Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Preface to the assertion that there is no objective evidence for Darwinist Evolution

I intend to begin to assert that there is no evidence that is objective in nature that supports Darwinist or Neo-Darwinist evolution "theory."   Not that there is very little, but rather than there is none at all.  Hang in there.  Before I do, I want to remind the readers that science in the last few decades has not been a level playing field.  Allow me to note that the following article is written in English as in British and not American style and spelling. The colored print will be me, while the article will be in normal or bolded black.

credit



Portraits of Dissent

Conspiracies to suppress, manipulate and distort information undoubtedly occur. Society needs to be vigilant to guard against deception. An increasing number of alleged conspiracies are being covered by the media, all reflecting in some way on the integrity of politicians, or business leaders or the scientific enterprise. Conspiracy theorists are skilled in appealing to emotion, phrasing allegations in a provocative way, and promoting their own reconstructions of events so as to capture the imagination of the public. Ted Goertzel's essay on this theme sounded some alarm bells when it provided four recent examples:

"Conspiracy theorists - some of them scientifically trained - have claimed that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, that global warming is a manipulative hoax and that vaccines and genetically modified foods are unsafe."
Cartoon
(Source here)

The problem I have with this is that these cases are all examples of dissent within science, whatever else may be said about associated conspiracy theories. My purpose here is not to align myself with all these dissenters (although in two of the cases I find myself at variance with the apparent consensus), but to defend the legitimacy of dissent within science. It is vital for the health of science that dissenters have the opportunity to probe, to question and to challenge the theoretical framework of the science relevant to their case, and to test all theories by reference to empirical data. The danger I see in Goertzel's analysis is that legitimate dissent is marginalised and treated as the product of conspiracy theory. The consequence is that science is damaged because reasoned arguments of dissenters are re-categorised as "emotional appeals, unsupported allegations and unverified speculations".

In Goertzel's analysis, conspiracy theorising is a rhetorical device employed for a variety of cultural, political and personal reasons. To develop the thesis, he finds it "useful to think of conspiracy theorizing as a 'meme', a cultural invention that passes from one mind to another and survives, or dies out, through natural selection". The effect of this definition of the issues is to exclude the conspiracy theorising meme from scientific discourse: a form of demarcation.

My concern is that Goertzel's four main examples of contemporary conspiracy theorising are, as a consequence, excluded from discussion in the world of science and relegated to political, economic and sociological forums. The first of these examples is the relationship between the HIV virus and AIDS. In 2008, Duesberg and colleagues published a paper incorporating their dissenting views in the journal Medical Hypotheses. So strong was the hostile reaction to this paper that the Editor, who personally carried the responsibility for reviewing manuscripts, was given notice of dismissal by Elsevier (the publisher of the journal) unless the peer review process followed a more conventional format. This ultimatum was resisted by the Editor and the entire Editorial Board. According to ScienceInsider (May 17th 2010), "Bruce Charlton, the editor of the controversial journal Medical Hypotheses, was fired last week by publisher Elsevier for refusing to overhaul the review procedures at the journal. Now, a majority of the 19-member Editorial Advisory Board seems set to quit as well." The intervention reveals a variety of influences that are alien to scientific discourse. Those opposed to the Duesberg message are not addressing his arguments but are engaged in a power-struggle to prevent dissenting views being published. For Professor Charlton's parting words, go here.
Case two is anthropogenic global warming. At least, in this instance, Goertzel recognises that both sides have been alleging conspiracies!

"In the realm of science, the 'climategate' scandal that has dogged the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU; Norwich, UK) has seen the word conspiracy thrown about on both sides of the argument. Climate change 'sceptics' have accused Professor Phil Jones of conspiring with his collaborators to manipulate climate data and the scientific literature, while supporters of the CRU have pointed out that the hacking of the e-mails and the selective, pejorative quoting of their content was a conspiracy to discredit the scientific evidence for climate disruption."
It is worth noting that the two groups of scientists interpret the data in different ways and both claim that the other side is involved in conspiracy theorising. At very least, this ought to sound alarm bells in the minds of all who value the health of science: the priority is to promote evaluation of the scientific arguments, not to close ranks with the consensus and to treat the dissenters as pariahs who have betrayed their scientific training by bowing to vested interests. Goertzel sides with those who think that some of the scientists have been over-enthusiastic and have made mistakes, but also that the link between global warming and human activities (of burning fossil fuels) is robust.
"Climate science is heavily dependent on complex statistical models based on limited data, so it is not surprising that models based on different assumptions give differing results. In presenting their data, some scientists were apparently too quick to smooth trends into a 'hockey stick' model that fitted with their advocacy concerns. Several different groups of well-qualified specialists have now been over the data carefully, and the result is a less linear 'hockey stick' with a rise in temperature during a 'medieval warm period' and a drop during a 'little ice age'. But the sharp increase in warming in the twentieth century, which is the main point of the analysis, is still there."
This appraisal is not shared by the dissenters, who point to far deeper and more fundamental issues. The most important of these is, in my opinion, the strategy of using peer review and editorial control to reinforce the "consensus" position. This is highlighted by Andrew Montford (The Times Higher, 25 March 2010), who wrote: "Among the most serious allegations to emerge in the wake of the leaked emails is that CRU scientists tried to "nobble" scientific journals that accepted papers from sceptics. There are suggestions in the emails that as many as four different journals may have had their normal procedures interfered with."

It is not difficult to find people who have been adversely affected. Here is a statement from Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who was editor of one of the above-mentioned journals. "My interests are purely academic, professional and political. I am interested in the value and misuse of the peer review process. The negative attitudes of the IPCC/CRU people to my often sceptical journal have harmed it." There have been several formal enquiries that have cleared the relevant climate science leaders of unprofessional conduct, but many of us are mystified by these outcomes. The unethical practices revealed in the emails seem to be so blatant. The clearest and most sensible peer-reviewed comment on the debacle, in my opinion, comes from Stanley Trimble, professor of geography at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"Having said that, I must add that Climategate is, in my view, the greatest science scandal in my lifetime. Beyond any scientific implications are the implications of the behavior of the East Anglia scientists and their correspondents - suppressing information, denigrating those who don't agree with them, trying to deny others access to scientific journals, questioning motives, and conniving to disfellow skeptical colleagues. These are the earmarks of zealotry. While maybe not illegal, they are most certainly unethical. Civilized people, much less scientists, just don't do those things - but then, apparently they do."
In similar vein, comments could be made to show that Goertzel's other major examples (vaccines and genetically modified foods) originate as dissent within science and consequently the issues deserve to be addressed within science. Undoubtedly, all these controversies affect public policy, so it is not surprising that politicians, economists and advocacy groups become involved. The desire for consensus should be regarded as a threat to science, because it inhibits the freedom of scientists to debate issues. Yet, this desire for consensus is where Goertzel leads us:

"Decision-makers and the general public are best served when scientists specializing on an issue can reach a reasonable degree of consensus, making clear the limits to their knowledge. If scientists cannot do this, surely it is too much to expect politicians or journalists to do it. But efforts to define a consensus are vulnerable to attacks by conspiracy theorists that portray them as mechanisms for suppressing dissent and debate."
Goertzel's view of science puts emphasis on its progressive nature. One a trend is established, the presumption is made that the science is closing in on reality. Such thinking leads to skepticism about the possibility of scientific revolutions and to minimizing the importance of these revolutions in the history of science.

"Efforts to reach consensus on important questions have been discouraged by the influence of philosophers of science who emphasize conflicting research programmes, paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. While these events do occur in the history of science, they are exceptional. Most sciences, most of the time, progress with an orderly, gradual accumulation of knowledge that is recognized and accepted by specialists in the field. Opposition rooted in religious or ideological concerns is acceptable as part of the democratic political process, but it need not prevent scientists from reaching a consensus when one is justified."
The problem I find with this is that consensus should not be a goal, but it may be a spin-off resulting from the application of the scientific method. It may be desirable for making public policy, but that should not dictate the way scientists operate. Those of us who warm to Thomas Kuhn's analysis of 'normal science' and 'scientific revolutions' have no problem with progression within a paradigm, but we infer that this points to internal consistency rather than realism.

The design paradigm gets a brief mention in Goertzel's paper - in the context of the "advocacy meme" (there are two sides to every question and each side is entitled to equal time to present its case). "George W. Bush famously suggested that students be taught both evolution and "intelligent design" theories so that they could judge which had the most convincing argument." Significantly, Goertzel refers to the sound-bite of a political leader rather than a scientist. But here too, the issue should not be reduced to the conspiracy theory format. There are scientific issues, as Dr Stephen Meyer has shown, concluding that there are "pedagogical, legal and scientific case for exposing students to the scientific controversies that exist about the key claims of neo-darwinism, including the claim that the selection-mutation mechanism can fully account for the appearance of design in biological systems." These controversies are discussed in the textbook Explore Evolution (2009).

My greatest concern about Goertzel's paper is that the scientists representing the consensus position are viewed through positivist glasses. Consequently, they pursue objective information and analysis; they don't have emotional attachments to their theories; they don't make unsupported allegations about those who might differ from them; they do not indulge in unverified speculations. These are cardboard scientists who do not exist in the real world. Sociologists of science ought to know better. What we need in all these contested areas is a greater willingness to engage with those who differ from us; an openness to challenging our own favoured ideas; and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Conspiracy theories in science
Ted Goertzel
EMBO reports, 11(7), July 2010, 493-499 | doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84
First para: Conspiracy theories are easy to propagate and difficult to refute. Fortunately, until a decade or so ago, few serious conspiracy theories haunted the natural sciences. More recently, however, conspiracy theories have begun to gain ground and, in some cases, have struck a chord with a public already mistrustful of science and government. Conspiracy theorists - some of them scientifically trained - have claimed that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, that global warming is a manipulative hoax and that vaccines and genetically modified foods are unsafe. These claims have already caused serious consequences: misguided public health policies, resistance to energy conservation and alternative energy, and dropping vaccination rates.

Climategate: If The Science Is Solid, Why Stoop?
Stanley W. Trimble
Academic Questions, (March 2010) 23(1): 54-56 | doi 10.1007/s12129-009-9149-z
Preface: I must preface my remarks by saying that I believe that there has indeed been climate warming over the past few decades and I believe that human action may be one of the causes. While Climategate may bring into greater question some of the work underlying climate warming, it decidedly does not disprove it.
See also:

Tyler, D. Scientific Consensus is sleep inducing, ARN literature Blog (9 June 2010)

Radar adds Tyler, D.  Post details: Dominant paradigms in science and their attendant anomalies(07/18/10)

~
Currently it is the Darwinists who are the censors, controlling media, academics and peer-review.  They are so afraid of being exposed to scrutiny that they are willing to ruin careers in order to keep control.  The government is in on the scam, parceling out grant monies to Darwinists and proponents of "green" technologies at the expense of all other pursuits.  No matter how damaging a new finding may be to science, such as the evidence of intelligent design in the webs and glues of spiders, a researcher needs to install Darwinist language right up front in the abstract to be published and accepted.   I think the closest I can come to describing this situation is to compare the grip of the Darwinist paradigm to the Spanish Inquisition.

1391- First national uprising vs. Jews in Spain.

1478- Holy Office is founded, because of Ferdinand and Isabella’s marriage. The Spanish Inquisition is reluctantly authorized by Pope Sixtus IV, at the request of the Spanish rulers, Ferdinand and Isabella, and it was first led by Tomas de Torquemada.


1483- Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain. He was responsible for establishing the rules of the inquisitorial procedure and creating branches in various cities. He was the leader of the Spanish I inquisition for fifteen years, and might be responsible for the killing of around 2,000 Spaniards.

1492- Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

1540- The Spanish Inquisition turned it’s fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to bring together the nation.

1542- Roman Inquisition starts.

1547- Jacques Govet is tortured and beheaded.

1553- Michael Servetus is burned at stake.

1633- Galileo’s trial

1808- The Spanish Inquisition is suppressed by Napoleon.

1834- The Spanish Inquisition finally ends.


Something in the neighborhood of 396 years passed between the time the Inquisition was begun and the official end.  As to Darwinism, one might actually conclude that Hutton's 1785 proposal of what would become known as uniformitarianism was the start of the Darwinist Censorhip Era.  Many men predated Darwin in proposing an operation similar to macroevolution (including Lamarck and his own grandfather, Erasmus) and by the end of the 18th Century Darwinism began taking hold as a ruling paradigm.  So one could well suggest that Hutton began the Darwinist Censorhip Era by beginning the popularization of uniformitarianism.  225 years of slow but steady growth of a bad hypothesis, like Kudzu it has choked out all but the hardiest resistance to the creep of stupidity.  The Darwinist Censorhip Era will someday be viewed much as the days when Greeks believed that the Universe consisted of four simple components, as a time when quaint and antiquated ideas that seem laughable to the logical mind somehow held court for many generations.  

Darwinism has many comparatives - the search for the Philosopher's Stone, the belief in a flat Earth, the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth, the certainty that washing one's body was unhealthy and the idea that a pile of rags or a stack of hay would enable the spontaneous generation of life  (Darwinists still believe in spontaneous generation, by the way, despite the findings of operational science).

After years of hearing the Darwinists make ridiculous claims of all the evidence for macroevolution, I think it is time to ask them to actually present something that does not require a fairy tale or Darwinist assumption.  This therefore calls upon them to present operational scientific evidence.  Then, when they have failed, I will give you some evidence in operational science that supports Creation by Intelligent Designer.  So it will be fun to look at the comments thread for this article and note all the subjective evidence and probably a great deal of simply incorrect blather.   

So, Darwinists?  Objective evidence.  What do you have for me?  (Imagine Michael Imperioli putting his feet up on a table and knocking a copy of The Origin of Species off onto the floor).  "Oops!"






39 comments:

Anonymous said...

creeper here.

Since you’re so fond of cut-and-pasting and in light of the fact that you obviously don't read or understand most of the comments on your blog, I will now indulge in some cut-and-pasting as well.

I feel confident in predicting that you will quickly reply with an ad hominem argument instead of any informed response:

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.


We can then in great detail go through the evidence step by step:

Phylogenetics introduction

Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods
Statistical support for phylogenies
Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

Unity of life
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies
Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows
Chronology of common ancestors

Part 2. Past history

Anatomical vestiges
Atavisms
Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
Humans tails
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
Snake embryos with legs
Embryonic human tail
Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
Present biogeography
Past biogeography
Marsupials
Horses
Apes and humans

Anonymous said...

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function

Part 4. Molecular evidence

Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses

Part 5. Change

Genetic
Morphological
Functional
The strange past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates


Of course all of these are discussed in much more detail at the link. I'm not going to cut-and-paste all of that here, obviously.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy, Radar, much as your propaganda websites like you to believe that to cover for the paucity of scientific evidence for YEC (as opposed to taking potshots at the theory of evolution). There is an actual scientific discussion to be had on many, many subjects.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

So it will be fun to look at the comments thread for this article and note all the subjective evidence and probably a great deal of simply incorrect blather.

Yes -- from you.

So, Darwinists? Objective evidence. What do you have for me?

Aortic arches.

"Another classical example of relationships easily explained by evolutionary modifications of a primitive construction is found in the aortic arches of vertebrates (Figure 5.8). Most all vertebrates initially develop six branches of the ventral aorta called aortic arches. In the primitive chordate subphylum Cephalochordata, each branch is continuous with the dorsal aorta. Fishes have modified this primitive construction by forming in each arch a ventral (afferent) and dorsal (efferent) branchial artery. the two being connected by a capillary network in the gills. Sharks have completely lost the first(anteriormost) arch. Most bony fishes (teleosts) have lost the first two arches. The lung fish *Protopterus* shows a curious mixture of primitive and advanced arches, some being continuous, others being broken by a capillary bed. The first arch is lost, and a branch of the sixth dorsal branchial artery serves the lung. Amphibians and higher classes have lost the branchial(gill) capillaries. Tailed amphibians (urodeles) have lost the first two arches; the third arch serves the head region as the carotid arteries. The dorsal connection between the third and fourth arches is also lost. The fifth arch is small and may be lost. A branch from the sixth arch serves the lung. In reptiles, arches 1, 2, and 5 are lost. The sixth arch serves the lung as the pulmonary artery. The only dorsal connection is between the third and fourth arch. In birds, all dorsal connections are lost as is the left fourth arch; otherwise the pattern is similar to that of reptiles. Mammals are similar to birds except the right fourth arch is lost."

-- from William Stansfield _The Science of Evolution_ (1977), pp.107-109

Jon Woolf said...

(continued from above)

Translation: All vertebrate embryos develop six pairs of aortic arches early in their development. After that:

* Cephalochordates keep all six pairs.
* All true fish (sharks, skates, rays, and bony fishes) lose the first pair of arches
* Almost all bony fishes lose the first and second pairs.
* A certain genus of lungfish (order Sarcopterygii) modifies the left 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Amphibians lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, and also turn the 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Reptiles lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches except for the connection between the 3rd and 4th pairs, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Birds lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the left 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Mammals lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the right 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.

Those who know their taxonomy will recognize that if you draw a tree of relationships using this arch-itecture [g] as your criterion, you get something that looks like this:

Cephalochordates
---Fishes (all)
------Fishes (bony)
---------Lungfishes
------------Tetrapods
---------------Reptiles
------------------Mammals
------------------Birds

In other words, the arch-itecture of each major group of chordates simply modifies that of the next more primitive group. The pattern is so obvious, in fact, that each of the last three bullets in my list was created by block-copying the bullet above it, then editing it. There's nothing to suggest that different initial designs were used, or that the design was intentionally modified to improve it, at any point. There's nothing to suggest that the arrangement for mammals is superior to the one for birds, or vice versa. And the tree you get conforms in every respect to the tree of vertebrate relationships drawn from other evidence.

Note that this isn't fossil evidence. It isn't deduced. It isn't guesswork. It isn't derived from genetic analysis. It's actual observations of developing embryos.

Countdown to Radar's desperate handwaving in 4 ...3 ...2 ...

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one other thing: the comparison of "Darwinists" to the Inquisition made me laugh. It's so stupid it doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.

Okay, two other things. This:

In 2008, Duesberg and colleagues published a paper incorporating their dissenting views in the journal Medical Hypotheses. So strong was the hostile reaction to this paper that the Editor, who personally carried the responsibility for reviewing manuscripts, was given notice of dismissal by Elsevier (the publisher of the journal) unless the peer review process followed a more conventional format.

does deserve a response. Simply put, by 2008 Duesberg's claims were already known to be grossly, flagrantly wrong. Had been known so for over a decade. Publishing a paper that argued for Duesberg's claims on AIDS is on about the same level as publishing a paper that argued for the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the diluvian theory of historical geology. It has no place in a reputable journal, and any editor who let it get into print wasn't doing his job.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists still believe in spontaneous generation, by the way, despite the findings of operational science"

Wow, you believe just about anything people tell you, don't you? Or you think people will believe just about anything you tell them.

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion about theistic explanations here.

Chaos Engineer said...

About David Tyler's "Portraits of Dissent" article: I think his mistake is that he can't tell the difference between valid dissent and crackpottery.

I mean, yes, a lot of scientific theories were unpopular when they started out, which tells us that an unpopular theory isn't necessarily wrong.

But on the other hand, if someone says the world is flat, and if he responds to every counter-argument with, "It looks flat to me" or "Like, whatever, that's just your opinion", then I think at some point we're entitled to stop taking him seriously.

So: How can we as laymen tell the difference between a serious scientist arguing an unpopular theory, and a crackpot who's babbling nonsense using sciency-sounding jargon?

The best way to do it is to see what other scientists in the field are saying. If you can't find any, then John Baez's Crackpot Index is a useful tool. (Especially note item #35: "40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.")

Jon Woolf said...

Ahhh, the Crackpot Index! It's been years since I thought about that. I'd forgotten just how perfectly applicable it is to creationists, although with a few changes here and there -- ie, swap "Gould" for "Einstein" and so on.

radar said...

Phylogenetics are a joke. We know from the actual nature of reproduction that there is a massive misperception amongst Darwinists, because they do not recognize design, that causes them to create a big picture overview of organisms and then when the microscope is focused on the organism they look away.

There is a common design in organisms in that they all use DNA as a coding mechanism in concert with the cell. This is much like a computer with a BIOS that is also running a operating system with multiple applications. Darwinists have not begun to answer the question of where all this information came from and how this program was designed. They just stand on the outside and describe the results using their ridiculous mythology to try to avoid the real workings within the cell.

Similarities between the growth stages of vertebrates, for instance, is a standard Darwinist claim for common descent. Unfortunately in real life it better reflects a common design structure. I will once again post specifics.

It is disappointing that you all just barf out propaganda in response to this question. Creeper posting a long list of claims with no proof is what I suppose I should expect but I hoped maybe one, just one Darwinist, would present any objective evidence instead of a long list of mythologies.

I asked for something substantive. For instance, if I asked Johnny to demonstrate his skill at addition by adding a two-digit numeral to 21 and then giving me the sum, I would not expect him to just give me a dictionary definition of addition. I would want him to prove something. If he said 21 plus 17 equals 38 then I might begin to believe he knows something.

All that stuff creeper posted is Darwinist propaganda that I have carefully sliced and diced over the past few years. I asked for some objective proof of any kind and thus far not one of you has come close. The clock is ticking...

radar said...

Also, you people need to pay attention carefully to all the blather Woolf laid down about aortic arches because I will post specifically on that one. He did not give evidence but rather observation but at least it was specific so it will be worth a blogpost. His neat little summation is observational to an extent but it is spun like a vinyl record as you shall see.

Certainly ad hominem belongs to the commenters as they love to call me all sorts of names mostly related to my incredible stupidity. This is because they do not want any readers to ignore the hype and just study the science, so they hope to tag me with a label that stops readers from reading in the first place.

The most laughable is when Woolf called ID and creation science "pseudoscience!" In the light of his complete failure to present any evidence for the cause of the material world, life, information in the cell and fine-tuning (anthropic principles) he may well have been looking into a mirror while typing. Oh yes, and of course it was pointed out to Darwinists that neither information nor life can be determined to have mass, so that it may well be that both have a supernatural nature. Have you noticed the hand-wringing failure of the commenters to deal with information?

Remember, readers, that no new information has ever been observed entering the genome and that speciation is part of the creationist model.

radar said...

Oh yeah, and just take a look at the CRU mess and tell me that the ruling paradigm isn't involved? Go see the Expelled movie and tell me that a modern inquisition is not at work. People get fired for failing to toe the Darwinist line, they lose tenure, they lose grant money and etc. Meanwhile the CRU cheats and lies and twists the data and the big dogs of science are still trying to save their butts and support their positions.

I know atheists don't believe in God and so have no true reason not to lie and cheat. Therefore any malfeasance by Darwinists does not surprise me. One of the best things about being an atheist is that you are not responsible to a Higher Power. You believe you will never have to answer for your actions. So myths like evolution must be propped up to allow atheists to feel good about their metaphysical stance. You can pretend that the problems of life and information and first causes are not any big deal while you have life.

The interesting thing is that none of us are promised that next breath, that next heartbeat. Your swaggering surety of your indefensible positions will be of no use when you cross the line into an unavoidable supernatural condition, which is the state of your eternal spirit after death.

"There are no atheists in the foxhole" as an old Army slogan goes and it is true that when faced with imminent death or torture soldiers will call out to God. Well, not one of us has any idea when breath will cease. You all have an inner concept of the Creator and you can either follow it or drown it out. I will never stop trying to help those who are unsure find their way as long as I draw breath.

Okay, let's review. All answers so far have been blather, a ton of it, the primary questions I have asked have gone unanswered and Woolf has specified the aortic arch as a place to study. That we will do.

Anonymous said...

And once again:

Brave Sir Radar ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When Knowledge reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Radar turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Radar!


What a coward you are, Radar.

Jon Woolf said...

Remember, readers, that no new information has ever been observed entering the genome and that speciation is part of the creationist model.

Remember, readers, that we evolution-defenders have presented numerous examples of new information entering the genome, which Radar has ignored or handwaved aside. I've also presented evidence that until recently, creationists denied that speciation was possible. This, Radar has also ignored because he has no good answer for it other than to admit a mistake, which (as we've also seen) he's psychologically unable to do.

Anonymous said...

Radar, after your shocking and unfounded assertions about atheists lying and cheating, would you care to explain why you - surely not an atheist, despite your claims about not being religious - lie and cheat? Surely God has a thing to say about that, no? Or if not that, what does your family think about this?

I mean, it is always possible that you lack the intelligence to understand, for example, the lie about the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth, or the lie about bacterial evolution disproving evolution, or the lie about the prison population, but I don't necessarily want to level accusations of lacking intelligence at you -

- but that only leaves dishonesty.

Care to explain?

Or just run away?

-- creeper

PS. My bet's on the latter, of course. I don't think that should be held against your faith, but you are one of several very poor ambassadors for your faith on this blog.

Anonymous said...

"Okay, let's review. All answers so far have been blather, a ton of it, the primary questions I have asked have gone unanswered and Woolf has specified the aortic arch as a place to study."

I've presented you with a source to dozens of answers, which you dismiss as blather without a smidgen of evidence, despite your hollow assertions.

I knew you would have no comeback, of course, but the brazenness of your cowardice and incoherence is always a little breathtaking at first.

Is your religion so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice your integrity?

Sad.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The most laughable is when Woolf called ID and creation science "pseudoscience!" In the light of his complete failure to present any evidence for the cause of the material world, life, information in the cell and fine-tuning (anthropic principles) he may well have been looking into a mirror while typing."

Remind me when creationists ever provided any scientific explanation for the cause of the material world, for life, for information in the cell.

Well?

Creationists substitute an untestable hypothesis for this, which is why "pseudo-science" is the correct label for this, whether you like it or not.

As for the anthropic principle, what is the science behind assigning equal likelihoods to the various variable ranges involved? Unless that is established, there is no argument there.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Your swaggering surety of your indefensible positions will be of no use when you cross the line into an unavoidable supernatural condition, which is the state of your eternal spirit after death. "

On our side there is no "swaggering surety" and there are no "indefensible positions". We defend the positions as far as they are defensible, no further. Hence no crossing over into such claims as "God exists", which is a tempting hypothesis to a human mind yearning for immortality, but the fact remains is that it is a mere hypothesis, no more.

The unavoidable condition - death - is not something you can say with "swaggering surety" is supernatural. We simply don't know, and we have no evidence at all that it is supernatural.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Certainly ad hominem belongs to the commenters as they love to call me all sorts of names mostly related to my incredible stupidity."

This is hardly the first time that I've pointed out to you that you appear not to understand the meaning of the term "ad hominem" - despite your fondness for posting dictionary definitions.

For the umpteenth time: name-calling is not an ad hominem. Pointing out that your words indicate that you don't understand what you are talking about is not an ad hominem (that would be a logical conclusion, actually).

When you substitute a criticism of the source of the argument for an actual response to the argument itself, that is an ad hominem.

When you respond to an argument and also remark that the person you're responding to clearly lacks certain knowledge in their education, that may be insulting on a personal level, but it is not an ad hominem, since it is not a substitute for the response itself.

For example, if I said: "Radar is an idiot, therefore everything he says is wrong, QED." that would be an ad hominem.

Capiche?

Probably not, but for the record, it has now been pointed out for the umpteenth-plus-one time.

-- creeper

PS. Do your kids read this blog? Some (or all) of them went to college, didn't they? (The youngest is still in high school from what I gather.) Maybe you could ask them what "ad hominem" means.

Jon Woolf said...

There is a common design in organisms in that they all use DNA as a coding mechanism in concert with the cell.

Which is itself evidence for common descent. All living organisms use the same DNA-code. The same DNA codons always convert to the same amino acids, whether the DNA in question is in a bacterium or a bird. The same four bases, the same codons, the same amino acids. Just as anatomical similarity is evidence for common descent, so is genetic similarity.

One of the things I would expect to see from an intelligent Creator is ... well, creativity. In some ways there's a mind-dulling sameness about terrestrial life. All land vertebrates have four, two, or zero limbs. There are none with three, or six, or eight or ten or thirteen. All vertebrates have two eyes and two ears, arranged in bilateral symmetry. Why not one eye, or three or four eyes? Why not eyes in the back of the head? Why not eyes that can see the near infrared? Evolution can give a logical answer to these questions; creationism can't.

Anonymous said...

"speciation is part of the creationist model"

Hardly.

Speciation is evolution at the species level.

Creationism only accepts micro-evolution, as far as I know, and micro-evolution is below the species level.

It's understandable enough that creationists, over time, need to take on board actual, undeniable scientific findings, such as speciation, but they can't then claim that those findings are "proof of" or supportive of YEC over the theory of evolution... merely that, on the surface, they may be compatible with YEC.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Creeper posting a long list of claims with no proof is what I suppose I should expect"

I thought the link was pretty clear. If you go to the top of these comments, you'll find about a page-long link (on my screen it's in bold blue text). If you click on it, it takes you to a website that details the evidence.

You not knowing how to use a hyper-link is what I suppose I really shouldn't expect, given your past boastful claims of computer skill prowess. Surely you can do better than this.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"maybe one, just one Darwinist, would present any objective evidence instead of a long list of mythologies.

I asked for something substantive."

As any reader with the ability to click on a link can see, you were promptly provided with tons of it.

"So it will be fun to look at the comments thread for this article and note all the subjective evidence and probably a great deal of simply incorrect blather." - Radar

"Yes -- from you." - Jon Woolf

Jon Woolf's prediction was right. Your response is simply a bunch of "incorrect blather". Of course you can't address the evidence, and so you weasel out with a blanket assertion (unfounded and unsupported) that they are "mythologies".

Better creationists please.

radar said...

Objective evidence. I asked for something observable. All that junk of hypothetical nonsense is not observable nor objective.

creeper, do I really need to read the dictionary to you? You are plainly wrong in both doing it and then using the wrong definition.
Ad Hominem - Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person (TO THE MAN)
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.


You guys post verbiage and attack my character and claim I run away and I am still waiting for maybe even one or two clear, concise paragraphs presenting objective evidence. In the absence thereof I am moving on to present evidence that is more likely than Chance, the Evolution Fairy.

radar said...

Woolf, this is either a matter of ignorance or intentionally misleading: "Remember, readers, that we evolution-defenders have presented numerous examples of new information entering the genome, which Radar has ignored or handwaved aside. I've also presented evidence that until recently, creationists denied that speciation was possible. This, Radar has also ignored because he has no good answer for it other than to admit a mistake, which (as we've also seen) he's psychologically unable to do."

Every single time one of you has presented one of these situations I have proved that statement wrong. No new information has ever been shown to enter the genome. Some transference has been observed and information loss has often been observed but the famous "nylon" and "citrase" bacteria were both information loss situations. The four-winged fruit flies were a copying error (duplication of already existing information) that could not live to reproduce anyway.

Darwinists have long insisted that Creationists denied speciation but that must be some kind of imaginary set of creationists in one of those other dimensions. Every organization I belong to or subscribe to or associate with considers speciation to be a function of the normal organism designed by God. You have a heck of a straw man there.

So what are the arguments? Propaganda...personal attacks...straw man arguments...special pleading...attempts to mislead people who do not know much about biology. Still not one shred of objective evidence, like a source of new information, for instance. If this is the best you guys have got then great, Darwinism is running out of new arguments. It is simply a matter of educating a new generation about how reproduction actually works and what DNA is and so forth and a ridiculous hypothesis from the days of "protoplasm" and "blood-letting" and "uniformitarianism" will die a well-deserved death.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, if you are not a liar you will present an example of new information entering the genome now, right now, or you will simply remain a liar. You have never done this and I think the readers deserve to have this pointed out specifically.

creeper, the orbits of the Moon and the planets are not static. Surely you know this? Why is that supposed to help your cause? The total orbital information of the Solar System limits the possible age of the Solar System, including the incredible shrinking comets and the gas giants that give off more heat than they receive and the moon spewing ammonia volcanoes. All of these are symptomatic of a relatively young Solar Sytem, capiche?

radar said...

Oh yeah, and Chaos Engineer's comment was completely empty of anything remotely resembling an argument. So you are a crackpot if you are being persecuted? A long list of ID and creationist scientists have been fired, lost tenure, lost grant money, kept out of peer review and so on. But they are crackpots in your view?

Does that mean all those people being slaughtered in Chad and Rwanda and Sudan and Uganda, etc. in Africa are crackpots? Are the Jews crackpots because Hitler and Stalin murdered them and Palestinians lob bombs into their cities? Was Martin Luther King a crackpot? Was Jacques DeMolay a crackpot? How about the innocent people along the US-Mexican border being killed by drug gangs? Are they crackpots? Was Nelson Mandela a crackpot? Paul Revere?

What an idiotic statement. Crackpot index my foot. That is the last resort of the unlearned.

Jon Woolf said...

Good grief.

Radar, you must learn control. This wild, undirected anger accomplishes nothing. Anger, fear, aggression -- the dark side are they. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Darwinists have long insisted that Creationists denied speciation but that must be some kind of imaginary set of creationists in one of those other dimensions.

Yes, so imaginary that you can read their words right now on this very World Wide Web.

"Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study." -- Henry Morris, Ph.D., founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Every single time one of you has presented one of these situations I have proved that statement wrong.

Such confusion! The dark side has clouded your judgement, Radar. You've declared the statement wrong, but failed completely to prove it. As creeper has so ably pointed out, you can't even provide the first, most basic information that would be required for such a proof: a unit for measuring genetic information. If you can't specify how much information was there before, and how much was there after, then you can't establish that information was lost.

if you are not a liar you will present an example of new information entering the genome now, right now,

Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes.

So you are a crackpot if you are being persecuted? A long list of ID and creationist scientists have been fired, lost tenure, lost grant money, kept out of peer review and so on. But they are crackpots in your view?

You clearly didn't understand Chaos Engineer's reference. Go read the link he provided.

And let go of your anger. Cthia is not well-served by such a waste of energy.

Anonymous said...

"creeper, the orbits of the Moon and the planets are not static. Surely you know this? Why is that supposed to help your cause? The total orbital information of the Solar System limits the possible age of the Solar System, including the incredible shrinking comets and the gas giants that give off more heat than they receive and the moon spewing ammonia volcanoes. All of these are symptomatic of a relatively young Solar Sytem, capiche?"

Radar, Jon Woolf has dismantled both the Moon and the Sun arguments in past comments on your posts. You've failed to address him in any way.

What is there left to say?

You can't run away for ever.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"So what are the arguments? Propaganda...personal attacks...straw man arguments...special pleading...attempts to mislead people who do not know much about biology. Still not one shred of objective evidence"

That is quite simply a lie, perhaps in an attempt to fool the less attentive readers of this blog.

Go look at the first four comments on this post, and you will find a pile of objective evidence that you have failed to address in any substantive way. Note that there is a link to where the objective evidence is presented in great detail.

You asked for objective evidence, you were promptly provided with heaps of it, and now you run for the hills, doing everything other than calmly addressing the points one by one...

... which of course you would be able to do if the facts were on your side.

But they're not.

Run away little Radar, run away...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"So you are a crackpot if you are being persecuted?"

No, but crackpots will often predictably claim to be persecuted to gain sympathy and explain why their dysfunctional theories are not widely accepted.

"A long list of ID and creationist scientists have been fired, lost tenure, lost grant money, kept out of peer review and so on. But they are crackpots in your view?"

This should be read along with any viewing of the movie Expelled.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"creeper, do I really need to read the dictionary to you?"

Why not?

"You are plainly wrong in both doing it and then using the wrong definition.
Ad Hominem - Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person (TO THE MAN)
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."


And lookee there, definition 2 is a paraphrase of the definition I put up earlier:

"When you substitute a criticism of the source of the argument for an actual response to the argument itself, that is an ad hominem.

What was your point again?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"All that junk of hypothetical nonsense is not observable nor objective."

Clearly you never even bothered to read it.

"I am still waiting for maybe even one or two clear, concise paragraphs presenting objective evidence."

Instead you got dozens, maybe even hundreds of clear, concise paragraphs presenting objective evidence.

Your response is one of the weakest I've seen yet, after your cocky and conceited blog post above, but not altogether unexpected. I mean, what can a YEC do, really? Address objective evidence? How?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Surprise, surprise, this horribly embarrassing post, and subsequent further humiliating comments section, has been pushed completely off the front page by Radar with a single massive "cut and paste" job. And you wonder why we call you "Brave Sir Radar". Hint: Its because you always "Runaway! Runaway!!"

This is quickly moving beyond embarrassing into truly pathetic territory here, Radar. You are the one that likes to speak of how smart you are (and paradoxically that questioning your intelligence is an ad hominem attack, no less), so why can't you address the evidence provided to you? Why do you always choose to criticize evolution, other than provide testable scientific theories from the creationist camp (I know why, by the way)? I mean, you self-importantly demand that Jon provide an example of "information being added to the genome", he then does, in the form of "Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes", and your reaction is to immediately move on, posting more unreadable copypasta. Do you think you are a good representation of the creationist movement? How does demanding an example from an opponent, and then upon receiving one, running away by posting more drivel that you barely understand (I'm being generous here), help you prove that you're side, creationism, has all the answers? Show us some testable theories, like one that explains the fossil record i.e. sorting, or one that explains ice core data that shows hundreds of thousands of annual layers? Or give us a single scientist that cites the supernatural in the course of their actual work? Or even give us a hint as to how you are quantifying "information" so as to make your bold claim that no information has ever been seen to have been added to the genome? If you have nothing, and you do have nothing Radar, then what conclusions do you really think those "readers" of yours are going to reach?

I have to admit though, it is fun to watch you squirm, under the weight of all the observable, objective evidence that is throw in your face on a very regular basis.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

What evidence? Canucklehead, objective evidence is not a long list of assumptions built on unproven premises such as creeper and Woolf posted. They just piled up a lot of blather because both of them know they cannot list just one, as there are none. As they say, if you cannot impress them with brilliance, then bury them in BS. Woolf and creeper have chosen the "bury" approach.

I do not seem to be running away. Nope, just checked, I remain right here. To some extent I am Diogenes holding up a lamp in the middle of the day looking for an honest Darwinist.

Lamp. Looking. One piece of objective evidence. Just one? Anybody?

Jon Woolf said...

Lamp. Looking. One piece of objective evidence. Just one? Anybody?

Many. However, in view of recent events I think I'll pick a much simpler, easily-understood one. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's a picture.

Atavistic limbs and extremities like these are known from a variety of species, including horses and cows. They make no sense in any YEC scenario. Yet under evolutionary theory, they make perfect sense.

Anonymous said...

Radar, please. Simply stating that something is "unproven" does not make it so. In case you missed it, this is exactly the "hand waving" that Jon often refers to. Why is it that you don't take on the evidence directly? You know, the way both creeper and Jon break down your gallops point-by-point in their own words. Often refuting each and every fallacy you post. We all know that if you could do this, you would Radar. But you don't, you just say it's "unproven" or whatever and pomptly change the subject. So we're all left with the obvious conclusion that you can't. Again, lets see YOUR evidence, lets see SOMETHING that resembles a scientific theory supporting YEC.

You yammer on and on about how we "Darwinists" can't answer the question of where life came from (although there are a few pretty good theories at this point) and how this should be a big problem for us, yet when it comes to hundreds of thousands of ice core layers, you have nothing. Not even a theory as to how these layers came to be. And the same holds for sorting of fossils in the fossil record. Nothing. And of course the question of "who designed the designer?" Why does your lack of answers not bother you?

And holy man, I just can't believe you actually continue to type stuff like this "As they say, if you cannot impress them with brilliance, then bury them in BS", without some area inside your brain exploding. You're criticizing yourself and your own tactics here Radar. You understand that right?

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"objective evidence is not a long list of assumptions built on unproven premises such as creeper and Woolf posted."

... which happens to be an unfounded assertion on your part. You didn't address as much as a single paragraph of the piles and piles of objective evidence that you were presented after your brazen request. And your claim that you've previously "sliced and diced" "all that stuff" is an obvious and demonstrable LIE, one of an increasing number of lies you've presented on your blog. Could you explain to us what makes you think you're exempt from the Ninth Commandment?

Unfortunately, that's the inevitable consequence of the insistence and insupportability of YEC: it forces you to lie. Which is where the aforementioned cognitive dissonance comes into play...

Think about it, Radar: if your YEC stance were correct and if it did correspond to observable reality (and why shouldn't it?... if you happen to be correct, that is), then it shouldn't be hard for you to disprove every single one of the DOZENS of pieces of evidence that were presented to you.

You wouldn't have to sweat and make up stuff about "ability to flee" or "specific gravity" being the reason why fossils are sorted in rock layers, even though that obviously does NOT correlate to the actual sorting of fossils, or ponder about some hypothetical something or other that magics hundreds of thousands of ice core layers so that they look suspiciously as if they were deposited annually, season after season for hundreds of thousands of years.

You wouldn't have to do all that at all, see? Instead, ice core layers would neatly end, say, around 4,000 years ago, clearly indicating a global flood around that time. Fossils would be a jumble, elephants and rhinos mixed in with stegosauruses and brontosauruses, that kind of stuff. But no, instead the rock layers and the ice core layers tell a very different story.

See, these are some testable predictions one can make based on a YEC model.

And YEC fails them. Meaning it's a dead hypothesis. It's done. Nice idea, but it didn't pan out.

Cut to Radar sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I can't hear you!". That's what you're doing in your comments above.

All this conspiracy-mongering may satisfy you on an emotional level, but do you really think that facts are conspiring against you? That perhaps Satan arranged fossils in the rock layers in a way you can't explain so as to make you doubt your faith? Is that where this is going?

Instead, for some strange reason that I can't quite place my finger on, you choose to mutter something about "propaganda" and "mythologies" and tuck your tail between your legs and run for the hills. Could it be that you can't address the dozens of different ways in which the evidence supports macroevolution and contradicts your unsupported claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution? (And let there be no doubt, you never did "slice and dice all that stuff" on your blog. That's yet another violation of the Ninth Commandment...)

Your continued failure to address anything other than strawman caricatures of the theories you wish to argue against says a lot about the strengths of your arguments. Your inability to address any opposing arguments does the rest.

Where's the beef, Radar? Can you really do no better than this? Is the science of YEC really letting you down this badly? Aren't you tired of having to come up with some other top-of-your-head obviously-just-made-up "theory" of why, for example, fossils are sorted in rock layers while pontificating about "true scientists who consider the supernatural"? Can you not see the disconnect here?

I doubt I'm the only observer on this blog who can see your increased frantic panic in recent months...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Lamp. Looking. One piece of objective evidence. Just one? Anybody?"

Sweet mother of Batman, Radar, will you quit being oblivious already, just man up and answer the evidence presented. Start with the first four comments, top of the thread.

You really got nothing? Wow.

Just one question. Why did you post this thread asking for objective evidence if you knew you couldn't answer it? Was that really news to you?