Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[paul becke]

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.
2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.
3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.
4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.
5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.
6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.
7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli

Read the whole article at the link below, at Uncommon Descent.

Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

 

[sfs]

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.

False.

2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.

Shifting slightly with better data? Sure. Changing in any substantive way? False.

3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.

Utterly false.

4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant.

False. Biomedical researchers use it all the time. I've used it in my own work.

5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.

So vague as to be meaningless.

6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.

Utterly false.

7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

False.

So Paul, exactly how many scientific papers have you written? How many scientific papers on evolution have you read?

 

[bekkilyn]

It might be a better argument for a case against evolution or any other scientific theory to get evidence from a credible source such as an actual scientist vs. an alt-right, white nationalist propaganda writer.

 

[JacksBratt]

It might be a better argument for a case against evolution or any other scientific theory to get evidence from a credible source such as an actual scientist vs. an alt-right, white nationalist propaganda writer.

What do you mean by "white" nationalist?

 

[bekkilyn]

What do you mean by "white" nationalist?

‘White Nationalism,’ Explained

 

[JacksBratt]

‘White Nationalism,’ Explained

that's what I thought... It's racist.. It's as racist as any of the things out there that I would be banned from posting..

In this day and age, the only people that you can insult are the white males, Christians...

You cannot say anything negative about women.. or you are anti feminist.
You cannot link terrorism to Muslims or you have islamophobia.
You cannot say "all lives matter" or you are a racist.
You cannot say anything negative about any of the LGBTQDEFGHIJKLMNOPQURSTUV.
or you are homophobic....
You cannot state truth, if it "offends" someone or you are guilty of "hate speech".

Yet, you can label something as "white" nationalistic.... as if "white" is a derogatory term.

Well, that.... is racist.

 

[RC Tent]

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.

Yes it does.

2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.

So what?

3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.

Not a "complete" failure.

4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.

We need scientists that are not engineers.

5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.

Maybe relevant, maybe not.

6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.

Also a repeated success.

7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

The frauds are responsible for this, not the theory.

Pity this person did not cite racism caused by over zealous application of the concept, seems to be worth noting in his case.

Basically this is imho a terrible list of reasons not to believe in evolution, which is utterly unnecessary, because there are plenty of good ones available....why on earth would someone not just use them?

 

[paul becke]

False.

Shifting slightly with better data? Sure. Changing in any substantive way? False.

Utterly false.

False. Biomedical researchers use it all the time. I've used it in my own work.

So vague as to be meaningless.

Utterly false.

False.

So Paul, exactly how many scientific papers have you written? How many scientific papers on evolution have you read?

'So Paul, exactly how many scientific papers have you written? How many scientific papers on evolution have you read?'

Only an imbecile would carry around detailed information not related to his occupation in his head, when there are excellent public libraries in the najor cities. Why not grace us with actual informatin supporting your extraordinarily presumptuous monosyllabic dismissals.

'False. Biomedical researchers use it all the time. I've used it in my own work.'

Utterly, risible. No matter how many generations of bugs have been tested, the bugs remained bugs ! But, tell you what. Why don't you write a book or produce a TV programme refuting those points as you did here, only with some kind of explanation for each one ?

The so-called Cambrian explosion, alone, demolishes Darwinian Evolution, though predictably, atheists come up with weird ways of getting round the matter. In the meantime, why not take up the issue with the boffins and philosophers on the 'uncommondescent.com' blog in the many threads on the subject. They do have some atheists arguing their case (cough)(cough).

 

[paul becke]

Yes it does.



So what?



Not a "complete" failure.



We need scientists that are not engineers.



Maybe relevant, maybe not.



Also a repeated success.



The frauds are responsible for this, not the theory.

Pity this person did not cite racism caused by over zealous application of the concept, seems to be worth noting in his case.

Basically this is imho a terrible list of reasons not to believe in evolution, which is utterly unnecessary, because there are plenty of good ones available....why on earth would someone not just use them?

They did a survey of many scientists, asking them if they had ever had occasion to refer to Darwinian Evolution in their work. Not a single one, it turned out. Bt if you ever 'see the light' on the matter, whetever you do, do not publicise it on the Web, or your career could be placed in jeopardy.

PS: Mods, we are adults here. Let us adopt a robust tone in our responses.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica

 

[sfs]

Only an imbecile would carry around detailed information not related to his occupation in his head, when there are excellent public libraries in the najor cities.

You didn't answer the question. While you were not being an imbecile by not knowing anything about biology, how many technical papers did you read in these libraries? Do you have any grounding in biology at all?

Utterly, risible. No matter how many generations of bugs have been tested, the bugs remained bugs ! But, tell you what.

Hmm. So it's utterly risible that I've used common descent in my work? Here is one study that relied on it. We used a comparison between human and great ape sequence to estimate the regional variability in mutation rates; that only makes sense if the genetic differences are all the result of mutations, i.e. that common descent is true. Here is another study, in which we use common descent with chimpanzees to determine the ancestral state of a human genetic variant. Again, that only makes sense in the context of common descent.

Feel free to point out mistakes in our work.

Why don't you write a book or produce a TV programme refuting those points as you did here, only with some kind of explanation for each one ?

Why would I do that? I already have a job, and there are plenty of people doing that one already. I have written up one piece of evidence for common descent, though, here. Demonstrate what's wrong with my conclusion.

 

[RC Tent]

They did a survey of many scientists, asking them if they had ever had occasion to refer to Darwinian Evolution in their work. Not a single one, it turned out.

But it does work as an explanation....if you need an explanation for how life exists and cannot include any possibility of a supernatural element, because either you are bound by the standards of modern science (which require excluding God because He is supernatural), or an atheist/agnostic.

It is inherent that people would be ostracised for doubting it - because by definition it is unscientific to question it without scientific grounds to do so.

 

[RC Tent]

The so-called Cambrian explosion, alone, demolishes Darwinian Evolution,

It does not demolish it entirely, but I do think it is interesting that evolutionists say that even one fossil out of place would destroy the theory, but do not say that a sudden dynamic burst of life does not. They don't even think it counts as casting any possible doubt.

 

[The Barbarian]

. The evidence doesn’t exist.

Numerous transitional series in the fossil record.

Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

More examples on request.

2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.

Detailed studies between 1820 and 1850 of the strata and fossils of Europe produced the sequence of geologic periods still used today.
Geologic time scale - Wikipedia

That seems pretty stable to me.

3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.

Do we have verified predictions of evolutionary theory?
1. populations tend to become more fit for their environments over time. Verified
2. at one time, there must have been dinosaurs with feathers. Verified
3. Humans first appeared in Africa. Verified.
4. well-adapted populations in a stable environment will evolve slowly, if at all. Verified
5. DNA analyses should show the same family tree of organisms that Linneaus found. Verified
6. There must have been at one time, fish with legs. Verified.
How many more would you like to see?

4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.

Antibiotic protocols work according to evolutionary principals. For that matter, Flemming correctly predicted that excessive use of antibiotics would lead to the evolution of resistance by bacteria.

It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.
Applications of evolution - Wikipedia

Engineers have learned to copy evolution, in order solve problems that are too difficult to solve by design. Optimization of diesel engines, for example:
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections

5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.

In fact, Darwin's five points remain as solid as ever. While evolutionary theory has become more and more robust as we learn more about the phenomenon, the fact that the basic outline of evolution remains verified is pretty impressive.

6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.

Since it can adequately explain things like why shark tail fins are vertical while whale flukes are horizontal, and why mammals have a simple lower jaws and complex ears while reptiles have complex lower jaws and simple ears, you've been badly misled about that.

7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

I know of one major fraud, Piltdown. We don't know who faked the find, but we do know that evolutionary scientists debunked it. And there have been a good number of mistakes with no fraud. On the other hand, there really are many, many creationist frauds. Would you like me to show you some of them?

 

[The Barbarian]

The so-called Cambrian explosion, alone, demolishes Darwinian Evolution, though predictably, atheists come up with weird ways of getting round the matter.

You've been misled about that, too. We now know there was a long history of complex multicellular organisms long before the Cambrian. At least some of them were animals. Would you like to learn more about it?

In the meantime, why not take up the issue with the boffins and philosophers on the 'uncommondescent.com' blog in the many threads on the subject.

Sounds interesting. Do you go to your barber when you need your car worked on? If not, why would you go to people who aren't familiar with the evidence?

 

[The Barbarian]

It does not demolish it entirely, but I do think it is interesting that evolutionists say that even one fossil out of place would destroy the theory,

As Haldane said, a rabbit in Cambrian deposits, for example. But that never happens.

but do not say that a sudden dynamic burst of life does not.

Since the complex organisms of the Ediacaran are much older than the Cambrian organisms, some of which have body plans of organisms thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, that's pretty well established. The Cambrian wasn't the only period when a lot of new taxa appeared, btw.

They don't even think it counts as casting any possible doubt.

Do you think you could show us why you think it does?

 

[The Barbarian]

But it does work as an explanation....if you need an explanation for how life exists and cannot include any possibility of a supernatural element, because either you are bound by the standards of modern science (which require excluding God because He is supernatural), or an atheist/agnostic.

Or if you're a Christian who wants a rational explanation for things like transitional series, the structure of our bodies, or the nature of antibiotic resistance. Stuff like that.

It is inherent that people would be ostracised for doubting it

Stephen Gould, perhaps the most famous recent "evolutionist", willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. So you're wrong there, too. On the other hand, the Institute for Creation Research won't even allow one to apply for their graduate school without a commitment to YE creationism. This is one of the important differences between creationism and science.

 

[RC Tent]

Or if you're a Christian who wants a rational explanation for things like transitional series, the structure of our bodies, or the nature of antibiotic resistance. Stuff like that.

It is possible for a Christian to accept God as a "rational explanation", as long as that person has not accepted the atheism based philosophy that only the physical can explain the physical.

You think that science is how "we" find out what is real, some people think that the supreme spiritual being who said "I am the truth" is. It comes down to personal preference, opinion, willingness to include God as part of all reality, or not. This is not demonstrably a matter of what is rational and what is not.

What is scientific and what is not is a different question.

This is one of the important differences between creationism and science.

Yes, Creationist organisations are preaching ministries, and well I have no trouble comprehending why they expect a commitment to what they wish to share given that they cannot function as such without their members possessing a commitment to it.

Whereas science requires that a person exclude all spiritual possibilities, otherwise it is not science alone any more by definition.

I agree with you, it is very important that people know that modern science is not objective about the existence of the supernatural, it excludes it in order to serve it's purpose. That is exactly why there is no logic at all in treating science as though it is the only way to test what is real.

 

[RC Tent]

It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Creationism is not trying to be the same thing as modern science...it is not restricted by the same parameters...it's foundation is religious, it is not a scientific hypothesis which requires existing physical evidence to be justified in the first place. That being the case, it is not scientific to "test it" the way one does test a scientific hypothesis.

You are not demonstrating here that creationism is a failure as truth - you are demonstrating that it is a failure to be modern science - something it actually does not even try to succeed at.

For that matter, Flemming correctly predicted that excessive use of antibiotics would lead to the evolution of resistance by bacteria.

And we didn't restrict their use on account of this, we have not "evolved" to being very smart yet have we?

Engineers have learned to copy evolution, in order solve problems that are too difficult to solve by design.

Unless of course evolution in this context is design.

Since it can adequately explain things like why shark tail fins are vertical while whale flukes are horizontal, and why mammals have a simple lower jaws and complex ears while reptiles have complex lower jaws and simple ears, you've been badly misled about that.

So can the existence of a supernatural first cause of everything except the first cause itself.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Or if you're a Christian who wants a rational explanation for things like transitional series, the structure of our bodies, or the nature of antibiotic resistance. Stuff like that.

It is possible for a Christian to accept God as a "rational explanation", as long as that person has not accepted the atheism based philosophy that only the physical can explain the physical.

"Godmustadunnit" is never a rational conclusion without evidence. This is why most denominations are extremely careful to rule out physical causes for any supposed miracle before concluding it is miraculous.

You think that science is how "we" find out what is real,

Depends on what it is. Those who declared that communicable disease was the work of demons and lightning bolts the work of a vengeful God personally tossing the bolts at us,were merely wrong, demonstrably so. Turns out, that's how it is with the diversity of life on Earth. We understand how it happened.

And some are offended that He chose to do it that way. Doesn't change anything.

It comes down to personal preference, opinion,

No. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about how things work in this world. There are lot of things, like communicable disease and lightning, and the diversity of life, that we once couldn't understand. And people often just declared those things to be miracles. Now we know better.

A willingness to include God as part of all reality, includes accepting those things He elected to do by natural means. That's the way He does most things in this world, anyone's objections, notwithstanding. This is demonstrably a matter of what is rational and what is not.

Yes, Creationist organisations are preaching ministries, and well I have no trouble comprehending why they expect a commitment to what they wish to share given that they cannot function as such without their members possessing a commitment to it.

I have no problem with them admitting their new doctrines are religious beliefs. When, like the ICR, they pretend that they are science, they will be justly criticized when they suppress academic freedom when they have an opportunity.

I agree with you,

No, you don't.

it is very important that people know that modern science is not objective about the existence of the supernatural,

By its very methodology, it must be objective. It can neither affirm nor deny the supernatural.

it excludes it in order to serve it's purpose.

No. It can only seek physical causes for physical phenomena. If it can find such causes, we know they are physical causes. If not, it can only say it has not found such causes. Science can't find the supernatural, even if scientists can.

That is exactly why there is no logic at all in treating science as though it is the only way to test what is real.

Science makes no such claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

YE creationist Kurt Wise wrote:
It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Creationism is not trying to be the same thing as modern science...it is not restricted by the same parameters...it's foundation is religious, it is not a scientific hypothesis which requires existing physical evidence to be justified in the first place. That being the case, it is not scientific to "test it" the way one does test a scientific hypothesis.

You are not demonstrating here that creationism is a failure as truth - you are demonstrating that it is a failure to be modern science - something it actually does not even try to succeed at.

And yet, creationists like Kent Hovind, the ICR, and "Answers in Genesis" all make scientific claims. The ICR used to call their modern doctrines, "Flood Geology" until they realized how foolish that was.

Barbarian observes:
For that matter, Flemming correctly predicted that excessive use of antibiotics would lead to the evolution of resistance by bacteria.

And we didn't restrict their use on account of this,

People often ignore the warnings of scientists, as they did in this case. Usually, with understandably bad results.

we have not "evolved" to being very smart yet have we?

Never underestimate the power of irrationality.

Barbarian observes:
Engineers have learned to copy evolution, in order solve problems that are too difficult to solve by design.

Unless of course evolution in this context is design.

No design in the process. They merely copy observed evolutionary processes, and see what comes out. Most of the time, they get a result better than could be obtained by design. Most often, they don't even know for sure why the optimal solution is optimal.

Barbarian observes:
Since it can adequately explain things like why shark tail fins are vertical while whale flukes are horizontal, and why mammals have a simple lower jaws and complex ears while reptiles have complex lower jaws and simple ears, you've been badly misled about that.

So can the existence of a supernatural first cause of everything except the first cause itself.

Nope. It just collapses into "Godmustadunnit." But evolutionary theory explains why it is that way. Would you like to learn how we know?