Darrow Vs. Bryan: Clash Of The 20th Century

In his 2007 essay “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument,” physicist Jeff Glassman wrote:

“…creationists ridicule evolution for being only a theory, but a theory ranks near the epitome of scientific model accomplishment.”

This is certainly so. Glassman went on to state:

“A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum,”

…and again listed evolution as among the examples of scientific theories.

If we want to step beyond the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains – some specimens of which are showing resistance even to vancomycin and the other “go-to” antibiotics more recently developed to hammer these bugs – as proof of genetic adaptation (in other words, definitely evolutionary change), there are the various drug-resistant clades of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) causing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) which are commonly identified not only via phenotypic testing but also by genotypic means in order to handle the selection of antiretroviral (ARV) agents for the suppression of viral replication.

We’ve been directly tracking the “evolution” of HIV-1 populations at the genetic level for well over a decade now.

One doesn’t have to be a blazing ignoramus to be “anti-evolution,” but….

Well, I was going to say “it helps,” but that wouldn’t be right.

You definitely do have to be a blazing ignoramus to qualify for membership in that cadre. They’re idiots.

Idiots are folks that think adaptation is evolution . . .

No, idiots are – quite reliably – illiterate clowns who use inappropriate (also known as “pompous”) capitalization to make their idiocies seem more respectable.

In the consideration of scientific models (which range as discussed by Dr. Glassman from conjecture to hypothesis to theory to law in terms of their reliability), an idiot is one who willfully refuses to appreciate the nature of such intellectual concepts and the bases upon which they are developed as abstract descriptions of phenomena occurring in the real world.

Modern genetics in virology as applied to the study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) has shown that there are distinctive resistance mutations which appear with predictable reliability in differing specific populations of the pathogenic organism, and which “breed” true after induction has taken place, resulting in a line of subsequent generations that no longer exhibit the phenotypic characteristics of the previously “wild” genotype manifesting in conditions not subject to the toxic influences of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs.

This isn’t “adaptation” but mutation under selective pressure in the particular HIV-1 population’s environment. We have a literal life-or-death incentive to track such mutations, and we’re able to do so because the genetic code of this retrovirus species is relatively simple.

Emphasis on the word “relatively.” See Topics in Antiviral Medicine for the IAS-USA most recent “Update of the Drug Resistance Mutations in HIV-1”

Whether selection pressures are natural or imposed by human action, responses at the level of genetic encoding do not qualify as “adaptation” on the individual basis.

To imply that an individual organism’s adaptive response does or can cause genetic change which breeds true in subsequent generations is the hallmark of Lysenkoism, and acceptance of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with such.

“Still spinning you wheels eh?”

Nah. I’m just grinding you and the rest of your co-religionists into the mud you keep wallowing in.

In testing any abstract concept devised by rational thought (as opposed to unsupported belief) to explain phenomena under examination, one must find evidence which falsifies the explanation provided by that concept. This the anti-evolution brigade of marching morons has always failed to do.

Models provided by scientific method applied honestly (and therefore rigorously) seek to formulate intelligible explanations for verified and consistently verifiable observations attained through the purposeful work of unprejudiced and dispassionate people prepared to document their findings for others to assess and use.

The theory of evolution had been developed and refined for generations with repeated and continuing tests applied by such honest disputants in skeptical efforts to secure falsification, and all such efforts have failed.

This is enough to maintain the applicability of this theory as valid. Moreover, “no Provable, Repeatable Demonstrateable” factual information has been presented by scientific illiterates hostile to the theory for purely religious (or other irrational) reasons to invalidate said theory.

Might it be possible to ask why you, personally, are slamming that pointy knob at the top of your spinal cord against this cinderblock wall so frenetically?

My personal motive in responding to your obtuse, obstinate, ludicrous willful ignorance and idiocy is that – unlike you – I am educated in the sciences, with a professional obligation to conduct my thoughts and actions affecting the lives, liberties, and property of other human beings in accord with ethical standards predicated upon the intellectual integrity of scientific method. As a result, I must consider approaches such as you’ve displayed to be irrational to the point of perniciously impairing civil discourse, social comity, and the ability of innocent, well-intentioned people to cope with factual reality.

You keep pushing your delusions over a fine point of scientific dispute obviously without qualification (or intention) to do so according to the usages of lucid analysis, and I think it’s appropriate to ask you to state explicitly your motives for yelping and squealing like this in a public forum.

Just what the hell are you trying to foist on innocent bystanders, and just how malevolent are your intentions?

“Never said I was Religious . . . .”

No, of course. You’re merely a weaseling (and still inappropriately capitalizing) flaming idiot who is entirely too cowardly to explicitly state his reasons for behaving so contemptibly.

Oh, and puh-leese don’t get into the standard creationist crap about the eye, wherefore you get slapped briskly about the chops over the logical fallacy of the argument from irreducible complexity into which so many of your fellow idiots keep stumbling, particularly in light of the “design flaws” implicit in the mammalian ocular structures which keep retinologists busy in their practices.

There’s plenty of discussion on how the mammalian eye had evolved, including the item on Wiki-bloody-pedia to which I made reference in the paragraph immediately above.

Sheesh, but you’re on the Web as you’re reading this. Are you too lazy, too stupid, or too dishonest to just look it up?

Yet again, what is your dark and sinister motive for maintaining your spectacular blithering idiocy with such psychotic persistence?

“JUST POST THE SCIENCE LOON . . . THE PROVABLE SCIENCE . . . YOU SOCIALIST CLOWNS ARE LAUGHABLE . . .”

And your complete psychotic lapse into ALL CAPS gibbering isn’t just too hilariously typecast for words?

Oh, yeah, and it’s just lovely that in your flaming idiocy you’re condemning me – a disputant who has persistently spoken for the defense of the individual human being’s unalienable rights to his life, his liberty, and his property – as a “SOCIALIST.”

Do you even remotely know the definition of that term, or is it just the nastiest word your vanishingly small fund of knowledge admits in your blind grope to continue evading admission of just what the hell propels you in this Gadarene swinishness of yours?

Any minute now I expect you to lapse without sense or continence into your best notion of that climactic courtroom scene from A Few Good Men.

The line should go, of course, to the effect that you (DCW16, whoever the devil you are) can’t state the truth about your motives and purposes, because you’re ashamed of them.

Tch. Such a disgrace you are.