Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Detecting Design in a Biological Organism

The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):


It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things.
… (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements)
Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell.

Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5



However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.


The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19


Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.


But wait, there's more!

Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain-

Transcription and Translation-

Transcription:

You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout.

At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one.

This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA.

So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell. On to translation:

A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.


There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23



And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process.

Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration.

That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process.

What that demonstrates is that it takes far more than some imperfectly self-replicating molecules to constitute a living organism.

Those molecules must also be able to somehow produce the required chemical products for self-preservation and replication. This alone should give one pause when considering the materialistic view of the origins of living organism.

Couple that with how this is done and any scenario requiring reducibility to matter, energy & time, is itself reduced to a fairy-tale, full of imaginary narratives and fanciful stories.

To further cement the design inference biology textbooks tell us of alternative gene splicing, (molecular) chaperones and transit peptides (also called signal peptides, signal sequence

Alternative gene splicing refers to the process in which mRNA is edited before it leaves the nucleus to rendezvous with the ribosome.

Genes are littered with sequences called exons and introns. Introns (almost) always get cut out from the mRNA sequence. The remaining exons can be left to form as they are or any number may be cut out thus changing the configuration of the mRNA product.

This is how one gene can code for multiple products. Which is why the “gene count” for any one organism may not be an accurate depiction of the number of proteins and other molecules coded for by the parent DNA. It also defies an explanation reducible to matter, energy & time. (nor reducible to parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme)

Chaperones- as one article has it:

Molecular chaperones have an essential role in the regulation of protein conformation states -- the process during which transient or stable interactions with client proteins affects their conformation and activity. Chaperones capture unfolded polypeptides, stabilize intermediates, and prevent misfolded species from accumulating in stressed cells.-- Roles of Molecular Chaperones



Another tells us:

It has recently become clear that protein folding in the cellular environment is not a spontaneous, energy-independent process akin to that observed when chemically denatured purified polypeptides are refolded in vitro. Rather, in vivo protein folding strongly relies on accessory proteins known as molecular chaperones and foldases.--Molecular Chaperones and Foldases



IOW it has become clear that protein folding is not reducible to matter, energy & time.

That article goes on to say:

Molecular chaperones are a class of proteins that have been highly conserved in all kingdoms of life and identified in most organisms and cellular compartments examined to date. They are defined as proteins that help other polypeptides reach a proper conformation or cellular location without becoming part of the final structure.


Transit (signal) peptides, (N or C)-terminal extensions- these are interesting little starting sequences and tails that direct the protein to its proper destination. And if there is a membrane in the way it holds the key that allows the protein through.

Once at the destination this sequence gets cut off and is not part of the mature protein.

So there you have it- the basis for design detection in living organisms.

Let the evotard hand-waving begin...

49 Comments:

  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Shorter Joe:

    "ZOMG it's so complex! It's amazingly complex! It's stupendously complex!! It's so sooper-dooper complex my little mind can't comprehend it!!! Therefore design."

    Gee Joe, I didn't see one word in there about conscious purposeful design, or counterflow. Closest I saw was an analogy to parts of a sports car.

    You do know that analogies aren't reality, don't you Joe?

    No, you probably don't.

     
  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another prediction fulfilled!!!!

    Let the evotard hand-waving begin...

    Thanks Throton

    I know you don't understand the evidence but there it is. The counterflow is obvious to anyone with a grade-school education.

    Ya see transcription and translation require knowledge- knowledge that blind molecules do not have- what to transcribe, when to transcribe it- proof reading, error correction- these are not analogies. This is what happens.

    Alternative gene splicing- more knowledge required- what gets spliced? what gets put back together?

    As for your misunderstanding of analogies, well, that is typical seeing that your position doesn't have any!

    What the hell can you say?

    "Hey look at that destruction left by the tornado. Yeah living organisms are just like that!"

    Also, because apparently you still think your ignorance is some sort of refutation- it isn't that living organisms are complex. Only an infant, like you, thinks that.

    IOW your strawman is duly noted.

    Next I can comprehend it- that is the point you little freak.

    Obviously you can't otherwise you would have a testable hypothesis at the ready- one that supports your position.

    But as I have already told you your position can't even get the building blocks for a living organism without agency involvement.

    So all you have is to ignorantly flail away.

    You can't even muster a coherent response.

    Ya see to refute the design inference all you have to do is to actually step up with some positive evidence for your position.

    Show me that blind, undirected processes can account for the knowledge required by the macro-molecules in living organisms.

    Or just go stroke yourself because that would do more to help your position then continuing to expose your ignorance.

     
  • At 6:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cool when faced with the evidence Thortobn runs to another blog entry.

    Thorton is an intellectual coward...

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    About cowardice, um CSI...well, they're basically the same thing. Could you calculate the CSI o cake for us Joe?

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    About cowardice, um CSI...well, they're basically the same thing.

    Well you know what it is like to be a coward.

    But you haven't demonstrated any understanding of CSI.

    Could you calculate the CSI o cake for us Joe?

    Why?

    Are you really so stupid that you think a cake can arise without agency involvement?

     
  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, I don't think cake can spontaneously generate. However, you have failed to SHOW us that it can't. Please provide the calculations that SHOW that cake doesn't spontaneously generate. You are claiming that thee calculations can be done. Do they have to be done by someone smarter than you?

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, I don't think cake can spontaneously generate.

    That isn't what I said asshole.

    You have reading issues.

    However, you have failed to SHOW us that it can't.

    Show a negative?

    Thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.

    Please provide the calculations that SHOW that cake doesn't spontaneously generate. You are claiming that thee calculations can be done.

    I showed you how to do it.

    What part of that didn't you understand?

    Do they have to be done by someone smarter than you?

    Obviously it requires someone smarter than you.

    13 year olds can do this stuff and you can't.

    That is hilarious.

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You are incapable of showing that a cake doesn't spontaneously generate? The GREAT JOETARD? Unable to show that cake is designed? That's sad.

     
  • At 7:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are incapable of showing that a cake doesn't spontaneously generate?

    Obviously you are incapable of original thought.

    And obviously you are a twisted ignorant fuck.

    Unable to show that cake is designed?

    I did that.

    I showed cakes are designed by demonstrating they are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Tell me more about the CSI of the cake Joe.

    If you cut a piece of the cake and eat the slice, does the cake now have the same amount of CSI? Or less? How do you tell?

    Suppose I follow the directions all the way until I have a pan full of batter. The batter has CSI, right?

    Now I do the last step and bake the batter in the oven for 40 min. Does the resultant cake have the same CSI as the batter? Or more? How do you tell?

    What happens if I put the same bowl of batter in my backyard tool shed. Lightening then hits the shed, causing a fire that cooks the batter into cake. Does that cake have more CSI, since the last step was not part of the design? Where did the extra CSI come from?

    Joe G, the Pillsbury Dough-head.

     
  • At 6:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No you didn't, Joe. You said it could be done, then failed to do it every time you were asked to show your work.

    You said that a cake can be shown to be designed because it has CSI.

    JoeTard says a cake has CSI.

    When asked how one knows CSI is present, JoeTard said that it must contain 500 bits of Information.

    JoeTard says a cake has more than 500 bits of Information.

    When asked to calculate I(cake), JoeTard lists a bill of materials and counts the bits used to type the words.

    JoeTard provides a (the?) bill of materials. This list does contain 500 bits of Information (as defined but left unexplained by JoeTard).

    JoeTard later says that a definition or bill of materials is an example of how to calculate I but not necessarily the I of the object (cake, in this case) itself.

    So, did JoeTard calculate I(cake) or not? It seems that no one knows, even JoeTard.

    So, perhaps you could clear this up one and for all, Joe.

    SHOW us the CSI of a cake.

     
  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tell me more about the CSI of the cake Joe.

    Why? Obviously you are too stupid to understand what I post.

    13 year olds can understand what I have been telling you, so you must be the problem.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Do you think that a cake can arise without agency involvement?

    Answer that question or fuck off you little ignorant faggot.

    As I said 13 year olds understand what I have been telling you.

    So obviously the problem is with you.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Do you think that a cake can arise without agency involvement?

    Problem is Joe, you keep telling us you can identify design just by examining the object and without any prior knowledge of agency involvement. Yet when I asked you for the methodology for doing so, like telling the naturally occurring river rock vs. the manufactured copy, you pissed your pants and ran the other way.

    So far the only skill you seem to have is being able to identify design if someone has already told you the object is designed. Like the Invisible Boy from Mystery Men - he could only turn invisible when no one was watching.

    I noticed you ignored all my questions about the cake CSI too. Do you really think blustering and calling people names hides the worthlessness of your arguments or your inability to answer?

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Answer the fucking question you piece of shit:

    Do you think that a cake can arise without agency involvement?

    Yes or no

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Problem is Joe, you keep telling us you can identify design just by examining the object and without any prior knowledge of agency involvement.

    No Thorton- you are the problem.

    You think your ignorance and stupidity are meaningful discourse.

    And I find that funny as hell.

    Yet when I asked you for the methodology for doing so,

    I provided the methodology for doing so.

    Again your ignorance, dishonesty and stupidity are not refutations.

    So far the only skill you seem to have is being able to identify design if someone has already told you the object is designed.

    And your skills are dishonesty, ignorance and stupidty.

    I noticed you ignored all my questions about the cake CSI too.

    You ignore everything.

    You have never demonstrated an understanding of what I post.

    Yet 13 year olds do.

    So the problem must be you.

    The topic of this thread is "Detecting Design in a Biological Organism"- data was presented.

    Deal with the data and stay on topic.

    No more off-topic ignorance will be posted.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I know you don't understand the evidence but there it is. The counterflow is obvious to anyone with a grade-school education.

    So to an ignorant dumbass like you with a grade-school education, your subjective opinion is that the design is 'obvious'. To professional genetic and biological scientists with graduate degrees who have actually studies the topic in detail, the natural mechanisms which created the processes and have been objectively tested are just as obvious.

    I'll take the scientific consensus over your dumbass ignorance on the matter, if you don't mind. Even if you do.

     
  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Throton- the ignorance is all yours.

    Ya see as I have told you you cannot even get the basic building blocks required without agency involvement.

    IOW your position can't even get started!

    And another bald assertiuon based on ignorance:

    To professional genetic and biological scientists with graduate degrees who have actually studies the topic in detail, the natural mechanisms which created the processes and have been objectively tested are just as obvious.

    Then you should have no problem pointing that out.

    Yet you haven't because you can't.

    There aren't any studies- never mine details- demonstrating BLIND, UNDIRECTED PROCESSES can account for the evidence presented.

    IOW asshead there isn't any consensus.

    Do you really think your ignorance helps you?

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hey, Joe. I have answered your question multiple times. I have even explained how my answer relates to your lack of an answer to he very same question.

    I seem to be the only person who has answered your question (including you).

    So perhaps you can tell us the methodology for determining the answer that you and I both agree on?

    I've answered your question. Now how about answering mine? Or are you more interested in name-calling?

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Ya see as I have told you you cannot even get the basic building blocks required without agency involvement.

    All you've show is that we can't get human created copies without human agency involvement. Just like we can't get human created replicas of the naturally occurring river rock without agency involvement.

    The agency involvement required to make a copy tells us absolutely nothing about the origin of the original.

    Looks like you're as big a dumbass when it comes to logic as you are at genetics and biology.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All you've show is that we can't get human created copies without human agency involvement.

    What the fuck type of ignorant utterance is that?

    You get more pathetic every day.

    Scientists have demonstrated that the bare building blocks- nucleotides- require agency involvement in order to form.

    That is a scientific fact and is in peer-review.

    And no one was making a "copy"- they were trying for the nucleotides- and succeeded, with their involvement.

    But all that is moot because once again you have failed to provide something to support your claims.

     
  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey Erik,

    You are full of shit.

    You ran around- like the asshole you are- thinking I was saying the definition of an aardvark equals the information content of an aardvark.

    IOW you are a full of shit piece of shit.

    You throw your ignorance around as if it means something but NEVER have you demonstrated an understanding of anything I post.

    You are a fucking clown, there is a reason for that- shame on me for wasting my time trying to teach a clown about science and investigation.

    As for answering my questions- with answers that demonstrate an understanding of what was presented- please provide the evidence for that.

    You can't even ask relevant questions- which prove you are a clueless dolt here for one purpose- badger me with your ignorance and insolence.

    So how about it assholes- do you two freaks think a cake can arise without agency involvement?

    If you do then you need to seek help real quick- and if you don't then you don't have anything else to say on the matter.

     
  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thorton,

    Just to be clear-

    The scientists were trying to get nucleotides to form (by themselves) by trying to replicate a pre-biotic environment.

    What they ended up demonstrating that even given the loaded conditions they still had to get involved during the process. Without their involvement nothing would have happened- ie no nucleotides.

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    The scientists were trying to get nucleotides to form (by themselves) by trying to replicate a pre-biotic environment.

    What they ended up demonstrating that even given the loaded conditions they still had to get involved during the process. Without their involvement nothing would have happened- ie no nucleotides.


    That of course says nothing about the ability of natural processes to form nucleotides, you moron. It only says that particular experiment didn't accomplish it.

    Plenty of people tried and failed to build an airplane before the Wright brothers succeeded, but that didn't mean heavier-than-air powered flight was impossible.

    I don't know how you do it, but each day you manage to post something more stupid than the last.

     
  • At 7:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That of course says nothing about the ability of natural processes to form nucleotides, you moron. It only says that particular experiment didn't accomplish it.

    1- "Natural processes" is meaningless. Design is a natural process.

    The debate is about blind, undirected processes vs planned, directed processes.

    I have been over and over this but you still don't want to get it- ie willful ignorance.

    2- That experiment demonstrated it takes agency involvement just to get the nucleotides.

    3- IOW there isn't any evidence that demonstrates blind, undirected processes can create the nucletides required.

    Never mind getting all four in the same place.

    Never mind that the creation of some would lead to the destruction of others.

    Do you understand that?

    And thanks for admitting that your position does not have any positive evidence- just promissory notes.

    BTW I am sure what I post seems stupid to a moron like yourself. It just proves my point.

    Thanks again...

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, the following has nothing to do with what you said:

    "You ran around- like the asshole you are- thinking I was saying the definition of an aardvark equals the information content of an aardvark."

    Unfortunately, it was you who said this. That's right! You said something that has no connection whatsoever to the issue you were raising. Congrats!

    To revisit: JoeTard saidthat blipey has never weighed in on whether he thinks a cake is designed or not.

    Blipey has given his opinion on this very question on multiple threads on this very blog.

    When made aware of this fact, JoeTard responds with: "You ran around- like the asshole you are- thinking I was saying the definition of an aardvark equals the information content of an aardvark."

    Completely, but unsurprisingly, missing the point.

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow, JoeTard. That's nice of you. Copying my form of address. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    JoeTard: "Thorton,

    Just to be clear-..."

    Thanks, Joe.

     
  • At 7:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Now, how about a methodology for determining the CSI of a river rock and its copy?

    Do we need to go into a discussion of the search for extra-solar planets?

    Could you describe a methodology used to hunt for such? It's VERY relevant to your current claims.

     
  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You are a twisted fuck.

    Do you understand that?

    I used the definition of an aardvark as an example of how to measure information in a thread about measuring information.

    Everything was explained.

    It was explained in such a way that 13 year olds understand what I said.

    All that demonstrates is your inability to follow along.

    As for the cake- you answered with some nonsense about spontaneous generation- which can mean any number of things.

    The question is do you think that a cake can arise without agency involvement?

    Yes or no

     
  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now, how about a methodology for determining the CSI of a river rock and its copy?

    What river rock? What copy?

    And why don't you understand I covered that already in a previous blog?

    You know the one about measuring information- the one that you bastardized.

    Do we need to go into a discussion of the search for extra-solar planets?

    You are not capable of such a discussion.

    Could you describe a methodology used to hunt for such?

    It is called OBSERVATION and INVESTIGATION.

     
  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's nice of you. Copying my form of address.

    Now what are you trying to take credit for you little faggot ego-maniac?

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Cake. CSI. Please combine the two.

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. River rock and its copy. How will you investigate them?

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Extra-solar planets. Describe the methodology used to search for same.

     
  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Extra-solar planets. Methodology for determining CSI of a river rock and its copy. Compare.

     
  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. If I do explain all these things, will you address my comments or continue to ignore anything you don't want to hear?

     
  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Do you need me to explain all these things?

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe. River rock and its copy. How will you investigate them?

    I wouldn't.

    I only investigate relevant things.

    Joe. Cake. CSI. Please combine the two.

    Depending on the cake I would say they already are combined.

    Joe. Extra-solar planets. Describe the methodology used to search for same.

    Make an observation and investigate it.

    If I do explain all these things, will you address my comments or continue to ignore anything you don't want to hear?

    You are incapable of explaining anything dealing with science.

    As for ignoring- well that is your MO.

    I am still waiting for you to demonstrate an understanding of science and what I post.

     
  • At 9:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Please tell us again how you've written a lesson plan that would be accepted in a school district. Does your lesson plan rely mostly on evasion and phrase, "Hey pussy, if you wanted to know the CSI of a river you should ask your 13 year old brother you fuckin' dumbass. I don't care if you're only 16! Shut the fuck up you teenage retard! I don't care if your dad is the Super, he doesn't run this class! I said SHUT. THE. Fuck. UP!!!"

    Is that about how your lesson plan goes?

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please tell us again how you've written a lesson plan that would be accepted in a school district.

    I am not answerable to you- remember?

    And you're not even smart enough to be in our middle-school so you don't have to worry.

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you need to learn that when your ego makes you put words on the interwebs, people will address them. They may even ask you questions. Get used to it.

     
  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you need to learn that when your ego makes you put words on the interwebs, people will address them.

    Umm it's a lesson you need to learn.

    You never seem to do anything beyond mindless badgering.

    If you call that "addressing" what I post, well I find that totally hilarious.

    They may even ask you questions.

    And if the questions are relevant I will answer them. Get used to it.

    But in order to ask relevant questions you first need to demonstrate an understanding of the topic.

    Too bad clown and science go together like oil and water...

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you missed again--which is funny because this one actually was about you. Mostly when you make every comment about yourself, you miss. However, this one you could have owned all to your lonesome.

    If you put words on the internet you can't get upset when people question them. Now try to be a good little boy and stop pouting.

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you put words on the internet you can't get upset when people question them.

    I don't get upset when people question them.

    You are under the mistaken impression that your ignorant badgering is something worth answering.

    You have never demonstrated an understanding of anything I have said.

    And you have never provided any positive evidence for your position.

    I find that interesting when all you have to do to prove I am a dumbass is to actually support your position and yet you can't do it.

    You are forced to flail away and wonder why I don't respond to your ignorant rants.

    "Look Joe isn't responding to me"

    Could be because you are a fucking asshole- don't ya think?

     
  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you don't respond to anyone. This doesn't bother me. It's just worth pointing out.

     
  • At 8:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you don't respond to anyone.

    That's a lie.

    I have responded to you- you are just too stupid to understand what I post.

    I have responded to Zachriel and refuted his nonsense- he refused to listen.

    I have responded to oleg even though he just attempts to bring the threads off-topic.

    This blog is full of responses to people.

    You, OTOH, don't respond.

    When asked if you understand what I post you usually respond with shit that proves you don't- or you just don't respond.

    Oh and don't think I treat regular people the way I treat you.

    To me you are a freak who deserves to be tarred and feathered.

    You badger your opponents with ignorance and then throw a hissy fit when things don't go your retarded way.

    I'm just pointing it out...

     
  • At 11:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, remember to be original in your posts! If you're merely going to repeat phrases others use, you really don't get any style points. I know that's what you're after--nobody has ever thought you were cool and the interwebs were the perfect place to prove all of them wrong. But you're missing your chance to show them the true TARD-STYLE. Sell out, Joe. Go for it. Prove you don't have to use curse words to be cool. Prove you can batter them with style. Fuck the substance!

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You should heed your advice.

    Have you ever posted anything of substance?

    Or is it that all you can do is pepper your opponents with your ignorant badgering?

    And why is it that you have never demonstrated an understanding of the topics you respond to?

    Do you really think acting t]like an isolent retard gives you style points?

    Do you ever wonder why I am the only opponent who lets you post on his/ her blog?

    Come on clownie you called DaveScot when you were around Texas to set up a visit.

    Just tell me when you will be in New Hampshire and where you will be performing or staying and we can have a little visit.

    Or are you a chickenshit?

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I posted on how to detect design in living organisms.

    And so far both Thorton and blipey have choked on it.

    Another prediction fulfilled.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home