Larry Moran’s Irony Meter

_{Barry Arrington

November 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Turn off your irony meters. Really … I’m not kidding. They will never survive if you leave them on and follow the link to this post by Barry Arrington onUncommon Descent.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

You Should Know the Basics of a Theory Before You Attack It

The answer, of course, is “nothing.” Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.

OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.

Comments

PPPS: ENV, earlier this year: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_10_neo-091191.html
Despite the poor track record of claiming organs were vestigial, evolutionary biologists have applied this same kind of thinking to our genomes. Many have postulated that the random nature of mutations would fill our genomes with useless genetic garbage, dubbed "junk DNA." This hypothesis was seemingly confirmed when it was discovered that only 2% of the human genome coded for proteins, leaving the other 98% unexplained. Many scientists who serve as spokespersons for evolutionary biology have claimed this evidence provides case-closed evidence for Darwinian evolution: Brown University evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller argues that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design."164 Richard Dawkins likewise writes that "creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA."165 In his 2006 book The Language of God, Francis Collins claimed that some "45 percent of the human genome" is made up of "genetic flotsam and jetsam."166 (Flotsam and jetsam, of course, is useless trash floating in the ocean.) Sounding much like Dawkins, he makes the implications clear: "Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed [shared functionless repetitive DNA] in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable."167 The problem with these arguments isn't so much theological as it is scientific: Numerous examples of function have been discovered for so-called junk DNA. Biologist Richard Sternberg surveyed the literature and found extensive evidence of function for repetitive DNA. Writing in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, he found that functions for repeats include forming higher-order nuclear structures, centromeres, telomeres, and nucleation centers for DNA methylation. Repetitive DNA was found to be involved in cell proliferation, cellular stress responses; gene translation, and DNA repair.168 Sternberg concluded that "the selfish [junk] DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other 'icons' of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature."169 Other research has continued to uncover functions for various types of repetitive DNA, including SINE,170 LINE,171 and Alu elements.172 One paper even suggested that repetitive Alu sequences might be involved in "the development of higher brain function" in humans.173 Numerous other functions have been discovered for various types of non-protein-coding DNA, including: repairing DNA174 assisting in DNA replication175 regulating DNA transcription176 aiding in folding and maintenance of chromosomes177 controlling RNA editing and splicing178 helping to fight disease179 regulating embryological development180 Sternberg, along with University of Chicago geneticist James Shapiro, predicted in 2005 in the journal Cytogenetic and Genome Research that "one day, we will think of what used to be called 'junk DNA' as a critical component of truly 'expert' cellular control regimes."181 The day foreseen by Sternberg and Shapiro may have come sooner than they expected. In September, 2012, the journal Nature reported the results of a years-long research project, involving over 400 international scientists studying the functions of non-coding DNA in humans. Called the ENCODE Project, its set of 30 groundbreaking papers reported that the "vast majority" of the genome has function. The lead paper reporting ENCODEs' results stated: These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.182 Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analysis coordinator commented in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE looked at only 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand, "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent."183 The same article quoted Tom Gingeras, a senior scientist with ENCODE, noting that, "Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more."184 Another Nature commentary noted that "80% of the genome contains elements linked to biochemical functions, dispatching the widely held view that the human genome is mostly 'junk DNA'."185 Discover Magazine put it this way: "The key point is: It's not 'junk'."186 While there's still much we don't know about the genome, the trendline of the research is clearly pointing in one direction: the more we study the genome, the more we detect function for non-coding DNA. Yet the now-dubious "junk-DNA" paradigm was born and bred inside the evolutionary paradigm based upon the idea that our genome was built through random mutations. Yes, a few rogue biologists dared to seek function for non-coding DNA, but the Darwinian "junk DNA" view of genetics has generally hindered the progress of science, as was admitted by a 2003 article in Science: Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure.187 Despite widespread Darwinian assumptions to the contrary, the paper concluded that "repetitive elements are not useless junk DNA but rather are important, integral components"188 of animal genomes. Studies suggest that these long stretches of non-coding DNA between genes "constitute an important layer of genome regulation across a wide spectrum of species."189 Like repetitive elements, another kind of "junk" DNA for which function is being discovered is pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are thought to be copies of once-functional genes that have been inactivated through mutations. One paper in Science Signaling observes that "pseudogenes have long been dismissed as junk DNA,"190 but notes: Recent advances have established that the DNA of a pseudogene, the RNA transcribed from a pseudogene, or the protein translated from a pseudogene can have multiple, diverse functions and that these functions can affect not only their parental genes but also unrelated genes. Therefore, pseudogenes have emerged as a previously unappreciated class of sophisticated modulators of gene expression, with a multifaceted involvement in the pathogenesis of human cancer.191 Indeed, functions for many pseudogenes have already been discovered;192 the ENCODE project alone found over 850 pseudogenes that are "transcribed and associated with active chromatin."193 But what exactly are these pseudogenes doing? A 2011 paper in the journal RNA again argues they can regulate the expression of genes: Pseudogenes have long been labeled as 'junk' DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins.194 Likewise, a 2012 paper in the journal RNA Biology similarly stated that "Pseudogenes were long considered as junk genomic DNA" but "pseudogene regulation is widespread"195 in complex multicellular organisms. The paper proposed that "[t]he high abundance and conservation of the pseudogenes in a variety of species indicate that selective pressures preserve these genetic elements, and suggest they may indeed perform important biological functions."196 Pseudogenes serve as another good example of how Darwinian biologists have assumed that a type of non-coding DNA they didn't understand was functionless genetic junk, and thus ignored their functions . . .
These samplers should suffice to show that this is yet another Darwinist (broad sense) rhetorical side-track.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

PPS: Here is Guardian, back in 2012:
Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday. It is the most significant shift in scientists' understanding of the way our DNA operates since the sequencing of the human genome in 2000, when it was discovered that our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than expected. Now the next generation of geneticists have updated that picture. The results of the international Encode project will have a huge impact for geneticists trying to work out how genes operate. The findings will also provide new leads for scientists looking for treatments for conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and Crohn's disease that have their roots partly in glitches in the DNA. Until now, the focus had largely been on looking for errors within genes themselves, but the Encode research will help guide the hunt for problem areas that lie elsewhere in our DNA sequence. Dr Ewan Birney, of the European Bioinformatics Institute near Cambridge, one of the principal investigators in the Encode project, said: "In 2000, we published the draft human genome and, in 2003, we published the finished human genome and we always knew that was going to be a starting point. We always knew that protein-coding genes were not the whole story." For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books . . .
kairosfocus_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

LM: Apart from the problem of self referential incoherence and self-falsification of evolutionary materialist scientism, there is the problem of ideologically imposed question-begging that "secures" the "consensus" from scientific refutation by mere facts, it is a political war in the institutions that would have to happen. Where we already see lockout and expulsion games and tactics. Johnson is right:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KF PS: BTW, I was around to see junk DNA lauded as most of the genome by Dawkins and ilk, and presented as proof of evolutionary blind watchmaker stumbling. It is design oriented thinkers who stuck out their necks and over the past decade have proved increasingly vindicated. But that is not what the spin talking points you are pushing want to tell newbies.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran : "Do you honestly believe that professional evolutionary biologists don’t have an adequate understanding of any of those things? Do you honestly believe that they secretly know they’re not doing real science and they’re trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the funding agencies and the editors of scientific journals?" There is an obvious reason why evolutionary biologists would be crooked pseudoscientists, which is the commonly human head vs heart struggle. The head vs heart struggle refers to competing objective fact against subjective opinion, to the destruction of opinion. This does not result in a purely scientific factual outlook, but in stead it results in pseudoscience of stating what is good and evil as if it is a fact. Evolutionary biologists have a long rich history of social darwinism, working closely with nazi eugenics, and communist sociology. Besides making good and evil a scientific fact, the head vs heart struggle also results in denial of the fact that freedom is real. That is because subjective opinion operates in a free way. Any knowledge about how things operate in a free way is therefore also a target, in order to get rid of opinion. And of course freedom, choosing, that is where intelligent design science and creationism is at. Which is why evolutionary biologists without any reasoning whatsoever and regardless of the evidence, just outright dismiss the hypothesis that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. I honestly believe it is possible for a whole country of tens of millions of people to come under the influence of such a head vs heart struggle, destroying the heart. Like in nazi Germany, fascist Japan, or communist Sovjet Union. And as it possible for entire countries to come under the influence of it, it is also possible for the scientific community in general to come under the influence of it, and one discipline within science more so in particular, evolutionary biology.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Moran: I can’t answer most of those questions for you (...)
Indeed you cannot, because there are no answers to Bornagain’s (#15) questions. But even if there were answers you seem fixated on a particular subject ….
Moran: but I can help you to understand the scientific status of the junk DNA debate? Do you want to know why it’s not correct to say that junk DNA is a “fundamentally false prediction”?
There you go off again about junk DNA. Don’t you ever get tired talking about it?
Moran: I’d just like to see some intelligent discussion and debate from the ID side.
Well, just maybe you can further the debate by engaging topics other than junk DNA. For instance at post #18 Kairosfocus writes:
Evolutionary materialist scientism is inherently self-referentially incoherent and so, necessarily, it is self refuting.
Why not address an argument like this? I hold that Kairosfocus' arguments against your position are convincing to an extent that they render the ‘junk DNA debate’ irrelevant.Box_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Speaking of the Darwinian theology that is foundational to Darwinian thought Moran, can you spot the Darwinian theology underpinning this quote you made:
"Meyer ... believes that a supernatural being visited the Earth about 540 million years ago and noticed that it was teeming with life -- lots of plants, algae, fungi, protozoa, and bacteria. The god(s) thought there should be some bigger creatures called "animals" so he/she/it/they built a few and let them loose to reproduce and evolve." - Larry Moran http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/from_biochemist100701.html
I'll give you a hint:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
bornagain_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Yes Moran, I understand perfectly well that there is no observation that will ever be allowed to falsify Darwinism since Darwinism is a religion not a science. The question is, are you open to learning why? Or are you forever going to be the internet atheistic blowhard who thinks he knows it all already and tries to defend a dead theory for the rest of his life?bornagain_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Is it possible to truly 'understand' a theory that is basically all smoke and mirrors? That's the whole rub, Darwinists like Moran apparently think that if they can just obfuscate long enough, then perhaps people will forget that there is no actual experimental evidence for Darwinian evolution.
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge (i.e. Limit) of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
relevant Feynman quote:
The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
bornagain_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

bornagain says,
What I don’t understand about Darwinian evolution is why Darwinists think that Darwinian evolution, and all its latest versions, is even a science. I don’t understand how a theory with no rigid mathematical basis, (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria), to test against can be considered a true science. I don’t understand how a theory with no demonstrated empirical basis can be considered a true science I don’t understand how a theory in which its primary mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection, are shown to be grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ can be considered a true science I don’t understand how a theory that posits information emerges from a material basis and yet quantum physics shows material to reduce to an information basis can be considered a true science I don’t understand how a theory that hinders scientific progress by making fundamentally false predictions, (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), can be considered a true science.
I know you don't understand any of these things. That's not the point. The point is whether you actually want to learn. Do you honestly believe that professional evolutionary biologists don't have an adequate understanding of any of those things? Do you honestly believe that they secretly know they're not doing real science and they're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the funding agencies and the editors of scientific journals? Or, is it just remotely possible that your failure to understand is YOUR problem, not theirs? I can't answer most of those questions for you but I can help you to understand the scientific status of the junk DNA debate? Do you want to know why it's not correct to say that junk DNA is a "fundamentally false prediction"? Or would you prefer to remain ignorant?Larry Moran_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

bFast says,
Larry Moran’s “understanding evolution” position is, “If you understand it, you will believe it.”
Wrong. My position is that if you are going to criticize evolution it's probably a good idea to understand what evolutionary biologists are saying. I don't give a damn whether you believe modern evolutionary theory or not. I'd just like to see some intelligent discussion and debate from the ID side.Larry Moran_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

bFast, evolutionary materialist scientism is inherently self-referentially incoherent and so, necessarily, it is self refuting. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

" evolutionary theory" The Evolutionists cannot agree on just what the theory is.Jack Jones_{November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington (10), "He could do that by, for example, pointing to a statement I have made that contains a basic error about Darwinism." What a brave statement on your part. Larry Moran's "understanding evolution" position is, "If you understand it, you will believe it." Because of this simple formula, the inverse, "you don't believe it, therefore you don't understand it" is inherently true.bFast_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

What I don't understand about Darwinian evolution is why Darwinists think that Darwinian evolution, and all its latest versions, is even a science. I don't understand how a theory with no rigid mathematical basis, (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria), to test against can be considered a true science. I don't understand how a theory with no demonstrated empirical basis can be considered a true science I don't understand how a theory in which its primary mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection, are shown to be grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ can be considered a true science I don't understand how a theory that posits information emerges from a material basis and yet quantum physics shows material to reduce to an information basis can be considered a true science I don't understand how a theory that hinders scientific progress by making fundamentally false predictions, (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), can be considered a true science.bornagain_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Well, a clue is that you start out by referring to “Darwinism” rather than evolutionary theory.
There isn't any evolutionary theory to refer to.Virgil Cain_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Gee Zachriel, why do you suppose that is? Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Frankly I'd be more interested in hearing when Barry studied Darwinism. Because, as we all know, no one has taught such a thing since the early 1970's. snortMung_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. Well, a clue is that you start out by referring to "Darwinism" rather than evolutionary theory.Zachriel_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

The mere fact that you are an ID proponent with no education in any science shows that you don't understand basic biology much less evolutionStarbuck_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre, Shallit is wrong (shocker, I know). Moran made the claim that I do not understand Darwinism. As the one advancing a claim he has the burden of supporting it. He could do that by, for example, pointing to a statement I have made that contains a basic error about Darwinism. If he is unable to support his claim it means he made a claim he cannot back up.Barry Arrington_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

BA @ 5: What I notice in certain fields--economics and philosophy being good examples of this--is that the sound work occupies a very short space on the shelf, rests on a small set of principles that are easily grasped and applied, and once stated continues to hold true, whereas the volume of nonsense voluminous, rests on nothing that can be briefly stated, and requires a PhD to apply to any situation, and is revised every semester. To put it in mathematical terms, the book that tells you that 2 + 2 = 4 is going to be a very short book, it will set forth in the simplest terms, it only need to be said once, and it doesn't need to be revised. On the other hand, the books that give you other answers for 2 + 2 have to bury the error in mountains of verbiage, and once the error is discovered, the entire mountain has to be cleared away and replaced with an even larger mountain.EvilSnack_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

No problem StephenB. My pleasure.bornagain_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

bornagain @5, I really appreciate your summary of the Darwinists' pathetic attempts to cover up the flaws in their failed theory. It is especially apt given the present discussion on "irony." Beautiful! Just Beautiful!StephenB_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

With me the horrid doubt arises whether Larry will take up BA's challenge. :)Box_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

If evolution is so complicated that only supposedly highly educated people who have specialized in studying it for years can truly understand it, then why do Darwinists insist on teaching their exceedingly complex theory to grade school children? i.e. If it is so complicated to understand then why are not General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics also taught to grade school children? The truth of the matter is, as is usual for Darwinian stories, far different than what Moran and his atheistic cheerleaders imagine. Darwinian evolution is pathetically easy to understand. And the only reason the current version(s) of Darwinian evolution has become exceptionally hard to understand, in all their nuanced varieties, is because the basic precepts of Darwinian evolution have now been shown to be false, and Darwinists have had to add ever more elaborate epicyclic models to 'explain away' those embarrassing empirical shortcomings to the basic model of Darwinian evolution.
“Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Paso "You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einsteins Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived." – Laszlo Bencze https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/laszlo-benczes-reflections-on-darwin-day/ Why a media dimwit “believes in” evolution - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: "The power of evolution is also, (like Freudianism), in its language. Darwin knew nothing of population statistics or the intricacies of replicating DNA. Nor do most proponents of evolution today. Just as in Darwin’s day, the power of evolution lies in how “obvious” its conclusions are when expressed in normal, conversational language. There are many similarities between monkeys, apes, and men. Therefore it’s obvious that some sort of ancestral relationship must exist. Offspring differ from their parents in certain visible traits. Therefore it’s obvious that beneficial traits will be favored in the population and eventually lead to new species. It’s obvious that a personal god who can willfully interfere with the events of the universe does not exist. Therefore, it’s obvious that the driving force of evolution can only be randomness. Once again, there’s no math, no statistics, no biochemistry in any of this. Further, when any of those studies get applied to evolution, they all happen to disprove it. But that doesn’t matter to the popular mind because the “obvious facts” so well explained in popular language by evolution proponents trump any technical criticism." https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/why-a-media-dimwit-believes-in-evolution/ Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories.,,, https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home
bornagain_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

In one of the comments over at Sandwalk, Jeffrey Shallit has an interesting suggestion: "Nearly every university has a course in evolutionary biology. Have Barry take a final exam in that course under equivalent conditions. If he passes, I'd believe him."Seqenenre_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

If Larry takes up this challenge, who'll judge it? I can#t imagine either of you (Larry & Barry) agreeing on whether Barry understands evolutionary biology.Bob O'H_{November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Always happy to hear that Larry is alive and well and still making a fool of himself. I suggest that we focus on this fairly recent comment.
... neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory — the idea that many mutations are neutral — and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.
What a howler.Mung_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

I can't demonstrate the claim but here goes; Via genetic drift and neutral mutations over many millions of years molecules became men. It was a random process helped by natural selection. How did I do Prof Moran? I forgot to add this happened without any reason whatsoever.Andre_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply