Friday, November 14, 2014

A Very Short Course On Evolution

[Author's Note: this is a very shortened version of a much larger document which I have been working on for a very long time. There is absolutely no, NO, creationism involved whatsoever. Evolution must be analyzed on its own claimed basis as a science, as a settled science, valid enough to be incorporated in the law of the land as it has been.

Evolution is claimed to be “true”. It is frequently claimed that “if you understood it, then you’d know it is true”. It is claimed that it is "perverse" to question evolution. But few know what evolution actually entails, and this is a stripped down summary.]

How can we have trustworthy knowledge of reality? Enlightenment based science – Empiricism – is based on the need for objective knowledge in order to eliminate the bias inherent in subjective, personal knowledge, which is referred to as “opinion”. Objective knowledge requires the ability for different observers to obtain the same results when independently re-creating the cause in order to observe the effect. If an hypothesis is objectively true, then by forcing the causal conditions rigorously, then the same effect must be seen every time in order for the hypothesis to be granted the status of objective knowledge, and the cause/effect to be a “theory”. If all reality is physical and has cause/effect relationships which are reliably based in determinism, then it is physically possible to assert a cause and to produce a predictable effect, each and every time the cause is asserted, for all of reality.

Is evolution properly called objective knowledge of a causal phenomenon in physical reality, and is there empirical, experimental, falsifiable, replicable, open data which legitimately grants evolution the title of “objective knowledge”?

Here are some facts – actual facts – about evolutionary theories.

Darwin’s theory comes down to just two causal forces: gradual variation and selection. A third principle was Common descent, but it is not a causal theory in the sense that variation/selection is. And a fourth principle is gradualism, which is enabling and more catalytic than causal. These points were supported by a huge myriad of stories which he derived from inductive observations. After Darwin, the use of story telling became the main feature of evolutionary theory, and the stories were referred to as “Just So Stories” by Stephen Jay Gould. It has been said that Darwin created story telling as a scientific discipline, and it has, in fact become the stock in trade of not only evolutionary theory, but also other non-empirical sciences, which create hypotheses and then claim them as facts without empirical validation. A common claim is that there is a “mountain” of evidence for evolution, and that constitutes two things: fossil record, and genetics. Neither, however, is conclusive objective evidence for evolution.

The fossil record shows that various animals lived at certain times, as is revealed in the strata or layers in which their skeletal remains are found. It is extrapolated inferentially, i.e. without empirical, objective proof, that animals in one layer generated the new species in the next higher layer, and some connected variations are probable, while others are inexplicable. Further, the Darwinian tree of life has become a bush, a grid, a woven fabric, and in the case of the pre-Cambrian Explosion, a lawn.

Because Darwin also accepted Lamarckism, a new theory emerged which accepted variation and selection, but rejected inheritance by changes acquired during the parent’s lifetime, aka soft inheritance. Lamarckism held that if a dog’s tail was cut off, the pups would have short tails. Neo-Darwinism rejected that.

The Modern Synthesis.
Evolutionary theorists agreed finally that variation alone was insufficient to allow speciation. After much internal jousting, the theory became variation or mutation with selection. However, after another half-century and the impact of RNA, DNA and protein generation, it became clear once again that the mere random modification of a few pieces of the genome would not produce the complexities required to change from sponge to the varieties of life found in the pre-Cambrian explosion.

The Extended Modern Synthesis.
In 2008, a group of evolutionary theorists met in Altenberg, Austria. Known as the Altenberg 16, this group compiled new hypotheses and techniques which might help to fill the gap left in the Modern Synthesis. The result is published in “Evolution – The Extended Synthesis”, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Muller. The hypotheses contained in the Extended Synthesis are based on both research into the nature of DNA and inheritance (called epigenetics), and intellectual hypotheses such as inheritance fitness landscapes, the evolution of evolvability, origin of replicators, etc. However, all of these constitute more Just So Stories. These represent areas of investigation, not definitive causal theories which are objectively the immutable case. In fact, it is a tacit admission that no valid theories exist to support the claim of evolution, save the subjective and inductive-only fossil record.

There is no empirical evidence provided which demonstrates conclusively and objectively that the creation of new, useful information can occur deterministically. Bacterial “evolution” is Darwinian micro-evolution, meaning that the variation is happening on information already contained within the genome. However, under the Extended Synthesis both variation and now natural selection have been put under the bus. These theories of 150 years cannot sustain what is known of the fossil record.


Modern Arguments Against Evolution.
Information and Its Agents.
It is conclusive that life is, at a minimum, communication-based in the following sense. A great many features, if not all, of living creatures involve the existence and activities of communicators using a commonly understood code which is transmitted over a commonly accessed communication channel and which is useful information that the communicating agents use in order to produce and maintain life in the organism. This happens within the confines of a cell as well as intercellularly, between organs and between brain and organs.

Many of these information channels have feedback mechanisms used to maintain critical levels in the overall system, meaning that the agents function as both transmitters and receivers, as well as acting on the information which is received. And many of these systems are both essential and simultaneous, necessarily existing in parallel, for life in multicellular life. An example of parallel closed loop regulatory communication channels is the regulation of HCl stomach acid. Two separate, parallel mechanisms are required to produce stomach acid, a hydrogen ion generator and a chlorine ion generator. Stomach acid is produced by the presence of H+ and Cl-; regulation of their presence is performed by feed back.

The idea that a single communication grouping evolved by accidental mutations, stored until sufficiently complex to produce a code useful - not to the communication group itself - but to a system outside the communication group, two agents within the group which not only comprehend the code but perform its communicated request, a channel for the code, from changes in DNA cannot be justified outside of an ideological necessity. It is not possible to deduce the creation of such a teleological code, much less the agents which comprehend and use the code, from minerals. It is logically absurd. Further it is not possible to calculate the probability of such an occurrence without injecting ideology into the calculation, as is frequently done with Bayesian projections of probability.

Information content.
It has been said that an egg is an information packet with sufficient energy to overcome entropy of the temporarily enclosed system. The system goes from closed system to open system just-in-time. The open system organism operates in what Schrödinger calls “negative entropy”, under which life and only life grows in complexity and maintains its agent-driven activities on both a micro- and macro- basis, turning energy into complexity.

The length of a DNA molecule is far too long to have been correctly assembled by non-purposeful, random forces. Further, it cannot be said to be deterministic because it cannot be deduced to have happened from minerals and their properties. The purpose of the code, the agents, and the code carrier (DNA, RNA, protiens, etc) is purposeful for life, i.e. it is teleological.

Teleology, having purpose, is not a product of determinism, even randomly accidental. Accidental purpose is logically non-coherent.

Complexity issue:
Dual overlapping code has been found present in DNA. This superimposed second code is a meta-code. The existence of this code reduces the already impossible deterministic theories to be even more conclusively impossible; this again cannot be deduced from deterministic characteristics of minerals.

Cambrian Explosion.
The jump in complexity from single cells and sponges to all the phyla (except one) in the 50 million years or so in the fossil record requires an impossibly steep aquistion of new information being added to a “common ancestor”. The common ancestor does not exist in the preCambrian fossil record at the present time, despite 150 years of excavations.

Utility as Predictor of Effect based on Causality Principles in the Hypothesis.
Is zero; no predictive ability. All of the theories together give no ability to predict an outcome of any organism in any environment. This prediction of everything and nothing is a specific falsifier for evolution, because there is no causal predictive power such that every possible outcome is called an evolution artifact. Because it cannot be falsified, it is not science, so calling it science is false. Totally false.

Further, the claim that evolutionary theory is the "unifying principle" of biology is completely without empirical or logical basis. If that were true, then all of the issues of life's existence would be resolved. They are not. And noted here are many issues that cannot be resolved by any theory of evolution.

Falsifiability as Determiner of Scientific Viability.
Karl Popper’s demarcation between objective knowledge and subjective inference/opinion is falsification, the ability to prove a proposition either true or false. In physical reality, either something exists or it does not, and that can be shown physically. If a proposition cannot be shown to be false in principle, then it is not subject to objective empirical verification, because it could never be physically false. Thus the unfalsifiable proposition is not a candidate for empirical science and cannot be deemed a valid or objectively true feature of physical reality. Evolution and common descent fail this requirement, including the famed “pre-Cambrian rabbit”.

First, the common descent and acquisition of teleological information along with the communication groups necessary for life happened just once, according to common descent, and thus any direct observation is impossible.

Second, any creation of replicators in a laboratory cannot be known to be the same mechanism as the creation of the common ancestor. Contrarily the failure to create replicators does not falsify evolution due to the promise of Scientism.

Third, the laboratory creation of molecular teleological information, communication groups, and the method to activate them is beyond vanishingly small: it is zero; vanished. This realization does, in fact, falsify evolution. However, for Darwinists the adherence to Materialist, determinist Scientistic ideology as a necessary presupposition requires that the vanishingly small characteristic to be held as non-zero, and to be divided by “deep time”, thereby giving an acceptable answer. This is falsified by the Cambrian explosion and is assuaged by the elimination of gradualism in the Extended Synthesis.

The Cambrian explosion, itself, is an artifact of the fossil record; it could be falsified by significant amounts of truly contrary findings, but has not been. It is the CAUSAL factors for the Cambrian explosion which cannot be falsified they cannot be falsified by observation and in fact they cannot be known in any certain, objective manner.

Fourth, even if it were possible to create this in a laboratory, it would have been intelligently created, not deterministically created straight from minerals. It would not suffice to falsify an ever changing set of hypotheses.

Fifth, a pre-Cambrian rabbit would be rationalized into some sort of non-linear evolutionary hypothesis, just as is the Cambrian explosion; it would require a new story and would not actually falsify the existing Just So Stories.

Consciousness, Agency, Qualia and Self.
It is not possible to deduce consciousness from minerals and their characteristics. There is no possible, rational deterministic path from mineral to consciousness, much less to qualia, agency, intellect, and non-deterministic creativity.

Because this alone falsifies evolution, the theorists take the following approaches:

1. Deny that consciousness exists, as well as a “self”, maintaining that they are delusional.

2. Deny that agency exists, maintaining that it is delusional.

3. Claim that new, useful information is, in fact, created all the time. The evidence is that evolution requires it, and evolution happened, so it has to be “fact” and “truth”.

4. Ignore quantum mechanics and the role of consciousness in the creation of matter/energy.

These denialist approaches are necessary in order to avoid the reality that evolution cannot ever, EVER, account for these natural characteristics of life. However, none of these new “principles” of reality can be shown to be the case; each one self-refutes. If consciousness and self do not exist, then nothing claimed by those who do not have consciousness or self can be considered valid or useful; that makes the claim itself false and non-coherent. The same goes for agency; if agency does not exist in the claimant, then whatever he says is programmed by determinism of the prior locations of electrons and subatomic particles in his makeup, and cannot be considered to have any meaning. The continual creation of new information which both validates evolution and is validated by evolution, is spectacularly circular and without cogent meaning.

And finally, many of the intellectual fathers of quantum mechanics claim that reality is created and maintained not on its own existence but by a supervening conscious presence; that must be ignored by Newtonian Materialist determinists, because evolutionary theory requires that the only reality be Newtonian, Materialist and determistic – otherwise a “divine foot would be allowed in the door.” This essentially requires that evolutionary theorists deny, en masse, the principles of quantum science, in order to defend their own story-telling science. In fairness, some quantum scientists also deny the influence of consciousness in reality despite the empirical validation and data which shows otherwise. Scientists do not wish to have determinism removed from reality, because that eliminates the value of empiricism to determine all things. In other words, it eliminates scientism, not science.

It cannot be rationally said that "evolution is true", nor that "if you understood it you would know it is true" for the reasons given above.

The fossil record, in spite of its ever-changing findings and promotions/demotions of fossils into categories of evolutionary "significance", is not objective proof of evolution; it is subjective, inductive-only information of specific animal life which once existed, and is not objective proof of any descent (In fact descent stories change all the time, because they are created inferences, not empirical fact). All the theories of how it might have happened fail at several points: the creation of first life; the creation of all significant phyla in the Cambrian explosion; the requirement of teleological information and the communication groups in living organisms; the animation of the communication groups in living things; dual coding in the information-bearing molecules; consciousness, agency, intellect and non-deterministic creativity. The inductive-only fossil record has nothing to contribute to these conundrums.

Maintaining that these are trivial issues and not falsifications due to the rank impossibility of their deduction from mineral characteristics, and more importantly the impossibility of their deduction from any theory of evolution, is irrational and is indicative of intellectual infection with ideology.

Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records.


  1. Fascinating survey, Stan. I really must dust off my Popper.

    Only comment I have at the moment is to note an editorial error: the second paragraph in the section "Modern Arguments Against Evolution" ends with an incomplete sentence, "And example"

    I also noted one other, but I can't find it again.

    Going back for a second reading now....

  2. Two further enquiries.

    First, I wonder if you can confirm my understanding that the fundamental difference between Popper's positivist and Bacon's inductive approaches to science had to do with the truth content of a theory. Essentially, an inductive approach held that as empirical observation confirmed a theory, this says something positive about the theory's truth value, whereas Popper held that no amount of empirical observation could say any such thing; a theory could only be falsified, never "proven".

    Second, what is your opinion of Popper's 1978 assertions regarding the falsifiability of the theory of natural selection, and his general overall positive opinion on evolutionary theory in general, an excerpt from Popper appears here:

  3. stefani,
    Thanks for the observation, I had intended to return to that and add an example, but it slipped past. Now fixed.

    Popper is correct; his demarcation is the proper differentiation between an issue which can be shown either to be shown to follow from the hypothesis, or not to follow from the hypothesis on the instance of a test performed.

    Induction is subject to the "inductive fallacy" which is illustrated by the Black Swan example: Centuries ago in Britain it could be said that all swans I have seen are white, therefore the next swan I see will be white. This is inducing the answer to the next observation. But when Australia was discovered, black swans were found, and the induction failed. Hume also pointed out that just because something has always been so does not mean that it always will be so in the future.

    Deduction takes the hypothesis and tests it to see of the actual outcome matches the predicted outcome of the hypothesis. If the test is positive, the hypothesis is contingently shown to work. But future testing with more advanced technology or understanding of variables, etc can still falsify the hypothesis, albeit in the future. That's why science, even empirical science, is always contingent.

    In fact, the falsification can be falsified itself, if for example, some part of the testing was not correct.

    As for Popper's late life acceptance of evolution as "true", that was an error on his part because he violated his own principles in so declaring. Neither the origin of life nor the action of descent between sets of fossils can be shown either to be the case or not to be the case. Popper said that selection could be falsified, but the failure to produce it in a laboratory does not falsify what could have happened in "Deep Time" as the Modern Synthesis claimed.

    That is all moot, now that the Extended Synthesis has sidelined both the necessity of mutation and the necessity of natural selection. Evolution remains a tautology: we're here, so evolution is true; evolution is true, so we're here. Circular, non-explanatory, and tautological.

  4. Thanks for the reply.

    Surely an inductive approach to science wouldn't preclude falsifiability. Even Bacon would recognize the significance of that black swan.

    As to the inductive fallacy, I recall a philosophy, professor of mine many years ago summing up Popper's solution as " There is no such thing as induction." Dunno how fair that depiction is. My copy of "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" is in a box somewhere that may not even be on this continent. Maybe I can find a used copy somewhere.

    I understand Popper's demarcation. Where I withhold judgment at present is a) whether it is the only possible understanding of "science" (did not science, after all, advance rather spectacularly even under a Baconian inductive model?), and b) whether it really matters. Deduction and falsifiability are not the only roads to truth. In a sense, asking "Is evolution science?" may not be all that relevant to the question "Is evolution true?"

    I understand you addressed the latter

  5. OK, ignore my last comment. I see I was staring right at the answer when I asked the question.

    Popper was, of course, simply concerned with circumscribing "science", not shaping it.

  6. The original object of empiricism was to obtain objective knowledge. That meant to eliminate subjectivity by relying only on observations which were available to all who wish to observe, and deriving conclusions that were obvious to every observer. The only real approach to that is the falsifiable hypothesis validation through experimental causation to produce the hypothesized effect. If the hypothesis truly represents the actual cause for the given effect, then a properly performed experiment would reflect that, regardless of who or where it is performed. Hence, objective knowledge of a physical cause/effect could be produced.

    The new story-telling sciences are not able to produce objective knowledge. What they produce is a sense of plausibility, based on other senses of plausibility, which in the end form into camps based on biases and prejudicial presuppositions.

    It turns out that the high-energy physics pursuit did just that. But it is experimentally falsified by failing to find any anti-particles whatsoever, as predicted by the hypotheses (story for another time).

    If objective knowledge is the goal, then falsification is necessary. If a proposition cannot be independently shown false, ever, then it is true by definition, only. True by definition is trivial as "knowledge".

    When Atheists and Leftists claim "science" and "logic", they are not referring to objective knowledge or deduction; they are implying an Appeal To Authority inherent in objective knowledge and deduction, but they do not have it at all. What they have is primarily evolution, which calls itself a science, and refers to physics for stolen authority - "it's as true as the earth revolving around the sun, and you are a flat-earther if you don't believe evolution". And, "You are anti-science and want to destroy our education system".

    They appeal to rhetoric and fallacy because that's all they have. The only objective knowledge they have is fossil locations and structures, and DNA. Neither is objective proof of common descent. The use of non-objective inferential processes and calling them "Truth" is the actual destroyer of the credibility of science.

  7. Fossil records and the geological time table. I find it interesting that the only place that we have a 100% full proof “time table” is in humanistic text books. Numerous occasions where the time table is turned upside down and mixed up. It all just seems that there is much more than simple and pure science going on in this debate of our day.

  8. Stan, I'd love to see a timeline of changes to evolutionary theory, and the main scientific discoveries that required a shift in the theory to stay ahead of falsification. I have a hard copy of the Scopes trial transcripts and I've heard that there is a point in which Darrow makes reference to the current evolutionary theories time table and it is only in hundreds of thousands of years, but I haven't searched the transcripts to find it.

  9. Rikalonius,
    Some of that is contained in the book, "The New Synthesis". Several of the authors do address historical aspects of the changes within the theory, including the controversies and disputes between evolutionists with vested interests in certain hypotheses.

    There actually has never been a totally unified front of agreement on an actual, formal "theory", because all the components are not causal in the sense of being empirically demonstrable, and therefore not objective knowledge. So the theory of currency is just that which has a plausibility edge, and there is generally disagreement within the church about that.

  10. First off, hi!

    I found this compelling and persuasive, Stan. So compelling, in fact, I had the lame-brain idea of sharing it with a cadre of atheists on a debate group on facebook:

    I tried to defend your "Course" here as best I could, but somehow feel that you may deserve a better defense than I am capable of. So I share this with you here to see if you wanted to take a crack at some of their misgivings. Totally understandable if you don't feel it's worth the time, lol.


  11. Paul,
    Ok, I'll take a look. If they are somewhat coherent, I'll discuss it with them; if not, not. Thanks for the link.

  12. Stan,

    You know. On second thought: I have to question the wisdom in you even bothering or if it's not rather a waste of your time. They're waaaay too...emotional and waaaaay too OVERconcerned with the fact that you are an ex-atheist. I now have the deep suspicion it wouldn't be much worth your time and I even question the wisdom linking you to facebook. (In fact, I will take down the Facebook post linking to your Short Course here, if you wish.)

    You know, I went into your article here "believing evolution true" basically because of the thuggery of groupthink, based on those Just So stories. Which I have never directly "seen" of course, apart from some pedagogues chart in textbook. But between Francis Collins, Stephen Meyer, Nagel and yourself here...I am now at least comfortably agnostic about evolution.

    And it's certainly lost all credibility as a "instant take-down" of my faith, though that's quite beside the point.

  13. I think having a link open there is just fine. I even tried to re-open a new FB page (I closed out my old one), but couldn't get it to open up so I could get a message in over there. I hope the Atheists there troupe over here en masse, I'll handle them as they arrive.

    Also, I already addressed them in a new post. If you still have a link in to them, tell them about that, too. Bring 'em on; they have nothing.

  14. After discussing on the thread found here,,
    and being falsely accused of holding dogmatic, false, positions, and even another identity!, I thought I would point out, here on this "course", that Stan is actually the one making claims, which he does not support, and claims that go counter to the knowledge, facts, that evolutionary biology has come up with over the last 100+ years. Stan is the one making claims, contradicting the best specialists in the world, and pretending that he is right, they are wrong. He tries turning the table, to avoid answering questions of why his claims are to be taken seriously, rather than universities', natural history museums' and tons of other professionals', who disagree with him. Here are some of the claims found here:

    "A common claim is that there is a “mountain” of evidence for evolution, and that constitutes two things: fossil record, and genetics. Neither, however, is conclusive objective evidence for evolution."
    Stan implies, then, that there is no conclusive objective evidence for evolution.

    "the Darwinian tree of life has become a bush, a grid, a woven fabric, and in the case of the pre-Cambrian Explosion, a lawn."
    Here, Stan implies that the tree of life is meaningless, unpredictable across scientific fields, and literally contradicting the period known as the Cambrian Explosion.

    "the mere random modification of a few pieces of the genome would not produce the complexities required to change from sponge to the varieties of life found in the pre-Cambrian explosion."
    This claim, by Stan let's not forget, implies that modifications, of the genome, cannot possibly explain the variety of life forms on Earth, especially not for the, repeated, Cambrian Explosion period.

    " In fact, it is a tacit admission that no valid theories exist to support the claim of evolution, save the subjective and inductive-only fossil record.
    There is no empirical evidence provided which demonstrates conclusively and objectively that the creation of new, useful information can occur deterministically."

    Stan's opinion here is that no valid evolutionary theories exist, at all, which sound absurd, as there are entire biology departments specialized in evolutionary theory, but that is Stan's claim, again without any support. There is, according to him, no evidence, at all, nothing, zero, giving us any knowledge of how living things evolved, over time, and how they got new information, and how they formed new parts.

    "The jump in complexity from single cells and sponges to all the phyla (except one) in the 50 million years or so in the fossil record requires an impossibly steep aquistion of new information"
    Yet more claim, by Stan, regarding the Cambrian explosion, the supposed evolution crusher.

  15. "The idea that a single communication grouping evolved by accidental mutations, stored until sufficiently complex to produce a code useful"
    Stan does not just make false claims, here he also present a misunderstanding of the science of evolution, by implying that things evolve, then wait for something else to evolve, and then work together. This reminds us of the irreducible complexity, arguments, which is something actually predicted, by evolution, not contradicting it.

    "It is not possible to deduce the creation of such a teleological code, much less the agents which comprehend and use the code, from minerals. It cannot be deduced to have happened from minerals and their properties. The purpose of the code, the agents, and the code carrier (DNA, RNA, protiens, etc) is purposeful for life."
    More misunderstanding, here regarding the genetic code, which is an analogy, not a literal code as agents would consume it. Stan implies that the code is understood by an agent, and that it came from mineral, all of which are wrong interpretation, of how DNA works, and how it came to be. Amino acids, organic molecules, have been found to spontaneously generate. Not the first life, which we don't know about, but certainly not from minerals to DNA code, which is the logical absurdity here. The fallacy, Stan's mistake, is to take the word 'code' literally, instead of as an analogy, which in reality is processes by blind chemical processes, which form proteins and other cells, not by literally reading, or understanding, the code, but just by chemical reactions.

    "Consciousness, Agency, Qualia and Self."
    Stan, in his attempt to deny science, does not realize that he actually sides with the Atheists, and actually reject consciousness, agency, qualia and self, himself. Evolution explains how living things evolved, naturally, and show bigger problems for the Atheist, who cannot explain how the above came to be without divine intervention. Stan is the uber skeptic, who is worse than the atheist, by rejecting well known facts, and rejecting, at the same time, the idea that nature explains the body, but not the mind.

  16. "Conclusion
    It cannot be rationally said that "evolution is true", nor that "if you understood it you would know it is true" for the reasons given above."
    Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records.

    Conclusion, Stan wants us to believe him, and not the biologists, and not even the people he quotes, such as Stephen Jay Gould, who fought Creationism, fought Intelligent Design, and would reject Stan's conclusion, without any doubt. On the other thread, I pointed out 1 university site, along with multiple links to well known magazines, science video channels and more. All of which, completely disagree with Stan's position. Yet, he claims, wrongly, that anybody "believing" in evolution, it's not a belief it's knowledge, is wrong. He rejects the science of biology, its knowledge, facts.

    I will not add more, no more comment since there is no discussion to have, I am not a teacher, Stan just ignored my points, in any case, and the quotes speak for themselves, clearly and loudly. Stan thinks he knows best, so I will link again to the same sites, as they are direct contradictions to Stan's claims, and the other thread is far down the list now, so that people passing by can get the facts. Let's not forget, he makes claims, lots of claims regarding evolution, claims that are contradicted by evolutionary biologists, yet Stan thinks he knows best,


  17. More...

  18. Bob Vong4 has been asked repeatedly for even one single empirical, published, peer reviewed datum which demonstrates the immutable objective truth of evolution. He has not, to this day, provided anything other than Appeals To Authority and other false appeals.

    If one looks through Bob Vong4's objections, above, one finds absolutely no incorrigible proof of any kind either FOR evolution, or that any of the objections made AGAINST evolutionary imagined meta-hypotheses are unwarranted by virtue of contradiction by actual observation of evolution, nor by proof of hypotheses using empirical techniques.

    He has provided no actual knowledge. His links are not to empirical studies but are to didactics based on unproveable and highly varible hypotheses, which are thus definitely not incorrigible, immutable, observable, objective truths which are self-evident to all reasonable men, who can observe them for themselves.

    Bob Vong4 is a TRUE BELIEVER who insists that his Truth must be accepted by all others, or else they are to be considered lesser than Bob Vong4 and the Evolutionary subjective hypothesis community. Under these conditions, one can see the religious evangelicalism that is inherent within evolution, which is not inherent in any other science, because science is not immutable, it is contingent, and honest scientists know that and pursue the questions raised by each discovery - not evangelicalism.

    Further, Bob Vong4's current understanding of evolutionary thought is at the elementary level. He insists that DNA is not a code, for example; it is exactly a code, complete with code switches (IF/THEN decisions). Further, it is well established within cell microbiology that there are coded information channels complete with transceivers at each end which double as agents for performing activities requested by the codes. There is an entire scientific category which studies these:

    I have told Bob Vong4 elsewhere that I will no longer respond to his charges, because his accusations are not accompanied with any empirical support; his only case is that his belief in evolution is supported by his consistent Appeal To Authority, which authorities also provide no objective evidence, but provide only variable hypotheses which cannot be tested, and thus will not be tested.

  19. Bob Vong4 erroneously claims that I reject biology. That is false, and that has been pointed out to BV before.

    Biology does, in no manner, depend upon evolution hypotheses for the uncomplicated reason that evolution does not predict, as do all reasonable sciences. Because evolution cannot predict, it has no value to the actual, real - REAL - science of biology. Biology advances daily, even every minute, now that it is assisted with computerized technology of all sorts. There is no - NO - biological experiment which starts with a specific evolutionary prediction, then builds on that prediction to produce new, objective biological knowledge.

    Bob Vong4 is asserting erroneous understandings of the fundamentals of the intellectual basis for science; of objective vs subjective knowledge; actual hypotheses and history of evolutionary propositions; and the real, empirical, objective science of biology.

    I will not respond to any more of Bob Vong4's ill considered nonsense. I have said so elsewhere, as well.

  20. 1 month later and nothing changed here of course. Stan makes the same claims, without any support, and ask others to disprove his assertions.
    Stan, where is your empirical replicable study proving that intelligent design is required for evolution? Where is your study showing that cells contain agents literally reading the information in DNA as opposed to the mainstream idea that chemistry is ruling? Why reject both Biology's and Chemistry's knowledge?


ANONYMOUS comments and comments by banned parties will be deleted without being read.