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

Thursday, March 03, 2011

RichTard Hughes- Another Day, Another Lie

-
RichTard Hughes is lying again- different day, different lie:

Funny how ID_Guy and Joe are both barking up the same stupid tree - mutations only cause harm!

I never said nor implied such a thing. IOW RichTard, you are a liar. That seems to be the evotard way- lie, just lie.

In a later post Richtard exposes his ignorance as if his ignorance is meaningful discourse:

The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!

The answer is the designer didn't need to fuck with anything-> built-in responses to environmental cues and all.

Geez Richtard I have only been over that many times with you. You must be proud of your willful ignorance.

The evotard motto- "Since we can't beat them, we will lie about them".

56 Comments:

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I never said nor implied such a thing. IOW RichTard, you are a liar."

    My apologies ID Guy.

    Can mutations be beneficial? Yes or no.

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

    "I never said nor implied such a thing. IOW RichTard, you are a liar."

    RichTard:
    My apologies ID Guy.

    That's right, your lie included him also.

    RichTard:
    Can mutations be beneficial? Yes or no.

    Yes or no.

    Ya see, tardo, beneficial is a relative word. What is beneficial in one environment is neutral or detrimental in another- for the same organism.

    That is one of the reasons Dan Dennett wrote/ said:
    "There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." And that is because it all fucking depends (on many variables).

    A mutation for color vision doesn't do any good for organisms living in a dark cave.

    But put you, with your little dick, in a dark cave and at least the other thing you are going to fuck won't laugh at you.

    Also the mutations that caused your diminished mental capacity are beneficial to me- for the entertainment value alone.

    So as I said it all depends.

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So, yes or no? Can they ever be beneficial?


    Simple question.

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes or no- in certain situations a mutation can be of some benefit and in another situation that same mutation can be detrimental or neutral.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    BTW you can't say give me a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't warrant a yes or no answer.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Never mind- those mutations and your very limited mental capacity.

    Perhaps we are best leaving it at that...

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Can you give a straight answer?

    Can mitations *ever* be beneficial (given organism / environmemt) fit?

    Yes or No.Quit dancing, you're rubbish at it.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Can you give a straight answer?

    I gave you two. Just because you are too fucked to understand my answers doesn't mean they aren't straight answers.

    Here I will cut and paste for you:

    in certain situations a mutation can be of some benefit

    There it is, in isolation, so you won't be confused.

    No what? Are you going to cry to your mommy?

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "in certain situations a mutation can be of some benefit"

    So that's a "yes" then? They can be beneficial?

     
  • At 3:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What are you grasping for Richtard?

    I don't know of anyone who denies mutant forms can sometimes be of some benefit.

    Answers in Genesis- just go there and search on "beneficial mutations" and have a read.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I don't want side commentary or diversion, thanks - just a confirmation that that was a "yes". Please confirm, or deny in your next post.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't want your ontinued lies nor bullshit but that isn't going to stop you from lying nor spewing your bullshit.

    Make your point RichTard- or fuck off.

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'll make my point when you give straight answers, Joe. Is that a "Yes" to mutations can be beneificial?

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Wow Joe, this has been quite a breakout week for you!

    First you agreed that mutations can cause an increase in Specified Information.

    Then you agreed that mutations can be beneficial.

    At this rate you'll be a full-fledged evolutionist in no time!

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    First you agreed that mutations can cause an increase in Specified Information.

    Liar.

    What the fuck is wrong with evotards that they have to lie all the fucking time?

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I'll make my point when you give straight answers, Joe.

    I gave straight answers.

    Stop blaming me for your inability to understand what I post.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So make it simple for me then Joe:

    Yes - sometimes

    or

    No - never

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard,

    I know where you are going with this and you ain't clever and you ain't original.

    Any mutation that involves a loss of function, no matter how beneficial, is still a LOSS of function, which means it ain't an increase in information.

    Bacterial Resistance
    to Antibiotics via a LOSS of Function


    Sickle-celled anemia is a LOSS of function and even though it conveys some benefit in some scenarios it is still a genetic DISEASE and still a LOSS of function.

    Are you really that stupid that you didn't know tht this shit has been dealt with many years ago and many times since?

     
  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Do all mutations give a loss of function? Yes or no.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Do all mutations give a loss of function? Yes or no.

    No. Neutral mutations don't do anything. That is why they are called neutral.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There are also harmful loss of function mutations- for one just take the beneficial loss of function mutants and place them in a different environment.

    How to turn something good into something bad just by moving.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Are there any beneficial / positive mutations that don't have an downside in a different environment?

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't know of any. Do you?

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Lenski's E coli - what would the downside be?

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What about Lenski's E. Coli? Make your point.

    Did you know other scientists observed E. Coli digesting citrate many years before Lenski did?

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I can't think of downside of Lenski's mutated e-coli. Can you?

    If not it would be a mutation that is beneficial with no down-side, would it not?

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Lactase persistence would be a mutation in humans with no downside that I can see.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I can't think of downside of Lenski's mutated e-coli.

    What's the upside?

    There were mutations that increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures- wikipedia

    And why the fuck can't you make your point? Do you realize there were many different mutants in Lenski's work?

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Lactase persistence would be a mutation in humans with no downside that I can see.

    But who the fuck are you?

    Geez RichTard Hughes sez there isn't any downside that he can see. He should write a freaking book!

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Calm down Joe. Take a deep breath.

    So we've established that there are in fact completely positive mutations.

    I suppose we could say 'its not positive if aliens scanned you for that mutation and killed people with it', but within the realm of reasonability I'd say it's wholly positive. Wouldn't you?

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Isn't lactose intolerance caused by a mutation?

     
  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So we've established that there are in fact completely positive mutations.

    Ummm, no.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Isn't lactose intolerance caused by a mutation?"

    No.

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

    "The normal mammalian condition is for the young of a species to experience reduced lactase production at the end of the weaning period (a species-specific length of time). In humans, in non-dairy consuming societies, lactase production usually drops about 90% during the first four years of life, although the exact drop over time varies widely.[3]

    However, certain human populations have a mutation on chromosome 2 which eliminates the shutdown in lactase production, making it possible for members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other dairy products throughout their lives without difficulty. "

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah I read that. But no one said how it was determined that the mutation was to grant lactose digestion.

    IOW it could very well be that the mutation took it away.

    Methinks they are guessing.

    We would have to know what the first humans had to know which way the mutation went.

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Regardless, in areas in which there isn't any dairy to digest then there would be a cost for over-producing something that is not needed.

    So there you have it- a scenario in which lactose persistence is bad.

     
  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh I See. what area's would they be, then?

    I guess eyes might also be bad because you might fall down a hole and not get to use them. Or you might fall for a visual trap that the blind would be immune to. Is this not true?

    I can't think of anything that potentially couldn't be bad. But then I'd be enganging in your sort of sophistry.

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    what area's would they be, then?

    Probably pleny of places in Africa and Asia.

    Do you think dairy is fully available in every part of the world?

    RichTard:
    I guess eyes might also be bad because you might fall down a hole and not get to use them.

    I thought we were talking about mutations? Geez way to move the goalposts.

    But anyway I answered you pap:

    Lactase persistence would be a mutation in humans with no downside that I can see.

    The downside is someone without dairy to digest would be wasting energy by producing something that is not needed.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So lactose persistence, if it was caused by a mutation, would be a loss of information- as in it lost the information to regulate, ie stop producing, a specific enzyme.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What does Intelligent Design predict about lactose tolerance and why it varies?

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why does ID have to predict anything about it? The theory of evolution is silent about it.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So teh ability to still create lactaise - which for the majority of the species was a mjor boon, is a loss of information (no calculations from you of course) but an net increase in function: survivability. So we have less information - (net) better. Nice work ID, keep debinking yourself.

    Moreover - we can spin any mutation to be positive or negative, so the ability to specify function is now dead for ID. Thanks.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Why does ID have to predict anything about it? "

    If ID does not then why would we consider replacing Darwinism with it when it can explain less?

    "The theory of evolution is silent about it."

    Cornell University (2005, June 2). Lactose Intolerance Linked To Ancestral Environment.

    GENETICS OF LACTASE PERSISTENCE AND LACTOSE INTOLERANCE
    Annual Review of Genetics
    Vol. 37: 197-219 (Volume publication date December 2003)

    Phylogenetic Analysis of the Evolution of Lactose Digestion in Adults
    Clare Holden1 and Ruth Mace1

    Furthermore, methods using maximum likelihood are used to show that the evolution of milking preceded the evolution of high lactose digestion.

    Lactase Deficiency: An Example of Dietary Evolution
    Robert D. McCracken
    Current Anthropology
    Vol. 12, No. 4/5 (Oct. - Dec., 1971), pp. 479-517

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Why does ID have to predict anything about it?"

    Good question. It does not, of course. However such questions are amenable to evolutionary explanations as per the random citations I just gave. And I guess that means "darwinism" wins over ID on this specific issue.

    But I guess you'll respond with your stock response that none of those citations proves that blind watchmaker processes are capable of creating the situation in the first place and therefore ID is better. Yet all those papers I provided citations for we done under the assumption that evolution happened and work within that framework. As no results were found that do not fit into that framework that seems reasonable.

    However I can see why ID cannot speak to this issue. You would have to get into why the designer wanted some groups of people to drink milk and others not. And you might as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at that point.....

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So teh ability to still create lactaise - which for the majority of the species was a mjor boon, is a loss of information (no calculations from you of course) but an net increase in function: survivability.

    Yet the majority of people don't have the ability to digest lactase. And that means it doesn't aid in survivability.

    IOW once again you prove that you are a moron.

    Also I explained why it is a loss of information. That you ignore the explanation reflects on your ignorance and your ignorance is not a refutation.

    RichTard:
    Moreover - we can spin any mutation to be positive or negative,

    RichTard, save your RichTardGasms for the other addled tards behaving cowardly.

    It isn't my fault you can't produce shit for evidence to support your position.

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yet the majority of people don't have the ability to digest lactase. And that means it doesn't aid in survivability."

    You are an idiot. lactaise is what you make to digest lactose. And that ability isn't a binary 1 or 0.

    "IOW once again you prove that you are a moron."

    See above. Duuuuur.

    "Also I explained why it is a loss of information. "

    No you didn't, and more importantly, you calculated nothing (again). You're one big ID bluffer.

    It's been fun, but you're an idiot.

    I thought you might like to clarify your thoughts on mutations. But striaght answers are hard for you.

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    lactaise is what you make to digest lactose.

    Yes, I know. You can also take it in tablet form.

    Having the ability to digest lactose beyond infancy does not aid in anyone's survivability. You are a moron.

    "Also I explained why it is a loss of information. "

    RichTard:
    No you didn't,

    Yes, I did:

    So lactose persistence, if it was caused by a mutation, would be a loss of information- as in it lost the information to regulate, ie stop producing, a specific enzyme.

    Do you think you can lie your way through life?

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Why does ID have to predict anything about it? "

    OM:
    If ID does not then why would we consider replacing Darwinism with it when it can explain less?

    PREDICT you fucking tard, not EXPLAIN.

    OM:
    "The theory of evolution is silent about it."

    Cornell University (2005, June 2). Lactose Intolerance Linked To Ancestral Environment.

    GENETICS OF LACTASE PERSISTENCE AND LACTOSE INTOLERANCE
    Annual Review of Genetics
    Vol. 37: 197-219 (Volume publication date December 2003)


    Might as well be talking about baraminology and the evolution of humans from humans.

    Once again you prove you don't understand the debate and think your ignorance means something.

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

    "Why does ID have to predict anything about it?"

    OM:
    Good question. It does not, of course. However such questions are amenable to evolutionary explanations as per the random citations I just gave. And I guess that means "darwinism" wins over ID on this specific issue.

    Except the explanations had nothing to do with "darwinism". Might as well been front loaded evolution.

    OM:
    But I guess you'll respond with your stock response that none of those citations proves that blind watchmaker processes are capable of creating the situation in the first place and therefore ID is better. Yet all those papers I provided citations for we done under the assumption that evolution happened and work within that framework.

    Fuck you and your retardation. The blind watchmaker framework had mothing to do with the work.

    OM:
    However I can see why ID cannot speak to this issue.

    You asked for PREDICTIONS. Now you change to explanations and cannot speak. Well ID is OK with the explanations provided which have absolutely nothing to do with blind watchmaker processes.

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "lactaise is what you make to digest lactose.

    Yes, I know. You can also take it in tablet form."

    then why did use say "Yet the majority of people don't have the ability to digest lactase. And that means it doesn't aid in survivability".


    'lactase, any of a group of enzymes found in the small intestine, liver, and kidney of mammals that catalyze the breakdown of lactose (milk sugar) into the simple sugars glucose and galactose. Lactase is particularly abundant during infancy. The enzyme is thought to be produced by the mucous membrane cells that line the intestinal walls; granules localize in the brush border (a chemical barrier through which food must pass to be absorbed) that coats the intestinal villi.'

    You meant Lactose!

    "Having the ability to digest lactose beyond infancy does not aid in anyone's survivability. You are a moron."

    Idiot. It opens open a whole new avenue of foodstuffs that are part of the agrarian society. You are stupid beyond words.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Having the ability to digest lactose beyond infancy does not aid in anyone's survivability. You are a moron."

    RichTard:
    It opens open a whole new avenue of foodstuffs that are part of the agrarian society.

    Nice move of the goalpost-> But anyway unnecessary foodstuffs that don't have to be part of anything.

    And as I said we can take the enzyme in tablet form. So we don't need to have the internal ability to make it.

    But do keep grasping I find it very amusing and entertaining.

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thank you Joe. ID is as dead as a dodo, but you keep providing the lulz at least.

    "Nice move of the goalpost" - Sweetheart, mutations cause morphological changes that manifest in abilities that increase survival. That whole chain is part of evolution.

    In joe talk: More food = good.

    "And as I said we can take the enzyme in tablet form. So we don't need to have the internal ability to make it."

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOFOLOLOLOLOLOL *breathe* LOLOLOLOL.

    I expect teeth will be off soon then as we can make dentures and limbs because we now can make prosthetics. Don't ever start thinking things through, Joe. It's part of your charm.

     
  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let me see if I have this right- RichTard sez ID is dead because RichTard is a moron.

    RichTard:
    Sweetheart, mutations cause morphological changes that manifest in abilities that increase survival. That whole chain is part of evolution.

    ID isn't anti-evolution you ignorant twit.

    RichTard:
    In joe talk: More food = good.

    Not really. Ya see moron people have become obese and it takes more resources to produce that milk and other dairy than is worth it. We could use the land and resources for better things to aid our survival.

    So what we have is RichTard spewing more RichTardGasms as if that helps his case.

    We don't need lactase to survive. That is evident from the many organisms that don't have it and are doing very well.

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

    RichTardgasm:
    I expect teeth will be off soon then as we can make dentures and limbs because we now can make prosthetics.

    That's right tardo- we- as in humans- have the ability to overcome obstacles- we make tools- we change the rules- there are very few hands nature deals that we cannot deal with.

    What the fuck is your point? I take it you didn't think that through...

     
  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You don't even realise when you're arguing against yourself. Dont change, cupcake.

     
  • At 11:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great, RichTard chimes in with yet another RichTardGasm.

    Do you really think you bald accusations mean something?

    Is the reason you never provide any reasoning behind your RichTardGasms is because there isn't any?

    EvoTards-> argument via bald assertions and false accusations.

    You don't even realize that you are a moron. Thanks for the entertainment.

     
  • At 11:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, you are arguing against yourself, because you just are and besides I am too stupid to argue with you so you must be arguing against yourself."

    Just how brain-damaged are you Ms Hughes?

     
  • At 11:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wind him up and watch him go. He'll be asking for fisticuffs again soon. How come you and "Jim" use the exact same phrases?

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

    And another RichTardGasm.

    Go figure...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home