An Accumulation of Genetic Accidents continued
-
Last month I wrote a post about Accumulating Genetic Accidents.
I all fairness to Jeffrey Shallit he isn't/ wasn't the only evolutionist ignorant of the fact that there position's mechanisms are an accumulation of genetic accidents.
In "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins calls this "cumulative selection".
The point being is that I have been labeled a crank yet it appears that I know the theory better than many evolutionists.
Now I understand why they can't support it- they don't even understand it!
It also appears that the vast majority of these imbeciles also rail against the strawman of the fixation of species.
Yet YECs have accepted speciation since the 18th century when Linne (Carolus Linneaus) placed the Created Kind at his BN level of Genus.
And almost every time I point this out people act as if its the first they heard of it.
I know Judge Jones thinks that ID = Creation = the fixity of species.
I know Allen MacNeill held that position- and he still may even though I proved to him that is a strawman.
But anyway what else should we expect from a mob that can't even understand what it is they are defending?
Last month I wrote a post about Accumulating Genetic Accidents.
I all fairness to Jeffrey Shallit he isn't/ wasn't the only evolutionist ignorant of the fact that there position's mechanisms are an accumulation of genetic accidents.
In "The Blind Watchmaker" Richard Dawkins calls this "cumulative selection".
The point being is that I have been labeled a crank yet it appears that I know the theory better than many evolutionists.
Now I understand why they can't support it- they don't even understand it!
It also appears that the vast majority of these imbeciles also rail against the strawman of the fixation of species.
Yet YECs have accepted speciation since the 18th century when Linne (Carolus Linneaus) placed the Created Kind at his BN level of Genus.
And almost every time I point this out people act as if its the first they heard of it.
I know Judge Jones thinks that ID = Creation = the fixity of species.
I know Allen MacNeill held that position- and he still may even though I proved to him that is a strawman.
But anyway what else should we expect from a mob that can't even understand what it is they are defending?
posted by Joe G @ 8:14 PM
16 Comments:
At 11:02 AM,
crevo said…
Joe - the YEC position on speciation goes back even farther - pretty much as far back as we have speculation (though it isn't _called_ speciation, as that is a more modern terminology).
Here is a passage from 1668 discussing capacity calculations of the ark:
"In this enumeration I do not mention the Mule, because ‘tis a mungrel production, and not to be rekoned as a distinct species. And tho it be most probable, that the several varieties of Beeves, namely that which is stiled Urus [aurochs], Bisons, Bonasus and Buffalo, and those other varieties reckon-ed under Sheep and Goats, be not distinct species from Bull, Sheep, and Goat; There being much less difference betwixt these, then there is betwixt several Dogs: And it being known by experience, what various changes are frequently occasioned in the same species by several countries, diets, and other accidents"
At 1:07 PM,
Joe G said…
(cue sarcasm)
crevo you ignorant slut- You must be lying. ;) (Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtain)
You just don't get it- others get to tell YECs what the YEC position is because those others just know better.
And anyone who goes against those others is either a liar or a crank- that is according to those other people.
That is the way to do it in libertard academia...
But anyway thanks again.
It is so sad seeing such a strawman being adhered to.
But when one is a drooling libertard, attacking a strawman is the only thing you have, so you have at it.
At 12:58 AM,
blipey said…
Are you claiming that YECs and the rest of the world are talking about the same thing when they discuss speciation?
Really? There's no consideration for elapsed time? That seems hard to believe. See what I did there?
At 11:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Are you claiming that YECs and the rest of the world are talking about the same thing when they discuss speciation?
Is there any evidence there is a difference?
Really?
Really you are an imbecile.
There's no consideration for elapsed time?
Now what are you talking about?
Of course there is elapsed time- from one generation to the next is elapsed time.
YECs do not think that the parents evolve into some different species in their own lifetime.
That seems hard to believe.
It seems hard to believe that you are capable of using the internet, yet here you are.
But anyway, what is your point?
See what I did there?
Yup you exposed your ignorance- again.
At 1:30 PM,
blipey said…
"From one generation to the next is elapsed time"
Are you saying that biologists claim that one generation is enough for speciation to occur? Or are you claiming that YECs believe one generation is enough time for speciation to occur? Or neither? If neither, why bother typing the sentence?
So, I suppose you are claiming that YECs and biologists are discussing the exact same process when they talk about speciation? What then is the problem? Why can't they get along? Them being on the same page and all...
At 1:31 PM,
blipey said…
You missed it, Joe. That's not what I did there. It was funnier.
At 1:50 PM,
Joe G said…
"From one generation to the next is elapsed time"
Are you saying that biologists claim that one generation is enough for speciation to occur?
YOU made some imbecilic remark about elapsed time.
I am just making a point.
Or are you claiming that YECs believe one generation is enough time for speciation to occur? Or neither? If neither, why bother typing the sentence?
YOU are the one making imbecilic snide remarks.
YOU are the one wasting bandwidth here.
So, I suppose you are claiming that YECs and biologists are discussing the exact same process when they talk about speciation?
There are biologists who are YEC.
But I have been over this before- several times- so perhaps you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to buy a vowel you clueless twat:
Biological Evolution- What is being debated
Choke on it again.
What then is the problem? Why can't they get along? Them being on the same page and all...
Evolutionitwits want to take speciation and falsely extrapolate that into universal common descent- even though all the data supports the YEC premise of baraminology.
At 1:51 PM,
Joe G said…
You missed it, Joe.
Nope- my assessment of your assholiness was spot on.
You are a drooling imbecile and apparently proud of it...
At 1:58 AM,
blipey said…
Hey, I'm just going with what you type, Joe.
Are you claiming that elapsed time is no factor in speciation? Otherwise, mention of time in regard to the issue is not imbecilic.
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Hey, I'm just going with what you type, Joe.
Yup you are going all over the place with it.
That is what assholes do.
Are you claiming that elapsed time is no factor in speciation?
I said the opposite:
Of course there is elapsed time- from one generation to the next is elapsed time.
Otherwise, mention of time in regard to the issue is not imbecilic.
It isn't time per se- it is generations.
And no one knows how many generations it takes to get a new species.
It could be one, or it could be thousands.
However you are an imbecile.
At 1:04 AM,
blipey said…
Could you please cite an example of anyone--anyone at all--showing or claiming that one generation is enough to show speciation.
Jesus, you're a fucknut. Cue Joe focusing on the "fucknut" and not on the obvious lunacy of his claim.
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Could you please cite an example of anyone--anyone at all--showing or claiming that one generation is enough to show speciation.
Please cite the peer-reviewed article which demonstrates how many generations speciation takes.
All I said was that no one knows and I bet you can't find anything that demonstrates we know.
It could be one generation-
For example bacteria engage in HGT.
Say we have this bacteria which divides and the newly formed cell absorbs some genes from some other bacteria- genes that make it very different than the parent.
A new species in one generation.
Then there are epigenetic factors to consider.
Say we move half of one population to a new environment.
This new environment contains nutrients that trigger a whole new suite of genes.
In one generation we could get offspring that are very different from their parents- a new species.
These would no longer be able to interbreed with the other half that was left in place.
A new species.
At 2:06 AM,
blipey said…
Alright, Joe. Let's play your game. Care to cite any evidence of non-bacterial speciation in one generation? If not, let's not talk about it. That's how it's done, right?
Or, maybe you fund a research project that takes tigers to an isolated island and then brings the first generation offspring together. What do you think the results would be?
Any idea on what the consensus is on one-generation speciation is?
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Alright, Joe. Let's play your game.
Erik you are the asshole playing games.
Care to cite any evidence of non-bacterial speciation in one generation?
I am sure endosymbiosis could account for that.
Say an amoeba engulfs a bacterium and keeps all or part of it around to help out- provide a new function.
If that amoeba replicates and the engulfed bacteria replcates along with it we now how heritable variation. And the new amoeba would be a new species in one generation.
Any idea on what the consensus is on one-generation speciation is?
I don't know nor do I care.
All of this is irrelevant to the OP.
IOW asshole once again you have taken a thread off-topic like the retarded little twerp you are.
Get back on-topic or fuck off.
At 3:19 PM,
blipey said…
Interesting, a claim on speciation is at issue and discussing Joe's claims on speciation is off limits. Nice.
At 6:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Interesting the TOPIC is about evolutionitwits not knowing their position and misrepresenting their opponents.
And you seem to be intent on doing just that.
As a matter of fact that is all you appear capable of doing.
As for speciation it is a fact that YECs accept it.
You made some vague remark about "elapsed time" and I pointed out that doesn't mean anything because one genration is elapsed time.
IOW asshole you were being an ignorant fucknut and once again I exposed it.
You think that by asking snide questions you can refute a claim.
That is how you "argue"- by asking a series of snide questions and with each question you prove you don't know what you are talking about and you appear to be the only one oblivious of that.
So tell you what.
Try having an intelligent discussion for once.
Try presenting some evidence and discussing it.
Try to support your position.
Try answering the questions people ask you.
Or just fuck off.
Post a Comment
<< Home