How to test and falsify Intelligent Design
Just so that this is in one place:
To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.
So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...
To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.
So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...
posted by Joe G @ 8:20 AM
158 Comments:
At 9:58 AM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. To test design you would need to show that design exists. That a designer exists. That the mechanics of design are there. Physical proof of the process of design.
Otherwise, it's like saying the following:
All you need to do to prove that Germans build Volkswagons is to show that Bulgarians don't.
Jesus Christ. Oh, I'm sorry to offend--Allah!
At 10:54 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
That falsifies one instance of ID:
Like it did here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php
But then IDists just point their incredulity somewhere else and 'don't know therefore design' at that.
At 12:31 PM,
Joe G said…
From Rich's link:
"And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve."-
That is not the core of Behe's argument. It isn't even close.
The debate is about the mechanisms of evolution-
Are they purely stochastic/ unguided?
Or are organisms designed to evolve, ie evolved by design?
Then Richie says something about incredulity.
Funny because that is all his position is.
I say that because they sure as hell cannot support their claims.
At 1:02 PM,
Unknown said…
The design inference = the MAGIC inference = childish bullshit.
"Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
Creationist retards love censorship.
At 1:41 PM,
Joe G said…
bob,
It is YOUR position that requires magical mystery mutations.
Your whole position is nothing but a bullshit story.
As for censorship- that is also your position.
You have to censor dissent because you sure as fuck cannot confront it and beat it back with science.
At 1:54 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
To test design you would need to show that design exists.
And you can do that by doing what I said- find out how reducible it is.
Once the requirement for a designer is gone, so is the design inference- if there ever was a design inference.
That a designer exists.
Nope- not a requirement. And the designer need not still exist.
The design says that at least at one time a designer did exist.
IOW evidence for a designer comes from the design.
But I wouldn't expect an ignorant clown, like yourself, to understand that.
Heck you still think that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree.
That the mechanics of design are there.
Now you are just babbling gibberish.
You have no idea what that means- "mechanics of design".
Design is a mechanism.
Physical proof of the process of design.
Science is NOT about proof. But again you are an ignorant clown so I understand your confusion.
Then there is the fact that the ONLY way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.
I have been saying that for years and you are still too stupid to understand that basic fact.
Fact 1- We do NOT need to know the designer BEFORE reaching a design inference.
Fact 2- We do NOT need to know the processes used BEFORE we reach a design inference.
IOW blipey once again you have proven that you are an ignorant fuck and a waste of time.
At 2:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
Thie following is what Dr Behe says about refuting IC:
"“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that
irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.” (bold added)
IOW if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, ID falls as living organisms are the ultimate in IC.
At 3:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
IOW if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, ID falls as living organisms are the ultimate in IC.
is wrong, because a designer could still do what nature has, so ID is NOT falsified.
Just because nature can make your pants wet doesn't mean you can't do it on your own, Joe.
At 4:12 PM,
blipey said…
No, but to prove design you need to prove that a designer did indeed exist at some point. Otherwise, no design.
Come on, Joe. You know the "don't mention the designer" is just a big pile of shit.
If a thing was designed, it was designed by something. You'll need to provide the something to prove design.
At 4:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
Once the REQUIREMENT for agency is removed the design inference fails.
No one will argue for ID if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement.
ID will go away.
Just because you can't do such a thing does not mean ID is not falsifiable.
Geez it takes chemical engineering just to get ribonucleotides.
IOW your position doesn't have anything for support.
I take it that bothers you.
At 4:51 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey your ignorance is amazing.
Science is NOT about proving anything.
The design inference is just that- a scientific inference given our current state of knowledge.
And as with all scientific inferences it is open to confirmation AND refutation.
Fact 1- We do NOT need to know the designer BEFORE reaching a design inference.
Fact 2- We do NOT need to know the processes used BEFORE we reach a design inference.-
What part of that don't you understand?
The ONLY way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.-
What part of that don't you understand?
Or are you trying to force science into your twisted and ignorance-laiden little way of thinking?
At 8:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Once the REQUIREMENT for agency is removed the design inference fails."
But I've shown it could still be designed. This is why negative arguments, false dichotomies, and fallacious proof by contradiction aren't science.
At 10:54 PM,
blipey said…
Great, Joe. Please use your same ID process to determine that Germans design Volkswagons. Remember, you'll have to show (individually) that no other entity in the universe designed Volkswagons. Good luck.
At 10:54 PM,
blipey said…
Incidentally, are you claiming that design can exist without the existence of a designer?
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
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.
IOW ID would be falsified if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement.
It is right there in writing.
Behe would not be an IDist.
Meyer would not be an IDist.
Nelson would not be an IDist.
Dembski would not be an IDist.
Ya see Rich, even though you refuse to understand it, once the requirement for a designer is gone the design inference is also gone.
THAT is EXACTLY how it has gone throughout history.
IOW when Rich says "no it does not falsfy ID" he doesn't understand reality.
At 7:38 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey just loves to prove it is ignorant.
ID is NOT about the who. Therefor your "challenge" is based on your ignorance.
However if you could demonstrate that a volkswagon could arise without agency involvement then you would have something against the design inference.
Incidentally, are you claiming that design can exist without the existence of a designer?-
I am saying that the design can exist even though the designer no longer exists.
But thanks for once again proving you cannot follow along.
So now I say bye-bye Erik- that is until you clarify your position on patrilineage and paternal family tree.
And that means you provide the definitions and examples of both- which would basically mean that you admit your previous thoughts on a patrilineage and a paternal family tree were wrong.
Can you do that?
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
And Rich,
As for science, your position doesn't have any science to support it.
I can tell that does bother you.
At 8:41 AM,
blipey said…
Quick Joe! Shut down the thread. If you don't do it now, you may have to post several more comments without answering any questions!
Do it now!!!
If something was designed, you need to show at some point the mechanics of it having been designed.
Otherwise, you're merely saying I think this was designed so it was.
The Volkswagon?
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
If something was designed, you need to show at some point the mechanics of it having been designed.-
Yes there is a criteria involved.
For example Dr Behe states:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”-
He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”-
Also if the object in question is both complex and specified.
Then to test the design inference we see if nature, operating freely, can (or can't) account for it.
But we sure don't have to know how something was designed or how trhat design was implemented BEFORE reaching a design inference.
It took years of research just to try to understand how Stonehenge may have been built.
But FIRST design was determined.
Otherwise, you're merely saying I think this was designed so it was.-
It's called a scientific inference.
And experience demonstrates it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via nature, operating freely or agency involvement.
Why aren't geologists looking into a natural path for the formation of Stonehenge?
Do you think they would get anywhere by investigating that scenario?
And in the end all your position can say is "it evolved" without any way of testing it.
The Volkswagon?-
Designed by some intelligent designer. "Who" is irrelevant to the question of- designed or not?
BTW one of the three basic questions that science asks is "How did it come to be this way?"- that is where we ask "design or not?" and then conduct our investigation accordingly- that is guided by that inference.
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
If you don't do it now, you may have to post several more comments without answering any questions!
All blipey does is post ignorant-laiden comments without answering any questions.
At 2:06 AM,
blipey said…
Good Joe. Prove to me that a rock is designed.
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Prove to me that a rock is designed.
What does that have to do with anything I have posted?
IOW you have- once again- proven that you are a clue-less tool.
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Note to Rich:
The design inference is based on POSITIVE evidence.
Therefor once it is demonstrated that nature, operating freely can account for what we are investigating, that positive evidence for design is gone.
At 9:55 AM,
blipey said…
What is the positive evidence that the world is designed? You know, the rocks.
What are the differences between say: the world (obviously designed, right?) and, say, an asteroid (are they designed?) and a giant cloud of hydrogen gas (is that designed?).
How could one positively make up one's mind in each case? Theoretically.
I just thought that the rock example would be easier. But, please take a crack at the universe if you want. I eagerly await your positive evidence.
At 11:52 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
What is the positive evidence that the world is designed?-
Just all the evidence presented in "The Privileged Planet".
We take that and couple that with the knowledge that natural processes cannot account for the origin of the universe because natural processes only exist in nature.
What are the differences between say: the world (obviously designed, right?) and, say, an asteroid (are they designed?) and a giant cloud of hydrogen gas (is that designed?).
Each case would depend on the data.
How could one positively make up one's mind in each case?
You make an INFERENCE depending on the data and the current state of knowledge.
And again all YOU have to do to refute the design inference is to present positive evidence for YOUR position.
Why is it that you NEVER do so?
At 11:57 AM,
Joe G said…
For more positive evidence for ID you can read the following:
Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks,
Intelligent Design In Biology Textbooks Continued,
and the Design Inference in peer-review
At 6:16 PM,
blipey said…
Here's a little clue Joe:
Anytime your sentence contains the word "cannot" it probably does not constitute POSITIVE evidence.
For example, the sentence "natural process cannot account for..." is not positive evidence.
Try again.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
For example, the sentence "natural process cannot account for..." is not positive evidence.
So you are retarded.
Thanks for proving that.
Ya see it is TWO sides:
1- The positive evidence- IC and SC (plus all the evidence in "The Privileged Planet")
coupled with the negative:
2- That unguided processes cannot account for it.
Ya see if unguided processes can account for it then it ceases to be positive evidence for ID.
BTW it is a given that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature.
Or are you too stupid to understand that?
IOW clownie all YOU have to do is provide some POSITIVE evidence for YOUR position.
Hint: Your ignorance is not positive evidence.
At 8:05 PM,
blipey said…
ID cannot explain what CSI is.
Look, I just provided positive evidence for ToE.
Wow, that's easy, Joe. Thanks.
At 8:08 PM,
blipey said…
What is the CSI of a baseball, Joe? Is it IC?
What is the threshold CSI number that makes something IC?
Why?
Give it up, Joe. There's no way you (or, more importantly, anyone else) could write even one chapter on the mathematics of ID. Not one chapter and you think that this is the future and present of biological science.
One chapter, Joe. That's all. Provide one chapter of ID textbook math and you'll get converts.
Where is it?
At 8:09 PM,
blipey said…
Nothing is proved by a negative, Joe. Your negative statement is superfluous.
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
ID cannot explain what CSI is.-
An IDist defined CSI.
And it is better defined than anything your position has to offer.
YOU cannot demonstrate that nature, operating freely can create CSI.
And we have plenty of experience with intelligent agencies creating CSI.
What is the CSI of a baseball, Joe?
I covered that in two blogs already:
The CSI of a baseball-
The CSI of a baseball?-
You were too stupid to understand it then and you are still too stupid to understand it.
What is the threshold CSI number that makes something IC?-
That doesn't even make sense.
IOW once again you expose your ignorance.
I have already told you that your ignorance is not a refutation.
Nothing is proved by a negative, Joe.-
I never said it was.
But if there are only two options and one is shown to be bullshit, what does that do for the other option?
Your negative statement is superfluous.-
You think so because you are a moron.
However the negative statement is in ADDITION to the positive statements.
That you are too stupid to understand that just further proves that you are a moron.
So how about it blipey- do YOU have ANY positive evidence for your position?
For example fill in the blanks:
If natural selection was true I would expect top see _________. Failure to observe _________ and natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.
If random mutation was true I would expect top see _________. Failure to observe _________ and random mutation is at risk of disconfirmation.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
As for giving up-
YOUR position couldn't even write a page on what mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal.
I doubt they could even write one sentence.
So give it up clownie all your position is is a glossy narrative void of scientific data.
At 11:13 AM,
blipey said…
Jesus, Joe. Provide for us the definition of CSI. Remember to include the useful stuff, like the measuring units and threshold numbers.
Sure it makes sense, Joe. If CSI is to be useful, it must be have a consistent way of measuring it and some units to give it meaning. If IC is to be meaningful, it must be consistently measured. I'm assuming IC and CSI are related in some way? If not, why not?
If natural selection were true I would expect to see TWO MUTATIONS OF AN ORGANISM--ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT--TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVIVAL RATES IN AN HIGHLY NITROGENATED ATMOSPHERE. NAMELY, THE NITROGEN ADAPTED ORGANISM TO SURVIVE AT A HIGHER RATE, EVENTUALLY BECOMING THE DOMINANT--IF NOT EXCLUSIVE--ORGANISM IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. Failure to observe THE PREDOMINANCE OF THE NITROGEN ADAPTED ORGANISM IN THIS ENVIRONMENT AFTER AN APPROPRIATE TIME and natural selection is at risk of dis-confirmation.
See how easy that is, Joe? Now you try. Let's put up an actual experiment to test ID. I just gave you a very simple one to test out the tenets of Natural Selection. Give it a go.
At 2:37 PM,
Joe G said…
If natural selection were true I would expect to see TWO MUTATIONS OF AN ORGANISM--ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT--TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVIVAL RATES IN AN HIGHLY NITROGENATED ATMOSPHERE.-
What was mutated?
Please be specific- name those two mutations.
You forgot the second part:
If random mutation was true I would expect top see _________. Failure to observe _________ and random mutation is at risk of disconfirmation.
Then you talk of usefullness- That leaves out thne theory of evolution as it doesn't have anything defined nor does it have anything that can be measured.
IOW the ONLY "evidence" for YOUR position is the refusal to accept design.
As for the definition of CSI read "No Free Lunch"- and if you have any specific questions I will answer them for you (again- because we have been down this road already).
At 2:39 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm assuming IC and CSI are related in some way? If not, why not?-
According to Dembski IC is a special case of CSI.
So let's have those definitions YOUR position provides and then we can compare to see which is more useful.
At 5:55 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe; I did not forget the second part. I provided an excellent example of something you asked for. I'll wait on the second part until you provide anything of substance.
The two organisms in my example are of the same species--we'll call it JoeGite. So, we have JoeGite A and JoeGite B. Strain A has a mutation that allows it to breathe an atmosphere with higher nitrogen content.
So, there it is. A nice thought experiment. Easy parameters. Easy conclusions.
Please provide your own example of positive evidence for ID. Try to be as clear with regard to the set-up and results.
At 5:57 PM,
blipey said…
As for what Dembski says:
He provides no data, no parameters, no measurements.
Therefor useless. He says that something is IC, but gives no method for determining this.
If you have a manner of measuring CSI that will determine IC, please let us know.
For example, a baseball's CSI is ________. __________ is greater than X, therefor IC.
If IC can't be determined in this manner, it is useless.
At 8:20 PM,
Joe G said…
I provided an excellent example of something you asked for.-
That you think so just further proves my point that you are an imbecile.
If natural slection were true you would only expect to see TWO MUTATIONS OF AN ORGANISM--ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT--TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVIVAL RATES IN AN HIGHLY NITROGENATED ATMOSPHERE.?
Nothing else?
Wow that is a very simple concept for very simple people like yourself.
Do we see such a thing?
Can you post the reference?
I'll wait on the second part until you provide anything of substance.-
LoL!!!
I have- see here-
here-
and here.
I am STILL waiting on YOU to provide something that would demonstrate your position has something positive to offer.
And all you provide is a pathetic excuse for an example of TWO MUTATIONS.
At 8:28 PM,
blipey said…
Joe. What I posted was an excellent example of natural selection. That is what you asked for. If you have a problem with it, you should point out specifically what errors are in my example.
Do not add things. Do not introduce separate concepts. Point out the errors contained on my example. Until you do so, you have not refuted it. Merely saying you think the example is dumb in no way makes it so.
Specifics, Joe. The specifics of CSI calculation. The specifics of IC. The specific errors in m example. Try it again.
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
As for what Dembski says:
He provides no data, no parameters, no measurements.-
500 bits would be a measurement.
So that right there proves that you are either ignorant or a liar.
Your position doesn't have any data, parameters nor measurement.
That's the problem- you continually project.
He says that something is IC, but gives no method for determining this.-
You mean other than the following from NFL (which is quite a bit more than your position has ever offered):
IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.-
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.-
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit.-
If you have a manner of measuring CSI that will determine IC, please let us know.-
First tell me how that is even relevant.
BTW you telling me how to determine something is very laughable- you don't have any investigative experience and I have over 4 decades.
So fuck off you ignorant fuck.
At 8:35 PM,
Joe G said…
For example, a baseball's CSI is this.
What part of that is still too difficult for you to understand?
__________ is greater than X, therefor IC.-
As you can see by the definition of IC provided that makes absolutely no sense at all.
I am sure you may think it does but what you think is very different from reality.
Patrilineage and paternal family tree- definitions and examples of both.
Or are you still to much of a piece of shit to admit that you are a fuck-head?
At 8:49 PM,
Joe G said…
What I posted was an excellent example of natural selection.-
That you think so proves my point.
If you have a problem with it, you should point out specifically what errors are in my example.-
Do we see such a thing?
Can you post the reference?-
Answer those questions. That way we can see if your example has any merit.
At 8:55 PM,
Joe G said…
TWO MUTATIONS OF AN ORGANISM--ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT--TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVIVAL RATES IN AN HIGHLY NITROGENATED ATMOSPHERE.-
What organism?
What is a "highly nitrogenated atmosphere"? (what is the concentration of nitrogen? Is there a threshold? What is it?)
What controls the nitrogen concentration?
Come on clownie answer the questions!!!!
At 8:59 PM,
blipey said…
The system of interacting parts has been shown to be incorrect. Google any number of IC mousetraps if you want to see the debunking.
500 bits, huh? So a rock is IC? If I hit that rock with a mallet enough times do I make it small enough to no longer be IC?
For example, there is no explanation for this paragraph:
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.-
It is just Dembski's say so.
At 9:00 PM,
blipey said…
What exactly is in error in my example, Joe.
You seem at a loss to point out an error. Why is that?
At 9:14 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, those numbers don't matter as far as your question about Natural Selection is concerned. However, since you asked, I'll do what you constantly fail to do.
We'll define "Highly Nitrogenated Atmosphere" as an atmosphere that is 29% nitrogen. We'll define "Atmosphere" for this example as an atmosphere that is 22% nitrogen.
Now, our experiment runs as follows:
1. In "Atmosphere" we find 1,000 JoeGite As and 1,000 JoeGite Bs. The JoeGite Bs have a mutation that makes them less susceptible to death if the the nitrogen content of the atmosphere is increased.
2. We increase the nitrogen content of our laboratory environment to that of "Highly Nitrogenated Atmosphere".
3. After 1 day in this new environment, we check on our JoeGites. We find that there are 900 JoeGite As and 1,300 JoeGite Bs.
4. After 3 days in this new environment, we find that there are 100 JoeGite As and 4,000 JoeGite Bs.
5. After 7 days, we find that there are 0 JoeGite As and 11,000 JoeGite Bs.
This is a practical experiment that could be used to test natural selection.
Now, what specific flaws do you find in this experiment?
Secondly, can you provide a similarly useful experiment to test ID?
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
The system of interacting parts has been shown to be incorrect. Google any number of IC mousetraps if you want to see the debunking.-
I read all about those mousetraps and in each case the alleged refutation turned out to be a joke.
If you think otherwise then by all means bring the best example here and I will show you that it is a joke.
500 bits, huh?=
Yup 500 bits of specified information = CSI.
For example, there is no explanation for this paragraph:
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.-
It is just Dembski's say so.-
And all YOU have to do to refute Dembski is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.
IOW support YOUR position!!!!
Imagine that.
Yet instead you choose ignorance.
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
If you have a problem with it, you should point out specifically what errors are in my example.-
Do we see such a thing?
Can you post the reference?
What organism?
Answer those questions. That way we can see if your example has any merit.
As for the flaws- you are an imbecile.
You post an example of ARTIFICIAL selection and try to pass it off as natural selection.
Not only that it isn't even a REAL example.
IOW you failed on several levels.
Not that you would understand that...
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
We'll define "Highly Nitrogenated Atmosphere" as an atmosphere that is 29% nitrogen. We'll define "Atmosphere" for this example as an atmosphere that is 22% nitrogen.-
Here on Earth our atmosphere contains about 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and 1% trace elements.
Are you that stupid that you didn't even realize the content of the air you breathe?
At 11:22 AM,
blipey said…
Did I say that the environment we were talking abut was Earth?
Now, what exactly is wrong with my example? Specifically? Do not address other issues. Is the experiment workable? As conceived above? Yes or no?
At 11:23 AM,
blipey said…
Your response to Dembski providing zero support for his statement is:
Support something yourself, dickhead?
Really? So, Dembski is immune to having to support his arguments? That's your stance?
At 12:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Did I say that the environment we were talking abut was Earth?-
No.
However I am looking for a real-life example.
Now, what exactly is wrong with my example?-
You didn't provide any specifics.
No organism. No genetic background. Nothing.
IOW if you can make shit up then all I have to say is that JoeGites are very clever organisms.
In the experiment I conducted JoeGite As and Bs live in harmony and come to each other's aid (see quorum sensing).
When a drop in either population is detected all JoeGites formed a large colony in order to keep the population as stable as possible.
At 12:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Your response to Dembski providing zero support for his statement is:
Support something yourself, dickhead?-
That would be nice but I know you won't because you can't.
So, Dembski is immune to having to support his arguments?-
No, I am immune from having to spoon feed an imbecile such as yourself.
I am also tired of rehashing old arguments.
I have provided positive evidence for ID.
Now all YOU have to do to counter that is demonstrate that unguided processes can also account for it.
Be sure to provide rigorously defined terms.
And BTW what exactly do you think requires an explanation:
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop.-
Is there something wrong with what Dr Behe said:
At 12:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Thie following is what Dr Behe says about refuting IC:
"“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that
irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.” (bold added)
Or is this just another example of your inability to follow along?
Did you read NFL? How do you know what Dembski does and doesn't explain?
At 12:51 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, you don't need those specifics in order to tell us if the experiment is feasible.
Experiments aren't set up knowing the results (as much as IDiots like to think they are).
Is the experiment feasible? Yes or no.
I provided all the specifics you need in order to answer the feasibility of the experiment. Why do yo not answer?
At 12:53 PM,
blipey said…
Yes, there is something wrong with saying "there is no way a large system is not IC" and leaving it at that.
There is nothing in that statement other than a claim that he is right. There is no evidence. There is no methodology for discovering if the claim is right.
At 12:57 PM,
blipey said…
Behe's method for falsifying IC is bogus. He clearly is misrepresenting evolution by claiming that a flagellum can be grown.
In fact, even you should have a problem with his method. You're always complaining that artificial selection is a bogus test. Behe says that artificial selection should be used to produce a flagellum. Obviously you should take issue with that. Why don't you?
More importantly, however, evolution would not always come up with the same answers given the same selective pressures. While a flagellum was the answer one time, a different solution may evolve the second time.
To say that growing a flagellum is the only way to falsify the IC of the flagellum is to mis-understand both ToE and the principles of falsification at a very elementary level.
At 4:04 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey you ignorant fuck-
ALL experiments include specifics.
Without specifics experiments cannpt be duplicated in order to be verified.
IOW once again you think your ignorance means something.
You are a pathetic imbecile.
At 4:09 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW Thank you for admitting your position is not testable.
That is exactly what you did when you claimed that Dr Behe's test is bogus.
And thank you for proving that you don't know anything about falsification.
As Dr Behe stated the FACT that scientists are trying to falsify ID is evidence that it is falsifiable.
That they have failed to falsify ID does not count against ID.
That they have failed to support THEIR claims does not falsify ID.
Finally you say:
Yes, there is something wrong with saying "there is no way a large system is not IC" and leaving it at that.-
Source of the quote please.
Ya see clownie the bottom line is that you don't even understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.
So how the heck am I supposed to believe that you understand anything about science?
At 5:45 PM,
blipey said…
I provided you with specifics. Answer the question.
At 5:50 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, do you understand the process of experimentation.
You apparently think the only true test of anything is history. For you, no experiment is worth anything unless it is an exact replay of something that has already happened. That's ridiculous.
I claim that ToE can and has been tested any numbber of times. You, however, do not accept experimental data based solely on your claim that setting up any experiment is in and of itself artificial.
If that is truly your belief than you must believe that there is no experimental evidence for anything what-so-ever.
At 7:33 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
I provided you with specifics.-
Nope. You didn't provide any specifics.
1- No organism
2- No gene nor genes
3- Nothing
Joe, do you understand the process of experimentation.-
Much better than you do.
Ya see I have actually conducted scientific experiments.
That is how I know you didn't provide anything that would allow for a proper experiment.
You apparently think the only true test of anything is history.-
Nope. I never thought nor implied such a thing.
That you would say that just further exposes your twisted nature.
For you, no experiment is worth anything unless it is an exact replay of something that has already happened.-
Again I never thought nor implied such a thing.
However ALL scientific experiments require repeatability.
That is they all need to be repeated EXACTLY as the first such that the first can either be confirmed or refuted.
That is the nature of peer-review- to allow repeatability- it is all documented.
I claim that ToE can and has been tested any numbber of times.-
Fine then tell me how you can test the premise that a bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Failure to do so will prove you are a liar.
You, however, do not accept experimental data based solely on your claim that setting up any experiment is in and of itself artificial.-
That is also false.
However setting up an experiment that is artificially controlled would be artificial.
Setting up an experiment with artificial conditions would be artificial.
Conducting a thought experiment with imaginary organisms would be artificial.
And yes if lab conditions do not mirror natural conditions then it is not a test of nature.
Or are you too stupid to understand that?
Seeing that you are too stupid to understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree I would say you are too stupid to understand anything beyond juggling.
At 9:46 AM,
blipey said…
You don't need to know the genomic sequence. I told you what the gene does. If I tell you the guy plays second base, you know what his job is, you don't have to know his name.
I told you the name of the organism.
Answer the question.
At 9:49 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, the experiment can be repeated exactly. Start with the same 1000 JoeGite As and 1000 JoeGite Bs. Again, raise the level of the nitrogen in the atmosphere from "Atmosphere" to "Highly Nitrogenated Atmosphere". Then count the number of JoeGite As and JoeGite Bs.
This is repeatable as many times as you like.
Now answer the question.
At 11:15 AM,
Joe G said…
You don't need to know the genomic sequence.-
You need some way to tell the mutant variants from the non-mutated organisms.
You need to make sure that other mutations aren't slipping in that could affect the outcome.
I told you what the gene does.-
Your say so is meaningless.
I need scientific data.
I told you the name of the organism.-
YOU made up a name for an imaginary organism.
Now I understand that you think science and imagination are the same thing but that just demonstrates that you are an imbecile.
However that was obvious from the first time you started posting here.
All that said I did answer your retarded question days ago:
IOW if you can make shit up then all I have to say is that JoeGites are very clever organisms.
In the experiment I conducted JoeGite As and Bs live in harmony and come to each other's aid (see quorum sensing).
When a drop in either population is detected all JoeGites formed a large colony in order to keep the population as stable as possible.-
Prove me wrong...
At 11:17 AM,
Joe G said…
I claim that ToE can and has been tested any numbber of times.-
Fine then tell me how you can test the premise that a bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Failure to do so will prove you are a liar.
At 12:40 PM,
blipey said…
The lengths you will go to to keep from answering simple questions is amazing.
Your experiment may work as well, Joe. Now tell me what flaws you see in mine. My experiment has been performed thousands of times with many different organisms. What flaws do you see in it?
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Again with your projection.
You have failed to answer my questions.
When I ask for specifics you say they have been given yet a simple read-through shows that you are a liar.
The flaws in your experiment:
1- Your experiment doesn't involve any real organisms
2- Your experiment doesn't involve any specifics
IOW your "experiment" isn't an experiment.
That you think it is just demonstrates that you are an imbecile.
At 2:11 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, do you know what a thought is? Do you know what a thought experiment is?
Did you not read the set up and procedure for my experiment?
Let's go, Joe. Address the specifics of my experiment. I even broke it down into steps for and told you what was expected in each step.
Try to address the experiment and the steps. What is wrong with each specific step? Remember not to introduce outside ideas. what is wrong--specifically--with each actual step in the experiment?
Do you have any idea?
At 7:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Address the specifics of my experiment.
There aren't any specifics to address.
IOW you don't have an experiment to conduct.
No one could conduct an experiment with what you have provided.
At 8:44 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW clownie- the following was the outcome given YOUR parameters:
If you can make shit up then all I have to say is that JoeGites are very clever organisms.
In the experiment I conducted JoeGite As and Bs live in harmony and come to each other's aid (see quorum sensing).
When a drop in either population is detected all JoeGites formed a large colony in order to keep the population as stable as possible.-
What all that means is given the two mutants, one better adapted to breath a heavy nitrogen atmosphere and one less adapted, they came together to stabilize the population.
Yes there was a slight drop in JoeGite As but once that was sensed the Bs slowed down their reproduction and made sure that the As kept pace.
THAT is the problem with your type of "experiment" anything that can be thought of can happen.
But you didn't think of that did you?
At 12:34 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, for the interest of all concerned (no one), could you recap my experiment for me? Do you know what it is?
If not, I think it's about time to close this thread!!!
At 7:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe, for the interest of all concerned (no one), could you recap my experiment for me?-
1- You wanted "TWO MUTATIONS OF AN ORGANISM-
Got that? AN ORGANISM withn TWO MUTATIONS
Not a population just AN ORGANISM.
2- ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT--
So we have AN ORGANISM with TWO MUTATIONS-ONE ADAPTED TO BREATHE HEAVY NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE AND ONE NOT
This is a lucky organism suited for differing conditions.
3- TO HAVE DIFFERENT SURVIVAL RATES IN AN HIGHLY NITROGENATED ATMOSPHERE.
Different than what?
4- NAMELY, THE NITROGEN ADAPTED ORGANISM TO SURVIVE AT A HIGHER RATE, EVENTUALLY BECOMING THE DOMINANT--IF NOT EXCLUSIVE--ORGANISM IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
The ORGANISM is adapted for two conditions.
To sum up blipey wants to take AN ORGANISM with TWOP MUTATIONS and see how it reacts when the nitrogen is increased.
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
How you can test the premise that a bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Failure to do so will prove you are a liar.
But first it would be best to answer the following:
Does Erik Pratt know the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree?
Please support your answer with examples of both a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.
If you refuse to answer those questions then it is time to close this thread.
At 11:31 AM,
blipey said…
Great recap, Joe. Now tell me what's wrong with it. You forgot that part.
We have JoeGite As. And JoeGite Bs that have a mutation that allows them to breathe a more nitrogen heavy atmosphere.
What's WRONG with it?
At 1:33 PM,
Joe G said…
What's wrong with it?
It doesn't make any sense. I summed up why it doesn't so you should address that.
It doesn't contain any specifics. I have already been over this and you have failed to provide any.
It appears to be based on an imaginary organism not found on this planet.
IOW just about everything is wrong with it.
At 2:12 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. There is a population of organisms living in our environment. This population is 1,000 JoeGite As and 1,000 JoeGite Bs.
"Different than what," doesn't make sense, Joe. The survival rates of As and Bs are different than each other.
When the nitrogen content is increased, the As (who do not have the ability to breathe higher nitrogen content) do not survive as well as the Bs (who can breathe the higher nitrogen content).
You didn't point out any flaws; you merely made up your own shit and then found fault with it.
At 9:39 PM,
Joe G said…
No, Joe. There is a population of organisms living in our environment. This population is 1,000 JoeGite As and 1,000 JoeGite Bs.-
No blipey OUR environment has an atmosphere that is about 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and 1% traces of other gases.
And in OUR environment I don't know of any organisms called "JoeGites". Nor do I know of any organisms that breathe nitrogen and depend on it via that breathing process.
As for "different than what?"-
well you ignorant fuck YOU were the one talking about the differential survival rates of ONE ORGANISM.
I guess to you one organism with two mutations can have a differential survival rate.
When the nitrogen content is increased, the As (who do not have the ability to breathe higher nitrogen content) do not survive as well as the Bs (who can breathe the higher nitrogen content).-
You keep saying that yet you don't have any evidence, just your say-so.
IOW you don't have an experiment you have a pre-conceived outcome.
At 9:56 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, this experiment--in various forms--has been carried out with bacteria strains countless times. You asked for an example of a test for Natural Selection. This is it. It really isn't an arguable point. University labs conduct this experiment over and over.
In fact, a vary similar experiment is performed in "Privileged Planet". Watch your own propaganda, for shit sake.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
I have asked you for a reference on more than one occasion.
Why have you refused to provide one?
Now you say:
this experiment--in various forms--has been carried out with bacteria strains countless times.-
Then the fact you didn't respond to my request proves that you are a maggot eating fuck-head.
Now you know why people refuse to deal with you- You don't respond to questions and requests.
You asked for an example of a test for Natural Selection. This is it. It really isn't an arguable point.-
I know natural selection isn't being debated.
The point is when presented with examples of it it just doesn't provide any reason to infer any more than a wobbling stability.
Nothing that would allow for the reasoning behind evolutionism (see evolution #6).
And in fact the Creation model of biological evolution- variation within the "kind"- is well supported by all observances of natural selection.
That is why the following is the all important question:
How you can test the premise that a bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?-
And that is why you will ignore it or dance all around it, but you sure as heck won't answer it.
At 11:10 AM,
Joe G said…
In fact, a vary similar experiment is performed in "Privileged Planet".-
That's funny considering you never read the book.
If you had read the book their tests, not only match up with any tests evolutionary biologists can drum up for universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents, they exceed them in their rigor.
At 1:49 PM,
blipey said…
Well, good; you accept that Natural Selection occurs and works in more or less the way the biological community says it does.
Fine. It does, however, seem strange that you would challenge your readers with this:
If natural selection was true I would expect top see _________. Failure to observe _________ and natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.
I merely filled in the blanks. It seems we could just have skipped this step, but oh well.
At 1:59 PM,
blipey said…
Really, I never read the book? How would you know that?
Besides, there's a very nice DVD copy that is easily watched. It;s been a while since I watched it, but the sequence in question goes something like this:
1. There's a population of bacteria in some environment.
2. One of the environment's parameters is changed.
3. We see that the general population of bacteria dwindles, but there are a few hardy survivors. These survivors have adapted to the new environment. Those bacteria that do not have a mutation to allow them to adapt die off.
So far, a great test of Natural Selection. Here's where it gets goofy with the PP people:
4. After a while, they put the new, hardy strain of bacteria in the ORIGINAL environment and claim that this is proof that Evolution is bogus, because THE NEW STRAIN DOESN'T SURVIVE AS WELL IN THE OLD ENVIRONMENT.
Hmmm. What to get out of this? Well, it seems that both are great tests of Natural Selection. The NEW bacteria that are not as well adapted to the OLD environment are out-competed by the bacteria that are well adapted to the OLD environment.
To claim that this is a strike against evolution because the bacteria didn't evolve into SUPER-BACTERIA FOR ALL ENVIRONMENTS is stupid beyond belief.
Go watch our own videos if you want to see this experiment, Joe. Do some work for yourself, for shit sake.
Now, would you like to answer some questions? I've answered quite a few.
At 2:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, good; you accept that Natural Selection occurs and works in more or less the way the biological community says it does.-
Actually the biological community thinks natural selection can account for much, much more than has been observed. Much, much more than can be tested.
If it didn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It does, however, seem strange that you would challenge your readers with this:
"If natural selection was true I would expect top see _________. Failure to observe _________ and natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation."
I merely filled in the blanks. It seems we could just have skipped this step, but oh well.-
I provided the reasoning. But I understand that you cannot understand reasoning.
That is why you are just a clown.
Really, I never read the book? How would you know that?-
Your ignorance gives you away.
There is no hiding from it.
And your attempt at an example proves it- "The Privileged Planet" doesn't say anything about natural selection.
NS is so trivial it is amazing how much worship it has garnished from people like you. But anyway..
Next you say:
To claim that this is a strike against evolution because the bacteria didn't evolve into SUPER-BACTERIA FOR ALL ENVIRONMENTS is stupid beyond belief.-
I never made such a claim.
IOW you are a lying maggot eating fuck-head.
Now, would you like to answer some questions? I've answered quite a few.-
You didn't answer any questions that I have asked.
You didn't provide a reference.
You have proven to be an ignorant lying maggot eating fuck-head.
But what else was I to expect...
At 4:31 PM,
blipey said…
You know, Joe. You may be right. My brother-in-law had me watch two videos: PP and Icons of Evolution. Now that I think about it, the experiment was probably included in Icons. I'm sure you could tell me; I don't really want to go back and watch either of them again.
Anyway, the point is the same.
You're the one who waned to start with a fill-in-the-blank Natural Selection point. I just started where you wanted me to.
If you'd rather start in another place, you really should sip the shit you don't want to talk about.
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
I never saw the video of "Icons of Evolution" so I don't know what is in it.
You're the one who waned to start with a fill-in-the-blank Natural Selection point. I just started where you wanted me to.-
I provided the reasoning.
And as I said you are just too stupid to understand it.
At 6:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
CSI of a Baseball - we'd still like a number. Don't ask us to do it, we're not the design detectives. No number means you're a sophist.
At 7:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie chimes in:
CSI of a Baseball - we'd still like a number.-
I would like you to support your position but that ain't happenin'.
When you come up with a VALID reason for a specific number, then you can just follow the directions.-
Don't ask us to do it, we're not the design detectives.-
Don't ask me to do your stupid work. As a design detective I know a specific number is not required.
As a matter of fact CSI is more an afterthought- a confirmation/ verification of the design inference. And even then the investigation stops at 500 bits of specified information.
Ya see CSI is 500 bits of specified information. And once CSI has been determined the design inference is solidified.
That is until it is demonstrated that nature, operating freely can account for 500 bits of specified information. Then the design inference falls, just as I said in the OP.
No number means you're a sophist.-
Anyone asking for the CSI of a baseball is a lowlife moron who most likely drools uncontrollably.
So stay the fuck away from my cakes!!!!!
At 10:24 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Still no number, Joe.
At 2:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Stop drooling Rich.
At 9:08 PM,
Matteo said…
If I'm skimming all of this correctly, it seems to me that anti-IDists (as personified by Blipey) are claiming that the proponents of unguided evolution really don't need to provide any "difficult" demonstration whatsoever to show that their purported mechanism has the power that they claim it does. As you say, such a demonstration would annihilate the design position, which is completely falsifiable in this manner. They are the ones who claim to have the Big Overarching Kick-Ass Theory That Explains Everything Without The Need For A Designer, but when you point out certain classes of things that they haven't even really scratched the surface in explaining, and point out reasons why their purported explanations (as meager as they are) probably aren't sufficient, suddenly they got nothin' and they don't need to have nothin' because the burden of proof is on YOU.
So pretty much, they are the Big Swingin' Dicks of the Scientific World until you call them on it. Then suddenly they turn around and cast YOU as the guy that's supposed to be the Oracle of All Scientific Truth, even though you never claimed such a thing for yourself. and when all you did was ask a question and point out that they haven't made their case.
At one and the same time they are the proud possessors of a Sophisticated Overarching Theory Of Comprehensive Explanatory Genius while also not having to explain a damned thing, because if anyone is supposed to be doing the explainin', it's YOU.
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Matteo,
It's like this:
Their "theory" is sooooo well "proven" that anyone asking questions has an anti-science agenda and should by treated accordingly.
Heck all those evolution luvin' scientists can't be wrong!!!!
I did ask that important question on Uncommon Descent and someone named "Nakashima" answered by suggesting Dr Behe's test! (for the bac flag)
At 4:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
A number would really help your argument, though Joe.
At 9:57 PM,
Joe G said…
A number would really help your argument, though Joe.-
I don't see how that is possible seeing that a specific number is irrelevant. And it is very telling that you cannot provide a valid reason for a specific number.
As you said you are not a design detective and obviously can't follow simple directions, so perhaps you should just stay the fuck out of it- or buy a vowel and stop drooling.
However demonstrating that unguided processes could produce a baseball would really help your "argument".
At 10:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And it is very telling that you cannot provide a valid reason for a specific number."
It would be an empirical measure and we could set a threshold.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
"And it is very telling that you cannot provide a valid reason for a specific number."-
It would be an empirical measure and we could set a threshold.-
Threshold for what?
And we have more than enough empirical evidence that demonstrates that baseballs are designed and could not have arisen via unguided processes.
IOW it is still very telling that you cannot provide a VALID reason for a SPECIFIC number.
At 11:38 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Well, IDists would test it against the UPB, (the total probabilisitic resources for the universe), would they not?
I thought you new about ID. YOU seem to be making it up as you go along.
At 7:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, IDists would test it against the UPB, (the total probabilisitic resources for the universe), would they not?-
Test what against the UPB?
You do realize that once CSI is determined- you know that 500 bit threshold- the UPB has been reached.
I thought you new about ID.-
I do, however you don't have a clue.
YOU seem to be making it up as you go along.-
It only seems that way because YOU are clueless.
BTW we have more than enough empirical evidence that demonstrates that baseballs are designed and could not have arisen via unguided processes.-
What part of that don't you understand?
At 10:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I just want to see the CSI calculation in action - but none of you seem to be able to do it. Emperor's clothes and all that..
At 11:22 PM,
Joe G said…
I just want to see the CSI calculation in action-
If that is what you really wanted then you would just follow the directions.-
but none of you seem to be able to do it.-
Umm if I can provide directions on how to do it then it is a given that I can do it.
That you are too stupid, dishonest, ignorant, and generally fucked-up to understand any of that is not my problem.
At 11:56 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, put up or shut up. Let's have a number. don't make others do your work. Be accountable. You don't walk the talk, you mumble the stumble.
But I'm fine with you hurting ID like you do.
At 2:26 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, you can't even follow your own directions, obviously. be honest and admit you can't do it. Its okay.
Or prove my wrong and do it.
At 7:18 AM,
Joe G said…
If YOU want to know how much information is in a baseball then that is YOUR work, not mine.
I don't do unecessary things for stupid, dishonest, ignorant and generally fucked up people.
I see you still cannot provide a valid reason why a specific number is required.
I also see you are upset that I have provided valid reasoning why a specific number is not required.
That said if you really wanted to expose ID as the emperor without clothes all YOU have to do is to actually support YOUR position.
That you cannot and instead try to play ignorant games is very telling.
At 8:06 AM,
blipey said…
On the value of numbers:
Cake baking instructions (you should be familiar, Joe).
1. Turn the oven to hot.
2. Turn the oven to 400 F.
Which is more useful?
The CSI of a baseball.
1. Lots.
2. 3,751.
The interesting thing here is that either answer is probably as good as the other. But not that Joe would know why.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
You say you want an example of measuring information to determine whether or not CSI is present.
I have already done that:
Measuring Information/ specified complexity:
When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?
If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.
For example:
aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants-
A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity.
1010 is greater than 500 therefor CSI is present.
At 8:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Great now clownie chimes in with its ignorance:
1. Turn the oven to hot.
2. Turn the oven to 400 F.
Which is more useful?-
To who?
I don't think that is useful at all.
What happens when you don't have an oven or don't even know what an oven is?
The CSI of a baseball.-
As I have been telling you imps "the CSI of a baseball" isn't even proper vocabulary.
That you keep using that terminology just further exposes your ignorance.
At 9:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Just give me a number, if you can, Joe. This is embarrassing for you. I'm saving the thread as 'classic ID lying and evasion' -
"he says he can do it, but he can't"
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Just give me a number, if you can, Joe.-
A number for what?
This is embarrassing for you.-
Only in that I am actually responding to a loser like yourself.
I'm saving the thread as 'classic ID lying and evasion'.-
What "lying and evasion" would that be, exactly?
And what does it have to do with ID? (please be specific)
I have provided an example of measuring information to determine whether or not CSI is present.
I have explained, in detail, how to measure specified information.
That you want me to do more work for you proves that you are an asshole on par with clownie.
At 1:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So to make anything at all designed, all I have to do (ignoring the substrate of language which has its own, unique information ramifications) is to describe it at sufficient length. Fascinating! everything MUST be designed. Should I now buy your book?
At 1:44 PM,
Joe G said…
So to make anything at all designed, all I have to do (ignoring the substrate of language which has its own, unique information ramifications) is to describe it at sufficient length.-
Nope, not even close.
However all you have to do to refute the design inference for any given thing is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.
At 4:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So things are by default designed unless we can prove otherwise?
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!
At 7:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Wrong again asshole.
Ya see the EF demands that all other possiblities be considered first.
IOW regularity is the default as it is the first decision block.
At 8:43 PM,
blipey said…
Seriously? You can't think of a reason that a baking temperature would be handy?
Wow.
The whole thread is worth saving just for that.
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
You can't think of a reason that a baking temperature would be handy?-
No I don't see how it relates to anything in this thread.
And it is very telling that neither you nor Rich can provide a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball.
And that you had to switch to an oven temp setting proves that you are a deceptive faggot.
At 8:14 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, you said numbers are unimportant. I assume this is because you can think of no way to truly calculate CSI. The fact that you think that IC can be defined by CSI (or is at least a special case of CSI) but can provide no number at which this happens is stupendously funny.
I see we're going to have to start in elementary school.
Can you answer the following question about numbers? More importantly, can you tell us about the underlying need for a specific number and how that need relates to scientific inquiry?
A sponge cake should be baked at:
1. 128 F
2. 6,720 F
3. 375 F
Come on Cakeboy, answer or give up your nickname.
At 8:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you said numbers are unimportant.-
No I didn't.
I assume this is because you can think of no way to truly calculate CSI.-
And yet I did just that and also provided directions on how to do it.
IOW you assume because you are an ignorant fuck.
The fact that you think that IC can be defined by CSI (or is at least a special case of CSI) but can provide no number at which this happens is stupendously funny.-
500 bits of specified information. Just as I have been saying for years.
So there you have it you stupid moron.
Not only have I provided the number and the means to get to that number but you are so retarded that you don't understand it.
Your mental disability is not my problem.
Now if you don't like my explanations then all YOU have to do is demonstrate that nature operating freely can account for everything that IDists say is designed.
IOW it is time for YOU to start answering questions.
Start with the following:
Do you know the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree? If you answer "yes" please provide examples of both so that we can verify your answer.
Don't bother posting here until you answer that.
And after that there are more questions you have to answer.
At 8:23 AM,
Joe G said…
And it is very telling that neither you nor Rich can provide a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball.
At 10:01 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
We want to see a rigorous account of CSI calculation for something that we know is designed. Something you can't do.
I'm saving this thread. It's priceless.
"Ya see the EF demands that all other possiblities be considered first."
Really? Where is "we don't know" in the EF.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Umm the definition I provided was designed.
Or do you think it appeared by accident?
IOW once again Richie proves he is an imbecile.
Ya see Richie the one thing you can't do is think.
"Ya see the EF demands that all other possiblities be considered first."-
Really?-
Really, really.
Where is "we don't know" in the EF.-
Where is "we don't know" in the theory of evolution?
The whole theory should be "we don't know".
How did the eye/ vision system evolve? We don't know.
Can the eye/ vision system evolve from a population that never had one? We don't know.
But anyway if the design criteria is not met - the last node of the EF- then we say we don't know by aligning the object/ event in question with chance.
I am saving this thread also.
It is further proof that you are a bleeding asshole.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
And it is very telling that neither you nor Rich can provide a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball.
At 10:34 AM,
Joe G said…
We want to see a rigorous account of CSI calculation for something that we know is designed.-
Just count the bits of specified information that it takes to make it.
Are you that stupid that you can't count to 500?
Or are you too stupid to understand what specified information is?
At 10:34 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW I am still waiting for anything rigorous from your position.
At 11:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And it is very telling that neither you nor Rich can provide a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball."
I have. the fact you're ignoring it isn't my problem.
At 11:38 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So just to be clear, what was your number for the CSI of a baseball again?
At 5:27 PM,
Joe G said…
"And it is very telling that neither you nor Rich can provide a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball."-
Richie:
I have.-
You have what? Herpes? AIDS?
You definitely haven't provided a valid reason why a specific number is required for a baseball.
the fact you're ignoring it isn't my problem.-
Can't ignore what never happened.
At 5:28 PM,
Joe G said…
So just to be clear, what was your number for the CSI of a baseball again?-
That doesn't even make any sense.
So why don't you try phrasing a question properly?
At 10:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Sure. What (numerically) is the CSI of a baseball?
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
What (numerically) is the CSI of a baseball?-
What does that mean Richie?
That question doesn't even make any sense from an ID perspective.
No one in ID asks "what is the CSI of x?"
The question asked is "does X contain CSI?"
That is all one requires in order to verify the design inference.
Asking for anything beyond that is just proof of anal-retentiveness, stupidity and ignorance.
At 10:40 AM,
Joe G said…
for blipey:
Do you know the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree? If you answer "yes" please provide examples of both so that we can verify your answer.
Don't bother posting here until you answer that.
And after that there are more questions you have to answer.-
And one more thing for you to ignore:
Ya see CSI is 500 bits of specified information. And once CSI has been determined the design inference is solidified.-
THAT is what CSI means.
Not that I expect you to understand any of that.
At 12:09 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, f you can't even deal with me on a blog where you don't even have to see me, how the fuck are you going to react when we're face to face.
Cowardly bastard.
At 1:52 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Some quick questions to help us both have a common frame of reference:
What is CSI?
Is it an empirical measure?
Can it be calculated?
How would you calculate it?
How much do you think is required for a "design inference"?
At 2:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Don't bother posting here until you answer that."
What happened to 'teach the controversy'?
At 3:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, f you can't even deal with me on a blog where you don't even have to see me, how the fuck are you going to react when we're face to face.-
I am dealing with you, you stupid fuck and I have a very good idea what will happen if we are ever face to face.
At 3:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Some quick questions to help us both have a common frame of reference:
What is CSI?-
Geez Rich if you don't know then what the fuck are you arguing for?
But anyway CSI stands for Complex Specified Information.
500 bits of specified information = CSI.
Again that 500 bit threshold is the UPB- already mentioned above- by YOU.
Read "No Free Lunch".
Is it an empirical measure?-
Yes it is based on observation and experience. And yes it can be measured by counting the bits.
Just as I have been telling you for what months, years?
How much do you think is required for a "design inference"?-
Again once that 500 bit threshold is reached design is just about as proven as one can get.
However that 500 bit threshold is for the UPB.
But as I said above CSI is more of a verification.
You don't even have to know anything about CSI to make a design inference.
Then someone else could come along see if that initial design inference is solidified by checking the information- ie what it took to make the object/ event in question.
The basic way to determine design is to look for signs of counterflow.
And again I have been over all of this many times so I don't know if one more time is going to do any good.
You guys think that your ignorance is some kind of refutation and that is very entertaining indeed.
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
"Don't bother posting here until you answer that."=
What happened to 'teach the controversy'?-
I am not a teacher. This is not a public school. And blipey is just another piece of shit coward who says shit and then never backs it up.
IOW clownie is the controversy. And it is impossible to teach it anything.
As with you the only reason he is against ID is because of some alleged majority of scientists many who most likely don't even understand the debate.
At 3:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So how come you can't calculate it then, for a baseball?
At 4:38 PM,
Joe G said…
So how come you can't calculate it then, for a baseball?-
Calculate what?
Do you understand English?
Measurement- Do you understand the word "measurement"?
If you really want to know whether or not a baseball has CSI just follow the directions.
If you are too stupid to follow the directions then there isn't anything else I can do for you.
At 9:39 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I don't want my number (which I know is wrong) Joe. I want yours. what is it? Please show your workings.
At 12:04 PM,
Joe G said…
I don't want my number (which I know is wrong) Joe.-
How do you know its wrong?
Did you follow the directions?
I want yours.-
And I don't care what you want.
I have provided more than enough to satisfy all but the incompetent and impotent assholes.
And as I said yesterday- there isn't anything else I can do for you.
At 6:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh Joe - its through dialogue like this we can search for the truth. How would I know if a flagella is designed?
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
its through dialogue like this we can search for the truth.-
What dialog?
And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
How would I know if a flagella is designed?-
How would YOU know? YOU would never know.
YOU are incapable of original thought.
YOU are incapable of following directions.
IOW YOU are just too stupid to be trying to talk science and investigation.
At 7:33 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW Richie,
As I told the retard Laminar, if you don't like the design inference, or you think it is bogus, all YOU have to do is to actually support YOUR position by demonstrating that nature, operating freely, can account for it.
For the bacterial flagellum just demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can build one.
At 9:32 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
You have undetectable leprechauns in your rectum. If you don't like this inference, prove me wrong.
Not how science works.
Try positive arguments.
At 9:50 AM,
Joe G said…
THAT is what I am saying asshole-
YOU should work on the positive case for YOUR position and not worry about ID.
ID is based on obeservation and experience.
It can be tested.
That you don't like nor understand this is not my problem.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
The point being is that all your position comes down to is the refusal to accept design. It is not based on anything positive.
At 10:46 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Erm, do we have mechanism? That would be a positive case.
Billy D:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."
At 10:47 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Okay, Joe, show me how you know the flagella is designed.
At 4:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Okay, Joe, show me how you know the flagella is designed.-
It's called an inference and the design inference for the bacterial flagellum is laid out in "Darwin's Black Box" and "No Free Lunch".
It is irreducibly complex.
Not only that the instructions are also IC.
Without chaperones cross-reactions would put a stop to its construction.
The following is what Dr Behe says about refuting IC:
“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that
irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”
As for a mechanism- design is a mechanism.
However I see that you cannot provide any positive evidence for your position.
Your position boils down to the refusal to accept design- period- end of story.
At 12:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Design is a mechanism like lunch is a mechanism...
At 12:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://telicthoughts.com/design-is-not-a-mechanism/
At 12:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie's ignorance is not a refutation:
Yes, design is a mechanism
and
Mechanisms in context:
As with most words mechanism has several meanings. In the context of the ID vs. anti-ID debate, mechanism refers to a way or means of doing something.
For example, in biology the anti-ID mechanism is "culled genetic accidents". In contrast the ID position which posits there was a plan, a structure, a purpose, an intention- IOW some grand (or not so grand) design.
Many of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet used science as a way to understand that design. IOW for those who embrace ID they can only be as scientifically literate as those great scientists. Which is something I would wish on everyone.
OK mechanisms are a way of doing things. We can do things by design or we can do things willy-nilly. Both are mechanisms in this sense- the sense that the word is being used in this debate.
At 4:01 PM,
Joe G said…
1de·sign
Pronunciation: \di-ˈzīn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark — more at sign
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind (he designed the perfect crime) b: to have as a purpose : intend (she designed to excel in her studies) c: to devise for a specific function or end (a book designed primarily as a college textbook)
3archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a: to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b: to draw the plans for (design a building)
intransitive verb
1: to conceive or execute a plan
2: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
mech·a·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈme-kə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1662
1 a: a piece of machinery b: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
2: mechanical operation or action : working 2
3: a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry
4: the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon
Geez Richie just a simple look at a dictionary proves that design is a mechanism.
But I understand that you never let reality get in the way of your "arguments"...
At 11:40 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Design is a mechanism?
(Q) Why does rain fall?
(A) design!
(Q) how do steam trains work
(A) design!
(Q) what causes lightning
(A) design!
(Q) Why do mothers love their children?
(A) design!
I think that's exposed the utility of 'design as a mechanism'
At 11:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL. Your definitions don't support your position at all. Design can create mechanisms, but is not a mechanism itself.
You seem to be the only Idist who thinks design *is* a mechanism.
At 1:40 AM,
blipey said…
Too scared to match wits with a clown, Joe?
Remember, replying without publishing my comment is confirmation.
Good stuff, Joe. Editing and/or censoring is also confirmation.
Stupendous stuff.
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
So Richie Hughes is too stupid to read.
And he thinks that is my problem.
A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-
Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Therefor design is a mechanism.
It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.
As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.
At 7:51 AM,
Joe G said…
clownie you don't have any wits to match.
You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met on the internet.
You are also dishonest and very stupid- most likely due to your ignorance.
Do you know the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree? If you answer "yes" please provide examples of both so that we can verify your answer.
Don't bother posting here until you answer that.
And after that there are more questions you have to answer.-
The fact that you have ignored that proves you are a coward and ignorant.
It also proves you are a waste of time because you can't even acknowledge your mistakes- but that is because everything you post is a mistake so you can't tell the difference.
<< Home