Kevin R. McCarthy, aka OgreMKV, Still Lying, Still Ignorant and Still a Coward
-
EvoTards, when shown to be a clueless lot attack, lie, bullshit, but don't try to support your nonsense with evidence.
Kevin's latest lying rant:
He sez:
Convergent evolution is a possibility dipshit. And convergent evolution doesn't affect ID at all- ignorance is not a refutation, moron.
Then he goes to lie:
Only in your pathetic little head.
If that is what you think is going on then it is obvious that you are clueless.
Nope, I am not conflating DNA and proteins. IOW all you can do is make shit up. Coward.
You have made several errors and have yet to address the topic. You are a coward and a loser.
And your evidence for that is what?
Geez Kevin you even appear to be ignorant of the theory of evolution. And your paranoia is hilarious- my moderation policy matches yours. Coward. Liar. Loser.
EvoTards, when shown to be a clueless lot attack, lie, bullshit, but don't try to support your nonsense with evidence.
Kevin's latest lying rant:
He sez:
Now he's trying to convince people that Tiktaalik has a wrist due to convergent evolution... forgetting that the evolutionary sequence needed to get a wrist would negate his entire pro-ID argument.
Convergent evolution is a possibility dipshit. And convergent evolution doesn't affect ID at all- ignorance is not a refutation, moron.
Then he goes to lie:
I've destroyed his pathetic attempt to calculate something.
Only in your pathetic little head.
It's amazing how the clueless think multiplying two numbers together results in a powerful argument.
If that is what you think is going on then it is obvious that you are clueless.
Of course, he's conflating DNA and proteins, forgetting some fundamental Biology (if he ever knew it) along the way.
Nope, I am not conflating DNA and proteins. IOW all you can do is make shit up. Coward.
I even introduced a conceptual math error in my response, but so far he hasn't even noticed it or tried to figure it out.
You have made several errors and have yet to address the topic. You are a coward and a loser.
As far as the rest, he's still holding science to standards he refuses to accept for ID or even himself.
And your evidence for that is what?
Geez Kevin you even appear to be ignorant of the theory of evolution. And your paranoia is hilarious- my moderation policy matches yours. Coward. Liar. Loser.
posted by Joe G @ 9:05 PM
57 Comments:
At 6:49 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Convergent evolution is a possibility dipshit.
What experiment could you perform that would rule it in or out as a possibility?
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
I doubt there are any experiments for divergent or convergent evolution of this type.
THAT is the whole problem.
At 9:55 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I doubt there are any experiments for divergent or convergent evolution of this type.
Then many other things also fall into that category.
Invisible pink unicorns may be responsible.
Seems to me that your position of "I don't know and I can't find out" is not that much use scientifically.
At 10:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Nice strawman, asshole.
Strange that is all evotards can do- read a response, jump to faulty conclusions and post a strawman.
However that misses the point.
Ya see OM's position doesn't have any experiments that could be performed that would rulein or rule out the claims of its position.
That is why it has to erect a strawman and attack that.
Pathetic little coward...
At 10:03 AM,
Joe G said…
EvoTards claim Tiktaalik is the result of divergent evolution:
What experiment could you perform that would rule it in or out as a possibility?
At 10:29 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
EvoTards claim Tiktaalik is the result of divergent evolution
Tiktaalik is the product of evolution.
Do you accept that?
If not, what difference does getting more specific make?
If you don't think it evolved then "divergent" is irrelevant.
At 10:32 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That is why it has to erect a strawman and attack that.
I don't see that it's a straw man.
You said "X is a possible explanation for Y"
I said "What experiments can you do that would support that claim"
You said "Pathetic little coward..."
It seems to me that if anybody is a coward here it's you for refusing to answer the question asked.
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Tiktaalik is the product of evolution.
From what?
At 10:58 AM,
Joe G said…
OM, the following is the strawman:
Seems to me that your position of "I don't know and I can't find out" is not that much use scientifically
At 11:36 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
From what?
Not even wrong.
At 11:43 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
From what?
Previous evolution.
At 11:45 AM,
Joe G said…
What did Tiktaalik evolve from? And what is the evidence that supports that claim?
At 11:57 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
What did Tiktaalik evolve from?
You already know the answer to that. It's labelled as a transitional because we know what it evolved from and what it evolved into.
And what is the evidence that supports that claim?
You also already know the answer to that. The fact you find the evidence unpersuasive is irrelevant.
The people who matter are persuaded. And given that you are unable to come up with any alternatives you are not in any danger of changing any minds any-time soon.
At 12:01 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
You already know the answer to that. It's labelled as a transitional because we know what it evolved from and what it evolved into.
Know one knows what it evolved from. That is the problem.
Ya see there isn't any evidence taht demonstrates Tiktaalik evolved from something that wasn't very Tiktaalik-like.
No way to test the claim.
At 12:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Ya see there isn't any evidence taht demonstrates Tiktaalik evolved from something that wasn't very Tiktaalik-like.
No evidence except the fossils.
At 12:15 PM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any such evidence in the fossils.
At 1:30 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
There isn't any such evidence in the fossils.
What does the fossil record tell us then?
Anything at all?
At 3:56 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I also know that dragonflies play.
What evidence do you have for that then?
Less then the evidence for Tiktaalik being a transitional fossil I'm sure.
At 4:50 PM,
Joe G said…
I also know that dragonflies play.
OM:
What evidence do you have for that then?
Observational.
At 4:52 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What does the fossil record tell us then?
Well the vast majority of it consists of marine invertebrates (>95%). And in that vast majority there isn't any evidence for universal common descent. There is only eviodence for slight variations in that vast majority.
At 4:52 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What does the fossil record tell us then?
Well the vast majority of it consists of marine invertebrates (>95%). And in that vast majority there isn't any evidence for universal common descent. There is only eviodence for slight variations in that vast majority.
At 4:52 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Observational
Less it is then.
At 4:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, anyone can observe it- well perhaps not evotards as they are too busy in their circle-jerk stroke-off...
At 4:58 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
There is only eviodence for slight variations in that vast majority.
Any patterns to be seen?
Any indications of Intelligent Design perhaps?
At 4:59 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
well perhaps not evotards as they are too busy in their circle-jerk stroke-off
Too busy writing articles in some journal probably!
At 4:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Observational evidence, the stuff of science.
And OM takes exception to it.
Strange...
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Too busy writing articles in some journal probably!
But still nothing to support your position!
At 5:02 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Observational evidence, the stuff of science.
Sure. So how come when experts observe Tiktaalik and classify it as a transitional fossil of particular note that's not science?
At 5:02 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Any patterns to be seen?
Not that I am aware of.
Any indications of Intelligent Design perhaps?
Not from fossils- I wouldn't use the FR to try to support anything. But that is just me.
At 5:03 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So how come when experts observe Tiktaalik and classify it as a transitional fossil of particular note that's not science?
Hey moron- it doesn't even meet YOUR criteria.
You have serious mental issues...
At 5:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
But still nothing to support your position!
Nothing you'll accept. Yet your viewpoint is in the tiny minority in working scientists. So who am I going to believe?
You, who can't even guesstimate an age of the earth and just says whatever figure has been come up with "is wrong"?
Or people who support their arguments with evidence?
At 5:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Hey moron- it doesn't even meet YOUR criteria.
It's a transitional fossil of some note.
At 5:08 PM,
Joe G said…
OM once said:
I find a fossil of a fish at time X.
I find a fossil of a mammal a time Y.
I look between those two times and find a fossil of a transitional form between those two forms.
I have found a transitional.
Tiktaalik does NOT meet that criteria.
So now:
It's a transitional fossil of some note.
Loser.
At 5:11 PM,
Joe G said…
But still nothing to support your position!
OM:
Nothing you'll accept.
You don't have anything. Perhaps someday you will then we can decide if I accept it or not.
Ya see asshole not one of your alleged majority can support their claims.
OM:
Or people who support their arguments with evidence?
Still waiting for you for that.
But nice to see you admit that you are nothing but a blind parrot follower- or is that a blind following parrot?
At 5:36 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Tiktaalik does NOT meet that criteria.
Yes it does. We find some forms. We find a form in between those forms. It's a transitional form.
At 7:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Actually Tiktaalik was found amongst, not between.
You lose, as usual.
At 3:58 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Actually Tiktaalik was found amongst, not between.
Found amongst what Joe?
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Found amongst fish and tetrapods, moron.
At 10:01 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Found amongst fish and tetrapods, moron.
And it has features of both, right?
It's a "mix" of fish and tetrapod, right?
If not, which is it Joe - fish or tetrapod?
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Tiktaalik is a fish. No evidence to the contrary.
Archeopteryx is a bird. No evidence to the contrary.
And AGAIN that it has an alleged "mix" just says more about our classification schemme- meaning it ain't as neat as we like to think.
At 11:54 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Tiktaalik is a fish.
Is it? So fish can breath air and support themselves on solid ground?
Really? Fish?
And AGAIN that it has an alleged "mix" just says more about our classification schemme- meaning it ain't as neat as we like to think.
It's not an alleged mix. It is a mix to any fair minded observer.
Yes it has fins and gills but it also has features found only in land-living animals.
Can you name any other fish like it?
At 6:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Tiktaalik is a fish.
OM:
Is it?
Yes, it is.
OM:
So fish can breath air..
See Arapaima- alive today in the Amazon River.
OM:
...and support themselves on solid ground?
For real or just in some artistic rendition?
OM:
It's not an alleged mix. It is a mix to any fair minded observer.
Only because of the way we classify animals.
But anyway do you realize that organisms with a mix of characteristics violate nested hierarchies?
At 4:52 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
But anyway do you realize that organisms with a mix of characteristics violate nested hierarchies?
Please do go on. Name one, or 10.
Perhaps you could also list the characteristics that organisms can have without violating nested hierarchies? And then explain how you know that.
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
List nested hierarchies as just another thing OM is ignorant of:
Potential Falsification:
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.
At 9:48 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
List nested hierarchies as just another thing OM is ignorant of:,
Let's try it another way.
Name an organism that you believe violates the expected nested hierarchy generated by evolution?
Just one, name it and explain exactly how it violates the expected pattern.
And the funny thing is this:
A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.
We don't see such a mix and match and therefore it's possible objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.
Quite the opposite of what you are saying.
At 12:37 PM,
Joe G said…
All transitionals would, BY DEFINITION, have a mix of characteristics you ignorant fuck.
At 12:43 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Name an organism that you believe violates the expected nested hierarchy generated by evolution?
Evolution does not expect a nested hierachy.
Why would it?
At 5:57 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Evolution does not expect a nested hierachy.
Why would it?
What does your quote say about it? You know, the bit about cars?
Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.
It's how we know that biology was not designed. Useful features that would be trivial to transfer with an intelligent designer from one lineage to another remain forever out of reach.
Unlike cars. Where innovations appear in unrelated cars. Like CD players.
Thanks for providing the quote that fatally undermines your own argument Joe.
At 11:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Dude, you are mentally handicapped.
Not only that you are ignorant of history. Ya see Theobald sites Linneaus- a CREATIONIST in search of the Created Kind. That is who put together the system Theobald sites.
All evotards did was take what Linne for Creation did and turn it around as if their position didit.
But anyway thanks for ignoring the part of transitionals having a mix of characteristics that would violate the nested hierarchy- ignorant coward.
At 11:46 PM,
Joe G said…
“One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr
At 11:46 PM,
Joe G said…
“From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different."- G Simpson
At 3:55 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
But anyway thanks for ignoring the part of transitionals having a mix of characteristics that would violate the nested hierarchy- ignorant coward.
Like I said, name one example and explain why it violates the nested hierarchy. I.E. support your claim.
At 3:57 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That is who put together the system Theobald sites.
So what? A useful system is a useful system, even if the person who put it together was totally wrong about it's origin.
Many of the original geologists were creationists. They went on to prove that there never was a global flood. Should we throw that scientific good work out just because they were creationists? Science is science, even if done by people with a mistaken viewpoint.
At 3:14 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Like I said, name one example and explain why it violates the nested hierarchy. I.E. support your claim.
Like I said:
All transitionals would, BY DEFINITION, have a mix of characteristics you ignorant fuck.
A fish with wrists...
At 3:15 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
A useful system is a useful system, even if the person who put it together was totally wrong about it's origin.
Yet to be seen. IOW there isn't any evidence Linne was wrong.
OM:
They went on to prove that there never was a global flood.
They couldn't have. They didn't even know what to look for. You don't even know what to look for.
At 10:25 AM,
OgreMkV said…
I'd just like to remind Joe, that of 24 distinguishing features between birds and dinosaurs, Archeopteryx has 17 that are dinosaur characters (and not bird) and only 4 that are bird characters (and not dinosaur). The remainder are intermediate between dinosaur and bird.
I'll also point out that, the formal definition of bird (it has feathers) is now wrong, as many obviously dinosaur species have feathers.
So, what is Archeoptyrex Joe? Is it a bird or a dinosaur? Why? What characters do you base this on? Why those and not others? We're going to need some detail here.
At 11:46 AM,
Joe G said…
I would like to remind you that what you said is a reflection of our classification system and nothing else.
Post a Comment
<< Home