"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock

If you have a creadesk, sit at it now and listen to filthy creationist scumbag Phillip Johnson waffle about Darwinism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww6T8xjp9Vo

pauldla

mickrock wrote: »

If you have a creadesk, sit at it now and listen to filthy creationist scumbag Phillip Johnson waffle about Darwinism:

Why do you think Philip Johnson was a filthy scumbag? He seems a pleasant enough chap from what I can find online. Pity about the neocreationism, though. And the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

I can't actually see the video in this territory, so can I ask you to give me the gist of what it says?

mickrock

pauldla wrote: »

Why do you think Philip Johnson was a filthy scumbag? He seems a pleasant enough chap from what I can find online. Pity about the neocreationism, though. And the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

I can't actually see the video in this territory, so can I ask you to give me the gist of what it says?

He's critical of Darwinism which automatically makes him an asshat cretard.

If you do a bit of googling I'm sure you can find out what his views are.

pauldla

mickrock wrote: »

He's critical of Darwinism which automatically makes him an asshat cretard.

If you do a bit of googling I'm sure you can find out what his views are.

Really? It depends on his reasoning (and reasons), I suppose. Though I'd be more inclined to call him an asshat cretard (where did you get that term?) if he criticized Darwinism again and again and again using the same tired logic and sloganeering, without actually engaging with others. That would be asshattery cretardation.

kiffer

pauldla wrote: »

Why do you think Philip Johnson was a filthy scumbag? He seems a pleasant enough chap from what I can find online. Pity about the neocreationism, though. And the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

I can't actually see the video in this territory, so can I ask you to give me the gist of what it says?

"As lawyer I can pick holes in things I don't have an over all understanding of because Darwin wasnt trained as a biologist either..."

mickrock

pauldla wrote: »

Really? It depends on his reasoning (and reasons), I suppose. Though I'd be more inclined to call him an asshat cretard (where did you get that term?) if he criticized Darwinism again and again and again using the same tired logic and sloganeering, without actually engaging with others. That would be asshattery cretardation.

Exactly.

Although, whether something is the same tired logic and sloganeering is all in the eye of the beholder.

pauldla

mickrock wrote: »

Exactly.

Although, whether something is the same tired logic and sloganeering is all in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, that is true. Evidence, however, tends to be a little more definitive. You have evidence to use to show how evolution can happen in a non-Darwinian manner?

mickrock

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, that is true. Evidence, however, tends to be a little more definitive. You have evidence to use to show how evolution can happen in a non-Darwinian manner?

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and look at its evidence.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and look at its evidence.

You mean you prefer to make unsupported claims about this alternative type of evolution you're a fan of.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and ignore its evidence.

Fixed your post for you there.

kiffer

BizzyC wrote: »

Fixed your post for you there.

"I prefer to ask questions because answering them is hard."

darjeeling

In other news...

Bryan College (named after William Jennings Bryan) is going to axe its CORE creationist research programme (link).

The project has been led by Todd Wood, the thinking man's creationist, who has tried to do the impossible in keeping up with scientific research and appraising evolution on its merits while at the same time sticking to his creationist faith. Famously, in 2009, he blogged:

Todd C Wood wrote:

The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. (link)

His relative intellectual honesty - in contrast to the creationist mainstream - earned him a small following amongst scientists. Maybe they were waiting to see if he would ever out himself as a Darwinian. Panda's Thumb has this to say:

Wood was almost the sole representative of critical thinking in the creationist movement. He also had the virtually unique trait of understanding what modern evolutionary biology actually said before opening his big mouth about it.

[...]

Anyway, I fear that Wood is soon going to face a tough choice: to get a creationism job, he’ll probably have to knuckle under to creationist orthodoxy and stop criticizing the rampant intellectual shenanigans in his movement. To get a real biology job, he’ll probably have to give up creationism, at least young-earth creationism. Honestly, I suspect he’s intellectually closer to the latter option, whether or not he realizes it yet.(link)

With the closure of CORE, I wonder if there is any active attempt in the creationist movement to advance their version of science. I can't think of any major novel development in creationism in almost twenty years, since the popularisation and subsequent scientific debunking of the Intelligent Design idea. The recent offerings I've seen have all just been slicker media presentations of tired old propaganda.

pauldla

^^^

And oh, how that propaganda be old.

DB21

mickrock wrote: »

I prefer to concentrate on Darwinism and look at its evidence.

The point of debate or discussion is that when you disagree with something, you bring forward an alternative view, supported by evidence. You have failed spectacularly in this regard, and I have no idea why other posters are continuing to engage you in attempted discourse.

endacl

DB21 wrote: »

I have no idea why other posters are continuing to engage you in attempted discourse.

Because its funny? Like making a kitten tie itself in knots chasing around after the dot from a laser pointer?

sephir0th

DB21 wrote: »

The point of debate or discussion is that when you disagree with something, you bring forward an alternative view, supported by evidence. You have failed spectacularly in this regard, and I have no idea why other posters are continuing to engage you in attempted discourse.

Not necessarily. You don't have to present an alternative view - you can reject the claims of a particular view, without having to present an alternative.

If mickrock is rejecting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution, then he has only to show why it is incorrect.

Sarky

Mickrock, your transparent flip-flop to avoid a ban is actually more annoying than your standard ignorance. Either way, you're going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Please pick up a book on evolutionary biology instead of continuing your farcical act.

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

I withdraw my claim. I think Darwinism is really fab.

Those snakes with legs are interesting. Why aren't there more of these type of inter-species forms around? The place should be full of them.

/sigh 'inter-species forms'? More inter-form species. If the difference doesn't matter to you don't worry about it, but the aggressive tone of your more recent posts makes me think it might.

Now to answer your questions I could go two ways from here. I could point out that such things are common enough, if you have the wit to see them or the knowledge to find them.

To give a short illustration of some of the dramatic ones, we've got:
fish with lungs,
birds with 'teeth',
and mammals that lay eggs.

There's loads of less dramatic ones, but they're easier for creationists to dismiss as somehow incidental. That way I would show that the place is full of 'them'.

But it's kind of a disservice to the examples, because an animal which shows transitional features will still have undergone it's own evolution since it's LCA with any other modern organism, and looking at the bits that are more ancestral ignores the bits that aren't.

The other way I could go would be to explain competition and the red queen effect. For competition, an organism which mutates a competitive advantage has an advantage over the rest of it's population. An antelope with longer legs can't stop lions from stalking it, it can run away faster than it's shorter legged relatives. It's a case of 'I don't have to outrun them, I only have to outrun you'. The less competitive forms numbers dwindle and likely die out as a result of being preferentially eaten

Here's where the red queen comes in. With less short-legged antelopes around for predators to catch, only those predators which have mutations to be better at hunting long-legged antelopes are the ones which can avoid starving. The evolution of an advantage in the prey organism puts a selective pressure on the predator (and vice versa) leading them into a coevolutionary arms race where:

The Red Queen, Through the looking glass wrote:

"it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

You can find more in depth description of the red queen effect here.

The 'transitional forms' you're looking for went extinct because they could not compete against their offspring. The exceptions I listed above in my first point stayed competitive through isolation, or the evolution of other traits which gave them a different advantage (Which is what makes their non-ancestral features so interesting!)

mickrock wrote: »

Your answer reminds me of what Ringo Starr said when he was asked why he was the Beatle that got the most fan mail:

"Because more people write to me."

Probably because we both answered the question we were actually asked.

mickrock wrote: »

If you have a creadesk, sit at it now and listen to filthy creationist scumbag Phillip Johnson waffle about Darwinism:

I don't have a creadesk, but I most certainly want nothing to do with a man who's stated goal is to force theology into science regardless of its scientific validity.

DB21

sephir0th wrote: »

Not necessarily. You don't have to present an alternative view - you can reject the claims of a particular view, without having to present an alternative.

If mickrock is rejecting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution, then he has only to show why it is incorrect.

True. I just thought since MR is so steadfastly against Darwin's theories he'd have a different view to present.

Either way he's failing both our conditions for this discussion. He's not giving (backed up) points as to why Darwin was wrong, nor has he suggested ANY alternative.

sephir0th

DB21 wrote: »

True. I just thought since MR is so steadfastly against Darwin's theories he'd have a different view to present.

Either way he's failing both our conditions for this discussion. He's not giving (backed up) points as to why Darwin was wrong, nor has he suggested ANY alternative.

Let's just give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think a magical sky fairy poofed all the existing 'kinds' into existence :pac:

oldrnwisr

sephir0th wrote: »

Let's just give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think a magical sky fairy poofed all the existing 'kinds' into existence :pac:

I'm not so sure about that:

mickrock wrote: »

...I don't think so. A far more reasonable explanation would be that intelligence was involved. I'm not religious but don't see how intelligence cannot be the cause.

Farewell.

BizzyC

So if it was was intelligent design, but not by a deity, then who did it, Aliens?

DB21

BizzyC wrote: »

So if it was was intelligent design, but not by a deity, then who did it, Aliens?

mickrock is in good company :pac:

Sierra 117

BizzyC wrote: »

So if it was was intelligent design, but not by a deity, then who did it, Aliens?

My theory is Optimus Prime.

sephir0th

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that:

That's basically just argument from incredulity.

endacl

Twas dat badly lad offa Prometheus, I was told...

BizzyC

Sierra 117 wrote: »

My theory is Optimus Prime.

I'm intrigued by you theory, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.....

pH

I think it's amusing that the creationists on the net declare:
"If X evolved from Y then how come we still have X eh?"

while also declaring "evolutionists ... where are your missing links! ... if X evolved from Y then not only should we have X but also X1 X2 ..."

mickrock

sephir0th wrote: »

If mickrock is rejecting natural selection as the mechanism for evolution, then he has only to show why it is incorrect.

The onus is on the supporters of natural selection to show that it is the correct explanation for evolution.

You all credit natural selection with amazing creative powers. As far I can see, natural selelection as an explanation for evolution is no more than an assumption. From the little that natural selection has been demonstrated to do, massive unfounded extrapolations have been made.

So, how do you show that the supposedly incredible creative power of natural selection is a fact and not just an assumption? How can it be tested and proven that natural selection, and not some other mechanism, is the driving force of evolution?

For example, in a sequence showing how the eye might have evolved isn't it just assumed that natural selection is causing it to happen?

Delirium

you manage to gather your thoughts on non-Darwinian evolution yet?