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 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.

No comments: