3a. Evo-illusion and Irreducible Complexity Revisited

 


 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

Evo-Illusion is a science all on it’s own. It is very much like a cultish religion.  It’s made up of group psychology and bait and switch techniques. The goal of evo-illusion is to fool evolutionauts (students and those honestly searching for reasons for our existence) into believing this tainted science.  They want to keep the believers believing, and they want to isolate the doubters, and turn them into believers. Do the evo-illusionists really believe what they are preaching? I really can’t answer that, but I get the same feeling from these people that I get from charlatan evangelists.  I really think a lot of evo-illusionists have their egos so involved, and love the adoration that they receive, that they can trick themselves into believing what they teach. Below is a compendium of how evo-illusion works, and on the next page (3b) is a great example of evo-illusion in action, starring one of the best, Ken Miller.  First take a look at the video showing how illusion works.  It is really an entertaining video.  Next I will tie it into evo-illusion, and show you how magical illusions and evolutionary illusions are one and the same.

 

There couldn’t be a better example of evo-illusion than that produced by the new Cosmos and Neil de Grasse Tyson. In it he describes how evolution produced vision. It resembles a Donald Duck cartoon. Anyone can make drawings and animations. The real problem is how did vision first form? Humanity isn’t within light years of figuring out this incredible Puzzle, and the attempts of modern science are no better than those of any ancient religion’s attempts. There simply is no plausible pathway to the formation of vision, and Neil couldn’t possibly do a better job of proving my point. 

 

 

Click on the lower left arrow.

On the next page (3 b) I have a video of Dr.  Ken Miller operating in the same fashion, only in front of a live audience in his lecture hall. Just like Neil, he gets the audience to believe the first impossible step. Then getting them to believe rest is easy. Here is how Miller and his “live audience” phase of evo-illusion works:



Step 1: Have a very credible demeanor as if your are “above it all”. Sound British, and intelligent. Be or be like a college professor. Talk in echo-y lecture halls. No one will want to challenge you, whatever you say. The audience will be responsive, worshipful, intimidated, and even more enthusiastically on your side. They will laugh at your jokes, no matter how bad. At every chance, make light and fun of those in the skeptic group. That group will shrivel  and skeptic turncoats will come over to your side. No one wants to look foolish.

Step 2: Group all skeptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical. Make fun and light of the least credible in the group so it seems like the whole group is equal to the buffoon. Demean their education, let them know that their challenges are “old and tired”, call them names, degrade their ability to think. Most in the audience will not want to be associated with the group of skeptics, and will willingly and enthusiastically be on your side. No one wants to look foolish.

Step 3: Make the audience think that they are witnessing an impossible event of your choosing (as in the linking rings illusion) , or that an impossible event took place that you describe. Make them think they are seeing something that they are not. Fool them into believing an event took place that didn’t. Once they believe in that one impossible event, they can be easily convinced the next impossible event also took place. As each impossible event is displayed, the audience will be more and more easily convinced, until an entire series of impossible events of your choosing will be accepted by the audience without question.

Step 4: Bait and switch. Make the audience think you are going to show, do, or describe something unbelievably difficult. When the audience is convinced, show, demonstrate, or describe an event that is far easier, but convince the audience that the new task is ever MORE difficult than the one you originally were going to show, do, or demonstrate. As they are already in your pocket because of the first three steps, they will accept step 4 without question.

l_034_01_l

Evo-illusion technique #2: Above is a beautiful clade illustration showing how birds evolved from earlier theropod dinosaurs. This timeline has been prominently displayed on science television shows, such those on Discovery channel, and on the UC Berkeley Biology website.  There are three major problems with this timeline. The species shown inhabited locations all over the world.  None were in very close proximity. Sinosauropteryx, listed as the oldest species on the far left roamed China 130 MYA, 20,000,000 years after birds first appeared. Velociraptor, next in line, roamed China 75 MYA, 75,000,000 years after birds first appeared. Unenlagia lived in southern Argentina, 90 MYA, 60,000,000 years after birds appeared.  Caudipteryx and Protoarchaeoptery roamed China 120-136 MYA, over 14,000,000 years after birds first appeared.  Archaeopterx roamed Germany 144 MYA, just about the time birds first appeared. Eoalulavis was probably a modern bird, and inhabited Spain 115 MYA, 35,000,000 years after birds first appeared. Geographically and chronologically these species could not have interacted or evolved whatsoever.  Supposedly all of these species formed a chain that lead to Corvus or crows.  Reality is that this lineage of species had to evolve into almost 10,000 different bird species. Single species lead to single species……..until the last in the chain was 10,000 bird species? Why didn’t the illustration make this fact clear? Did placing only one selected species at the end of the chain make it look more plausible? More believable? Was this a conscious effort on the part of the makers of the timeline? This is a perfect example of evo-illusion and the bending of evidence to support the theory.

Evo-illusion technique #3: This is the “after the fact” technique.  Evo-illusion is based on events that happened millions of years ago, that cannot be observed today, nor replicated in a lab.  Ev-illusionists want you to think that changes in bacterial metabolism, the color in the wing of a moth, or fruit flies that don’t mate with other fruit flies are examples of today’s evolution.  But, the evolution that formed hearts, alimentary canals, brains, et al, are the type of examples that evolution needs to demonstrate.  And it can’t. Not even close.  So evo-illusion uses “after the fact credit”.  For example, in regard to complex and miraculous organs and bio-electromechanical devices, evo-illusionists give evolution all the credit.  “Isn’t natural selection just amazing? Just a wonder of nature!”

And when the news or evidence is bad, evo-illusionists use “after the fact excuses”. “Mollusks didn’t all form complex vision systems because they didn’t need to see all that well.”  “Ceolacanth didn’t evolve in 410 million years because cosmic rays didn’t go that deep into the ocean so mutations couldn’t occur.”  “T. Rex’s arms didn’t grow because it was fine just the way it was.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 Comments

  1. Mike Batchelor said,

    Evolution has undeserved credibility because it’s taught in a echo-y lecture hall. Priceless! Comedy gold!

  2. John G said,

    “And there are no possible uses for each of the ten protein additions that would be required in the evolution of the type 3 secretory system. ”

    The type III secretion system is essentially composed of three parts, a gated pore, an F1F0-ATP synthetase, and an outer membrane secretin, all of which have other uses as well as plausible evolutionary origins.

    Check out http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html for a detailed evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum

  3. stevebee92653 said,

    And the advantages for each step? One protein, then the next, then the next…………….? And did random mutations get them all lined up in perfect order? The images look like a computer design. Talk is cheap, but to come up with advantages for each evolutionary step is not possible.

  4. Donson Jack said,

    Its Behe´s job, or yours to show that something is truly IC, that in _no_way_ it could have evolved, ever.

    But here is the problem. there are afaik alot of different kind of ´Flagellum motors´, each having different amount of parts.

    and concept how these are evolved exists. It is usually creationists who are demanding absurd burden of proof (Fossil record etc) . Saying that one must provide ´absolute´ scientific data and evidence how did this Flagellum evolve OTHERWISE Behe is right..

    It does not work like that Steve, if the concept of how something evolved, its enough to remove Behe´s claim that something is IC, which as a claim is fundamentally flawed since we cannot possibly know everything from this universe, but he claims that we do, other wise its logically flawed argument he is making.

    Do you have religious convictions anykind of Steve ? if i may ask

    best regards

    Jack Donson

  5. stevebee92653 said,

    Jack
    Thanks for the reasonable demeanor! You are rare. This subject is FUN and FASCINATING, which is why I am involved in it. I really do love the subject of the origins of life and us. To answer your question, no I am not religious. I believe, on a philosophical vein, that there is an incredible intelligence in nature that we cannot find. Yet. It doesn’t need to be worshipped, and can’t be communicated with. That is my BELIEF as opposed to my scientific stance, so debate is not on the table. Beliefs can’t be debated, science can. My history is pretty much described on pages one and two, if you are really curious.
    Irreducible Complexity has to be disproven by evolution, otherwise evolution collapses. Try pulling your mother board or your electric cord out of your computer, and see how IC it is. I pretty much describe my thoughts on IC on my site, so I won’t elaborate here.
    Regards
    Steve

    • Phyerbyrd said,

      Irreducible complexity seems to overlook that while some organs lose their previous function when parts are removed, the parts still have function on their own. Do you think modern motherboards were always there? They’ve slowly built up to being what they are now, same with many other computer components. If the computer I was working on is truly irreducibly complex, why are there more primitive computers with fewer parts?

      • dwilkes7 said,

        The problem with this argument is that EVERY STEP in the “evolution” of the personal computer, is that intelligence was REQUIRED for each and every step. Also, even the most advanced supercomputer is dwarfed in the extreme when compared with a brain. So intellegence is required for computers, but NOTHING was the architect of the greater biological computer!!

  6. Alejandro said,

    I can’t believe the last example (evolution of vertebrate eyes).
    ‘Everything has evolved the way it had to evolve to produce vision’ would be a better and shorter explanation. haha!
    About the last video: “Just because you can’t see how it happened, doesn’t mean it didn’t”. This is a classic.

  7. Levon Lokmanian said,

    The only way to indoctrinate the people into communistic atheism is through evolution.Evolution is the trojan horse of the new world order.

  8. noyourashill said,

    Levon I agree. Go to infowars.com and listen to the Alex Jones radio show, or watch AARON RUSSO/ALEX JONES interview on youtube. This is a trojan horse and evo nuts are the usefull idiots for the Rothschild and co. globalist bankers. Whether we have a spiritual origin or not, they want to ENSURE we believe we are apes despite any evidence, to break us down. That’s one aspect but there’s a lot more.

  9. ADParker said,

    Step 1: Characterise your opponent’s position as trickery. So no amount of evidence can then persuade anybody. And no real reasoning, evidence or science is then needed for you to claim victory.

    No further steps required. The gullible lovers of conspiracy theories will just eat it up.

  10. jan said,

    Step 1: Characterise your opponent’s position as trickery. So no amount of evidence can then persuade anybody. And no real reasoning, evidence or science is then needed for you to claim victory.

    No further steps required. The gullible lovers of conspiracy theories will just eat it up.
    Reply

    Parker,,, apparently opposing points of view need, in your mind, to be categorized as “trickery”….. instead of addressing the complaints in a scientific fashion, you utilize human argumentative convention to ( oh how easy and convenient) to support your weak position, so that you don’t have to introspectively analyze your preferred position on the humungous issues that are required to be demonstrated to support your philosophical positions…………
    what an asshole…………

  11. jan said,

    Parker, are you there?

    • ADParker said,

      Yes.
      I didn’t respond because it was a waste of time, and about something that happened five months ago!

      But okay; fine:

      >>Parker,,, apparently opposing points of view need, in your mind, to be categorized as “trickery”…..<>human argumentative convention<>what an asshole……<<
      Ad Hominem,/Personal attack. Petty and rationally worthless.

  12. jan said,

    Can you “boil” your assertions down to a hypothesis so that it can be discussed rationally, with maybe even a degree of “science” as part of the mix?

  13. jan said,

    “Yes.
    I didn’t respond because it was a waste of time, and about something that happened five months ago!”

    Apparently, any questions that may contradict your pet philosophical assertions are a “waste of time”. And, oh, “something that happened five months ago”. Just like the bulk of “evolutionary” conjecture. “If the conclusions don’t support the funding elite’s demand for results that demonstrate “the conclusions we want”, then get the fuck out of here (the elite don’t care where you go….other contributors (such as the tax paying public may say) go make a real living at something productive (oh, god no, anything but that) you might say. “We want it all fucking now, doesn’t matter how long it really takes…….)

  14. jan said,

    Parker, you asshole. get back here and discuss this stuff. you simpleton.

    • ADParker said,

      Since you asked so nicely. And actually offered something worth discussing…but of course I kid; you did neither.
      So fuck off.

  15. jan said,

    “Since you asked so nicely. And actually offered something worth discussing…but of course I kid; you did neither.
    So fuck off.”

    Parker, I realize your ilk has had the top hand of the pop culture agenda for decades. Get your ass past your unsubstantiated assertions supported by ———–your fill in the blanks of whatever pop culture star supports your points of view and get SCIENTIFIC YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Who cares what the venacular of choice is…… you know what the meaning beyond social convention is…. Grow up you prick. and show adequate scientific corroboration of the vast assertions that are of the basis of you conjecture….. what a fucking asshole…..

  16. jan said,

    Parker, oh PARKER…. Where are you my friend?????? Where are you hiding. Oh I know, nobody likes the pain of an ASS KICKING. I know I don’t…. I don’t blame you for hiding man…………(oh shit, more periods, damn-it!!!!!!)

  17. jan said,

    Hey Steve. Just listened to some guy name pz meyers get his ass kicked by g simmons…(it can be accessed on the internet very easily) have you heard this dialogue? meyers starts out by claiming a bait and switch tactic by the hosts of the “debate” . (totally irrelevant, if he was so taken aback by that then say, “look, i cant particpated until you get the question correct and give me time to come back after a reasonable amount of time to consider the issues) so, instead he uses that as some sort of bullshit attack on the individuals involved (as if that is any real contribution to the foundational issues at hand) and then goes on to use debating tactics to try and support the fucking bankrupt theory of evolution. notice the trembling of his voice etc. he seems to respond like a wild animal that has been cornered by something that is about to kill him instead of a person with real evidence on his side…….

    It is like the cockroaches in the kitchen. When the lights are turned on, and they are cornered, the have to hide ( in this case attack because there is no way to hide) and not engage factual real scientific discussion. I would imagine that public funding is paying his pathetic ass, at-least in part, and he, apparently, has some sort of philosophically sympathetic idiots, who want to use his vastly unsubstantiated assertions to support their preferred philosophical positions. Why is this? Is the hate of religion a motivator that influences their participation? If this is the case, get his and their fucking assess out of the publicly funded positions they are in. Public money should be spent on SOLVING THE PEOPLE’S PROBLEMS, (cancer, illnesses, advancing medical solutions to real problems etc. ) This dick-head is, instead, apparently profiting from appealing to a bunch of losers who dedicate their lives to trying to prove that no god is necessary to answer the vast array of unanswerable questions that present themselves. Shit. Fuck off Meyers.

    • ADParker said,

      I remember that debate ( well over a year old now.) But thanks, always amusing to see how the dogmatically closed minded interpret things. Dr. Myers wiped the floor with his ignorant opponent (ignorant of the very topic he had just written an apologetics book on!) So badly in fact that the cowards at Uncommon Descent deleted the entire thread they had on it, because even the ‘faithful’ followers who frequent Dembski’s site felt forced to admit that fact. Yes, even IDs biggest fans were forced to admit that Dr. Simmons dropped the ball big time.

      Fortunately (knowing the tactics of such apologists) someone saved the thread before it happened:

      Read what those on Simmons side had to say on the matter (and think about your own views and how blindly biased they must be):
      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=24870#entry95440

  18. jan said,

    You have surfaced again Parker. I am glad you did because, anticipating that you, or some sympathetic pathetic would respond, I have a major observation to report regarding this specific conversation Forget that Meyers behaved like a “bull in the china shop”. I couldn’t believe that he would allow his position to rely so heavily on supposed strength of “whale evolution” as a major contribution to the “theory” of “evolution”. You just stepped into a huge pile of dog shit. If I remember correctly, he, like the asshole he is, sidestepped the real issues and played the semantics game to the hilt. It has been well known that evolutionists, in general, have made a living off of creating an esoteric aura regarding the bullshit they espouse in their psuedo scientific “studies” and “peer reviewed publications” (oh, don’t worry about the magnitude of speculations the peer reviewers are required to accept to be in that position) and promote to the pop culture media that obligingly filters out the horseshit so that the gullible taxpaying public will buy into the line of shit. So, naturally, Meyer incessantly belittled the apponant for not remembering the stupid ass hypothetical names for the supposed intermediate forms leading form ground dwelling organisms to fully adapted aquatic organcisms Who the fuck cares about the man made names for pure conjecture? Meyer is so fucking concerned about his status with the unquestioning masses that apparently suck his ass, that he actually allows himself to be exposed like this,,,,,,he knows what i am talking about….. that is why he claims ” i dont like to debate (people who have doubts about the theory) or whatever the fuck he calls it.

    Dont you have any questions regarding the speculations? What are you, some kind of fucking lemming, so caught up in your own philosophical presuppostions that you are unwilling to question ALL SIDES OF A TOPIC???????

    Land dwelling creature to fully acclimated aquatic creature….. Do you think science has or ever will be able to demonstrate the levels of molecular change and selection pressures required (forget the apparent similarities between the ears and the nostril position on some of the supposed “transitions”) What about the FUCKING HUGE DIFFERENCES THAT MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHIN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????? PARKER, YOU BONEHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!
    So along those lines Meyer makes a big fucking deal (forgive me if I am wrong, oh Smart One) out of the fact that the other guy couldn’t remember all of the man made names for all of the alleged intermediary creatures from the shore-dwelling version to the fully aquatically acclimated version. Semantics has nothing to do with proving the validity or lack there of, of the underlying biophysical requirements of what the body of assertions attempts to validate. Dont you see that you fool?

    Part of the speculative

  19. jan said,

    Parker, where are you?

    • ADParker said,

      In my ‘office’ becoming increasingly bored with the drivel from this pathetic little blog.

  20. jan said,

    jan said:

    “Parker, where are you?”

    Parker said:

    “In my ‘office’ becoming increasingly bored with the drivel from this pathetic little blog.”

    jan now says:

    But Parker, I don’t understand how you can become “bored” with these questions being raised, Why even bother to, first of all, come on here and contribute the way you have. How can that possibly be boring to someone who has strongly held beliefs about such fascinating questions. If your goal is to receive concurrence of your speculations by outsiders, then maybe you need to realize that can not honestly happen. And restrict your interchanges with those, readlily within reach, within the publicly funded institutions who are more than willing to supplicate your positions. After all, the hugely speculative nature of your explaination of “chemicals to living ecosystems” is only supported by those who hide from reality, and within the incubative structures (non-competitive, publically funded institutions) that, essentiallly shelters them from the realities of the world.
    UNTIL NOW. NOW, MORE THAT EVER, THINKERS OUTSIDE OF THE IVORY TOWERS ARE SCRUTINIZING THE UNSUBSTANTIATED SHIT THAT HAS BEEN OOZING FROM THOSE PUBLIC FUNDED STRUCTURES FOR SO LONG. Are you counting the days to retirement? It is probably in the bag eh Parker. If so, you will make it to your continuing goal of non accountablilty, and having your ass taken care of by public funds until you pass away………….

  21. jan said,

    Parker, you stupid asshole, GO BACK TO THE NOV 11TH POST MADE BY THIS ONE WHO IS PARTICIPATING IN THE CONVERSATIONS. Present SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFICALLY CORROBORATED HARD CORE EVIDENCES THAT WOULD EVEN FUCKING COME CLOSE TO DEMONSTRATING THE REQUIRED “BIOPHYSICAL” “BIOCHEMICAL” MULTIDIMENSIONAL, ANTI NATURAL, BIOSYMPATHETIC FORCES REQUIRED, EVEN OVER FUCKING BILLIONS OF YEARS…. THAT CAN EXPLAIN WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS (VASTLY NON APPRECIATED, BY YOU YOU SHIT HEAD) CANT YOU SEE THIS BY NOW? YOU STUPID PRICK.

  22. jan said,

    Parker,
    What a fool you are. But take comfort….. YOU are just one of , apparently hundreds of thousands of unthinking fools (at least) who accept whatever socially “sanctioned” philosophical “dogma” supports your personally preferred beliefs. Keep masturbating, taking drugs, abusing other people (and this has many many forms of expression), etc etc etc whatever it is that makes you very interested in contesting “religious philosophy” with “naturalistic (no personal accountability) philosophy”. And that is all it is. Other than this kind of positioning from you, (describe what really is so if it hasnt been covered by the above comments) many people can not understand why you support your preferred speculations over others……Parker, you keep supporting the temple of huge speculation, over what can honestly by observed. For your own pride of speculations………you fool.

  23. jan said,

    “Snicker!”

    Parker, what do you mean? I guess you are taking comfort in the perception that your philosophical preferences are supported by what is equivalent to winning a social “popularity contest”. Eh? Parker? Show adequate “science” to support your assertions asshole.

  24. linswrittelia said,

  25. Steve's Tiny id said,

    Oh those evil-looshinests and their huge egos!
    Perhaps they need a little id in their lives!

    Most people have their own that stop them from having delusions of something I cant be bothered spell checking.

  26. Steve's Tiny id said,

    Welcome to bait and switch anonymous.
    My names Steve and I had a horrible experience with a british sounding man who made me look a bit silly in public so I made a web site where I can show him whos the FOOL!
    The whole t-rex thing isn’t true huh?
    Its ok. Take some deep breaths and well get through this together. British people are all bad, you can tell by those snooty accents.
    It also makes them wrong, and maybe magicians.

  27. Steve's Tiny id said,

    Im so tired now. The laughter and the tears we have shared.
    A parting question: how big would you like the all inclusive 10,000 species clade diagram with global location dots to be? Do they have to include continental drift? Is that even real?
    Coz you know, anything else is a lie. Woooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  28. Kevin Clark said,

    John G said;
    “And there are no possible uses for each of the ten protein additions that would be required in the evolution of the type 3 secretory system.
    The type III secretion system is essentially composed of three parts, a gated pore, an F1F0-ATP synthetase, and an outer membrane secretin, all of which have other uses as well as plausible evolutionary origins.”

    Actually, the belief that reorganization of the components occurring in a closed and controlled environment is what is required in order to infer your concept as a possibility. Have you ever seen…. in any living system…. that type of unique reorganization occur?
    What you conceptually propose as possible requires absolute belief since such an event has never been observed by anyone, anywhere, at any time.
    So what manner of science are you promoting?

    In my world empirical evidence is the proper foundation to infer from. Proposing a possibility existing in the absence of ‘any’ evidence for such an event to occur is not how the scientific method works. On the other hand science fiction is mostly based on imagination and propositions without empirical evidences.

    Thus your concept cannot be considered a ‘possibility’ that requires someone to prove wrong anymore than pink unicorns require refutation.

    Faith and belief are the foundations of religions they have no place in scientific methods.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: