Comments on Darwinism's Falsification



Then perhaps you should check out the following thread where function is found in complex sequence by random change:

Every attempt to get you to back up this claim has failed thus far.

(John Harshman) #42

You have never taken a look at the mutations separating chimps and humans. Admit it. You have never looked at any data or read any scientific paper, though you may have glanced at a few. But my experience with your readings of the papers I have sent you is that you didn’t read more than a few words of them and misunderstood those.

You should also remember to separate common descent from the causes of change. You should, but you never do.

(Bill Cole) #43

Or maybe you don’t really understand the combinatorial challenges a blind and unguided process has to find function inside a large sequence.


Physician, heal thyself.

(Bill Cole) #45

How could you possibly know if I have or have not? I looked very carefully at Steves analysis and think he makes a positive case.

All I can assume from this is you don’t read what I write. I told you that I cannot argue this case against guided evolution. If we accept guided evolution I cannot rule out common descent of chimps and man.

(Neil Rickert) #46

The title may have been chosen for the alliteration.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #47

Also Darwinian is not the same as Darwinism. Moreover we all agree Darwinian processes are important so it is legitimate to discuss Darwinian Dynamics.

I’m still waiting for a flood (or a single) of quotes that show scientists claiming that Darwian processes explain everything, and nonDarwinian processes are not important. Those quotes don’t exist. Out of context quote mining on Darwin doesn’t demonstrate otherwise.


Is this a preemptive strike, or have you actually observed someone engaged in quote-mining on this subject?

I don’t know why you are waiting for those quotes. I don’t know of anyone who holds those positions. Do you have anyone in particular in mind who has said that scientists claim that Darwinian processes explain everything or who has said that non-Darwinian processes are not important?

(Bill Cole) #49


The ID guys are challenging the blind and unguided claim as being not only tentative but unlikely given what we are observing. I think these guys have a case :slight_smile:

(John Harshman) #50

Based on what you have posted here. You based your opinion of the ratite paper on your misunderstanding of a single figure. You based your opinion of the crocodile paper on a distance measure that you pulled out of nowhere that I can see. In neither case do you appear to have read any significant amount of the actual text.


But do you accept guided evolution? And “can’t rule out” seems exceedingly faint praise.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #51

I’m, you just quote mined… Perhaps that dignified it too much. You just did a Google search to find a title that includes Darwinism? Short term memory either way.

Great. That is my point. Even you agree that Darwinism is falsified, at least as how I (and most everyone, including Behe) defined Darwinism in science.


We are patiently waiting for them to make their case with real experiments and publications in peer reviewed journals.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #53

He means @glipsnort.


What!? I posted a quote from a review. You’ve presented no evidence that it was a quote mine. If it is a quote mine then Amazon is guilty of quote mining. And I actually own the book. So no, I didn’t just do a Google search to find a title that includes Darwinism. I also own the Ruse book I linked.

Which isn’t saying much, given that I have said that I disagree with how you define Darwinism.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #55

I wasn’t say much in the first place. Only this. Darwinism defined this way was falsified a long time ago, and it is the version of evolution that Behe argues against.

(Timothy Horton) #56

Unless it’s the DI explicitly stating their motives in the Wedge document. Then it’s best to ignore the words and start making excuses about a drunk Uncle. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Bill Cole) #57

Accept guided evolution as a competing explanation.

(Timothy Horton) #58

The DI attacks Darwinism because the lay public uses “Darwinism” as a catch-all phrase for everything concerning evolutionary theory. The lay public is the DI’s target audience with their anti-science propaganda, not the scientific community. It really isn’t a great mystery.

(Timothy Horton) #59

One with absolutely zero positive supporting evidence, just lots of religiously motivated wishful thinking.

(Bill Cole) #60
What is the theory of evolution in your terms?