution.

    ID is not a negative case against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution.

    Science mandates that  that purely materialistic processes, such as those posited by evolutionism, be eliminated first. It is also the flow of the explanatory filter.

    Unfortunately Richie will continue to do this because he is a pathological asshole.

  48. Richie TARDBOY Hughes is so fucking ignorant that it thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer. Seriously, see for yourselves- I had posted:

    Concerning life on earth it is very possible to have an ET designer. And SOP requires that we take it one step at a time- proximate as opposed to ultimate.

    That means only an imbecile would give a rat’s ass about the origin of our designer(s). Enter Carpathian and Richie the Cupcake.

    And ignoramus Richie responded with:

    Some guy called Dembski, 2001: “Appendix: Design-Theoretic Research Problems….

    15. Identity Problem — Who is the designer?” 

    Who to take seriously. Hmmmmm. 

    BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What a total fucking jackass Richard T Hughes is! It thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer.

    Thank you Richie, my father’s day got off to a great start. And that cupcake tried to tell me that I don’t understand the ID fundamentals when it is obvious that it doesn’t understand anything.

  49. I Imagine Joe has now used the phrase “cupcake” as I planted it in a comment to trigger him. Will someone tell me, because “I’m not reading his posts”. wink wink

Leave a Reply