Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Rich Hughes- Moron at Large

In the thread titled Alternative Hypotheses Using the Same Evidence Rich Hughes really shows his true colors and they paint him as a moron.

I had stated:
BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.


To which Rich responded:
I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe.

Did you get that?!!! I ask for physiological and anatomical differences and Rich sez that the “genetic differences is(sic) quite well documented”.

Don’t feel bad Rich, other equally moronic evolutionitwits have made the same idiotic mistake.

Of course that doesn't make you any less of a moron but it does demonstrate that evolutionitwits don't have a clue.

151 Comments:

  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Hi Joe

    Still arguing with yourself, and pretending you are defeating opponents with your mighty intellect, while hiding behind moderation like Mikey and Davey do at UD.

    Happy New Year.

    PS Professor Davison asked after you.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Alan,

    It is true that arguing with evolutionitwits is like arguing with a rock, which is basically like arguing with myself, so I guess you have a point (besides the one on top of your head).

    What "moderation" am I hiding behind? All I have asked is that commentors STAY ON TOPIC, If that is "moderation" that evolutionitwits cannot tolerate then it is easy to see they are rocks and not worth any effort.

    However I have continually noticed that no one evolutionitwit, yourself included, can provide any data to support their ant-ID position.

    Heck you guys can't even provide a viable hypothesis for your position.

    IOW it has become very obvious that you guys are intellectual cowards.

    But do have a happy new year. And remember I will be introducing ID into at least 2 more high schools this year...

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you for Prof Davison's new blog. I have updated my "links" section to reflect the new site.

     
  • At 1:45 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh dear. Dippy Joe quotemines. Standard dishonest creationist stuff, of course - No ellipses in his quote. What was actually said:

    Joe -"BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans."

    Me - "I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe."

    The genetic differences explain the physiological and anatomical differences, Joe. Or don't you think genes do that?

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Thank you for PROVING you are a dishonest moron.

    Try reading the OP again.

    I put the FULL quotes- yours and mine- in the OP Rich.

    The genetic differences explain the physiological and anatomical differences, Joe. Or don't you think genes do that?

    According to scientists they do not,

    Denton tells us that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do NOT determine it.

    Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti tells us that the big differences are NOT accounted for by DNA.

    Ya see Rich ants in the same colony have the SAME DNA yet can vary in physiology and anatomy.

    Caterpillars and their butterfly counterparts have the SAME DNA yet vary in physiology and anatomy.

    And then there are voles:

    Rodent's bizarre traits deepen mystery of genetics, evolution:

    "The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

    Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:

    •In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.

    •In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.

    •In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

    A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

    "All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.

    In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

    Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species."



    Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.


    Ya see Rich we have sequenced many genomes and we still cannot account for the physiological and anatomical differences between the subjects via genetics.

    However given that you cannot even read a simple OP- an OP that gave the FULL quotes and you didn't even notice- I doubt you can understand anything that I post or that scientists write in their peer-reviewed articles.

    IOW Rich it is very doubtful you can comprehend anything beyond "See spot run." "Run spot run".

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I put in the OP:

    I had stated:
    BTW there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    To which Rich responded:
    I think that they have genetic differences is quite well documented, Joe.

    Did you get that?!!! I ask for physiological and anatomical differences and Rich sez that the “genetic differences is(sic) quite well documented”.

    Again I thank Rich for proving my point.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The following is from my second blog entry Why Intelligent Design is scientific:

    Also many proteins appear to be very similar in bacteria throughout life. Yet the morphological & phenotypic differences are very profound. We genetically engineer bacteria to produce insulin, a huge modification, yet the bacteria are still bacteria, acting as bacteria act with the exception they can now produce insulin. The tough part was making the little milking people & stools to get the insulin from the bacteria…

    Then we have proteins with alleged mutational differences that can be used to derive a sequence of descent. However it should be noted that even with the differences the proteins in question all perform the same function. Are we to understand that which has no effect on the molecular level has a profound effect on the morphological level?


    What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    [quote]The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”[/quote]


    We do know the information for the coding of genes which then code for the assembly of proteins & enzymes, resides in the genome, i.e. the organisms’ DNA. We also know there are HOX genes, and clusters of those (HOX clusters), which control the development of body parts during the organisms’ developmental (embryonic) stage. We also know that many of the HOX genes are common throughout the animal kingdom. We also know that the HOX genes only control (for any specific part) the development of, as in does it develop or not, a body part and not what type of part it is, its shape nor the function. IOW a mouse “eyeless” gene transferred to a fly missing that gene, would give the fly back its fly-eyes.

    IOW HOX genes are genetic switches and routers. And that is another thing to consider- communication at the molecular level as well as communication throughout the organism. Mutations in HOX genes can cause the loss of body parts. It can also cause body parts to show up where they aren’t supposed to. But in all cases that have been observed, the survivors are always deformed versions of the original, with no chance of reproductive success nor any indication the deformity would lead to the evolution of a new and viable body plan.

    OK so if HOX genes are genetic switches, that can cause body parts to not develop or to develop on a different body segment, what about the information for the body part itself? And just how would unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes account for the use of genetic switches never mind their origin?

    But anyway- we do observe many similarities on the molecular & cellular levels of life. But if, as the evidence shows, these parts are interchangeable without any real over all outward effect, where does the CSI reside that governs the organisms’ body plans?

    The point being that if evolutionists can’t even answer that question, which is very important to the theory of evolution, how can their inference be trusted, especially seeing that it can’t be tested? And in that light when compared side-by-each how can ID not be accepted as science when the theory of evolution is? Obviously double-standards are employed to exclude ID.

    We know that organisms with disparate DNA can & do have similar morphological features (marsupials and their placental copies). We know that very disparate organisms with disparate DNA can have very similar organs (eyes of the octopus and the human eyes). We also know that organisms with the same DNA can take on very disparate forms (caterpillars & butterflies). Where does the information reside and how did it get there?

    A scientist was talking with a farmer. They agreed that if the scientist could tell the farmer the number of sheep in his flock the scientist could take a sheep. The scientist glanced over the flock and shouted 53!

    “That’s right,” said the farmer. “That science of yours is pretty amazing. Take yer pick.”

    The scientist bends over and scoops up an animal.

    “You must be a molecular biologist.” Said the farmer.

    “Why yes, I am. How did you know?” inquired the scientist.

    “That’s not important” replied the farmer "Just put down the dog.”


    Now I predict that neither Rich nor any other evolutionitwit will respond with data that demonstrates that we know what is responsible for for form.

    That was obvious with this post.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Okay Joe. If genes don't determine the differences, why aren't they common for all life?

    Your Caterpillar / Butterfly 'argument' is cringeworthy. Most species have some morphological changes in the course of their life (which is inherent in their DNA). Is there any type of science you wont deny?

    Funny the amazing statistical congruence between Morphological and genetic nested hierarchies of life...


    I bet the Holocaust is also in there too, eh?

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gee Rich,

    All you have to do to prove me wrong is reference ONE peer-reviewed article that demonstrates we know what gene(s) is(are) responsible for which body parts.

    But instead you try to put the onus on me!!!

    If genes don't determine the differences, why aren't they common for all life?

    1- I did not say genes don't determine the diffrences. Surely they can account for the difference between eye color, hair color, skin pigment, eyesight, height and other traits withi a population.

    2- Genes are not the same throughout life because not every living organism requires the same chemicals in order to sustain metabolism and reproduction.

    Your Caterpillar / Butterfly 'argument' is cringeworthy.

    Only because you are an ignorant fuck. Heck you have already proven that you cannot read.

    Most species have some morphological changes in the course of their life (which is inherent in their DNA).

    Only a moron would consider that the change from caterpillar to butterfly entails "some morphological changes".

    Funny the amazing statistical congruence between Morphological and genetic nested hierarchies of life...

    One wouldn't expect to find nested hierarcjies in an evolutionary scenario-

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus:

    Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10

    Ya see Rich it isn't that I deny anything, especially science. It is that you are just one gullible moron who can't even conjure up an original thought.

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you have a simplistic and overly reductionist understanding of genetics. It's the interplay of various genes that create things. You don't have a "hand gene" or an "eye gene".

    Katy Human is empirically wrong. We can see nested hierarchy in may ways, including your personal favourite, ERVs. She does use the qualifier "see", though, I suppose.

    "Genes are not the same throughout life because not every living organism requires the same chemicals in order to sustain metabolism and reproduction."

    But genes aren't the metabolism, genes don't convert food into energy. Hello? They create the things that do convert food into energy...


    "Only because you are an ignorant fuck. Heck you have already proven that you cannot read." I'm sorry Joe, I can't read that.

    I would suggest you do something therapeutic, like fixing fridges.

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you have a simplistic and overly reductionist understanding of genetics.

    You have it exactly backwards. It is the evolutionitwits that require a simplistic and reductionist explanation.

    The more intricate the code and machinary the less likely it is that stochastic processes brought it about. Heck one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research pretty much sums up the intracacy that stochastic processes can handle.

    It's the interplay of various genes that create things. You don't have a "hand gene" or an "eye gene".

    As a matter of fact Rich we know what can take away hands and eyes but we do not know what is responsible, ie determines, them.

    Show me this magical sequence of genes or admit that no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    Katy Human is empirically wrong.

    Gee that is a peer-reviewed an ACCEPTED high school supplemental text.

    We can see nested hierarchy in may ways, including your personal favourite, ERVs.

    Nested heirarchies are NOT an expected evolutionary outcome. That is because evolution does not have a direction. That is unless you consider "survival" a direction.

    Darwin explained the observed nested hierarchy by appealing to well-timed extinctions. Otherwise the lines would be too blurred to make distinctive characteristic separations.

    That we see nh doesn't mean it was expected. (BTW NH was first used as evidence for common design. Darwin stole it and replced "archetype" with "common ancestor")

    "Genes are not the same throughout life because not every living organism requires the same chemicals in order to sustain metabolism and reproduction."

    But genes aren't the metabolism, genes don't convert food into energy.

    I never said nor implied that genes are the metabolism nor do they convert food into energy.

    Genes are responsible for certain and specific chemical products. Without these products the organism cannot sustain metabolism and reproduction.

    They create the things that do convert food into energy...

    I know that Rich. And that is why I said what I did.

    I would suggest you do something therapeutic, like fixing fridges.

    I only fix my 'fridge and only if it ever needs it. My therapy is beating back nonsense like yours and cementing my PoV that the theory of evolution is nonsensical babble- at least the way anti-IDists are using it.

    All this is practice for when I get my day in court- that is if any parents even try that tactic. It should be easy enough to convince the parents that intelligent design at least needs to be introduced to the students.

    So I thank you.

     
  • At 9:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Can I come and watch your day in court, Joe? You should line a few up, because you're very good.

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Courtrooms are usually open to the public Rich.

    However seeing that no one has complained yet I doubt I will get to go to Court about this. It is also very obvious that it will continue to be easy to demonstrate to parents that the theory of evolution is nonsense and that ID needs to be at least introduced.

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If Evolution is nonsense, it shouldn't be taught at all. If Id is correct, it should be taught exclusively. I think this is an honest perspective and should be your position.

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's what evolutionitwits are doing with the theory of evolution that is nonsense.

    As you have demonstrated one can't even muster a decent hypothesis from the pap you are pushing.

    Heck all the data you can muster shows one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research.

    As for an "honest person's position", LoL, bwwaaaahaaahaaaa- as if you would know what an honest person would do.

    Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

    Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
    Dr Behe

    Chance, necessity AND design. Design was never intended to exclude chance and necessity.

    THAT is an honest person's position.

     
  • At 1:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Sounds great, Joe. Where and when is the first case?

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The first case of what?

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Court / school board. I guess the likely running order will be school board then court.

    Are you joining the boards, or are you acting as an adviser? Are any ID organizations (DI, maybe those UD folks) giving you any help?

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I don't need any more evidence that proves you are a moron but I already addressed the issue of going to Court:


    Courtrooms are usually open to the public Rich.

    However seeing that no one has complained yet I doubt I will get to go to Court about this. It is also very obvious that it will continue to be easy to demonstrate to parents that the theory of evolution is nonsense and that ID needs to be at least introduced.


    To sum up:

    I doubt there will be a Court case as the parents of the kids in my school district appear smart enough to understand the issue. No one has complained yet- about my presenting ID to schools in my area. So I don't see that changing any time soon.

    And if it does I will take those people aside and have a discussion about it. I will also ask them to present a hypothesis (to support their anti-ID position) and that will demonstrate to those people just how empty the theory of evolution is.

    Also I don't need any help so I haven't asked for any. But that may change.

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well Rich it is now obvious that you are not going to substantiate your bald claim that "The genetic differences explain the physiological and anatomical differences, Joe."

    Thank you for proving how empty your position is.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh, some atheist kid will probably have the ACLU file suit. Then the board will get sued and reverse its position.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hypothesis: Different genomes create different creatures, Joe.

    Experiment: If this is true, identical twins should be genetically closer than normal siblings.

    What do you think?

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What "moderation" am I hiding behind?"

    You don't publish some of the comments that make you look bad, which is boilerplate creationist behaviour. and you wont venture to venues where this moderation doesn't exist.

     
  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What "moderation" am I hiding behind?"

    You don't publish some of the comments that make you look bad,

    Do you have ANY evidence to back that up?

    and you wont venture to venues where this moderation doesn't exist.

    I have, and guess what? No one at those other venues has been able to support the anti-ID position. No one at those venues has been able to demonstrate that genetic differences equate to the observed physiological and anatomical differences.

    IOW going to other venues has proven to be a waste of time.

    That is why I have this blog. If any anti-IDists ever comes up with such data they know where to find me.

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hypothesis: Different genomes create different creatures, Joe.

    But I have already provided the scientific data which refutes that hypothesis- try reading it this time as opposed to your continuing to prove my point that you are a moron:

    Rodent's bizarre traits deepen mystery of genetics, evolution:

    "The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.

    Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:

    •In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information.

    •In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome.

    •In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals.

    A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant.

    "All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.

    In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.

    Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species"



    Yup after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over evolutionism.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, some atheist kid will probably have the ACLU file suit. Then the board will get sued and reverse its position.

    That hasn't happened yet. And if it does I am more than ready to take on the ACLU.

    Ya see I have read the Dover fiasco's transcript. And I know what tact to take against the anti-IDists. Ya see I am going to make them demonstrate how their position is scientific. That way the judge will have something to compare ID against.

    And once it is demonstrated that no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed it will be obvious that the theory of evolution is bogus.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hypothesis: Different genomes create different creatures, Joe.

    Experiment: If this is true, identical twins should be genetically closer than normal siblings.

    What do you think?


    Are those "normal" siblings "different creatures"? No.

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So you don't think that genes determine how we are formed, Joe?

    please note:

    4+3 = 7
    2+9-4 = 7
    1+1+5 = 7

    You conflate chromosomes with genes, Joe. An honest but amateur error.

    as for the twins.. well they're natural biological clones, of course. Genetically the same, and don't they look it!

    4+3=7, it never =8.

    Surely when the ACLU roles out some scientists to argue from authority or literature bluff, you're going to be in trouble. Are you a scientist?

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And once it is demonstrated that no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed it will be obvious that the theory of evolution is bogus."

    Hmm. No one can account for gravity, either Joe. No one has seen a 'Graviton', just the effects fo gravity in action. You mightg want to go after Gravity as well, get a good twofer in.

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you don't think that genes determine how we are formed, Joe?

    According to geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti they do not.

    According to genetic researcher Michael Denton, they do not.

    And no one has been able to demonstrate otherwise.

    Ya see although genes may influence development they do not determine it. And there is a huge difference between influence and determination.

    You conflate chromosomes with genes, Joe.

    Are you saying the genes (in voles) are not different?

    You had better provide a reference to support that claim.

    as for the twins.. well they're natural biological clones, of course. Genetically the same, and don't they look it!

    But they are NOT different creatures than their siblings! And that was the premise of your hypothesis.

    Surely when the ACLU roles out some scientists to argue from authority or literature bluff, you're going to be in trouble.

    Doubtful. Ya see no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    The best evolutionitwits can muster is one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research.

    "And once it is demonstrated that no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed it will be obvious that the theory of evolution is bogus."

    Hmm. No one can account for gravity, either Joe.

    Gravity can be observed and tested. Heck it even has a formula from which we can make predictions.

    Universal common descent has never been observed and cannot be objectively tested. And that is not including the mechanism.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, some atheist kid will probably have the ACLU file suit.

    Why would an atheist kid do that seeing that ID is compatable with atheism?

    And what kind of case would the ACLU have once they find out I do not have any religious affiliation nor am I religiously motivated?

    That was their whole case in Dover- a relgiously motivated school board.

    However I can easily demonstrate that ID is not a religious concept and that many IDists do not have a religious affiliation.

     
  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wikipedia:

    "Giuseppe Sermonti (born 1925) is a retired Italian professor of genetics, known for his antievolutionary views, and support for pseudoscientists in other fields unrelated to creationism."

    "Denton has been a strong proponent of intelligent design and is a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement. Though Denton asked his name be removed from their website, the institute continues to cite his work in support of its campaign,[1] and his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was cited in the appendix of the controversial intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People. The title of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was adopted by the institute as the slogan for their teach the controversy campaign"

    How many atheist ID proponents are there?

     
  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    With no snide, I thought you might enjoy this, Joe:

    http://www.nyas.org/snc/rw/57/presentations/player.html

    Have a good one.

     
  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Instead of posting irrelevant Wikipedia* nonsense, why don't you concentrate on finding the scientidfic data which refutes their claims?

    It is a sure sign that you have lost the debate when you respond with a challenge by providing irrelevant snipets about the challengers.

    I don't know how many atheist ID proponents there are. I haven't taken a count.

    But again that misses the point. It is OK to be both an IDist and an atheist as ID doesn't say anything about "God" or any deity.

    and one more time- use HTML tags when providing a link. once again yours got chopped off. and if you can't provide some commentary for a link don't bother posting just a bald link. try providing a comment as to how the link supports your PoV.

    *Wikipedia- where losers go because there isn't any reputable references to support their case.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The link was interesting Joe. Not sure how it was "bald", exactly.

    They are both cranks. Have a google!

     
  • At 8:38 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    *Wikipedia- where losers go because there isn't [sic] any reputable references to support their case.

    Um, you don't like the truth of the wiki entry, or you find the truth irrelevant? Which is it Joe? Your guy, the Italian Stallion, was a hack, as the wiki entry shows.

    I vote for Rich Hughes on this one!

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    A daunting task indeed, especially seeing that it most likely isn't even possible...

     
  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    *Wikipedia- where losers go because there isn't any reputable references to support their case.

    Um, you don't like the truth of the wiki entry, or you find the truth irrelevant?

    What "truth" did the wiki entries contain?

    And yes both entries are irrelevant to the challenge.

    Which is it Joe? Your guy, the Italian Stallion, was a hack, as the wiki entry shows.

    Really? And what do you base that on?

    I vote for Rich Hughes on this one!

    You both are moronic losers so I can understand the attraction.

    Wikipedia is not an accepted authority on anything because any butt-wipe can post any tripe as long as it goes unchallenged. And seeing that no one really cares about Wikipedia most nonsense gets a pass.

     
  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The link was interesting Joe.

    That's your opinion. I don't know.

    Not sure how it was "bald", exactly.

    There wasn't anything explaining the relevance of the link. That makes it "bald".

    But anyway- How about Rich? Any chance that you are going to support your claim with some actual scientific data?

    You know, the claim that genes determine form...

     
  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    I said: Um, you don't like the truth of the wiki entry, or you find the truth irrelevant?

    Joe said: What "truth" did the wiki entries contain?

    I say: The truth is that your guy, "Giuseppe Sermonti (born 1925) is a retired Italian professor of genetics, known for his antievolutionary views, and support for pseudoscientists in other fields unrelated to creationism."

    Joe said: And yes both entries are irrelevant to the challenge.

    I say: Your challenge requires a scientific answer, hence your citation of the Italian hack. You now want to say that your only supporter, a hack, is irrelevant. That is not a good argument.

    Joe said: You both are moronic losers so I can understand the attraction.

    Joe also said: Wikipedia is not an accepted authority on anything because any butt-wipe can post any tripe as long as it goes unchallenged. And seeing that no one really cares about Wikipedia most nonsense gets a pass.

    I say: Wikipedia is right on just about everything. Maybe, just maybe, having so many editors allows for more correctness than just one editor, as this blog has.

    Happy New Year, moron!

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe said: What "truth" did the wiki entries contain?

    I say: The truth is that your guy, "Giuseppe Sermonti (born 1925) is a retired Italian professor of genetics, known for his antievolutionary views, and support for pseudoscientists in other fields unrelated to creationism."

    OK prove Dr Sermonti has antievolutionary views. Make sure you first provide a valid definition of "evolution".

    Next prove that Dr Sermonti supports pseudoscientists- complete with names and the pseudoscience they are promoting.

    It would also be a good thing for you to demonstrate that any anti-ID materialistic position is scientific.

    That way we can compare what you cal science to what you call pseudoscience.

    Joe said: And yes both entries are irrelevant to the challenge.

    I say: Your challenge requires a scientific answer, hence your citation of the Italian hack. You now want to say that your only supporter, a hack, is irrelevant. That is not a good argument.

    Seeing the challenge requires a scientific answer I can be assured that no answer will be forthcoming.

    Also Dr Sermonti is a "hack" only to those who don't understand science.

    Joe also said: Wikipedia is not an accepted authority on anything because any butt-wipe can post any tripe as long as it goes unchallenged. And seeing that no one really cares about Wikipedia most nonsense gets a pass.

    I say: Wikipedia is right on just about everything.

    I have proven otherwise. Heck it isn't even an accepted reference for university-level papers.

    Maybe, just maybe, having so many editors allows for more correctness than just one editor, as this blog has.

    This blog doesn't have an editor. Also if all the edittors of Wikipedia are morons then more morons aren't going to help.

    Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti is a retired Professor of Genetics at the University of Perugia. He discovered genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces and was Vice President at XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow, 1980). Sermonti is Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world.

    IOW Dr Sermonti is a genetics expert.

    And in the end it doesn't matter who issues a challenge. But it is obvious that only losers attack the person (or people) posing the challenge instead of taking on the challenge and showing it to be false.

    and rishy had its chance, as did Richie and both chose to disparage the people issuing the challenge instead of actually supporting their PoV. Go figure...

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    missing citation from last post for Dr Giuseppe Sermonti>

    from Wikipedia:

    Born in Rome, graduated in agriculture and genetics, he entered the Superior Institute of Health in 1950, founding a department of Microbiological Genetics. He became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he is presently emeritus professor and where he manages the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974. From 1970-1971 he presided over the Associazione Genetica Italiana.[1] He is the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. He was vice-president of the XIV International Congress of Genetics held in Moscow and he was appointed as president of the International Committee of the Working Group on Genetics of Industrial Microorganisms.

    The article also says:Since 1979, Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world (founded in 1919), which, prior to Sermonti's assumption of the role of Chief Editor was considered to be respectable journal. Since Sermonti took over, however, it has published papers which would be regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community, particularly articles by creationists such as Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, as well as articles by Morphogenetic field advocate Rupert Sheldrake and holistic scientist Mae-Wan Ho.[2]

    Sternberg isn't a creationist, there isn't any such thing as a "scientific community", and just declaring "pseudoscience" doesn't make it so.

    ”As a result of such contradictions *, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question “What distinguishes science from nonscience?” as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is “scientific” according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, “If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’…they…do only emotive work for us.” As Martin Eger summarized,”[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." “Darwinism, Design and Public Education" pg. 77 *discussing the contradictions in Ruse’s 1981 falsifiability criteria.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/

    Answer questions on DNA, genomes, etc. Will be good for your court case(s), Joe.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    If you have no intention of substantiating your claim, just say so.

    Perhaps you missed this- which will be good in any court case involving evolution:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    A daunting task indeed, especially seeing that it most likely isn't even possible...

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    What was the purpose of your link?

    I just finished reading What's a genome and it supports Semonti and Denton.

    So perhaps I should thank you...

     
  • At 10:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No worries. I know you're a keen reader.


    First paragraph (from your link)

    "A genome is all of a living thing's genetic material. It is the entire set of hereditary instructions for building, running, and maintaining an organism, and passing life on to the next generation. The whole shebang. "

     
  • At 12:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    hey joe,

    there's a law suit in school district in Florida that desperately needs your legal expertise. Don't let them down. Put your fine legal mind to use and help them out. Taylor County here you come.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice quote-mining Rich. Perhaps you should have read further (as that quote-mine of yours is never substantiated):

    A genome alone can't make a person, because we are also influenced by where we live, the human culture that surrounds us, and hundreds of other aspects of our environment. But the fact remains that you can't make a person without a genome.


    Also there isn't anything in that first paragraph that says that genes determine anything. And there certainly isn't anything in the whole article which shows what DNA sequence is required for which body parts.

    There's more:

    "Genes are found on chromosomes and are made of DNA. Different genes determine the different characteristics, or traits, of an organism. In the simplest terms (which are actually too simple in many cases), one gene might determine the color of a bird's feathers, while another gene would determine the shape of its beak."

    Exactly what Sermonti says- and being "human" is not a trait.

    Genes tell a cell how to make proteins. Roughly speaking, each gene is a set of instructions for making one specific protein.

    and

    Genes sometimes affect characteristics in indirect ways. For example, genes affect the size and shape of your nose, even though there's no such thing as a "nose size" protein. But directly or indirectly, the way genes influence your traits is by telling your cells which proteins to make, how much, when, and where.

    Genes INFLUENCE your traits, wow just as Denton stated.

    Ya see Richie, we still don't understand cellular differentiation (we do on a very primitive level). And if we don't understand that then there is no way to know what makes an organism what it is.

    Ya see Richie if DNA was "the whole shebang" then organisms with different genomes shouldn't look alike. Yet marsupials with their placental cousons look alike even though the DNA is different.

    Octopus eyes resemble human eyes even though the DNA is different.

    And ants in the same colony are different even though the DNA is the same! Termites and bees- same thing- the same DNA and yet very different organisms.

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From a peer-reviewed article:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    From a non-peer-reviewed website:

    "A genome is all of a living thing's genetic material. It is the entire set of hereditary instructions for building, running, and maintaining an organism, and passing life on to the next generation. The whole shebang. "

    It should also be noted that the website never substantiated the claim made in the opening (above) paragraph.

    And if DNA contains the instructions, where did those instructions come from?

    Is there ANY data that would demonstrate that building instructions can arise via purely stochastic processes? Hell no.

    Every time we see building instructions they have ALWAYS come from an intelligent agency. Always.

    IOW the website provides evidence for Intelligent Design.

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey, blipey the ignorant clown chimes in!

    Note to the pinhead:

    I have never claimed legal expertise.

    As for Florida- All the school district needs to do is to pound the facts and watch as the opponents pound the table.

    IOW they have to make the opponents defend their own position. Because that is the only way to make ID go away- actually substantiate the current paradigm.

    And once it is made clear that:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    It will be obvious that no one can test the premise of unversal common descent nevermind testing any proposed mechanism.

    And when opponents try to tie ID to the supernatural all one has to do is to point out the fact that even their position comes down to something beyond nature.

    IOW blipey legal expertise is not required. All one needs is a grasp of reality and the anti-ID position is laid bare.

     
  • At 10:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's of course from your non-legal expertise opinion? Or is there some reason we should take your last comment seriously?

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny,

    I don't care what you do.

    I rely on experience and reality. And both demonstrate that the anti-ID materialists couldn't support their position with scientific data if their lives depended on it.

    UCD relies solely on circumstantial evidence and that evidence is interpreted in light of the assumtion of UCD. And it is easy to show the SAME evidence can be used for alternate assumptions and those assumptions are "tested" in the SAME manner as UCD.

    Not only that the circumstantial evidence for UCD is regardless of a mechanism. Therefore in a debate about mechanisms even evidence for UCD is useless.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW blipey,

    You could refute what I said by merely showing me how UCD can be objectively tested (along with any proposed mechanism).

    You could also show how the materialistic position doesn't rely on something outside of nature.

    OR you can continue to prove that you are an ignorant butt-wipe.

     
  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    um. Common Descent isn't a mechanism; it is an observation. It follows directly from the observation that all life is based on the same building blocks.

    In that way, a theory is built.

    remind me again exactly what blocks the theory of ID is built on? Which observations?

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Thank you for proving (once again) that you cannot read nor follow along.

    I NEVER said nor implied that UCD is a mechanism.

    UCD is NOT an observation. It is an inference based on observed data but it is an inference that is based on the assumption. IOW UCD has to be assumed before one could infer the data leads to it.

    That life is based on the same building blocks is also observed data that supports a common design.

    ID is built on the following:

    1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.


    along with:

    Intelligent Design- the design hypothesis

    And that is a heck of a lot more than you can muster to support your position.

    Also thank you for demonstrating that UCD cannot be objectively tested.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see blipey when I said:

    "You could refute what I said by merely showing me how UCD can be objectively tested (along with any proposed mechanism)".

    It means that not only do you have to show that UCD is objectively testable, it means you have to also provide a testable mechanism.

    That is because, as Dr Behe pointed out many times in "The Edge of Evolution", evidence for UCD is not evidence for a mechanism. And in a debtae centered on mechanisms providing a testable mechanism is very importatnt.

    And the mechanism of choice for your position is accumulated genetic accidents.

    However all observations demonstrate that mechanism has only brought about one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research.

    IOW there isn't any data which supports your position. And that is why it will be easy to win in Court just by making the opposition support its position. That way the judge will see tha it is not scientific- IOW it doesn't stand up to the same standards the opposition wants ID to stand up to.

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Very nice, JoeG. You're a genius. Tell me again how ID is tested? Using your logic, you should give me this one. Since, in your eyes, ToE is untestable, you can't ask me for evidence, but instead should tell me it's right.

    That is your argument for ID, right?

    Let's see, you refuse to show evidence until you see evidence you like for ToE. Yep, I guess that is your argument. Very strong.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since, in your eyes, ToE is untestable, you can't ask me for evidence, but instead should tell me it's right.

    I said universal common descent is not objectively testable and especially UCD via accumulated genetic accidents.

    Tell me again how ID is tested?

    Been there, done that.

    Let's see, you refuse to show evidence until you see evidence you like for ToE.

    Only in your bitty little mind clowny.


    Ya see blipey it is obvious that you cannot support your position. On the other hand I have provided plenty of scientific data that supports ID. That you refuse to read what I post or you are just too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't presented.

    Ya see clowny in science any competeing ideas, hypotheses or theories just have to have the SAME level of evidence, data and observations as the reigning paradigm. And it is easy to see that ID has that when compared to the theory of evolution.

    And I thank you, Rich and all other evolutionitwits for proving that.

    It will be fun to watch the evos squirm in the courtroom when pressed to support their position.

     
  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger jqb said…

    I ask for physiological and anatomical differences and Rich sez that the “genetic differences is(sic) quite well documented”.

    Typical dishonest dumber-than-dirt IDiot. You didn't ask for differences, you asked for an account of the differences. A difference in the genome accounts for the differences ... duh.

    When are you guys going to learn that you can't build a science out of stupidity?

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger jqb said…

    Ya see Rich ants in the same colony have the SAME DNA yet can vary in physiology and anatomy.

    And there are variations among humans, and there are variations among chimps. But that's neither here nor there. Just as the differences between ants of different species is accounted for by differences in their DNA, differences between apes of different species is accounted for by differences in their DNA, you git.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great another moronic evolutionitwit chimes in:


    jqb sez:
    A difference in the genome accounts for the differences.

    What is the data that supports that bald assertion?

    Science is not done via bald assertions you clueless twit.

    IOW you can say all you want but until you have some actual scientific data to back it up what you say is meaningless.

    Ya see Rich ants in the same colony have the SAME DNA yet can vary in physiology and anatomy.

    And there are variations among humans, and there are variations among chimps.

    The ants differ both anatomically and in physiology. Humans do not. Chimps do not.

    Just as the differences between ants of different species is accounted for by differences in their DNA, differences between apes of different species is accounted for by differences in their DNA, you git.

    You can say that all you want but without any scientific data to support the claim it is meaningless.

    For example what genetic differences account for the lack of an opposable big toe in humans?

    How about our ability to walk upright? (which means you have to account for the different positioning of the spine, rib cage and where the spinal column enters the skull- at a minimum)

    My prediction is that jqb will not answer those questions and instead will continue to prove its ignorance on how science really operates.

    The reality is no one knows whether or not any amount of accumulated mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. There is no way to objectively test the premise that the genetic differences account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. And that is because we don't even know what makes a human a human or a chimp a chimp.

    OK jqb time to continue prove you are a know-nothing evolutionitwit, which will be evidenced by your next post- the post in which you offer nothing to substantiate your cliams and instead choose to attck me and/ or ID (out of ignorance).

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    for jbq:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    IOW jqb- science agrees with me. Go figure...

     
  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To jqb,

    When are you guys going to learn that you can't build a science out of ignornace?

    For example when you say that the genetic differences account for the physiological and anatomical differences between chimps and humans, you do so out of ignorance because there isn't any scientific data to support the claim.

    The theory of evolution counts on our ignorance and that is why creative narratives (the alleged history of life) have supplanted scientific data in science classrooms.

     
  • At 10:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0226_030226_antnepotism.html

    "But advances in genetic analysis enabled Sundström and Hannonen to test for nepotism. The pair were able to distinguish one ant's DNA from another's and use certain genetic markers to determine what queen was the mother of various ant offspring."

    Ooops

     
  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oops what, Rich?

    Oops, you are still too stupid to use HTML tags?

    Oops, you are so stupid that you think Nat Geo is a peer-reviewed science journal?

    Or

    Oops you are too stupid to understand what they are talking about?

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the article:

    "Since the workers share half their genes with their mothers, they also share half their genes in common with their siblings. Since siblings have more genes in common than do cousins, if a worker wants to see its genes passed on to the next generation, it's to the ant's advantage to favor its close relatives, assuming it can tell which ants are its closest relatives." (bold added)

    Ya see Rich the study was focused on nepotism ONLY. The study did not say that the ant mother did NOT give rise to several different body types. Every scientist knows that there are several different types of ants and each type can be traced back to ONE mother/ father couple.

    IOW even though they look very different and would most likely be called a different species (that is without genetic analysis) they are actually siblings.

    So Rich, what was your point?

     
  • At 12:08 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    (a) 1234
    (b) abcd

    --------

    children

    (c)1bc4
    (d)a2c4

    They both have half the genes from their parents. And they are both different. Oh dear, Joe. Good luck in Court! Don't forget to tell me where and when!

     
  • At 8:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich proves that he is a moron:

    (a) 1234
    (b) abcd

    --------

    children

    (c)1bc4
    (d)a2c4

    They both have half the genes from their parents. And they are both different.


    Genectically different Rich. You still have not tied genectics to physiology and anatomy.

    Also in your example you would have to show that it is viable for a) 1234 to mate with (b) abcd.

    IOW genetics relies on reality not what some ignorant moron can pull out of its ass.

    And reality says that ants from the same mom and dad have the same DNA but differ in anatomy and physiology.

    Ant insights:

    From a developmental standpoint, specialized castes are usually the product of "differential growth" not different genes. That is to say that within a species that has castes, all female larvae have the potential to develop into any female form (e.g. queen, standard worker, or specialized soldier). The "switch" the turns on the developmental pathways for the specialized caste is controlled by how much a larva is fed at different stages of their early life.

    Specialized castes are also a fascinating evolutionary puzzle because these individuals do not usually reproduce and are morphologically predisposed or limited to a single job throughout their lives. If they do not reproduce, how are the genes that code for their special form and function transmitted from generation to generation?"

    Ya see Rich, there may never be a court date because the parents and the students are much smarter than you will ever be.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here's another snipet:

    "Kin selection provides a powerful explanation for how specialized castes can evolve because while they do not reproduce, they are helping raise sisters and brothers that carry copies of the same genes (remember that all female larvae have the genes to potentially develop into a specialized caste). We also understand that the evolution of specialized castes may be inhibited by developmental constraints (i.e. the potential for caste evolution are not boundless), intra-colonial conflict, and various life history characters. However, in cases where all these barriers have been lifted, we know very little about the selective pressures that then drive the origin and subsequent adaptive elaboration of specialized castes. This is where my interests are focused."

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Why do you keep ignoring the following?:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    Ya see Rich all I have to do is to reference peer-reviewed science to make my case in Court. What will the opposition reference- your genetic work displayed in your last post? LoL!!!!

     
  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, when is your court date? I want to see it from the front row. Then, when it's over, I can laugh at the fact I'll never be hearing of you again. Unless it's from the sisters in prison for contempt or something.

    Good luck.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Court date for what?

    Ya see clowny in order for there to be a Court date there has to be a case to take to Court.

    And with my approach I just don't see that happening. But there is always a next time at a new school.

    Although it will be funny to watch evolutionitwits try to support their anti-ID position under oath. So perhaps when my kids reach that age (when evolutionary nonsense gets rammed down their throats) I may just have to make them.

    That's the only imminent Court date I see on my horizon- although by that time everything should be taken care of- IOW the evolutionary nonsense will have been duly replaced.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This also applies to clowny:

    Ya see Erik, there may never be a court date because the parents and the students are much smarter than you will ever be.

     
  • At 12:09 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Not all genes are required to be active, Joe. They're not designed, they're formed through evolutionary mechanisms such as RM + NS. Geez, you're 8% LTRs of ERVs.

    If ants genes have multiple body plans, so what? Ours have Male and Female body plans, which are different. (I guess you'll have to take that bit about girls being different on faith, Joe). What do genes do, if not create maps for building organisms? Why aren't they the same for all species. Why do species that look the same have more genetic similarity, Joe?

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not all genes are required to be active, Joe.

    I never said nor implied all genes had to be active.

    However that some genes are kept inactive is evidence for command and control, which in turn is evidence for intelligent design.

    They're not designed, they're formed through evolutionary mechanisms such as RM + NS. Geez, you're 8% LTRs of ERVs.

    There isn't any evidence that a gene can arise from scratch via RM & NS. As a matter of fact all RM & NS have been shown to do is provide one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus.

    If ants genes have multiple body plans, so what?

    Those different body plans have the SAME genes. The SAME genetic makeup.

    What do genes do, if not create maps for building organisms?

    Provide the necessary chemical products to sustain the organism, duh.

    Why aren't they the same for all species.

    We have already been over this you ignorant fuck. They aren't the same because not all species require the same chemical products in order to survive.

    Why do species that look the same have more genetic similarity, Joe?

    Umm, they don't. Marsupials and their placental counterparts look very much alike and yet differ genetically. The eye of the octopus is very similar to the human eye yet they differ genetically.

    But why do you keep ignoring the following?:

    Yet it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype. Many, if not most, of the 35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans may have no functional meaning. “To sort out the differences that matter from the ones that don’t is really difficult,” says David Haussler, a biomolecular engineer at UC Santa Cruz, who has identified novel elements in the human genome that appear to regulate genes (Science, 29 September 2006, p. 1908).

    Data, Rich. You need scientific data to support your position and you have yet to present any.

    Try finding some data that accounts for the lose of the opposable big toe or bipedal upright walking. (it doesn't exist)

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why do species that look the same have more genetic similarity, Joe?

    In addition to first response (see my post above), common design is another valid explanation for look-alikes with genetic similarity- and there is also convergence (it also explains genetic and morphological similarities).

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    100 years of reseach! How long have we had genetics?

    "However that some genes are kept inactive is evidence for command and control, which in turn is evidence for intelligent design."

    How so, Joe? You still haven't told us what you think genes do.

    Oh - gene duplication:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

    bingo, new genes.

    Thanks!

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gene dupication- another copy of an already existing gene.

    I originally stated:

    There isn't any evidence that a gene can arise from scratch via RM & NS.

    FROM SCRATCH.

    Also it has yet to be seen if that is really due to a genetic accident/ genetic mistake.

    As Dr Spetner said (back in 1997):

    "The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."

    He thinks gene duplication is an indication of his non-random evolutionary hypothesis.

    "However that some genes are kept inactive is evidence for command and control, which in turn is evidence for intelligent design."

    How so, Joe?



    Command and control. Every time we see command and control structures and know their origins it always traces back to an intelligent agency. We habve NEVER observed stochastic processes putting command and control structures in place.

    You still haven't told us what you think genes do.

    I have, many times. You are just too stupid and blinded by your ignorance driven anger to read what I post.

    Genes INFLUENCE every aspect of development. Defects in genes can lead to diseases, malfunctions, variations in traits, as well as variations in characteristics:

    The researchers eventually determined that the fly body builds itself by following a programmed sequence of molecular signals encoded in the genome. In the early stage, a set of signals establishes general zones of the larva, corresponding to the future head, thorax, and abdomen. Then, each zone receives signals that subdivide it into more complex structures, like the mouthparts and eyes in the head.

    To determine what types of structures to build, the cells of the embryo rely on gradients of the signals. For example, a signaling protein produced by cells at the anterior end will diffuse back toward the posterior end, fading like the signal of a radio station as one drives away from the transmitter tower. Cells of the future head will receive the signal clearly, triggering them to start building a head. Where the anterior signal is weaker, cells will instead begin a thorax, and where the anterior signal is completely unreadable, the cells execute the abdomen-building procedure. A counter-gradient of signals from the posterior end has the opposite set of effects. Later in development, sub-gradients within each zone build the sub-structures within each major body segment.


    Did you get that? "...a programmed sequence of molecular signals encoded in the genome."

    Even more evidence for intelligent design.

    And still nothing that determines fly from worm from human.

    However there is evidence that form is heavily influenced by the egg. IOW you take out all the egg's genetic stuff and replce it with the gentic stuff from another species, either the egg's species will develop or nothing will due to lack the proper chemical products at the proper places.

    ALSO genes provide the chemical products to sustain the organism.

    And guess what? The translation/ trascription process (you know, that provides those chemical products), along with all the proofreading and error correction that goes with it, is more evidence for ID.

    100 years of reseach! How long have we had genetics?

    Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time.

    How long is required to find more than one new protein-to-protein binding site?

    And until we find THAT isn't a bit premature to go on spouting your nonsense when it is evident it is borne from ignorance, wishful thinking and hopeful speculation?

    I understand your precious theory of evolution requires that the differences observed between chimps and humans be accountable via the genetic differences, however at this point in time there isn't any way to objectively test the premise, and therefore the premise is of no scientifc value.

    And the scientific literature is nearly void of anything linking the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences (there are some speculations on olfactory sensors but nothing that can even account for the lose of the opposable big toe).

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    forgot the links in my last response:

    Command & Control an ID prediction


    Here's the link to the above quote on programming enoded in the genome:

    Making babies- how simple rules build complex bodies

    BTW the book doesn't help you. It says nothing of determines form, but it is a good book for understanding development.

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also with new genes, in order for anything to come of them, a chaperone is needed.

    hsp90 reshapes any mis-shaped proteins due to mutations. The current thnking is when this system of putting things in their proper shape gets over-loaded, big phenotypic shifts occur- pretty similar to "hopeful monster" stuff.

    But the point is it is useless to have new genes when there isn't any chaperone to, fold them, guide them or the available chaperone tries to fold the new product into some old-ie existing- form. And that is a problem if the amino acid sequence is such that it resists the shape the chaperone is trying to induce.

     
  • At 10:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You accept that genes can duplicate and you accept than genes can mutate, but can't see how new ones come about? Seriously?

    think "new numbers" can't come about..


    The number 3, duplicates:

    3.3

    the second "3" mutates:

    3.9

    There you go!

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time." You've been caught in a lie, Joe. That makes you a liar. We've not had the capabilities to look for "protein-to-protein binding sites" for over 100 years, have we?

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You accept that genes can duplicate and you accept than genes can mutate, but can't see how new ones come about?

    No, Rich, that is not my point. I have explained my point so either your are stupid or dishonest.

    Gene dupication followed by a mutation is NOT an example of a gene can arise from scratch via RM & NS.

    At best it is an example of a new gene arising from an already existing gene. And the mechanism is unknown- the mechanism being the cause.

    Also just because a new gene pops up doesn't mean its chemical product will do anything for the reasons provided.

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time."

    You asked:

    How long have we had genetics?

    We have had genetics since Mendel. That is a fact.


    We've not had the capabilities to look for "protein-to-protein binding sites" for over 100 years, have we?

    You did NOT ask if we had the capabilities to look at protein-to-protein binding sites.


    How long do you need? Ya see Rich I asked that earlier and you ignored it:

    How long is required to find more than one new protein-to-protein binding site?

    And until we find THAT isn't a bit premature to go on spouting your nonsense when it is evident it is borne from ignorance, wishful thinking and hopeful speculation?

    I understand your precious theory of evolution requires that the differences observed between chimps and humans be accountable via the genetic differences, however at this point in time there isn't any way to objectively test the premise, and therefore the premise is of no scientifc value.

    And the scientific literature is nearly void of anything linking the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences (there are some speculations on olfactory sensors but nothing that can even account for the lose of the opposable big toe).

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways if you take a dictionary and dupicate it do you have a new dictionary? No, you have a copy of the original.

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways if you take a dictionary and dupicate it do you have a new dictionary? No, you have a copy of the original.

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, your prediction that there might not be new court cases rests on the idea that people are smart?

    That there will be no new court cases, means that people accept the current rulings: no creationism in science class, all that Dover stuff, etc.

    That means smart people have come to accept that ID is stupid?

    Okay. I'll agree with that.

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Really? Useless? So words, like "McJob", which would be mutations of previous dictionary entries, must not exist then? If they do indeed exist, a mutated dictionary must not be so useless? What's your take, Joe?

     
  • At 11:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Again:

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time." You've been caught in a lie, Joe. That makes you a liar. We've not had the capabilities to look for "protein-to-protein binding sites" for over 100 years, have we?

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich, Your whole position is a lie and is based on lies propoagted by people like you.

    As proof I offer this thread in which you claimed the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. You have not supported that claim with scientific data- IOW it is a lie.

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time." ?

    I NEVER claimed it was. Try following along.

    YOU asked:

    "How long have we had genetics?

    To which I responded:

    Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time.

    So where is the lie, Rich?

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, your prediction that there might not be new court cases rests on the idea that people are smart?

    Nope. And I was talking about my introducing ID into schools.

    Ya see bipey once people understand ID and what is being debated, they understand that they do not have a case to send to Court. And as a matter of fact most parents are upset at the nonsense the theory of evolution gets away with.

    And as you, Rich and every other evolutionitwit has proven, the premises made from the theory cannot even be objectively tested. Nor can one even form a valid hypothesis from which to make testable predcitions.


    So words, like "McJob", which would be mutations of previous dictionary entries, must not exist then?

    Umm 'McJob" is an intelligently designed entry. IOW it did NOT arise via mutations of of previous entries.

    Not only are you a stupid clown you are also very dishonest.

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that had the words "job" and "McDonalds" not existed, McJob would not have come into being.

    New words are often added to the lexicon--some because they were intelligently designed (television & polyethylene are perhaps examples of this). Some are added because of naturally occurring changes in dialect and speech patterns (mcjob, doh, and ain't are examples that might fit here).

    Do you think that populations specifically choose to alter every part of their languages until Latin becomes French? Or does Latin become French through a combination of mutation of existing language, co-opting of words, and happy accidents?

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Again:

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time." You've been caught in a lie, Joe. That makes you a liar. We've not had the capabilities to look for "protein-to-protein binding sites" for over 100 years, have we?


    let me help you.

    "one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research"

    Has there been a 100 years of research on protein-to-protein binding sites? When dis we DISCOVER the first one?

    TRY and ne honest, if you can

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your claim" one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." is not supported by "Medel was doing genetic research during Darwin's time."

    I NEVER said it was. Try to follow along.

    1. There has been protein research for over 100 years.

    2. There has been evolutionary research for over 100 years.

    3. The theory of evolution relies on ignorance and therefore capability is irrelevant.

    4. This thread is about YOUR unsubstantiated claim that the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences.

    Now eiether you substantiate that claim or or admit that you were dishonest in making the claim.

    IOW Rich it is time YOU tried to be honest for a change.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that had the words "job" and "McDonalds" not existed, McJob would not have come into being.

    True. It came into being because HUMANS designed the new word.

    New words are often added to the lexicon--some because they were intelligently designed (television & polyethylene are perhaps examples of this). Some are added because of naturally occurring changes in dialect and speech patterns (mcjob, doh, and ain't are examples that might fit here).

    All words come into existence because of humans. Not one word has come into existence because of random mutations to an already existing word.

    Do you think that populations specifically choose to alter every part of their languages until Latin becomes French?

    Where did Latin come from?

    Or does Latin become French through a combination of mutation of existing language, co-opting of words, and happy accidents?

    Evidence clowny. What is your evidence for these alleged language mutations?

    Co-option is a design indicator.

    Back to my original question and statement before blipey takesa us down an irrelevant path:

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

    Stick to that clowny.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you're claiming a 100 years research for a concept that's not 100 years old. That's plain dishonest, and the more you dodge, the more it delights me.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I did jackass. I stuck to the part where you said mutated words would be useless.

    Try to follow your own questions dickmunch.

    Is this more to your understanding, penisface?

    It seems that maybe you understand things better when using words like asshat; is that true asshat?

    My evidence for Latin mutating into French is that French is spoken. Latin used to be spoken, but many of the people who used to do that speak French now. Others now speak Spanish, some speak Italian.

    Try looking into language families. Oops. Lots of that was probably unintelligible to you; I'll try again.

    Try looking into language families, scrotum-sucker.

     
  • At 9:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, when was the concept of protien to protien binding sites discovered?

     
  • At 12:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Seriously, did you not get the point of evolving languages?

     
  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seriously, did you not get the point of evolving languages?

    I understand that languages "evolve". I also understand they do not "evolve" via random mutations.

    And I further understand it has NOTHING to do with what I originally stated:

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

    Dictionaries you dumbass stupid fuck. Stick to dictionaries. THAT is my point.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Protein research has been going on for over 100 years.

    2- Evolutionary research has been going on for over 100 years.

    It is NOT my problem that the capability to make bald assertions has outpaced our capabilities to substantiate the claims.

    IOW saying that in over 100 years of research only one new protein-to-protein binding site has been found, is completely accurate.

    Also get BACK ON TOPIC WHICH MEANS SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT THE GENETIC DIFFERENCES CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ANATOMICAL DIFFERENCES. YOUR CONTINUED DODGE OF THAT TOPIC IS AMUSING.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Try to follow your own questions


    The following is my question assmunch:

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

    YOU have FAILED to address it. Instead you take an intelligently designed word and trty to pass it off as a random mutation.

    IOW you hog-gobbling-cum-drooler, you are a dishonest freak.

    Thank you for continuing to prove that.

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, the more you dodge, the worse you look. Let's use an example, supposing I said,

    "In thousands of years of astronomy we've found less than 300 extrasolar planets"

    If would be a very disingenuous claim, because although the discipline of astronomy is old, the ability to find these planets is young. It would be intellectually dishonest to advance this argument, but it is exactly what you've done when you claim, "one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research"


    DISHONEST.

    At least in my flawed claim I specify *astronomy*. You omit the article and suggest you are talking about protein to protein binding sites.

    DISHONEST.

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    YOU (and all the evolutionitwits in the world) are the dodge-maniac(s).

    FACT- Evolutionists have had MORE THAN 100 years of research to come up with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to support their dogma, yet in all that time all that has been managed is one new protein-to-protein binding site (and that was in a virus).

    That is, and always has been, my point.

    IOW Richie, just because your bitty little mind can twist what I say into some irrelevant tangent doesn't mean shit to me.

    BTW Rich, you could never look any worse than you do. And you could never make the theory of evolution look any worse than you already have.

    As a matter of fact I tell the students to look to my blog as an example of how far evolutionitwits will go in order to not substantiate their claims.

    You and blipey have been perfect examples of that. Thank you. Your responses have done more to support my case than you will ever know.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What happens when you start mutating the definitions or words in the dupicated dictionary? The dupicate will become useless.

    Main Entry: ap·ple
    Pronunciation: \ˈa-pəl\
    Function: noun
    Usage: often attributive
    Etymology: Middle English appel, from Old English æppel; akin to Old High German apful apple, Old Irish ubull, Old Church Slavic ablŭko
    Date: before 12th century
    1: the fleshy usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family; also : an apple tree — compare crab apple
    2: a fruit (as a star apple) or other vegetative growth (as an oak apple) suggestive of an apple


    Random mutation:

    Main Entry: ap·qle
    Pronunciation: \ˈa-pəl\
    Function: noun
    Usage: often attributive
    Etymology: Middle English appel, from Old English æppel; akin to Old High German apful apple, Old Irish ubull, Old Church Slavic ablŭko
    Date: before 12th century
    1: the fleshy usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family; also : an apple tree — compare crab apple
    2: a fruit (as a star apple) or other vegetative growth (as an oak apple) suggestive of an apple

    Now if a contestant in a spelling bee useed the mutated spelling that person would be out of the contest.

    Now if clowny can show that French "evolved" from Latin via random mutations in the accepted Latin dictionary of the time, I will concede that my premise is incorrect.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you're moving the goalposts. Admit your error and move on.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let's use an example, supposing I said,

    "In thousands of years of astronomy we've found less than 300 extrasolar planets"


    I would be OK with that. Did you have a point?

    BTW astronomers aren't the ones making grand untestable claims and passing that nonsense off as "science".

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now, if I has said that in over 100 years of protein binding site research, only one new protein-to-protein binding site has been found, THAT would be dishonest. However I never said nor implied 100 years of protein binding site research.

    Only twisted morons looking for that last straw to grasp, would infer anything like that from what I said.

    However it is obvious that evolutionary research has been going on for over 100 years and to date there isn't anything, except that one new binding site, to support the theory of evolution to the exclusion of intelligent design or special creation.

    True, I don't expect you to understand that either but then again I don't care what you understand. It is obvious that you have no intentions of ever substantiating your claim that genetic differences can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I didn't move anything. YOU are just too stupid to understand what I posted and instead went off on some moronic tangent.

    If you need clarification just ask. And don't blame me because you have suck-ass inference skills.

    IOW Richie, the "error" was all yours. But don't worry, I know you will never admit it.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FACT- Evolutionists have had MORE THAN 100 years of research to come up with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to support their dogma, yet in all that time all that has been managed is one new protein-to-protein binding site (and that was in a virus).

    That is, and always has been, my point.

    IOW Richie, if anyone is doing any goalpost moving it is you. And that is because you are too stupid to understand what is posted.

     
  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    In the last 3,000,000 years, only 1 Hadron Collider has been built. It is my argument that particle physicist are stupid. If they were bright and had anything useful to do, they would have built at least one per year.

     
  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is my argument that particle physicist are stupid.

    blipey you are a stupid, moronic clown who never had a valid argument in its life.

    And if, by chance, you ever have one I doubt anyone would care.

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Now, if I has said that in over 100 years of protein binding site research, only one new protein-to-protein binding site has been found, THAT would be dishonest. However I never said nor implied 100 years of protein binding site research."


    " one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus."

    Ouch.

     
  • At 6:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Most particle physicists support the theory of evolution. Don't you think that makes them stupid.

    We just think they're stupid for different reasons. Oh, wait. The first reason was yours as well. I guess I don't think they're stupid and you do think they're stupid (twice).

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Now, if I has said that in over 100 years of protein binding site research, only one new protein-to-protein binding site has been found, THAT would be dishonest. However I never said nor implied 100 years of protein binding site research."


    " one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus."


    What's your point Richie? I NEVER said nor implied "100 years of protein binding site research."

    However I WAS referring to EVOLUTIONARY research, just as I stated:


    FACT- Evolutionists have had MORE THAN 100 years of research to come up with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to support their dogma, yet in all that time all that has been managed is one new protein-to-protein binding site (and that was in a virus).

    That is, and always has been, my point.

    IOW Richie, if anyone is doing any goalpost moving it is you. And that is because you are too stupid to understand what is posted.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny chimes in with yet another bald assertion:

    Most particle physicists support the theory of evolution.

    Prove it.

    Don't you think that makes them stupid.

    It all depends on whether or not you can prove your unsubstantiated claim.

    Please include in your post how they support the theory of evolution. They certainly haven't supported the ToE by providing scientific data that confirms it.

    So what do they do to support it?


    Oh, wait. The first reason was yours as well.

    Wrong again clowny- as usual. The first reason was, and still is, all yours. That much should have been obvious by my response to your ignorant post.

    BTW that YOU think anyone is stupid is meaningless because you have proven yourself to be an ignorant moron.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Highlighting the proof that Richie Hughes is a moron:

    Richie's first post in this thread accusses me of being a dishonest quote-miner. However that same post, in an effort to correct me, contains that SAME quotes that I had put in the opening post.

    IOW Richie proves my point in his first post!

    The next proof is that he NEVER did substantiate his claim that genetic differences can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. All he has done is to dodge the issue and make unscientific claims.

    Now Richie once again proves he cannot read because he thinks that " one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus." means that I said we have been researching protein-to-protein binding sites for over 100 years. Not only that he holds that position despite several posts which clarified my position.

    Again I thank Richie and blipey for helping me to make my case against the theory of evolution and the integrity (lack thereof) of the evolutionitwits who try to force their stupidity on others.

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why do you list 100 years of research if it doesnt pertain to protein to protein binding sites? Why not thousands, which is probably as long as the field of medicine has existed?

    Oh dear.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why do you list 100 years of research if it doesnt pertain to protein to protein binding sites?

    I didn't list anything.

    Ya see Richie, you moron, when I say " one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research, and that was in a virus"- OVER 100 years INCLUDES thousands of years.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    OVER 100 years INCLUDES thousands of years.

    I finally understand why you have no grasp of nested hierarchies. Is it really your contention that:

    the set A {hundreds of years} includes the set B {thousands of years}?

    Really? Does set A also include the set C {millions of years}?

    What about the set D {forever}?

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Over 100" does include 1000. Correct.

    So does "Over 5". Why didn't you use that?

    I'm quite enjoying this.

    What could motivate you to pick 100?


    Your dishonesty is wonderfull Joe. Don't stop now.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Over 100" does include 1000. Correct.

    Then what is your point?

    I'm quite enjoying this.

    Morons usually do enjoy wallowing in their own stupidity.

    Your dishonesty is wonderfull Joe.

    What dishonesty Richie? Please be specific because every accusation you have thrown out so far has been soundly refuted. And you would have known that if you weren't a retarded fuck.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You missed the point, Joe. As usual. If you can come up with an answer to Rich's question you may get it (but I doubt it).

    Why didn't you say "over 5 years"?

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OVER 100 years INCLUDES thousands of years.

    I finally understand why you have no grasp of nested hierarchies.

    Blipey you couldn't understand anything- even if your life depended on it.

    Is it really your contention that:

    the set A {hundreds of years} includes the set B {thousands of years}?


    No. It is my contention that 1000 years is longer than 100 years and therefore is covered by "over 100 years".

    Now I don't expect a simpleton like you to grasp that but that is why you are a simpleton.

     
  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. But that's not really the point is it Joe. The point is contained in the idea that if you think that 1000s of years is important, or millions of years--why not say that?

    In over a million years, Darwinists have not ... whatever.

    Why not be bold and state that in a billion years, Darwinists have never...?

    That's the point. So didn't you say in over 5 years of research, Darwinists have never...?

    you keep avoiding this.

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey (& Rich),

    This thread was started because of the evolutionitwit avoidance of substantiating the claim that the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans acounts for the physiological and anatomical differences.

    NOW, as a distraction, you guys are harping on something I have said for weeks.

    You want to know why I picked "over 100 years"? Not that anything I say will satisfy your mamma's-tit-sucking pathetic lives- I can account for over 100 years of evolutionary research. I base that on the publishing of "On the Origins of Species..." in 1859, and the subsequent "evolution" of thought including the rediscovery of Mendel's work by De Vries, von Seysenegg and Karl Correns, circa 1900.

    And with "over 100" I reliquish the requirement of providing an exact date. It also provides enough emphasis on the time evolutionitwits have had to find something, anything to help them out.

    Here you guys are asking things of ID even BEFORE you will allow it to be openly discussed in public schools, that you can't provide with all the resources and time you have had.

    Now go back to your crack...

     
  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yeah, we're asking things like, "If we were to teach some ID in school, what experiments would we do?"

    That's terrible.

    On the 100 years note.

    Scientists have been working for over 100 years on extra-solar travel (I base this on the publication of the works of H G Wells), since they have never gone to another star, the space program is obviously in trouble as it is based on faulty science.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I can account for over 100 years of evolutionary research"

    But why not chose a period pertiaining to "protein to protein binding sites", Joe?

    Strange...

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I can account for over 100 years of evolutionary research"

    But why not chose a period pertiaining to "protein to protein binding sites", Joe?

    Because, as I have stated already, evolutionitwits have had more time than that to come up something, anything to support their nonsensical position, and they have failed miserably.

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The BIG question is "Why now?"

    As in I have been saying "only one new protein-to-protein site in over 100 years of research" for over a month and you clueless dickheads pick NOW to start harping on it.

    Nevermind, I know the answer. You dickheads needed a distraction so that you could avoid substantiating your claims.

    Thank you, you guys are doing more to solidify my position than I could have done by myself.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, we're asking things like, "If we were to teach some ID in school, what experiments would we do?"

    What experiments do we do with the theory of evolution?

    There isn't any experiments which demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms.

    Heck there isn't an experiment that demonstrates a flagellum could "evolve" in a population that never had one.

    We can't even conduct an experiment that would demonstrate any accumulation of genetic accidents can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans!

    But I digress- One example of an ID experiment would look into irreducible complexity- as in does it exist and it what structures.

    Here you guys are asking things of ID even BEFORE you will allow it to be openly discussed in public schools, that you can't provide with all the resources and time you have had.

     
  • At 6:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Because, as I have stated already, evolutionitwits have had more time than that to come up something

    how long have they been working on protein to protein binding sites now?

    A bonus question.

    1. Is that longer or shorter than the time it has taken ID researchers to come up with nothing at all?

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Because, as I have stated already, evolutionitwits have had more time than that to come up something, anything to support their nonsensical position, and they have failed miserably.


    how long have they been working on protein to protein binding sites now?

    Irrelevant.There has been plenty of time to find something, ANYTHING and they have failed miserably.

    BTW clowny- your continued ignorance of ID is duly noted and should never be taken as a refution.

    IOW blipey you can't refute ID by continuing to argue from ignorance.

    Anthony Flew, once a well respected and often references atheist, now accepts ID because of the scientific data which supports it- go figure.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Would the Flew reference be an argument from authority? If so, what is he an authority on? If not, what sort of an argument is it?

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Would the Flew reference be an argument from authority?

    No.

    If not, what sort of an argument is it?

    Reality- meaning Anthony Flew was an avowed, oft-quoted and well referenced, atheist and materialist until the scientific data finally got through. Now he accepts Intelligent Design as a scientific venue.

    IOW he gave the evolutionitwits, and all materialistic followers of sheer dumb luck, a chance to come through with something, anything and they have failed miserably.

    Couple that failure with the knowledge of what designing agencies can do and you get the design inference.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of that because it is obvious you would rather argue from ignorance (of both science and ID) and play the gullible dim-witted pawn...

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. And Flew, besides being an atheist, has what expertise in evaluating biology?

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you ever engage in an actual discussion of ideas? Or is everything merely a big name-calling exercise for you?

    I hope it's the latter; that's the most amusing possibility.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you ever engage in an actual discussion of ideas?

    Obviously you never do. The evidence on my blog demonstrates that I have tried. The same evidence that also demonstrates that you don't have a clue. You have even admitted you don't know what the ID position is. IOW you have admitted you argue from ignorance.

    And it is obvious you don't know what the evidence is that supports your sheer dumb luck position or you would have presented it by now.

    Ya see clowny, in order to discuss ideas YOU have to have one.

    Or is everything merely a big name-calling exercise for you?

    I call them as I see them. Also, as I jhave already stated, I am a counter-puncher. Meaning if I call some a name there is a good reason.

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Right. And Flew, besides being an atheist, has what expertise in evaluating biology?

    As much as the scientists writing their papers.

    Ya see blipey, all you would have to have done, that is IF you had any ideas or actual knowledge of the scientific data, is to actually present something that would show that Flew was incorrect is switching sides.

    But seeing that you don't have anything all you can do is to blindly question Flew's intelligence.

    Your actions are so predictable it is laughable.

    Thanks again...

     
  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    blipey:

    Do you ever engage in an actual discussion of ideas?


    JoeG: Obviously you never do.

    So you answer a question about a subject 'A' by saying subject 'B' behaves this way? Again, truly dizzying intellect on display.

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I didn't question Flew's intelligence. I asked what expertise he had in evaluating biology? I'm not that familiar with him so I asked a straight forward question. Which, unsurprisingly, you failed to answer.

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey-Do you ever engage in an actual discussion of ideas?

    Obviously you never do.The evidence on my blog demonstrates that I have tried. The same evidence that also demonstrates that you don't have a clue. You have even admitted you don't know what the ID position is. IOW you have admitted you argue from ignorance.

    blipey-So you answer a question about a subject 'A' by saying subject 'B' behaves this way?

    I said more than that, you just decided to truncate my post and read only what you wanted- as usual.

    However it is obvious that for 'A' to have a discussion with 'B', 'B' has to be capable of having one.

    And in this case my having a discussion with you is impossible because you are incapable of having a discussion.

    I asked what expertise he had in evaluating biology?

    And I answered you. Did you not read the answer or are you just incapable of understanding it?

    I would add that his expertise in evaluating biology has grown since his days using that expertise to disparage the design inference. The expertise that was once well-referenced.

    My brother and his wife watched "The Privileged Planet". After he watched it he sent me an email containing an old alleged refutation of ID. Much of what he sent was referenced to Anthony Flew. When I pointed out that Flew was now an ID proponent he didn't have anything to say because he knew Flew's background.

     
  • At 5:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Your insanity knows no bounds. The part I truncated added nothing to the answer of the question. I asked about subject 'A' (you). You responded by saying "oh yeah, subject 'B' (me)..."

    The rest of your answer was also about me, so it really doesn't help your case. You still haven't answered the question, which was about subject 'A'.

    Point two. Your answer (such as it was) regarding Flew was merely to point out that he was a materialist. This does nothing to address his expertise in biology. Presumably you think that I am a materialist. So am I therefore an expert in biology? If not, you'll have to be a little more specific with Flew's credentials.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey your dishonesty knows no bounds.

    The part I truncated added nothing to the answer of the question.

    Yes it did. As a matter of fact it answered your ignorance-driven question.

    Look again- YOU asked-Do you ever engage in an actual discussion of ideas?

    The second sentence of my original response was:

    The evidence on my blog demonstrates that I have tried.

    THAT answered your question you freak and you ignored it.

    I asked about subject 'A' (you).

    And I answered that- about me- see the bolded quote- it is about me.

    You responded by saying "oh yeah, subject 'B' (me)..."

    You were ALSO included. IOW I responded by including myself as well exposing those who cannot hold a discussion.

    The rest of your answer was also about me, so it really doesn't help your case.

    Yes it does as it takes at least two to have a discussion. And when the other people can't hold a discussion that impacts me and my ability to further a discussion.


    You still haven't answered the question, which was about subject 'A'.

    All evidence to the contrary of course- meaning you are a liar.

    Point two. Your answer (such as it was) regarding Flew was merely to point out that he was a materialist.

    That is another lie.

    This does nothing to address his expertise in biology.

    I addressed that question- twice. Methinks you are just too stupid to understand what I posted.

    And you have already proven trhat you have selective reading issues as well as a lack of integrity.

    Presumably you think that I am a materialist.

    I KNOW you are a moronic asshole.

    Look again:

    blipey asked:
    And Flew, besides being an atheist, has what expertise in evaluating biology?

    To which I responded:

    As much as the scientists writing their papers.

    THAT is your answer blipey.

    Then I expanded on that:

    I would add that his expertise in evaluating biology has grown since his days using that expertise to disparage the design inference. The expertise that was once well-referenced.

    IOW clowny Flew's biological expertise was OK when he was an atheistic materialist.

    That you don't understand that just further exposes your ignorance-driven agenda.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So what exactly did Flew do? What exactly is his area expertise? You are confusing typing with answering.

    It is as if I said, "What's your favorite food?"

    And you responded with, "I eat food that Mr. Sanders cooks." That does not address the question of what kind of food you like, let alone what your favorite is. It is merely a statement tangentially related to food.

    I asked WHAT Flew's expertise was and you failed completely to let anyone know WHAT that is.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I asked WHAT Flew's expertise was and you failed completely to let anyone know WHAT that is.

    Only the willfully ignorant don't know Flew's qualifications.

    Do some research and come to a discussion prepared. I don't have time to hunt down references for you.

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If Flew's biological expertise was OK when he was a materialist (which it was judging by the number of times referenced), what is your motive for questioning him now?

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW if I am involved with any trial pertaining to ID Anthony Flew will be a witness.

    And from your from your front-row seat you should be able to hear all about his expetise.

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I didn't ask for a reference, Joe. I asked what his qualifications were. Apparently, you have no idea. The other possibility is you're just a jackass. Truth usually lies in between the extremes.

    Can you or can you not tell me what Flew does and what his qualifications are?

    You're the one who brought him up. You must have done it for a reason. What was it?

    I'll help you out. Is he a doctor of medicine? What about a marine biologist? A train engineer? A mixologist? Something else?

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I didn't ask for a reference, Joe. I asked what his qualifications were.

    His qualifications are the same now as they were when he was a well-referenced defender of atheistic materialism.

    If Flew's biological expertise was OK when he was a materialist (which it was judging by the number of times referenced), what is your motive for questioning him now?

    You're the one who brought him up. You must have done it for a reason. What was it?

    That an avowed well-referenced, oft-quoted defender of atheistic materialism can switch sides based on the scientific data, observations and evidentiary reasons, rather than religious reasons.

    Which in turn is evidence that the connection between ID and religion exists only in the twisted demented minds of its opponents.

    BTW, seeing that NO ONE can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans, who is qualified?

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So Flew, who repairs television sets for a living, is an authority on biology?

    Thanks for answering the question, Joe.

    Unless there's something wrong with the above....

    Maybe it should read "Flew, who installs carpet for a living, is an authority on biology"?

    Do you have any idea what Flew is an expert in, Joe? Would you like to inform your readers what his expertise is?

    That's right, you know you have no readers except for Rich and I. Otherwise you would behave in a more rational manner. Oh, no you wouldn't.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So Flew, who repairs television sets for a living, is an authority on biology?

    Thanks for answering the question, Joe.

    Unless there's something wrong with the above....

    Maybe it should read "Flew, who installs carpet for a living, is an authority on biology"?

    Do you have any idea what Flew is an expert in, Joe? Would you like to inform your readers what his expertise is?

    That's right, you know you have no readers except for Rich and I. Otherwise you would behave in a more rational manner. Oh, no you wouldn't.

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    What part of the following don't you understand?:

    His qualifications are the same now as they were when he was a well-referenced defender of atheistic materialism.

    If Flew's biological expertise was OK when he was a materialist (which it was judging by the number of times referenced), what is your motive for questioning him now?


    Also, it appears you didn't understand the following exchange:

    blipey-You're the one who brought him up. You must have done it for a reason. What was it?

    That an avowed well-referenced, oft-quoted defender of atheistic materialism can switch sides based on the scientific data, observations and evidentiary reasons, rather than religious reasons.

    Which in turn is evidence that the connection between ID and religion exists only in the twisted demented minds of its opponents.


    That is all you get. Anything else requires my providing references. And that is something I will not do for you.

    Ya see clowny, Flew's qualifications are not any different now than when he was a well-referenced anti-IDist. Meaning if he was an accepted expert then there is no reason to think otherwise now.

    So blipey what is your motive for questioning hos qualifications now?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home