Sunday, February 22, 2015

Atheists Critique the Article, "Very Short Course On Evolution"; I Reply.

A reader has introduced an Atheist forum to “A Very Short Course On Evolution” on this blog.

They responded, mostly in the arrogant style of Atheists stuck in adolescent “know everything” mode trying to refute, but without any actual refutation in terms of actual science, and the standard rhetorical tactic of crying fallacy where there is none.

There is one semi-valid complaint that the Atheists make regarding the article, and that is that there are no references at the end of the article, as there would be at the end of a scholarly research piece. Yet there is the most important reference of all, which is in the middle of the article and which contains the thoughts of the latest consortium of evolutionary theorists, and which I repeat here:
“Evolution – The Extended Synthesis”, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Muller; 2010; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. (a compendium of 16 top evolutionists discussing past and future evolutionary theories).
This compendium covers the latest evolutionary theories and includes the reasoning for abandoning prior evolutionary theories as non-viable.

The Atheist experts seem unaware of this, even though it is fully explained in the article – indicating either that they did not read the article, or that they did not comprehend what they read, or more likely that they didn’t care about it. I think probably the latter, since many (all?) of their “rebuttals” are covered in full within the pages of that book. Their self-assurance in their opinions went out of date two decades ago, and much longer ago if they were actually paying attention to the inner workings of their vaunted evolutionary gurus to whom they pretend to be attuned. (They obviously were not paying attention to those gurus, and are operating in an echo chamber which still values theories which their gurus have long acknowledged are failed theories).

However, there are other sources besides that compendium that have been used in this examination of Evolution, including these, which are the most important, and all of which have contributed to the destruction of evolution as objective knowledge (as opposed to Scientistic religious belief). The number of these and others is the reason that it has taken me so long to acquire an accurate view of the evolution as objective knowledge issue:

Theories of Knowledge:
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
John Locke; An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Karl Popper; The Logic of Scientific Discovery
George Boole; An Investigation of the Laws of Thought
William Jaworski; Philosophy of Mind
Bertrand Russell; Nine Lectures on Mind
Bertrand Russell; The Analysis of Mind
Michael Polanyi: Personal Knowledge
Karl Popper: Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach
Thomas Nagel; The Last Word
Brand Blanchard; Reason and Analysis
Yanofsky; The Outer Limits of Reason, What Science, Mathematics and Logic CANNOT Tell Us.
Theories of Science:
Karl Popper; The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Thomas Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific Revoutions
Roger Kimball; Experiments Against Reality
Ian Hutchinson: Monopolizing Knowledge
Robert Bolger; Kneeling At The Altar Of Science
Thomas Nagel; Mind and Cosmos; why the Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False.
W.M. Marshall; The history of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Peter Lipton; Inference to the Best Explanation
Robert Abelson; Statistics as Principled Argument
National Academy of Sciences; On Being a Scientist; Responsible Conduct in Research
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution
National Academy of Sciences: Science, Evolution and Creationism
Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True
Sean Carroll: Making of the Fittest
Grant and Grant: Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population
Jonathan Weiner: the Beak of the Finch
Dawking; The Selfish Gene
RM Atlas; Principles of Microbiology
Cooper, Hausman; The Cell, A Molecular Approach, sixth ed.
Darwin; Origin of the Species; Descent of Man
Sanford; Genetic Entropy
Bio-Information Theory:
Christof Koch: Biophysics of Computation; information Processing in Single Neurons
Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life
Paul Davies, N.H. Gregersen Eds.; Information and the Nature of Reality: (15 evolutionists)
Fred Hoyle; Mathematics of Evolution
John Lennox; God’s Undertaker
Emergence Theory:
Kauffman; Origins of Order
Gleick; Chaos
Waldrop; Complexity
Juarrero and Rubino; Emergence, Complexity and Self-Organization
Mitchell; Complexity
Strogatz; Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos in the Universe, Nature an Daily Life
Kauffman; At Home in the Universe
Now, on to the Atheist critics.

The rebuttals to the very short course on evolution are in these categories:
1. You’re too ignorant.
I.e., You must read evolutionists’ works, not arguments against evolution. Only evolutionists’ arguments matter.

It doesn’t matter that the Atheists themselves obviously have not read anything regarding evolution since Junior High School, and hold dear to the Modern Synthesis of the 1940's and 50's, still in those text books.
2. Evolution is simple, here, I’ll explain it to you.
Simple is as simple does. Ignorance of the falsifications is no excuse.
3. Evolution is proven.
Without open, peer-reviewed data, successful replication and empirical standing, there is no proof, not even contingent proof. Story telling is not proof. Real scientists don't claim this and never would because it is ignorant of the limitations of science.
4. That blog/blogger is ...[fill in Ad hominem Abusive required to avoid addressing the issues raised there].
Rhetorical attacks using logical fallacies are useless in proving the truth of evolutionary claims.
5. “and i tore down all his points
seriously if you read an article that ignores the evidence and then just flat out lies and claims there is none, its not a valid source”.

You have provided no evidence in support of your self-perceived refutations; you have only blustered as if you actually know something, which you have not provided. Your claim is merely bluster without substance.
6. "Straw Man" accusation:
It cannot be a straw man if it addresses the argument straight on, and it is a valid argument. The definition of objective knowledge generation via replication of physical cause and effect is the basic reason for the existence of science, starting with the Age of Enlightenment. Anything less is religion and narrative (dogma). That Atheist site engages in religiosity under the false flag of “science” when it is actually engaging in fact-free Scientism (a religion).

Apparently for evolutionary religionists, prediction is not required in their science any more. Just narrative dogma, stories which “seem reasonable” but which have no objective, empirical validation.

Using false charges of fallacy is one of the worst abuses of logic.
7. he uses the term "micro evolution and not macro" that alone discredits him
Then that also discredits a great many published evolutionists. For example, in the compendium, “the Extended Synthesis”, Jablonka and Lamb discuss macroevolution in their article, “Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance” (see page 166, 7).
8. he claims no new information can arise, MOTHERFUCKING MUTATIONS, and ERVs wich are virus code injected by viruses

so he flat out lies..
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (Name a new species that came from MOTHERFUCKING MUTATIONS and ERVS (a juvenile statement if there ever were one). We’ll need multiple observation of it happening, or else it is just another JUST SO STORY, a fable which is necessary for Atheism to be a self-sustaining religion of self-aggrandizement.

9. " 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. "

i do fucking love argumetns from ignorance
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (PROVE it is false, or else show your own ignorance by your admission that there is no such deduction and you can’t produce one.)

Further, show that it is NOT logically absurd (internally non-coherent) to hypothesize non-determinism from determinism.

Just do it. No? Can't? Then apologize for yet another false charge.
10. he just flat out claims dna is teological with nothing to back it up besides "its too long" on what basis did he decide the length it must reach before it cant be considered part of chemistry and has to have a purpose?
This statement is convoluted; DNA which is useful obviously does have a purpose; to argue otherwise is irrational. And it has nothing to do with length; what length has to do with it, (along with non-compressible, necessary and meaningful information which is in multiple overlays) is the rational impossibility of that being created from deterministic characteristics of minerals.

And again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this (inferential) counter-claim. (Show that there is a respectable probability for this useful information bearing molecule occurring from minerals, based on known mineral properties, which are scientifically known to be purely deterministic.) Or just produce the deductive chain itself as a logical, grounded argument.

Do it. Do it now, or apologize for your tone and condescension.
11. 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” "

no we claims that because it does happen all the time AND WE CAN DIRECTLY OBSERVE IT

so more fucking lies
Yet again: Produce one, JUST ONE, peer reviewed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (New information is created that is not deleterious to the organism, but instead creates speciation).

Absent that data, then apologize for your false charge.
12. he also makes the argument that since sceince changes its all just opinion
METHINKS HE DOESNT KNOW HOW SCIENCE WORKS, seriously ive said it before, the guy who wrote the article knows nothing about biology, ive refuted his fucking points, it shouldn't convince anyone.
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (ANY evolutionary claim of speciation procedures).

Absent that data, you have refuted nothing. You have a religious belief based on unverified stories, myths which are told as metaphysical truths without any empirical validation whatsoever.

And you speak like a child with unsupervised access to a computer.
13. No references:
False; the Altenberg 16 Book, “The Extended Synthesis”, where 16 top evolutionists attempt to correct for the failed previous evolutionary hypotheses, is credited in the text of the article. Within that reference, many, many references are made by the 16 evolution scientists, who both refute mutation/selection and the failed biogenesis theories of RNA world and metabolite world.
14. whats hard about change over time? i mean i can grok ERVS and thats pretty complicated
Again: Produce one deductively designed, empirical, experimental, replicated, non-falsified, peer-reviewed, open data set to defend this claim. (that ERVs produced speciation).

Change over time was rejected at the advent of the discovery of the importance of the Cambrian Explosion, resulting in the Punctuated Equilibrium theory of “the existence of no evidence proves rapid evolution”, by Stephen Jay Gould, 30 years ago, Deep time is a known failed hypothesis for at least that long. Gould's PE is the first “Scientific Theory” to be supported by lack of evidence. Prior evolutionary theory at least had subjective story telling.

Also, the failure after roughly 250 years of fossil digging to find the common ancestor to the phyla created in the Cambrian explosion strongly tends to falsify the Common Ancestor Theory. There is no hypothesis which shows a path from a common ancestor at the beginning of the era to all the phyla created within that era.

From the Introduction to “Extended Synthesis”, by Pigliucci and Muller, pg 14:
”The overcoming of gradualism [deep time], externalism [mutations, ERVs], and gene centrism [micro-evolution] are the general hallmarks of the Extended Synthesis…”

Previous evolutionary theories DID NOT WORK; so they have invented new ones which are even more lacking in evidence (I will expand on this last concept in the near future).

HT: Paul Varhola


Mr. Jibaku said...

For something in which they venomously defend you would think there would be a golden idol of research in which gives them absolute empirical proof. They won't come here Stan. Their illogical concepts need live in an incubation echo chamber to not die. When exposed to logic their world view falls apart.

Stan said...

Yes, it part of their posturing to claim to be above dealing in actual factual discussions. They are intellectual cowards. They cannot defend their own worldview of "logic and evidence" by using actual logic and evidence, because they do not actually have any. All they have is their empty claims.

All of Atheism is empty, no substance whatsoever, but filled with the empty rhetoric of self-levitation into presumption of elitism which they do not deserve by virtue of their actual contributions or intellectual attributes.

An indicator is their inability to hold a reasonable argument without descent into Ad Hominem in the attempt to depreciate the opposing arguer, rather than the opposing argument, which they cannot defeat.

Russell said...

Some time ago, before I knew much about evolution, I got an in an internet dispute about it. I was coming from a neutral position, the evolutionist had a science degree and worked in her field of something-something. One point she contented that debunked the skeptics she was kind enough to supply the reference. I looked it up, found the relevant section on line and read it.

The section said the exact opposite of what she said. I copied the text and presented it as it was, support for the skeptics.

Her response? The skeptics were still wrong.

And that was a big turning point for me, I was no longer neutral, there was something rotten in evolution, and the more I dug into it, the more it became as coherent as Ptolemy's model. Less, really. At least Ptolemy had observations.