- only a handful of people in the world understand how to actually engage in scientific research (and he is, of course one of them)
- that he has disproved evolution by using actuarial math (despite having admitted to never doing the actual math)
- that all 'real' scientists employ his 'falsify and replace' version of scientific research (despite not being able to namea single person that does)
- etc., etc., etc.
Well, he is back at it - this time declaring that a paper on mutations in cancer cells - which he has not even read - disproves 'Darwin'.
It interesting to note that despite Bergerson's constant self-adulation and declarations of his intellectual superiority to all that dare disagree with his claims, he makes a number of high
school-level errors in his discussion on genetics. As quoted in that thread:
From conception until old age, cells in the human body continue to divide and reproduce. At each cell division, there is a chance of mutation and the resulting cells are subject to Darwinian natural selection. If you consider the following three different sequences of cell reproduction from the fertilized egg to:1. The sperm or eggs involved in reproduction 2. Healthy cells in mature individuals and 3. Cancer cells If the only significant genetic change processes involved are random mutation and natural selection, then you would expect or predict that the genetic change ocurring in the three sequences would be very similar. If you measured the average amount of genetic change in 300 of each type of sequence you would expect or predict based on neo-Darwinian genetic theory that the amount of measured genetic change would be close to the same for each of the sequences. Are there any readers who don't understand or agree with the predictions or expectations produced by neo-Darwinian theory? The opinions of anonymous ideologues are not really significant since we know they will say anything to support their silly ideologies.
Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that the actual measurements of genetic changes in cancer cells are in direct and dramatic conflict with the predictions of neo-Darwinian genetic theory?
Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that neo-Darwinian genetic theories are falsified by these experimental finding?
Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that the data gathered from this research is only compatible with intelligent design theories or intelligence based teleological theories?
Clearly the peer reviewers who allowed this research to be published
either didn’t recognize or understand the scientific significance of the finding so I would expect that despite the fact that the logic seem fairly straight forward, most readers are not able to follow or understand the logic. I would be interested to know at what point individuals failed to understand. If you want to avoid attacks from the Darwinists, you can contact me directly with your answers.
His errors (and projection) are later laid out by 'escherichia' and others, but Bergerson, poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect, in his self-aggrandizing megalomania, just cannot accept the fact that he si out of his element.
Because, after all, everyone else is wrong and incompetent, not HIM...