Intelligent Reasoning

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

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Can the "Theory" of Evolution even Muster a Testable Hypothsis?

-
I have been involved in these debates for decades. And not once has any evolutionist shown enough integrity to produce a testable hypothsis along with positive (supporting) evidence for their position.

Is the theory of evolution really that barren and devoid of content?

So how about it- can any evo produce such a testable hypothesis here?

81 Comments:

  • At 1:10 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function.

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Using evolution and common descent you can predict things like the fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.

    As detailed here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

    The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
    This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.

     
  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function.

    Evolution isn't being debated you moron and evolution doesn't predict that anyway.

     
  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Using evolution and common descent you can predict things like the fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.

    "Evolution" isn't being debated you moron and those findings are OK with baraminology.

    You don't have any fucking clue, do you? You just mindlessly spew shit as if it means something.

    Fucking amazing...

     
  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


    Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.

    So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullshit it is.

     
  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for."

    Or what? Joe does not believe in evolution? Well I got news for you. IOW it matters not a jot.

     
  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "and those findings are OK with baraminology."

    But the question is are those findings OK with ID?

    If so, you have to wonder about the designers motives.

    Don't you?

     
  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for."

    OM:
    Or what?

    Or it proves that evos are intellectual cowards and tehir position is total bullshit.

     
  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "and those findings are OK with baraminology."

    OM:
    But the question is are those findings OK with ID?

    Yup.

    OM:
    If so, you have to wonder about the designers motives.



    Nope.

     
  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Nope."

    Unknown unknowns.

     
  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

     
  • At 4:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Are there any findings out there which can be used to differentiate
    ID from Evolution from baraminology?

    If not, you might as well just become an Darwinist until you find some actual data that shows such a difference. Until they you are simply arguing in favor of evolution and common descent with all your "common design" blah.

    And as I noted in earlier "Using evolution and common descent you can predict things like the fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome."

    Can ID predict any such similar thing? Does "common design" make similar predictions? If not, then ID's predictive power is obviously less then that of evolution.

    Does ID predict that the three patterns mentioned will found anywhere in the spider monkey genome or not? What does common design have to say about that?

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Are there any findings out there which can be used to differentiate
    ID from Evolution from baraminology?


    You are just a fucking retarded asshole, aren't you?

    It is ID from the blind watchmaker from baraminology.

    ID is OK with baraminology. And I have told you how to differentiate between ID and the blind watchmaker you ignorant fuck.

    OM:
    If not, you might as well just become an Darwinist until you find some actual data that shows such a difference.

    There isn't any evidence/ data to support that position. And you have proven that by your refusal to post any.

    OM:
    And as I noted in earlier "Using evolution and common descent you can predict things like the fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome."

    It doesn't have anything to do with common descent nor the blind watchmaker.

    OM:
    Can ID predict any such similar thing? Does "common design" make similar predictions? If not, then ID's predictive power is obviously less then that of evolution.

    Fuck you- blind watchmaker NOT "evolution". Pull your head out of your ass.

    OM:
    Does ID predict that the three patterns mentioned will found anywhere in the spider monkey genome or not? What does common design have to say about that?

    And I am STILL waiting for a testable hypothesis and positiove, supporting evidence for your position.

    Just saying "evolution" proves that you are an equivocating and ignorant wanker.

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please present the evidence/ data which demonstrates blind, undirected chemical processes can constuct functional multi-protein systems.

    I say you can't becauyse such evidence/ data doesn't exist and that proves your position is devoid of content.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Neither "evolution" nor the blind watchmaker predicted spider monkies nor white tail deer.

    "Evolution" may be able to explain- post hoc, ad hoc- the genetic differences observed but it did not "predict" them.

     
  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    ""Evolution" may be able to explain- post hoc, ad hoc- the genetic differences observed but it did not "predict" them."

    And how does ID explain those very same differences?

    It can't can it?

     
  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Please present the evidence/ data which demonstrates blind, undirected chemical processes can constuct functional multi-protein systems."

    If ID is not anti-evolution there is no need to present such, right?

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Please present the evidence/ data which demonstrates blind, undirected chemical processes can constuct functional multi-protein systems."

    OM:
    If ID is not anti-evolution there is no need to present such, right?

    ID is anti- blind, undirected chemical processes you ignorant fuck. And "evolution" can mean several different things and only one equates with blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Again I have been over this with you but you seem to be too fucking stupid to understand it.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ""Evolution" may be able to explain- post hoc, ad hoc- the genetic differences observed but it did not "predict" them."

    OM:
    And how does ID explain those very same differences?

    Nice of you to try to change the subject.

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a coward.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Nice of you to try to change the subject."

    Way to avoid answering the question on a topic you were happy to address a few posts ago.

    Now that I'm asking you to put up to the same level of detail all of a sudden I'm changing the subject.

    How transparent.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "ID is anti- blind, undirected chemical processes you ignorant fuck."

    When ID has some evidence that such chemical processes are in fact directed then by all means present it!

    It seems to me it's just a case of belief, that you believe that there must have been intelligence involve at the origin of life. You don't have any actual evidence. Do you?

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Way to avoid answering the question on a topic you were happy to address a few posts ago.

    Your position has nothing asshole. And taht is why you have to act like an asshole- except it isn't an act, is it?

    OM:
    Now that I'm asking you to put up to the same level of detail all of a sudden I'm changing the subject.

    Your position doesn't have any details.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Evolution" may be able to explain- post hoc, ad hoc- the genetic differences observed but it did not "predict" them."

    How does ID explain the observed differences?

    Let me guess, they were "designed"?

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Your position doesn't have any details."

    Nope, no details at all. The fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome is not a detail at all.

    Funny how ID cannot explain that rationally but undirected non-ID evolution can. You've not even attempted to explain it, you are just brushing it off. Typical for ID I guess. Can't address it, pretend it does not exist.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID is anti- blind, undirected chemical processes you ignorant fuck."

    OM:
    When ID has some evidence that such chemical processes are in fact directed then by all means present it!

    Already have! OTOH you don't have anything- you can't even produce the methodology used to determine the chemical processes that take place in living organisms are blind and undirected.

    OM:
    It seems to me it's just a case of belief, that you believe that there must have been intelligence involve at the origin of life. You don't have any actual evidence. Do you?

    Sterange that I have presented the evidence and you have failed to produce any evidence that supports your position.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "OTOH you don't have anything- you can't even produce the methodology used to determine the chemical processes that take place in living organisms are blind and undirected."

    So now "chemical processes" are directed individually by the designer? As there are untold trillions upon trillions per second your designer must sure be busy!

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Sterange that I have presented the evidence and you have failed to produce any evidence that supports your position."

    Then write it up and send it to Nature or a similar journal. You claim to have "evidence" that ID can explain the origin of life. Many many scientists would be interested in the supporting details for such a claim.

    Go on Joe, perhaps Dembski will let you blog on UD if you are successful where every other ID supporter has failed.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your position doesn't have any details.

    OM:
    Nope, no details at all.

    I know. Thank you for finally admitting it.

    OM:
    The fact that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome is not a detail at all.

    It does NOT support blind, undirected chemical processes.

    OM:
    Funny how ID cannot explain that rationally but undirected non-ID evolution can.

    Undirecetd non-ID evolution doesn't have anything to support it.

    You can't even produce a testable hypothesis.

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

    OM:
    How does ID explain the observed differences?

    Let me guess, they were "designed"?


    Is ID supposed to explain it? ID doesn't try to explain everything you moron.

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "It does NOT support blind, undirected chemical processes."

    What evidence do you have that chemical processes are directed by an intelligence?

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What evidence do you have that chemical processes are directed by an intelligence?

    Everything I have already presented to you.

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

    OM:
    So now "chemical processes" are directed individually by the designer?

    No, you are an ignorant asshole.

    The PROGRAM direct the processes.

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

    "Sterange that I have presented the evidence and you have failed to produce any evidence that supports your position."

    OM:
    Then write it up and send it to Nature or a similar journal.

    That is where I got it from, moron.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Is ID supposed to explain it? ID doesn't try to explain everything you moron."

    Then as evolution can explain such I suggest that evolution is the theory with more explanatory power.

    If ID cannot explain the observed pattern of DNA sequences across multiple species then evolution is the better theory.

    As these patterns make no sense when considered under "common design" then ID cannot be true with regard to the organisms and DNA sequences in question.

    A couple down, plenty to go. We'll knock them down one by one if you like.

    Funny how ID can explain everything according to you (otherwise how can ID be a better theory then evolution) but when we get to a specific observed fact that can easily be explained via common descent and evolution ID suddenly never tried to explain at in the first place!

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For all of OM's bluster the coward just refuses to produce a testable hypothesis and suppporting evidence for its position.

    Go figure...

    There isn't anything in any science journal that supports it. That is for sure.

     
  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "The PROGRAM direct the processes."

    Funny that. Every other type of program I've experience with does not affect the substrate it's running on. I.E the physical make up of the computer.

    But now according to you the PROGRAM does that in biological organisms.

    In any case Joe, what evidence do you have that EVOLUTION was not the PROGRAMMER you mention?

    Any actual evidence that it was not?

    Or is it that PROGRAMS need PROGRAMMERS and that's it?

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "That is where I got it from, moron."

    And do the authors of the original work agree with your conclusions?

    In any case, you can write a review article that looks at other papers and recast them in your preferred light.

    Are you capable of doing such? I would suggest that leaving out the swearing would aid your chances of publication!

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So just to be clear, ID cannot speak to the patterns of observed DNA we find in extant organisms?

    I'm glad you admit that. It makes a mockery of the claim that DNA was designed.

    If DNA was designed then why would three specific DNA patterns be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome?

    Oh, the designer works in mysterious ways, is that it?

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then as evolution can explain such I suggest that evolution is the theory with more explanatory power.

    Except "evolution" isn't being debated and it doesn't explain it at all- ad hoc is not an explanation.

    OM:
    If ID cannot explain the observed pattern of DNA sequences across multiple species then evolution is the better theory.

    BLIND WATCHMAKER not "evolution" and the blind watchmaker doesn't have any evidence.

    OM:
    As these patterns make no sense when considered under "common design" then ID cannot be true with regard to the organisms and DNA sequences in question.

    Common design explains the SIMILARITIES, dipshit.

    OM:
    Funny how ID can explain everything according to you

    Liar. I never said ID explains everything.

    And common descent does not explain thie finding- ad hoc is not an explanation, moron.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So just to be clear, ID cannot speak to the patterns of observed DNA we find in extant organisms?

    So just to be clear, your position cannot speak to the patterns of observed DNA we find in extant organisms, without resorting to ad hoc bullshit.

    OM:
    I'm glad you admit that. It makes a mockery of the claim that DNA was designed.

    There isn't any evidence that DNA can arise via blind, undirected chemical processes so I gues we don't exist.

    OM:
    If DNA was designed then why would three specific DNA patterns be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome?

    Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And do the authors of the original work agree with your conclusions?

    They sure as hell can't tie it to the blind watchmaker.

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Except "evolution" isn't being debated and it doesn't explain it at all- ad hoc is not an explanation."

    Common descent explains the observed pattern.

    "BLIND WATCHMAKER not "evolution" and the blind watchmaker doesn't have any evidence."

    Lenski.

    "Common design explains the SIMILARITIES, dipshit. "

    Yet common descent explains both the similarities and the differences. Common design cannot.

    "And common descent does not explain thie finding- ad hoc is not an explanation, moron."

    I guess it's a total mystery then. ID can't explain it. Common descent cannot explain it.

    Perhaps you should go back to the original webpage I linked to for the explanation Joe. It's all there for the taking.

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "They sure as hell can't tie it to the blind watchmaker."

    I.E. No, they don't.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The PROGRAM direct the processes."

    OM:
    Funny that. Every other type of program I've experience with does not affect the substrate it's running on. I.E the physical make up of the computer.

    That is because we ain't that technologically advanced.

    OM:
    But now according to you the PROGRAM does that in biological organisms.

    That is what it was designed to do.

    OM:
    In any case Joe, what evidence do you have that EVOLUTION was not the PROGRAMMER you mention?

    Evolution is a RESULT you moron.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh"

    The "most likely" in your answer indicates some level of doubt.

    Is there a way that your level of doubt can be minimised? Perhaps by doing some *work*?

    Your answer is perfect, it sums up ID completely.

    If X is present, the designer wanted it present.
    If X is not present, the designer did not want it present.

    This is why ID explains everything and nothing.

    "Liar. I never said ID explains everything."

    But it does Joe. A minute ago you had no idea and did't care about the observed pattern, and when I press you on it suddenly ID explains it!

    Therefore ID explains everything but adds nothing.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "That is because we ain't that technologically advanced. "

    You don't have *any* evidence for that claim.

    "Evolution is a RESULT you moron."

    Evolution is a process.

    Joe, programs require programmers. Programmers evolved.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Common descent explains the observed pattern.

    That's what you say however there still isn't any genetic data whiuch demonstrates changes to the genome can account for the morphological and physiological changes required.

    "BLIND WATCHMAKER not "evolution" and the blind watchmaker doesn't have any evidence."

    OM:
    Lenski.

    He didn't demonstrate blind, undirected processes didit.

    OM:
    Yet common descent explains both the similarities and the differences.

    Strange that the "evidence" for common descent is the SIMILARITIES.

    OM:
    ID can't explain it. Common descent cannot explain it.

    ID is OK with Common Descent you moron.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Evolution is a RESULT you moron."

    OM:
    Evolution is a process.

    Nope- random variation is a process. Random mutation is a process. Differential reproduction is a process. Heredity is a process.

    Evolution is a result:

    "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of
    an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."


    38 nobel laureates are more believeable than you will ever be.

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

    OM:
    The "most likely" in your answer indicates some level of doubt.

    That is science.

    "Liar. I never said ID explains everything."

    OM:
    But it does Joe.

    Except it doesn't.

    OM:
    Therefore ID explains everything but adds nothing.

    It doesn't explain everything and with ID we are looking at a totally different type of biology, so it does add something.

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "He didn't demonstrate blind, undirected processes didit. "

    No, but he did have the security cameras running while the experiment was ongoing and as such they know that no "designer" sneaked in at night and edited the DNA.

    Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, of course....

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "38 nobel laureates are more believeable than you will ever be."

    Funny how you refuse to believe people who are respected in their field but fawn at the feet of Dembski who has a reputation of zero in biology.

     
  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "That is science. "

    No, in fact science is not making it up as you go along.

    This: ""Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh""

    Is not science. It's groundless speculation.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    ""Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh""

    Science as done by a 4 year old! LOL.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ""Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh""

    OM:
    Science as done by a 4 year old!

    No, science done FOR a 4 year old.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That is science. "

    OM:
    No, in fact science is not making it up as you go along.

    Science is tentative and your position makes it up as it goes.

    ""Most likely because the design of the spider monkey didn't require that DNA- duh""

    OM:
    Is not science. It's groundless speculation.

    It is an OBSERVATION. And obviously true, so hardly speculation.

     
  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "38 nobel laureates are more believeable than you will ever be."

    OM:
    Funny how you refuse to believe people who are respected in their field...

    Another lie. I believe the EVIDENCE and the SCIENTIFIC DATA.

    And the fact that you have failed to produce any tells me you can't.

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He didn't demonstrate blind, undirected processes didit.

    OM:
    No, but he did have the security cameras running while the experiment was ongoing and as such they know that no "designer" sneaked in at night and edited the DNA.

    Not required, asshole.

    You still don't have any evidence to support your position.

     
  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM- this:

    http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

    Is the offerings of a don lindsay- not a credible source.

    He once told me that the vision system could evolve in a handful of mutations but when I asked to to name them or support that claim, he never did.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Joe, programs require programmers.

    Yes I know.

    OM:
    Programmers evolved.

    From other programmers.

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    OM:
    Funny that. Every other type of program I've experience with does not affect the substrate it's running on. I.E the physical make up of the computer


    That is because we ain't that technologically advanced.

    OM:
    You don't have *any* evidence for that claim.

    YOU just said it, moron- we don't have it. If we could we would.

    What the fuck?

     
  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "He once told me that the vision system could evolve in a handful of mutations but when I asked to to name them"

    What do you mean "name" them?

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    What do you mean "name" them?

    The mutations- he should be able to tell me what they were.

    Otherwise he shouldn't be spouting off that a handful can do it.

     
  • At 5:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "The mutations- he should be able to tell me what they were. "

    Can you give me an example of such a "named" mutation?

    For example, you could say: "A mutation in the “shank3 gene”"

    Or you could say "A mutation caused the skin to crease".

    Do you want the names of specific genes involved or a series of plausible mutations that could lead to the eye?

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The mutations- he should be able to tell me what they were.

    Otherwise he shouldn't be spouting off that a handful can do it.

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system


    Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:


    "Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements."



    IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

    Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

    I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I see you've already made your mind up. So no need for me to bother.

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Translation:

    OM is a coward who couldn't support his position if his life depended on it.



    Thank you for proving my point.


    I guess Anthony Flew had his mind made up already too- oh that's right, he was a hard-core atheist and ID denier until he could longer deny the evidence and he switched to ID.

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "OM is a coward who couldn't support his position if his life depended on it."

    No, rather I'm a realist. If I thought there was the slightest chance of changing your mind I'd do what I said I'd do. But you've clearly made up your mind in advance so why should I bother?

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

    "OM is a coward who couldn't support his position if his life depended on it."

    OM:
    No, rather I'm a realist.

    Nope, you are a piece of shit coward- and it is you who alreay has its mind made up- IOW there isn't any chance of you changing your mind.

    And if your position had the positive evidence to support it it wouldn't be a bother for your to present it. It is only a "bother" if you have to make shit up that you cant support.

    So just admit it- you are a liar and a coward.

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "IOW there isn't any chance of you changing your mind."

    When you've finished giving your detailed intelligent design explanation for, say, hemoglobin to the same level of detail which you demand from evolutionary biologists and after backing it up with the same amount of supporting evidence that you expect of an evolutionary explanation then perhaps you'll be able to change my mind about, say, hemoglobin and it's origin.

    For example.

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you are OK with the fact you cannot produce a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for your position.

    At least ID gives you assholes the first shot at finding a solution- not gives- MANDATES- your position be given the first shot. But even after the total failure of your position you still won't consider ID.

    I guess Anthony Flew was a rare breed- an open-minded atheist.

     
  • At 7:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And if Lenski's experiments are indicative of the powers of the blind watchmaker, your position is in worse shape than I thought.

     
  • At 7:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joseph,
    If intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems, what is that explanation?

    You know, the "story" part of "let me tell you a story". It'd be a disappointed crowd if the story teller simply said "let me tell you a story" and that was it. Everybody go home.

    What *is* the intelligent design explanation of irreducible complexity in biological systems?

    For the sake of argument, I'll accept it as the "best explanation " but what *is* it? I'd like to know what it is I'm accepting for the sake of argument.

    Do you perhaps teach this secret story at your "intelligent design awareness days"?

     
  • At 7:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Story? Science by story-telling!

    Only an evotard would accept and want such a thing.

    As for the rest of your rant, well I covered that also- give us 150 years and the resources your position has had and we will give you much more than a "story".

    There is a ton of work to do to understand the design. It is more difficult given that the design we are trying to understand with respect to ID is way over our heads.

    So run along and play in traffic. Scientifically illiterate cowards like you have nothing to fear from science.

     
  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "It's a totally different type of biology"

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If design constitutes the best explanation for Stonehenge, what is that explanation?

    "Well life wasn't hard enough on us so we had to carve out and move these huge stones around over more than a hundred miles. We were going to move them back but Ork got another idea but no one liked him so we killed him and ate him.

    But we didn't cook him so most of us died. We no longer had the manpower to move them back so we set them up where they stand now."

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Only an evotard would accept and want such a thing."

    When you say "it was programmed" as your "explanation" for cellular differentiation then that's the very definition of a "just so story".

    It seems that ID is happy with it's "just so story" as that's all there is for ID.

    "How did the eye originate?"

    "It was designed".

    "How did cellular differentiation originate"?

    "It was programmed".

    If they are not just so stories then I don't know what is.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "If design constitutes the best explanation for Stonehenge, what is that explanation?"

    For example, one avenue of investigation is the religious rites and rituals of the people who lived at the time who no doubt built the stones and this can be investigated and perhaps provide clues as to "why" they built it.

    And that's exactly what cannot happen with ID, by definition, as you cannot investigate the designer because "ID is not about the designer".

    So your analogy fails, hard.

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    When you say "it was programmed" as your "explanation" for cellular differentiation then that's the very definition of a "just so story".

    As opposed to your position's "explanation" of "it just happened"?

    And as I said saying it was designed means we are looking at a "totally different type of biology", and obviously you are too stupid to understand that.

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

    OM:
    For example, one avenue of investigation is the religious rites and rituals of the people who lived at the time who no doubt built the stones and this can be investigated and perhaps provide clues as to "why" they built it.

    Your story is as verifiable as mine.

    OM:
    And that's exactly what cannot happen with ID, by definition, as you cannot investigate the designer because "ID is not about the designer".

    And more ignorant spewage. Go figure.

    One more time for the asshole- ID is not about the designer. ID does not prevent anyone from trying to figure out who the designer(s) was/ is.

    As I said many times the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And that is exactly how it is done in archaeology.

    BTW IDists have figured out part of the "why".

    Stonehenge researchers don't know who, nor how, nor why and they have been at it for centuries.

    And your position still doesn't have anything.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is a ton of work to do to understand the design. It is more difficult given that the design we are trying to understand with respect to ID is way over our heads.

    So run along and play in traffic. Scientifically illiterate cowards like you have nothing to fear from science.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home