History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Could someone take Sandwalk aside and explain the issue of independent trials in statistics? Not letting hopeless idiots like Dawkins browbeat you into making a fool of yourself

January 14th, 2016 · No Comments


Do you see the fallacy? Just because we observe a complex adaptation or structure does NOT mean that it was specified or pre-ordained. There are certainly many different structures that could have evolved—most of them we never see because they didn’t happen. And when a particular result is observed it doesn’t mean that there was only one pathway (target) to producing that structure

Sorry, don’t see the fallacy!

Sandwalk is a hard-core confusee of the systematic disinfo created by the confusers that took over darwinism long ago, and it is a tremendous disservice to innocent scholars as here confronted with the confusions of statistics rendered obscurities due to paradigm lockjaw.
I am not an ID-ist and don’t ever create an antithesis between randomness and ‘specified’ or ‘pre-ordained’ structures. Distorting statistics to refute creationists is wrong all the way.
The issue is random versus non-random, the stance of creationists being misleading, forget them. If something is non-random, I agree we should be careful how we discuss this. But no use of theology is needed.

Complex machines are an issue raised by ID-ists, to be sure, but they are not all creationists.

Here is the simple issue: natural selection cannot produce complex machines because the statistics of independent trials is overwhelming. Some process or design factor has to be involved, even if we argue that evolution might adapt partial earlier structures to something new. The statistics of independent trials won’t go away on any level. As Hoyle noted, chance can’t even get polypeptides sright, what to say of thousands of steps leading to complex machines.
We have discussed this here dozens of times. There is a clear ‘design’ factor visible in almost all complex biochemical structures. That’s not religious superstition. That design factor almost has to be some naturalistic process. But science has a hard time with these, so far.

I think biologists need to get straight on this issue in a hurry and stop being browbeaten into making a fool of themselves under pressure from hopeless idiots like Dawkins…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment