Comments on Darwinism's Falsification



Do you believe there’s a way to resolve the question, or should we just agree to disagree?

Take for example the following:

Published well after the date given for the demise of Darwinism.

One reviewer:

Darwinian Dynamics is an excellent and masterful synthesis of the current understanding about how evolutionary principles work at the various levels of biological organization… Much like Einstein’s theories of relativity extended classical mechanics, Michod’s multi-selection theory is an extension of classical selection theory… Well produced and current… Michod has written what should be a classic for decades to come.

(Bill Cole) #22

How does this support the claim that the diversity of life is the result of blind and unguided mutations?


Because the differences between species is consistent with the mechanisms we observe in the lab.


Is there a reason it cannot be both? There can be Darwinism as science and Darwinism as ideology, at least according to Michael Ruse. I happen to think he is right.

(Bill Cole) #25

I disagree. The differences of prokaryotic and eukaryotic is not. You have never shown that mutations can do more than provide simple adaptions in the lab. Were back to the claim that demonstrating that flying an object 1000 ft demonstrates it can fly to Mars.

The lab has never demonstrated that the blind and unguided mechanism can perform complex adaptions and there is every reason to believe this is false in my opinion.

We can agree to disagree at this point :slight_smile:


Any time an ID/creationist tries to make it about ideology they are trying to avoid the inconvenient scientific evidence. It’s a classic red herring.

(Bill Cole) #27

If you stop making claims that you cannot support you can shut this down.


How so? Please show us the genetic differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes that could not be produced by the mechanisms we see in the lab.

Take a look at the mutations that separate chimps and humans.


That’s a very small sample size. If I look outside this particular blog I see that Darwinism is still the reigning paradigm.

(Bill Cole) #30

Start with PRPF8 and show a lab experiment that produced it or even a protein sequence with anything close to its complexity.

The claim is that blind and unguided processes produced the diversity of life. We are on the first transition and one of thousands of proteins that blind and unguided process had to build for the claim to be true.

(Timothy Horton) #31

Congratulations Bill on frying every Irony Meter within a cubic parsec. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Timothy Horton) #32

Yeah, why go to scientists to ask about science? That’s like going to an auto mechanic to ask about your car’s engine, or to a cardiologist to ask about your heart. :wink:


I’m going to scientists and philosophers of biology. I just don’t see the point in taking the view of a few people in a single discussion forum who may not even be qualified to address the question as gospel. I don’t even know that there is unanimity of opinion on it among the scientists who post here.

I’ve seen at least one here who disagrees. There are probably more.


This really sounds like a subject for a different thread. Please consider starting one.


There are going to be specific cases where we don’t have enough information to test our hypotheses. That doesn’t change the fact that we do have enough data in other cases, and where we have enough data it supports blind and unguided mutations.

The claim was that scientists assume, as an axiom, that mutations are blind and unguided. This is false since that conclusion is based on experiments and data.

And the data we do have supports this conclusion.

(John Harshman) #36

You aren’t questioning anything. You’re making grand claims for something else, and what you imagining to be questioning is simple denial. The relationship between humans and chimps is tested by evidence. But you have none.


I will consider a thread on the rule of parsimony as it relates to science, unless the administrators think it would be a bad idea.

(Bill Cole) #38

Its all ok but you are stretching your claims.

It does not if you look at the reality you are facing. The data contradicts this hypothesis as you are trying to find function in a complex sequence by random change. How do you model that this conclusion is correct?

If you try to use this mechanism to model the evolution of a conserved complex protein like PRPF8 it will be a serious challenge and has certainly not be accomplished yet.

(John Harshman) #39

I’d say that evolution is either unguided or it’s guided in a way that’s indistinguishable from being unguided. Of course we can’t tell the difference; that’s what “indistinguishable” means. So it becomes a question that science can’t study. You are free to believe that evolution is guided, but whether you do or not will have no effect on how you do science.

(Bill Cole) #40

I have and I think this is a positive case yet there are many unanswered questions that make blind and unguided processes the cause of this credible.