Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Friday, April 28, 2006

Bergerson asserting that scientists are engaging in fraud? I am SHOCKED!!!

Oh, yes - the clown prince of egomaniacal ranting is at it again:

Fact: Mutational mechanisms are observed.
Fact: Said mechanisms occur regardless of need.*
Fact: Resulting mutations are random wrt fitness.

Fact: there is no defined or proposed probability distribution that has been proposed for 'random mutations'.
Fact: the claim that mutations are random does not meet scientific standards as a testable theory
Fact: the claim that mutations are random is intentional scientific fraud.
Fact: the DarwinDogmatists making this claim are engaged in intentional scientific fraud.

One will notice a couple of things (and these are even clearer if you read the thread linked to):

1. Bergerson disregards the "wrt" (with regard to fitness) in his "rebuttal." This is because Bergerson insists that 'random mutations' means that they will be randomly distributed throughout the genome.
This is demonstrable NOT that there is fraud being committed by evolutionists that say otherwise, rather, it shows that Warren Bergerson is either monumentally ignorant of the things he discusses or is being purposefully dishonest. Or perhaps a little from each column.
The "wrt" is an important modifier, one that Bergerson fails to acknowledge or understand, and hence it makes his response look even more ridiculous.

2. The accusation of fraud. Standard bergerson.

3. Of course - NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for anything he claims.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Uh oh! Limbaugh let the cat out of the bag!

Well, it isn't like most of us did not already know this, but few on the Right have admitted it with such unambiguous language:

Leading conservative commentators — including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and
syndicated columnist Cal Thomas — say the judge's decision shows that intelligent design is a failed strategy in the effort to bring religion into the public schools.
"Let's make no mistake," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals."

Do I really need to do this? No, but I just can't let it go...

Warren Bergerson (Lifeengineer) is really on a tear over at that den of droolers, the ARN discussion forum.

I reproduce below parts of thee posts in this thread - a claim by Bergerson, a question related to the claim, and Bergerson's follow-up:

Clearly experimental evidence shows that RM is not a valid or useful concept. However, in soft science or dogmatic science, contradictory or falsifying evidence is not a sufficient criteria for rejection of a theory.

What experiments are you referring to?

Which evidence are you currently ignoring. The evidence that random variations are harmful, the evidence that removing random mutations would be highly destructive, or the evidence that observed variations are not random.

Here is Bergerson's entire post, quote above in italics:

RM is still a central and essential tenent of modern evolutionary theory or dogma. It is important to distinguish between theory or dogma on the one hand and experimental evidence on the other hand.
Clearly experimental evidence shows that RM is not a valid or useful concept. However, in soft science or dogmatic science, contradictory or falsifying evidence is not a sufficient criteria for rejection of a theory. RM is maintained as a central
tenent of modern evolutionary theory because it is a fundamental requirement for
rejecting teleology.

If modern academic science was forced to recognize that the variation involved in evolution was not genetic and not random (as suggested by the evidence), then biologists would be forced to recognize that evolution was a goal-directed or teleological process. Biologists would, apparently, rather abandon logical compatibility with the evidence than concede evolution is teleological. Therefore, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence, RM remains a central tenent in modern evolutionary theory.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not see ANY evidence whatsoever in that post, just a bunch of unsupported, inflammatory,condescending - and quite wrong - opinion. Read that whokle thread, if you can stomach it - you will find, as I did, that Bergerson presents no evidence anywhere. Read through as many of his posts at that forum as you can take. In none of them will you ever find any sort of independant reference to support anything he says. Having trudged though probably a thousand of Bergerson's posts over the years, I can only recall 2 instances in which he ever linked to anything to supposedly support a claim, and in each case, someone demonstrated thathe had misinterpreted or misrepresented the source.

This is Bergerson's usual antic - make a bunch of assertions, when asked to support the assertions, declare anyone that doesn't agree with him is ignorant, incompetent, or deceptive, then later claim to have already provided the evidence.

Apparently, in the odd world of the egomaniac troll, simply asserting something IS evidence...

Folks like Bergerson need to be exposed so that those even less informed than he is will not make the mistake of actually believing that Bergerson's lies, foolish claims, and hyperbole have any relevance or merit.

Monday, April 24, 2006

The ARN discussion forum - a constant source of amusement

Man, O man....

That place has some characters on it (including Lifeengineer (Warren Bergerson) and Ilion (Troy Hailey)).

But I was perusing today, and came across this truly amazing post by one 'JGuy', which included such insightful gems as:

If macro-evolution were true (though I say it is not true)... then which of
these would have come first?:---------------------------------------------------


Biceps or Triceps? (and various other opposing muscles sets)[imagine an arm/leg or torso with only one half of the set]

Muscle, Ligament, Joint or Skeleton/bone? [what good is a muscle with no place to attach it..what good is a skeleton with no muscle to move it? What good is either with no ligament to attach one to the other?... or all of the three but no joints to provide a hinge to allow movement?...etc...]

The Eyeball, the hole(socket) in the skull or the hole in the flesh & skin to allow the eye to view outside fo the body?

The eye's horizontal muscles that pulls to the left or the one which pulls to the right?(eyes top or bottom vertical muscle?) (Eyes top or bottom torqueing/twisting muscle?)...

I think it was meant to be serious... Maybe it was a joke... I hope it was...

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Republicans want to keep Government out of our private lives... and other fantasy-based myths

The hypocrisy of these people is staggering...

"The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses. ..."

Maybe if these folks actually tried using sex toys, they might not be so quick to want to send other people's children off to fight in some ideologically-driven war...

Friday, April 21, 2006

One more time (re: Bergerson's silliness)

Once again, Warren Bergerson, self-proclaimed falsifier of Darwinism, has made an astoundingly idiotic claim at ARN (actually, it was last month, but I just saw it):

It might sometimes be useful to remember that Darwinists are the ones claiming genes can store enough information to run or control gene control programs. Can any of them actually provide evidence supporting their dogma. Of course not. They rely entirely on game playing to avoid providing evidence and to refuse to recognize or understand hard science evidence that is readily available. Neither hrun or francis can produce evidence in support of the Darwinist claim that genes can store gene control programs. They are simply playing a dishonest game.

Perhaps someone might tell Warren the actuarial math expert that, unfortunately, he does not seem to understand the relevant usage of the term "information". Nor, clearly, does he un derstand how genes and "gene control programs" work. Again, he is simply equating what goes on in a computer with what goes on in a genome/organism. It is irrational. It is ridiculous,. And it is quite stupid, especially since Bergerson has had it explained to him dozens of times. Not to mention that a 2 minute web search could likely lead him to some basic information.

On, say, the regulation of hormone concentrations. Simple feedback loops, mostly. NO grand banks of "information" that evolution cannot account for - just the presence of absence (or high or low concentration) of one protein up or down regulating the production of another. Simple stuff.

But, we cannot bother Warren Bergerson, hard science predictive theory monger, with trivialities like facts and data...

But wait - on the next page of the thread, it gets better:

There are something in excess of a trillion cells in a complex mammal and there are slight differences in gene regulation programs in each cell. Further more, the gene regulation programs in a cell change over time. Elementary knowledge of regulatory programs tells you that all the known variations can not be coded in 1000 digit base four number. This, to anybody with an elementary knowledge of the technical issues invovled, is hard evidence. Darwinists, no matter how often they are presented with hard evidence, continue to claim no evidence has been presented.

Emphasis mine.
Again notice:

1. The pompous arrogance and certainty with which Bergerson pontificates
2. The fact that HE did not actually present ANY evidence, hard or otherwise.
3. The fact that he is EQUATING what genes do with what a computer programmer would have to do.


He actually seems to believe that just writing about something - at least if he is the one writing - counts as 'hard evidence' that cannot be rejkected. It is a truly amazing phenomenon to watch, and were he not so obnoxious and arrogant, I might actually feel pity for him.


I mean, it is like shooting fish in a barrel...

Take a gander at how far out of touch this guy is...

There is no scientific theory or theories of evolution. However, nothing is going to happen until people are willing to recognize that the claims regarding theories of evolution are intentionally fraudulent and the academic organizations that support the fraud are engaging in intentional scientific fraud. As long as evolutionary theories and ID theories are treated as just another academic game that is supposed to be played by academic rules, then nothing is going to happen and the status quo will be maintained.


Just one big conspiracy to keep Warren Bergerson's hard science theories out of the mainstream... Also note that "Ilion" shoots off his fool mouth in that thread, too...

Almost as amazing as Bergerson's 'definition' of theory:

Design by intelligence can formulate theories of the general form "Within defined constraints, F(G) predicts R' where evolutionary change R can be predicted as a function of some goal G.

I really hate to beat a dead horse, but... (re: Warren Bergerson)

Over here, Internet Darwinism falsifier and "hard science predictive theory" monger Warren Bergerson demonstrates his ignorance of basic genetics and biology...


If the purpose or function of genetic material is to provide long term information storage, then it make logical sense that the information will 'evolve' before the information is moved into long term storage. It is therefore reasonable to assume, or at least speculate, that there exist processes to develop or evolve proteins. Only after a new protein was successfully evolved, would the part of the information required to easily reproduce the protein be moved to long term genetic storage.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to inform Bergerson that the changes occur IN the "long term information storage" before the protein is produced.

One of the big problems that these "genetics is exactly like computer science" types don't seem to understadn is that genetics is only like computer science by way of analogy to introduce a complex topic to the uninformed.

In REALITY, it is, frankly, stupid to extend the analogy any further, and worse to declare that the genome MUST act in the way that computer information storage works.


I go to lunch, come back and check the ARN thread linked to above, and anti-Darwinist "bertvan*" adds her 2 cents:

In other words: Creative adaptations originate in physical adaptive biological systems, not their genomes. The genome is merely a record of those adaptations
that remain persistent over generations.

Never mind that Bergerson did not provide or even suggest a mechanism by which this might operate...
Isn't it interesting how a baseless assertion by one poster becomes an absolute to be paraphrased by another...

In... credible....

*I first encountered "bertvan" more than 10 years ago on the old Internet Infidels discussion forum. Back then, she was not shy about her creationist beliefs, which she would proclaim true by virtue of an essay she had written on the evils of the phychiatry (yeah, I didn't get the connection either). Now, however, she denies being a creationist and has adopted the so called EAM (endogenous adaptice mutagenesis) position espoused but unsupported by one "mturner."

**UPDATE 2**

I think I could find a new Bergerson claim to write about every day if I wanted - found this gem shortly after I read the above:

...The information required for gene regulation is many, many times greater than the information included in the gene. But then, of course, biologists conveniently ignore any mathematics that doesn't agree with their dogmaa. [sic]

Thursday, April 13, 2006

"Ilion" (Troy D. Hailey) just "knows" everything!

Some egotists are just too much...

Troy D. Hailey ('Ilion' - how clever...) is one such egotist. Look at how much he "knows" about evolutionary biology:


2) I have never encountered valid *reasons* to believe that 'modern evolutionary theory' is true.

3) Therefore (for so long as 2) holds), it is quite unlikely that I shall ever believe that
'modern evolutionary theory' is true.

1) I will not "support" something that is not true (or that I do not believe to be true).

2) I do not believe that 'modern evolutionary theory' is true.

3) Therefore (for so long as 2) holds), it is quite unlikely that I will ever "support" 'modern evolutionary theory.

'1) I cannot "support" something that is false (or that I believe to be false).

2) I *know* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (its self-contradiction, alone,
establishes that).

3) 'Modern evolutionary theory' is what it is; to remove its self-contradiction, were that even possible, is to no longer speak of 'modern evolutionary theory.'

4) Therefore, neither an infinity of time nor of chance shall ever be enough to induce me to "support" 'modern evolutionary theory.'

1) It is impossible to "support" that which exists not.2) As we see in the upper
forum, there is no such thing as the "Theory of Evolution." It exists not.

3)Therefore (for so long as 2) holds), it is *impossible* for me to "support" the
"Theory of Evolution."

Never mind that he is a computer consultant... Looks a little light in the loafers to me, if you know what I mean.... Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

"LifeEngineer" (Warren Bergerson), incompetent yet overconfident anti-Darwinist

I have written about some of the truly nutty claims that one Warren Bergerson (aka 'LifeEngineer') has made regarding evolution (he claimed to have falsified it) and science in general.

Today, I read a thread at the ARN discussion board in which Bergerson took part, and he exhibits some truly baffling behavior.

To pre-sum up -
1. He declares that evolutionary biology makes no predictive theories. **
2. He is provided with a link to a paper in which evolutionary tenets were used to make predictions.
3. He responds by declaring the paper can actually be used to falsify 'Darwinism.'
4. He is asked to explain how this is so.
5. He responds by first pointing out that he cannot understand most of the paper...

So tell me, gentle reader - Were you in a situation where you were presented with information that you did not understand, would YOU make proclamations premised on that information?

Well, let's take a look at how this transpired.

First, Bergerson writes:

The pseudo science DarwinDefenders will never produce predictive theories.**
Note also the cute little denigratory moniker he employs to insult actual scientists that accept evolution.

He is reponded to by the poster 'Myrmecos':

Here's one for you:

Phylogenetics predicts protein function.


Bergerson responds:

You realize, of course, that the study you referred to provide an excellent basis for falsifying both GD and modern Darwin dogma?
Myrmecos asks:


How so?
And the coup de grace from Bergerson, in its entirety (emphasis mine):

First, the study is interesting. Second,
I openly admit I don’t completely understand all the technical jargon used nor am I familiar with most of the background materials referred to.

What the study appears to present is a descriptive/predictive statistical mapping from genotypes to proteins to functions. As I understand it, the statistical mapping technique developed matches or fits established mapped elements and produces or predicts stochastic relationships for elements that have not yet been mapped.

Whether this type of descriptive stochastic correlation/mapping would be considered a predictive theory is not entirely certain. But for the sake of discussion here, I have no particular problem with recognizing that some type of predictive theory could be formulated from the stochastic model described. Such a theory would not and could not, however, be characterized as compatible with GD or with Darwinism.

The study demonstrates the existence of a stochastic or correlational mapping from genotype to proteins to function. This mapping, however, is not logically compatible with a causal mapping from genes to proteins to functions. There is not sufficient information in a gene to cause or produce a protein and there is not enough information in a protein to ‘cause’ a function. The study, in effect, demonstrates that there must be some process, mechanism or ‘intelligence’ responsible for the demonstrated stochastic mapping. The research referenced shows that there are clear correlations between genotypes and proteins and proteins and functions in much the same way there is a correlation between the codes on a vending machine and the type of item that comes out when you push the code.

Lots of researchers performing real research formulate, test and refine predictive models and theories (or use logical structures that could be expressed as predictive theories). It is when the research is translated into written form for review and distribution that the predictive theories that might conflict with established dogma seem to disappear. In the report referenced, was there any discussion of a predictive theory or how such a theory would have reconciled to GD or Darwinism? I think not.


He doesn't understand "all the technical jargon used" nor is he "familiar with most of the background materials referred to" yet goes on to write 4 paragraphs 'explaining' how it is actually bad for 'Darwinism' and 'GD' (genetic determinism).
Reading Bergerson's 'explanation' about 'causes' and the like should inform the reader that Bergerson is really out of his league in discussing this material, and the fact that he is ignorant of the background material and the 'technical jargon' of the field yet feels confident in declaring that because it does not meet his personal criteria for , whatever it is he has criteria for, just reinforces the apparent fact that Bergerson is more of an ignorant blowhard than anything else...
Of course, when you are ignorant of the things you pontificate about but really want to hit your opponants where they live, just make stuff up:

My impression is that most of the genetic models are based on intentionally false assumptiions. [sic]
Oh - did I mention that Bergerson, whose background is apparently in engineering and actuarial math, has claimed that genetics is pseudoscience?

He has made such claims before, and if you bother to read through any of Bergerson's self-absorbed, unnecessarily verbose nonsense, you will see that he NEVER provides any sort of documentation or support for ANY of the things he claims.

He is an example of one of the problems with American society - the ability of ignorance to instill confidence (even arrogance) in strongly opinionated individuals.


**It should be noted that Bergerson seems to indicate that, as he understands it, a "predictive theory" is really a prediction, or something that can be summarized by a simple formula. He does not seem to understand what a "theory" or a "prediction" is.