Monday, October 16, 2006

Darwinism is a Hoax!

Hello everyone, I am William Brookfield founder of ICON-RIDS. I am an ID evolutionist not a Darwinian evolutionist.

The first order of business here is Darwin's mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax. Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions. It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents. Darwin's thesis regarding the "origin (construction) of new species (new structure) by means of natural selection" (selective destruction) is thus logically and causally bankrupt.

The normal course of argument taken by Darwinists at this point is to claim that any such doubts about Darwinism are "religiously motivated" and therefore beneath consideration. This isn't going to work here.

After 150 years of Darwinian obfuscation, it is time for humanity to take back its power and rid itself forever of this hoax.

Charles Darwin (quoted from) On the Origin of the Species, by means of Natural Selection -- 1859

"[The]preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." -- C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species -Ch#4 Natural Selection

"Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good". -- C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species -- Ch#4 Natural Selection

Comments:

Darwin's "preservation of all that is good" assumes the design of a vehicle capable of carrying forward "all that is good." This "preserving all that is good" occurs in utter defiance of the thermodynamic gradient -- that by law (2nd law) destroys all that is "good." The more "good" to be carried forward, the better designed this living and reproductive vehicle (species) has to be. Arguments against design cannot just assume design. What Darwinists have provided is merely Natural Selective Destruction (destructive filtration) plus a worthless and obfusctating circular argument pertaining to the "good."

----

"Macro-evolution" is an extrapolation of "micro-evolution." Microevolution" in turn, is dependent upon each species' flexibility. This flexibility/adaptability, is itself a positive design attribute that requires an explanation. Galapagos finches that would immediately choke and die on the first drought-hardened seeds are easy to design compared to Galapagos finches that can adapt and survive in the face of countless environmental assaults. A computer program that can barely run in a single computer environment is far easier to design than a program that can itself adapt, self correct and thrive in countless computer environments (PC, MAC, Unix, Atari etc.,) If living species were more poorly designed they would immediately drop dead in response to the slightest environmental change -- and there would be no Darwinian "evolution." The genetic information corresponding to every single environmental change has to be in place before any organism can "evolve" in response to selective pressure. Darwinian theory therefore, has no validity of its own and is wholly parasitic upon exquisitely competent design. The bottom line is that adaptable species are exponentially more information-rich than species that are not adaptable. Thus, all of the "evidence of evolution" (peppered moths, bacterial antbiotic resistance etc.) is in fact evidence for design. -- WB


20 comments:

Anonymous said...

this is a joke right? Temprature gradients ruling out life? You are not going to try the 2LOT strawman are you? The earth has a external source of energy, do you know what it is?
And why quote Darwin? Do you think nothing has changed since he wrote his book?

I suspect your society of non-religious ID scientists will have 1 memeber, YOU! Everybody else is a christian. ID is a big LIE

IDsupporter said...

All what William wrote about the wrongness of Darwinism is perfectly right. The 2LOT fully disproves Darwin. It doesn't matter that earth has an external source of energy because energy doesn't provide information. The huge biological variety entails complex specified information that energy is not able to create. ID is based on scientific and common sense evidence. Darwinism is based on falsity.

Mike Haubrich said...

It would be useful to at least hypothesize a designer if you are going to resort to design arguments.

The "inference" is not rigorous.

But I suspect you also need to learn more about evolution before you dismiss natural selection. A good start would be "The Blind Watchmaker." A cursory understanding of biology helps, but it is not necessary in order to understand natural selection (which is but one mechanism for evolution.) ID adds nothing to the scientific understanding of evolution.

Anonymous said...

Yes, well done icon-rids: You have successfully attacked a straw-man argument, now please tell me what you really think:

"It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents."

Speaking strictly logically, this would seem to be a false statement. Genetic algorythims rely on pruning (destructive) to weed out solutions that do not work. Genetic algorythoms are able to solve all manner of problems by evolving a solution. Evolution logically works. Do you dispute this?

Anonymous said...

"The first order of business here is Darwin's mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax"

A hoax? Surely as a "scientist" you know full well that extroidinary claims require extroidinary evidedence. To claim this is a hoax would require that you present evidence that the entire fields of astrobiology, palentology, archeology, biology, geneology and genetics are utterly corrupt and self-serving.

Jim Fisher
jimexcelcs@aol.com

Earle Jones said...

You call yourself an ID 'scientist'. Could you please give us your scientific background. Have you studied biology, for example? What degrees do you hold? From what universities?

Thanks,

earle
*

William Brookfield said...

Anonymous said...

"this is a joke right?"

er... wrong.


Thanks "ID supporter"

"ID supporter --"

"Energy doesn't provide information"

Bingo!

In my storage shed I have my very own home built "Jet Plane." It is composed of old wires, toasters, tires, metal and enough jet fuel (energy) strewn around for my first trans-atlantic flight. The problem is that as soon as I hit the ignition "switch" my first trans-atlantic flight will also be my first trans-pacific flight and will also be my first trans-arctic flight -- none of which I will physically survive.

Anonymous said,

"The earth has a source of energy, do you know what it is?"

My "Jet Plane" has a source of energy, do you know what it is? My "Jet plane" does not have an energy problem, but it does have another problem do you know what it is? Macro-evolution does not have an energy problem, but it does have another problem, do you know what that problem is?


Mike Haubrich said...

"It would be useful to at least hypothesize a designer if you are going to resort to design arguments."

I suspect that we have underestimated the composite intelligence of biological aggregates. For instance, I suspect that the bacterial flaggella was designed by the composite intelligence of the bacterial species itself. I don't see "God did it" as a serious scientific answer to the flaggella design question.

Mike H. "A good start would be "The Blind Watchmaker."

I read Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker in 1995.


"Speaking strictly logically, this would seem to be a false statement. Genetic algorythims rely on pruning (destructive) to weed out solutions that do not work. Genetic algorythoms are able to solve all manner of problems by evolving a solution. Evolution logically works. Do you dispute this?"


While computer based genetic algorithms are useful for searching certain solution spaces, they are worthless as a defense of mindless Darwinian "natural selection." Computers are not "natural" but are instead the product of massive Intelligent Design. The factories that refine the essential minerals (say, silicone) and the factories that produce computer components (IC's) are the product of massive Intelligent Design. Systems that maintain stabilize and protect these systems (defraggers, error checkers) are the product of Intelligent Design. Programing languages that allow us to communicate with computers and write programs such as EA's are the product of Intelligent Design. Evolutionary Algorithm programs such as AVIDA are themselves the product of Intelligent Design.

Simply put "natural selection" merely removes (filters out) what does not work (non-solutions). It does not generate NEW solutions or NEW solution spaces. The solutions thus found are already in the pre-exiting "solution space" and are therefore old. Your example applies only to "micro-evolution" (that everybody believes in) not to macro-evolution (genuine new solutions and new "solution spaces"). I am not disputing that which is termed "micro-evolution."


1/02/2007 06:01:51 AM
Anonymous said...

A hoax? Surely as a "scientist" you know full well that extroidinary claims require extroidinary evidedence. To claim this is a hoax would require that you present evidence that the entire fields of astrobiology, palentology, archeology, biology, geneology and genetics are utterly corrupt and self-serving.

Jim Fisher
jimexcelcs@aol.com
1/02/2007 10:52:37 AM

Hi Jim,

Thanks for using your real name -- or a name period. My claim is that Darwinian macro-evolution is a hoax.

Hi Earle

Thanks for using your real name

Earle Jones said...

"You call yourself an ID 'scientist'. Could you please give us your scientific background. Have you studied biology, for example? What degrees do you hold? From what universities?"


I don't hold any degrees from any university of any kind. My job as a citizen scientist is to represent science in general and the general public. I learned about the theory of "ontogeny recipitulating phylogeny" in my elementary school playground in 1968 -- from a friend (Calvin Jackson). Throughout the 60's and 70's I was a Darwinist. In 1979 I began to suspect something was wrong with Darwinism.
The folks at the Smithsonian Institute (above) are massively credentialed. In spite of this I have had to write (for the good of science and the public interest) the article above encoraging these "scientist" to get back to doing science. Witch-hunts against "creationists" or against "communists" are not a part of science. The gospelization of Darwin-ism and material-ism has nothing to do with science as the public understands the word "science." Dogma has nothing to do with science. WB

StephenA said...

Hi there! I am always interested to see another ID blog, even though as a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) I expect I will disagree with much that you will write. It does no harm to look at things from someone else's perspective.
I just hope you will be able to maintain a polite tone for this blog. I have a rather weak stomach for vitrol.

The Strong Atheist said...

Hi there, I was just wondering who the "non-religious" IDers attributed the design to. Space aliens? If so, how did you come to that conclusion, and if you don't know, how do you propose to investigate this important question?

Dave Wisker said...

The first order of business here is Darwin's mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax.

I am not sure you are talking about speciation in your post. Darwin (and subsequent workers in speciation) do not describe the 'mechanism' of speciation as you do. The modern mechanism for speciation involves reproductive isolation of populations and their subsequent differentiation genetically. When populations become isolated reproductively, whether through geography, or ecology, or chromosomally (to give but a couple of examples of how initial isolation can occur), gene flow is prevented or severely restricted. This means each population will accumulate different mutations and recombinations without sharing them. This results in the populations diverging genetically even more over time. Natural selection isn't necessarily the driving force behind this divergence (although it can be in some cases); mutation and recombination are. So, I fail to see how your argument holds together. You seem to be arguing against increases in information and confusing that with speciation, which are two seperate things.

You continue:


Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions. It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents.

I fail to see any empirical support for your argument here. For example, you seem to be implying that mutation (I'm assuming that's what you mean by 'RM') is always destructive. This is quite patently false: gene duplications and many base substituions have little, if any selective effects. In the first case, a gene can duplicate (gene duplications are very common--the result of unequal crossing over) and the copy is then free to mutate to other sequences without any destructiion of the original information, since that information is still preserved. By any objective measure then, gene duplication followed by mutation in the copy is an increase in information, since we now have an additional gene sequence that was not there before, with original one still intact.

William Brookfield said...

Hi Dave,

Both NS (natural selective destruction) and the "random" as in "random mutation" are destruction functions. NS only weeds out (destroys) the unfit. It does not build/design the fit. "Randomization" is a statistical function. This statistical function (R), when summated, adds up to a destruction(scrambling) of genetic information. Information is specific and fragile and requires error correction (protection from RANDOM errors). "Information" and "randomness" are enemies. Any theory of construction (origins) built upon destruction functions is false by definition.

William Brookfield said...

Reproductive isolation fails to solve the real world design problem. To put it simply, one can only get so much saugage from a sausage dog. Too much sausage and the dog's belly is scraping along the ground -- making the dog non-viable. In order trancend the design barrier a new co-ordinated (non-random) six leggged(?) design plan is needed. Reproductive isolation of sausage dogs won't help with the emergence of this new species -- nor will random mutation (uncoordinated change). While the odd mutant fruit fly with extra wings has appeared in radiation experiments, these wings -- without supporting skeletal and muscular support -- are useless. In order to be viable, new designs must be coordinated and anticipated in the embryonic stage.

Micro-evolution therefore has limits. Michael Behe's new book "The Edge of Evolution"..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743296206/ref=cm_plog_item_link/102-2549492-3828930

..examines the empirical evidence that reveals precicely where these limits are. Unsurprisingly, random mutation can only bring random (micro) change not co-ordinated (macro)change.

Dave Wisker said...

Hi William,

I'm afraid you didn't address my main point, namely that gene duplication and subsequent mutation is an increase in information. I'm not sure I agree with your point about 'error correction". The error correction that cells use does NOT protect them from all random changes, just those that create egregious problems (like premature stop codons). Most other random changes are passed on without correction.

As for reproductive isolation 'failing to solve the world design problem', so what? It is an essential aspect for speciation, but, as I pointed out earlier, speciation is irrelevant to whether or not mutation and recombination increases information. You really should (IMHO of course, it's your blog, after all) clearly delimit what you are addressing so as not to confuse those who might conflate the two concepts.

William Brookfield said...

Dave,

If you are talking about random gene duplications and random mutations then the complexity being produced here is the wrong type of complexity. I.E. (m)K-complexity not (i)K-complexity.

The "K" stands for the information theorist "Kolmogrof" and refers to the algorythmic incompressibility often used to identify randomness in digitized/quantized systems. The (m) refers to the word "mock" in that digitization is "mocking" the uniform (and subsequently non-complex)probability distribution of randomness by forcing randomness to appear complex (when it is not).

This type of complexity (m)K-complexity) is produced by the collision of randomness and any digitized system that is attempting to accurately express it.

Digitization is a problem for randomness because every digit(ATGC) is itself a manifestation of order(the opposite of randomness). DNA (ATGC) is a digitized system.

I have provided an information-order-randomness continuum diagram at ISCID at...

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000562-p-10.html

Hopefully this will be helpful.

William Brookfield said...

My apologies, that's "Kolmogorov" not "Kolmogrof."

Anonymous said...

Darwinism is a Hypothesis but not a science because there is no proof, no theory and no evidence.
Different species live side by side; monkeys live aling side Human or Gorillas. Where is the evolution? I suppose after visting Africa Darwin got that idea of evolution of cross-section of semi-human( various types of monkey, gorillia, chimpa etc) and different types of human some looks like moneys some very different. This is not evolution over time but a cross section study. Darwin got mixed up with variation over time ( his theory of evolution) and variation at a time.
I am surprised that people took him so seriously and accepted his views, which were never proven, as universal truth.

Anonymous said...

Like "global warming," Darwinism is a hoax. It destroys everything it touches, like the acid from an Alien when shot. Instead of spilling blood, it spills acid. The acid of Darwinism (and global warming) destroys all common sense and logic.

Melvin said...

I'm not a Rocket Scientist or even an MD but I have an IQ of 240 and I was thankful to have great parents that taught me COMMON SENSE. So I can rebuild an automobile and build a home from the ground up, things my parents knew I would need in my future. Both sides can argue your case untill the end of time and you won't accomplish anything. My point is this. We are given a choice to believe in what we choose. In that choice, if you want to be safe, is to beleive in an Almighty God and Creator! If you don't want to be safe, choose the other path like the Darwinist, but when you stand before a God and find out you were wrong, I for one have made the right choice. If then it swings the other way, I'm still safe! Satan has poluted a lot of brilliant minds in the paste and even he believes in God and trembles. Oh, thats right, you don't believe in the cartoon charachter in the red suit with the pointy tail. Neither do I.

Brent Baker said...

I find it hilarious and very sad how scientists argue all day long about how Charles Darwin's "idea" was right and with no proof. Like all theories by definition the term "theory" is reserved for ideas. If you teach that idea to everyone in the world, it does not become a fact. Period.

It seems to me that these Darwin Scientists do in fact have faith, the only problem is that it is in the wrong teacher.

William Brookfield said...

Had Darwin's book been called "On the Filtration of the Species" then it could have been a legitimate science book. This is because the mechanism being proposed (natural selection) is one of selective *filtration* not origination. The continued use of the word "Origin" in the title is deceptive, unscientific and highly tendentious.