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

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Lying Out of His Ass

-
Typical evotard, this Kevin R McCarthy. Gets his ass handed to him in a debate and then continues to lie about me. For example, his latest lie:

You know, Joe actually has a point.

There is no evidence for evolution*.

* Well, his version of evolution that actually has no relationship with any real version or theory of evolution.

1- I have NEVER claimed there isn't any evidence for evolution

AND

2- The version of the theory of evolution I talk about is the same as all the evolutionary experts. Meaning Kevin R. McCarthy, aka OgreMKV is a lying cowardly loser.

9 Comments:

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I have NEVER claimed there isn't any evidence for evolution

    Like what? What sort of evidence for evolution do you accept?

    Micro-evolution?

    What stops Micro-evolution becoming Macro over long periods of time?

     
  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have NEVER claimed there isn't any evidence for evolution

    OM:
    Like what?

    Like Lenski's experiment. Like anti-biotic resistance. Like the change in the length of a beak.

    What stops Micro-evolution becoming Macro over long periods of time?

    Throwing time at something isn't scienc and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function. There isn't any construction of useful, functional multi-part systems.

    There isn't any evidence.

     
  • At 4:29 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    OM:

    "What stops Micro-evolution becoming Macro over long periods of time?"
    ===

    This:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

    "Abstract

    All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism's cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natural selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011"
    ---

    Micro-evolution is simply a word/term used to shoehorn in the actual word/term "evolution" into any conversation, when the subject being referenced is actually no more than any type[KIND] of organism simply adapting and remaining fit in it's surroundings and not moving beyond it's genetic barriers, though great variety within it's kind is possible. Or as the above paper beautifully puts it, "these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type." [or KIND]

     
  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Throwing time at something isn't scienc and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function.

    Can you give an example of micro that is a gain of function?

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Throwing time at something isn't scienc and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function.

    OM:
    Can you give an example of micro that is a gain of function?

    That is your job.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    OM:
    "Can you give an example of micro that is a gain of function?"
    ---

    JoeG
    "That is your job."
    ===

    This is humorous and laughable everytime they demand this of you. The burden shifting demand on you to prove their religion to them.

    Go figure!

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    That is your job.

    But you said:

    Throwing time at something isn't scienc and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function.

    So the inference is that you have observed micro evolution that was not a loss of function.

    But you now can't say what that is.

    What a surprise. Much like your other claims, empty.

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Throwing time at something isn't science and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function.

    OM:
    So the inference is that you have observed micro evolution that was not a loss of function.

    I can't think of any but YOU should have plenty for references. And if you don't then what the fuck does your position have except for a bunch of intellectual cowards?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I can't think of any but YOU should have plenty for references.

    If you can't think of any then why did you use the word "mostly"?

    Throwing time at something isn't scienc and the micro we observe is mostly a loss of function.

    ?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home