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, July 19, 2011

What is the Evidence that Natural Selection can Design?

-
In yesterday's post I quoted evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne saying that natural selection is the real cause of design (in biology). Darwin and Dawkins said pretty much the same thing.

So the question is what is the evidence that supports that claim or is it just another imaginary evolutionary tale?

posted by Joe G @ 7:20 AM  

81 Comments:

  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Lenski.

     

  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the evidence that natural selection designed Lenski?

     

  • At 3:38 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Rich Huges:

    "Lenski"
    ===

    Lenski's experiment had ZERO to do with natural selection. The experiment[like almost every evo-experiment] had massive amounts of intelligent designing fingerprints of intelligent scientists written all over it. The so-called random mutation[luck-magic-chance]was anything but as bacteria left to themselves can manipulate and construct whatever is necessary to accomplish a task and they do so intelligently.

    Bacteria have more linguistic ability in terms of editing their own DNA than any other creature except humans. Bacteria also communicate to each other using syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and words like "me" and "you" and "us" and "them." The research done on their ability to manufacture those incredibbly sophisticated outboard motorized propulsion systems, hunt together in organized wolfpacks, then sending messages to others when food sources have been located hasn't one damn thing to do with Natural selection which Richard Dawkins describes as something blind and meaningless.

    Here's an example of just how intelligent bacteria are over a Richard Lenski.

    Coupling Cell Movement To Multicellular Development In Myxobacteria

    The sad thing is here, is that I wouldn't mind an experiment proving how blind , pointless , meaningless undirected, unguided forces accomplish amazing sophisticated designs of informationally driven nanomachines, but the problem is the fraud and cheating by done by these so-called brilliant researchers who employ their own intelligence to rig an experiment for a purposed outcome , then rather than explaining what was actually taking place in the reality, they rather interpret the data through the eyes of a religiously motivated soothsayer/shamman to do nothing more than prop up a disfunctional worldview which is presently bastarding our planet's natural ecosystems. For all the making fun of ID, it's hypocritcal that in everything they do, they hijack ID, then lie and claim they didn't do that and get indignant when you point this out.

    GMO research and pursuits are a prime example of how science has been infected with this constant lying and cheating which is justified by an amoral mindset.

     

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eocene-

    Rich doesn't understand much of anything nevermind things dealing with science

     

  • At 12:50 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Great post, Eocene.

    The sweet and simple answer to this threads opening question is that natural selection CAN'T design or simulate design. In fact, it can't cause anything, good or bad, at all.

    Understand what natural selection is: It is a result, and therefore it can't be the cause of anything at all. Selection, as defined by Darwin, is the passive state of not having died. Anything that is selected, therefore, must already exist BEFORE it can be selected. Hence, selection did nothing to cause it to exist.

    The empty-headed stupidity of selection is to say "We live because we didn't die."

     

  • At 12:58 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, our resident Luck Theorist:

    My latest challenge, that you will be too cowardly to accept as usual, will be to put the following in chronological order:

    Arrival of the fittest: Fit, functional, complex living creature exists and appears to have been designed.

    Survival of the fittest: The above mentioned creature survives long enough to reproduce, and is therefore by definition, selected.

    So, Darwinist, which happened first? Arrival or survival? Your answer will tell you whether or not selection caused the appearance of design.

     

  • At 1:06 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Eocene, intelligent genetics is a scientific fact, easily proven, predicted, tested and repeated in high school biology classes daily.

    Bacteria which can and do remain in stasis for millions and even billions of years, will undergo rapid genetic changes in minutes as students watch. They do so in a few different ways, but never randomly or by selection. They change their genetic makeup to fit any environmental need, when needed, just as metazoans do, but at a much faster pace.

    And to think they used to call genetic mutations errors....

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    All this evolution bashing and there STILL isn’t any evidence that ID can give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems.

    You've got nothin', joe-boi.

    By the way, you IDiot dullard, all "systems" are "multi-part".

     

  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    the whole tard:
    All this evolution bashing and there STILL isn’t any evidence that ID can give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems.

    No one here is bashing evolution you moronic, equivocating freak.

    And all our observations and experiences demonstrate designing agencies can and do create new, useful and functional multi-part systems.

    Also, you evotard moron, "multi" means "many/ several/ numerous", and fulcrum and lever form a two-part lifting system.

    And I am sure you use a rope as a one-part weather forecasting system- you stick a rope out of your windom and if it moves it is windy, if it doesn't it is calm and if it gets wet it is raining.

     

  • At 11:04 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Stop complaining and insulting people and start producing evidence for your position, joe-boi.

     

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am not complaining nor insulting anyone and I have produced positive evidence for my position.

    IOW you are an ignorant moron- as advertised.

     

  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    My goodness, what a precious group! And for once, all the participants aren’t Joe’s socks. Thanks for taking time away from your labs, gents.

    Okay! First up, Eocene:

    That’s a wonderful conflation of ‘designing and experiment’ and ‘designing an outcome’ you’ve got there. There are LOLS to be had, but MOAR BETTER LOLS comes from this: “The experiment[like almost every evo-experiment] had massive amounts of intelligent designing fingerprints of intelligent scientists written all over it.”

    Wow! Could you please design a non-designed experiment, so we can see what it looks like? I think the scientific (and logical / philosophical) communities would really sit up and take notice. I personally am on the edge of my seat. YOU CAN DO IT.

    Also:

    “Bacteria also communicate to each other using syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and words like "me" and "you" and "us" and "them." “

    CITATION NEEDED.


    Then we have the general fighting retreat – Lenski didn’t either show anything or proved ID are the two spins I see. Of course this isn’t what Lenski’s team thought:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html

    “In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold.”

    http://www.livescience.com/14557-coli-offers-insight-evolution-bts.html

    “The experiment was designed to ask about the repeatability of evolution. "If we look at the tension between the randomness of mutation and the predictability of natural selection, how does evolution play out when you put the two together?" Lenski said. "That's really what this long-term experiment has been all about. Over the course of these decades, we've seen all kinds of interesting phenomena."
    They have been able to see the mutation rate itself evolve, as well as observe dramatic improvements in the bacteria's competitive ability.”
    “In 2008, they reported another important adaptation. One of their 12 populations had evolved the ability to use a new carbon source, citrate, for energy — a talent that its ancestor did not have.
    It took more than 30,000 generations for that one population to be able to use citrate, remarkable since "the whole species of E. coli has been defined as not being able to use that carbon source," Lenski said. (Citrate long has been a standard ingredient in the growth medium "recipe" used in the Lenski lab, although the organisms had never used it before.)
    "Was it a rare mutation that could've happened to any of the 12 populations, and at any point in time? Or was it an accumulation of event after event which caused this population to get on a different trajectory from the other 11?" Lenski asks. "One of my graduate students, Zachary Blount, looked at 10 trillion ancestral cells from the original ancestor of all 12 populations to see whether they could evolve this ability to use citrate. None of them did. He showed that, from the ancestor, you couldn't get there, you couldn't make a citrate-using type, by a single mutation.
    However, "it became possible in the later generations, as the genetic context had changed in a way to allow this population to produce this mutation," Lenski adds. "The likelihood of being able to make this transition changed dramatically in the context of this population's history.”


    See also:
    http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

     

  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard,

    Lenski and his group selected which organisms to keep using. That means it is artificial selection- he also provided the selection pressure.

    Then Rich pouts because he cannot figure out a way to test natural selection. And then throws in the typical equivocation.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What Lenski is showing is that evolution is very limited. He definitely hasn't shown all mutations are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    JOEFAIL: "Lenski and his group selected which organisms to keep using. That means it is artificial selection- he also provided the selection pressure."

    http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html

    "Mean fitness, relative to the ancestor, is estimated using the mixed-population samples. "

    http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/relfit.html

    "Relative fitness is a dimensionless quantity, which is calculated as the ratio of the growth rate of the derived type to its ancestral competitor during direct competition. (See the comment on use of selection rate versus relative fitness for an illustrative calculation of relative fitness.)"

    *Points and laughs at the silly creationist*. Its an experiment. It has to have perameters. Increased reproductive ability had already been observed.

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "What Lenski is showing is that evolution is very limited. He definitely hasn't shown all mutations are accidents/ errors/ mistakes."

    ABOUT TURN CAPTAIN!

     

  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Artificial selection can increase mean fitness you moron.

     

  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What Lenski is showing is that evolution is very limited. He definitely hasn't shown all mutations are accidents/ errors/ mistakes."

    RichTard:
    ABOUT TURN CAPTAIN!

    In what way?

    The topic of this thread pertains to natural selection and what can it design. Therefor the first thing required is to demonstrate the mutations are accidents/ mistakes/ errors. Otherwise natural selection isn't involved.

     

  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And still nothing of what natural selection can design- huge RICHTARDFAIL

     

  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Artificial selection can increase mean fitness you moron."

    *sigh*

    Fitness had already increased.

     

  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Therefor the first thing required is to demonstrate the mutations are accidents/ mistakes/ errors."

    You should ask for CCTV footage to see if the designer showed up and did some directed mutations.

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    You should ask for CCTV footage to see if the designer showed up and did some directed mutations.

    The designer doesn't need to show up and do some directed mutations any more than a spelling champ needs to show up to correct spelling mistakes on a Word document.

    You have been told this many times and you still can't get grasp that simple concept.

     

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Artificial selection can increase mean fitness you moron."

    RichTad:
    Fitness had already increased.

    Due to the articial selection of populations and environments.

     

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And still nothing of what natural selection can design- huge RICHTARDFAIL.

     

  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Due to the articial selection of populations and environments."

    You are so very very very stupid.

    Show us an experiment where we don't select populations and environments.


    "The designer doesn't need to show up and do some directed mutations any more than a spelling champ needs to show up to correct spelling mistakes on a Word document.

    You have been told this many times and you still can't get grasp that simple concept."

    So where does the mutation come from, then?

     

  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    You are so very very very stupid.

    Sed the equivocating intellectual coward.

    Richtard:
    Show us an experiment where we don't select populations and environments.

    I asked for evidence that NATURAL SELECTION can design.

    But I do understand that you are a moron and cannot understand that.

    And stop blaming us for your inability to support your claims.

    RichTard:
    So where does the mutation come from, then?

    Built-in responses to environmental cues- just as Dr Spetner wrote aboyt in 1997.

    But anyway the whole problem is your position doesn't have any methodology to determine the cause of mutations so you just say theu are all accidents/ mistakes/ errors.

     

  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I asked for evidence that NATURAL SELECTION can design."

    Yet you want to rule out all experiments, becuase we have to design them. Congratulations! you're as stupid as Eocene.

    "Built-in responses to environmental cues"

    Well that's a testible hypothesis. these responces must be encoded soemwhere, as they are built in. Off to the lab - maybe the dragonflies can help you. Templeton will fund you, they have a million bucks for ID experiments.

    Your nobel prize awaits.

     

  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Yet you want to rule out all experiments, becuase we have to design them.

    Wrong again, as usual.

    You spend so much time on strawmen it's no wonder you cannot produce anything to support your claims.

    Richtard:
    Congratulations! you're as stupid as Eocene.

    He is much smarter than you will ever be.

    "Built-in responses to environmental cues"

    RichTard:
    Well that's a testible hypothesis. these responces must be encoded soemwhere, as they are built in.

    And we are still waiting for evidence that natural selection can design...

     

  • At 5:30 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Intelligent Animation:

    "Bacteria which can and do remain in stasis for millions and even billions of years, will undergo rapid genetic changes in minutes as students watch. They do so in a few different ways, but never randomly or by selection. They change their genetic makeup to fit any environmental need, when needed, just as metazoans do, but at a much faster pace."
    ===

    Another prime example of this is the other Evo-Poster-Child example called "NYLONASE". The claim is that it evolved in an environment not found naturally in nature. Which is stupid since most ALL inventions CREATED by mankind are taken from elements here on earth, hence natural to earth. The FACT that these organisms developed engineered itself to tackle a polluted situation which was created by pigs of imperfect humanity in the first place is proof of the ability of any of these micro organisms to develope and purposefully rearrange their genetic makeup tackle whatever obstacle they encounter. Since according to evolutionists we are all animals anyway, then any activity of any human endeavors when are a cause of creating and inventing are therefore to be considered NATURAL.

    These micro organisms are the great recyclers of planet Earth. We NEED them to do exactly what they do, otherwise life on this planet is toast.

    The Chernobyl accident[product of undisciplined atheism] is yet another example of an organism's ability to adapt to even obvious catastrophic life threatening environments like the eccessive radioactive situation invented by imperfect humans driven by greed and selfishness.

    Anyone can google this. Sunflowers growing in the areas surrounding the accident were found to have the ability to destroy the radioactivity in the ground. Further investigation found that it wasn't the sunflower so much as it was the bacteria which colonized the roots of these sunflowers which had the ability to matabolize the harmful elements and make them neutral.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8640273/Sunflowers-heal-soil-across-nuclear-hit-Fukushima.html

    In fact if you google it, you'll find numerous articles just this month dealing with natures programmed ability to clean up any bastardized situation imperfect humans create when they take the proverbial dump on our planet. Usually as a result of something Scientifism has promoted. Google the Chernobyl accident even further and you'll discover they found even a fungus growing on walls of the nuclear plant which had the ability to matabolize the dangerous material.

    The bottomline is that it has ZERO to do with randomness, undirectedness, unguidance, luck, chance, magic, etc. The genetic codes inside any bacteria themselves are not self-evolving. It is the intentional activity, the "self" of the conscientious bacteria cell, that developes the codes to tackle whatever activity is necessary for whatever recyling project presents itself.

     

  • At 5:44 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "Wow! Could you please design a non-designed experiment, so we can see what it looks like? I think the scientific (and logical / philosophical) communities would really sit up and take notice. I personally am on the edge of my seat. YOU CAN DO IT."
    ===

    This is funny. You actually want me to create your favourite dirt watching experiment to help YOU proof your religious beliefs ??? Your side are the true IDiots, since hijacking intelligent designing concepts and applications are all you do. Then later lie about it and say you never did that. In any evo-world-experiment, what does the scientist involved ever represent ??? Does he/she represent blind undirecting forces or rather intelligent design ??? Even a mere child gets this question.

    Again, the true IDiots are evolutionists, not the JoeGs of the world. At least the JoeGs of the world admit they follow such a pathway. Your side apostacizes against your very own "Articles of FAITH" which emphatically state at the beginning "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED" , then you procede to cheat experimentally and then later lie about it. When pinned against the proverbial wall on this, you then dogmatically defend your position which ultimately proves that your beliefs and worldview are nothing more than religious.

    In fact this is exactly what is happening to Olegt where Cornelius has cleaned his communist clock.

     

  • At 5:59 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "Then we have the general fighting retreat – Lenski didn’t either show anything or proved ID are the two spins I see. Of course this isn’t what Lenski’s team thought:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html

    “In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. THESE CHANGES HAVE EMERGED THROUGH SPONTANEOUS MUTATIONS AND NATURAL SELECTION, AND DR. LENSKI AND HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WATCH THEM UNFOLD.”
    ===

    The last statement here must have been written by a complete imbecile. How exactly do they know that what was going on was nothing more than luck, change, undirectedness, with no guidance, purpose or intent ??? The amazing complex sophistication of any so-called[and presently admitted no such thing]primative cell which are intelligently information driven exposes the LIE of the above statement which is clearly loaded with massive amounts of religious bias and biggotry.

    Of course Lenski and his colleagues are nothing more than animals anyway which belong to the rest of evo-world, so their intelligence which manipulates, rigs, and biased embellishments obviously get a free pass and can be considered "Natural Selection or "Tinker Bell" which ever you prefer.

     

  • At 6:20 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "You are so very very very stupid.

    Show us an experiment where we don't select populations and environments."
    ===

    So this really begs the ONLY true question which is of any import in this discussion then. What does the fingerprints of the scientists[Lenski and Colleagues] represent ??? Do they represent blind purposeless undirected forces or do they represent intelligent desgining with massive amounts of purpose and intent ???
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "So where does the mutation come from, then?"
    ===

    How do you know exactly that it was a lucky unpurposed copying errored cancerous mistake which just happened to turn out lucky and beneficial ???
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Yet you want to rule out all experiments, becuase we have to design them. Congratulations! you're as stupid as Eocene."
    ===

    No congradulations on your continued hmmm-hawing equivocations. I have no problems with experiments, but I want to see one that explains, illustrates and proves just exactly how blind undirecting forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals cause amazingly brilliantly designed complex constructs which harmonize together in any healthy ecosystem.

    It's not up to me to help you prove your faith and religion. It's up to you to prove your articles of faith and then once that is accomplished, then clearly any dummy should be able to solve mankind's pressing issues over energy needs, food and housing needs, etc, etc, etc.

    Perhaps this cyber Colonel Klink will now honestly answer the above questions without equivocation, lying, stealing and cheating or demanding we prove his biased religious FAITH to him.

     

  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Eocene:

    "Bacteria also communicate to each other using syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and words like "me" and "you" and "us" and "them."

    Richard Huges:

    "CITATION NEEDED."
    ===

    This is basic elementary stuff here. So why in the world do you need me to do homework for you ??? Oh that's right, they don't teach these things at the "University of TalkRational"

    Bonny Bassler[and she's an evolutionist] and her "How Bacteria Communicate" documentary.

    Here's a few quotes

    Bonny Bassler:
    " What's become clear in the last decade is that all bacteria talk to each other. Bacteria are chattering like crazy. Once quorum sensing genes were found in bacteria that people think are important—like pathogens—more and more people started entering the field. Now hundreds and hundreds of labs work on quorum sensing.

    We now realize that the way we all used to think of and study these bacteria—as these asocial, reclusive, shy organisms—is completely wrong. This isn't how they're living out in the wild. And so there's been this sort of paradigm shift. It turns out we just completely missed the boat, myself included, until about a decade ago. I think my lab played a big part in making the world see that bacteria have these complicated vocabularies that are made up of many different molecules, and that this is very much like how cells inside the human body interact."

    Bonny Bassler:
    "You can think of the molecules that bacteria make as words, or languages. And we're starting to think that bacteria are multilingual. So they have a language that's, say, English; they have their own molecule that they talk to each other with. And another species of bacteria, they're the French, and they have their own molecule. But then there's a language, and you can think of it like Esperanto, or the trade language of bacteria. This Esperanto molecule everybody understands, and it makes the bacteria multilingual. One species still can't understand the private languages of other species. But they can all understand the trade language."

    Bonny Bassler:
    "It shouldn't be a surprise that bacteria can talk to each other. "Uh, why did it take you so long?" [laughs] It's simply because we had it wrong—"we" meaning everybody in science. But of course, in retrospect, when we think about it, it shouldn't have been a surprise. For a long time, we recognized the importance of chemical communication between our cells, and how groups of cells know "self" from "other," and that chemistry is running the show inside higher organisms. Well, where did that come from? Of course, bacteria invented that."

    Actually you can google it for yourself and find other references to the sophisticated comminication of bacterial communities. And bacteria don’t just get together for simple "file sharing." Even before quorum sensing was discovered in V. fischeri, scientists had noted many examples of coordinated action, such as "swarming", in which a colony of bacteria moves as a unit across a surface[but I've already mentioned this], and the development of "fruiting bodies"[much like fungus create] in which bacteria glom together to form inert spores as a means of surviving severe environmental conditions. Much of this came out the last couple of years.

    Of course you must have read it only in the original German and mistranslated something. *smirk*

     

  • At 1:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still waiting for you to design an undesigned experiment, Eocene. You're suimply too stupid see the difference between the "conflation of ‘designing and experiment’ and ‘designing an outcome’". As your citation, a *sigh* doccumentry, " Bacteria also communicate to each other using syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and words like "me" and "you" and "us" and "them." simply isn't supported by what you put. Show me how to find support for that, king of google.

    So just to recap, Lenski's experiments support evolution viw undirected process.

     

  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " hunt together in organized wolfpacks," now equals "swarming" per your cited, erm, docummentary. Another great example of loaded design language over-reach.

     

  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So just to recap, Lenski's experiments support evolution viw undirected process.

    Unfortunately for you there isn't any evidence to support that claim. And even more importantly you have failed to address the topic of this thread.

     

  • At 3:18 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "You're suimply too stupid see the difference between the "conflation of ‘designing and experiment’ and ‘designing an outcome’". As your citation, a *sigh* doccumentry, " Bacteria also communicate to each other using syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and words like "me" and "you" and "us" and "them." simply isn't supported by what you put. Show me how to find support for that, king of google."
    ===

    OMG , just how old are you anyway ??? I didn't realize you were a mere bubble gummer. Oh wait a minute. Yes I remember.

    Jquip:

    "Rich Huges favorite manner of acknowledging defeat is to claim that he suffers 'Sudden Onset English Incomprehension' and then procedes throwing word soups and salads everywhere."

    LOL
    ---

    Richard Huges:

    "Still waiting for you to design an undesigned experiment, Eocene."
    ===

    I've already told you before, this is NOT my problem. It's not my responsibility to help you prove your religion/animist god which insists as it's #1 rule in the Articles of FAITH , "No Intelligence Allowed". Once you do that, then you can come back and explain how blind pointless, meaningless undirectedness without purpose or intent accomplish amazing sophisticated complex things.

     

  • At 3:52 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    JoeG

    Here's a reference work done by his own religious leaders at "The National Center for Biotechnology Information" [U.S. Government site] where the terminology he thinks I invented actually came from his own church.

    Deciphering the hunting strategy of a bacterial wolfpack.

    You can actually google the term and find generous amounts of scientific literature dealing with wolfpack hunting strategies of bacteria which clearly are not that simple or primitive, much to the disdain of your average Neanderthal who was never taught such basic understandings at the "Infidels Graduate School".

     

  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eocene,

    Yes I understand what you posted is true. OTOH RichTard will never accept it.

     

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Eocene, your a one dimensional character from the wedge document. Your perpetual religious quips give you away, as well as your inability to engage in science. Have fun in your culture war, I suspect you're on the loosing side anyways.

     

  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "OMG , just how old are you anyway ??? I didn't realize you were a mere bubble gummer. Oh wait a minute. Yes I remember."

    Possibly the most conspicuous, "I don't want to / can't address what you wrote" red herring ever.

     

  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard Hughes-

    You never engage in science- you are incapable of doing so. You cannot stay on-topic and you cannot support the claims of your position.

    You are a typical cowardly evotard.

    Thank you for continuing to prove exactly that...

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "Eocene, your a one dimensional character from the wedge document. Your perpetual religious quips give you away, as well as your inability to engage in science."
    ===

    Mr Pompous, you've never once engaged any science since this began. You arrogantly demanded condescendingly asked for a citation. I gave you one written by someone from your own church and you didn't even read the paper written by an evolution. I have to assume it's because they are not from your particular religious denomination in Evo-World and have your biased take on the matter. It's no one's fault for being ignorant, but it is your fault if you allow pride and arrogance to make you deliberately stay that way.

     

  • At 9:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    'I've never engaged is science' - laughable from you given your conflation of design and outcome vis experiments.

    But keep churching it up. I can just point to you as evidence as to why ID is a religious, not scientific, proposition.

     

  • At 1:21 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Why is it that when a Darwinist is challenged to prove random mess can cause functional order, they merely show an example of microevolution and then claim it happened by luck?
    Newsflash to Rich Hughes: The more you show evidence of the evolution of novel beneficial traits, the more you bolster intelligent cause. You are taking us to the library to prove there is no such thing as authors or print.
    Here's a hint: If you want to prove randomness exists in living things, then show us an example of RANDOMNESS anywhere in genetics or any part of any living thing.
    Should be simple. You should be able to find at least trillions of disastrous, messy, asymettrical mutations for any one beneficial trait. Better get started finding and listing them.

     

  • At 1:30 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Eocene, experiments with bacteria are proving ID on a daily basis these days. Using a control group and an experimental group, scientists can introduct either poisons or nutrients to the experimental group only and cause predictable, repeatable results - genetic changes by non-random intelligent cause - which is never found in the control group.

     

  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I can just point to you as evidence as to why ID is a religious, not scientific, proposition.

    Except you can't do any such thing as you don't know what being "religious" entails and you sure as hell don't understand what it means to be a scientific proposition.

    You, RichTard Hughes, are just an ignorant piece of shit and an intellectual coward.

     

  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And RichTard- seeing you don't know what science is it is easy to point to you as evidence to why evolutionism is a religious, not scientific, proposition.

     

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " If you want to prove randomness exists in living things, then show us an example of RANDOMNESS anywhere in genetics or any part of any living thing."

    DO you get to pick if you want a boy or a girl?

     

  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    DO you get to pick if you want a boy or a girl?


    Yes, I get to pick if I want a boy or a girl.

    Dumbass.

     

  • At 10:30 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Hughes:

    "'I've never engaged is science' - laughable from you given your conflation of design and outcome vis experiments.

    But keep churching it up. I can just point to you as evidence as to why ID is a religious, not scientific, proposition."
    ===

    Well you have without any doubt made it crystal clear to the readers of both sides here to have proven you do indeed have a learning disability called - "Sudden Onset English Incomprehension". It may be beneficial for you next time to use the new and improved 'Babylon 9 - Translation Software and Dictionary Tool'.

    I don't even have the heart to even give you a proper LOL send off. Mostly it's just sad really.

     

  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Huges:

    "DO you get to pick if you want a boy or a girl?"
    ===

    Seems like more IDiocy from a true IDiot, but I'll play.

    I take it you had a terrible molestation experiece by a couple of rogue Nonylphenol and Bisphenol-A molecules when you were once a developing fetus ???

    Dare I ask what the results were ???

     

  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    IntelligentAnimation:

    "Why is it that when a Darwinist is challenged to prove random mess can cause functional order, they merely show an example of microevolution and then claim it happened by luck?"
    ===

    Give'em some credit. They appreciate what bigger buffoons they've look like publicly[aside from cowardly anonymity of combat forums] if the even remotely tried to pull off the stunt of proving that blind pointless pitiless indifference without guidance, purpose or intent accomplishes amazing complex things.

    Therefore with all cleverness, they procede to hijack I.D. concepts and lable it with loads of evolutionary signage. Seriously it's true. Just read almost any evolutionary science paper published in almost any well respected journal approved by the Panel of Peers.

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Again Eocene - off on a tangent, having adressed nothing. But I'm loving it - so long as ID has demented fundie cheerleaders such as yourself, it wont be too hard for observers to connect the dots.

     

  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, RichTard off-tangent, still unable to produce positive evidence for his position and as with all cowards blames others for his ignorance and stupidity.

    Connect the dots? Will Provine did that for everyone already:

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.

    and

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false

    and

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent

    and

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism

    and

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.

    IOW teaching the theory of evolution in public schools is in direct violation of the establishemnt clause.

     

  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, once again you chicken out of my challenge, so I'll try to break this down to terms so simple even a Darwinist can keep up.

    Natural selection can not design any novel features because said features must already exist before they can be selected or not. Darwinism, in all its stupidity, has two steps: Random accident and selection. The job of coming up with novel features is assigned to random accident.

    To the Darwinist who understands their own failed theory, unguided luck accounts for all new traits and species. Selection is merely an approve / reject function.

    So a less stupid response to Joe's central question would be that you never claimed selection could design, because you claim only random luck can design.

    Arent you the Darwinist who claimed that random chance accounts for all intelligent thought? Learn your own ridiculous theory, which states that all living things were caused by rank luck. Selection cant select anything that doesnt exist.

     

  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the question was "Can genetic accidents alter existing biological systems?", the answer would be "yes".

    However the question pertains to the arrival of those systems via a specific accumulation of genetic accidents.

    The question gets to the very heart of this alleged designer mimic and therefor hits the very small heart of all evotards causing the observed evotardgasms.

    Cause and effect relationships...

     

  • At 12:55 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes attempts to prove random chaos causes functional order by asking if I can choose a baby to be a boy or a girl.

    Do you have even the dimmest inkling of what 100% unguided randomness looks like? Put fruit in a blender and you will get the idea. Whether a boy or a girl there is no randomness in the assembly of the parts. (Some women are more proof of this than others. lol.)

    If you travel a neighborhood, you may find variation in the homes. Different shapes, sizes and colors. This is variation. If you find a house with planks, pipes and wiring sticking out at odd, unuseful angles, then you have found randomness, although still mostly design, in the homes.

    If you find a pile of junk, without so much as a complete nail or pane of glass, you have your unguided randomness.

    Whether a boy or a girl, you have found design.

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Joe G, Will Provine did reject Darwinism, although not his Atheism, before he died. He called selection "empty rhetoric" which can not even "nudge" evolution. Refering to Dawkins' hilarious "Blind Watchmaker" fiction, he said that all one need do is to read his chapter on a watch self-constructing to know there is something terribly wrong with the theory.

    I do agree with your point that Darwinism is forcing a religious concept over science in schools. Science shows intelligent agency. Nothing but fundamental atheism stands in the way of life science.

     

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Erm, you're clearly using your own, special definition of random. You asked, I answered. Child gender is random.

    "Rich, once again you chicken out of my challenge" - doesn't really appeal to me. There's scope for a whole load of chicken and egg shenanigans, and "survival of the fittest" is very old school. Go with "[the]Principle stating that heritable characteristics that provide a survival reproductive advantage are more likely than alternative characteristics to be passed on to subsequent generations and thus come to be “selected“ over time." or somesuch.

     

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "IOW teaching the theory of evolution in public schools is in direct violation of the establishemnt clause."

    Go take 'em to court, then Joe. I'll be in the front row.

     

  • At 1:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard- you will be a witness and help prove my case.

     

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, you cant prove randomness exists in living things by noting an example of high-level design, such as gender differentiation.

    We need randomness - messy, amorphous, asymmettrical, useless, detrimental and downright goopy - randomness. A fingernail behind the ear or a set of blood vessels not connected to the rest.

    Such things DO exist, but they are quite the rare exception, not the norm despite many mutations in each generation, and they are usually associated with radiation or chemical contamination. Why so?

    Hundreds of thousands of lab mice became a genetic mess due to radiation applied, and not one of them got a novel functional trait? Yet creatures attain improved genetics all the time, without any sign of the messy stuff.

    Why Rich? Is random chaos at the steering wheel of evolution or not?

     

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IA:
    Joe G, Will Provine did reject Darwinism, although not his Atheism, before he died.

    He died?

     

  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "natures programmed ability" - okay, you should be able to point this out in the code, then.

     

  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    This encapsulates your misunderstanding in a nutshell: "Is random chaos at the steering wheel of evolution or not?"

    NO. It may be an engine of variation, but it is not 'the steering wheel' (selection).

     

  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "RichTard- you will be a witness and help prove my case."

    Very good. when is it going down?

     

  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    It may be an engine of variation, but it is not 'the steering wheel' (selection).

    Steered by whatever survives in the "direction" of those surviving survivors.

    Yes indeed you will make a great witness for my side.

     

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

    "Very good. when is it going down?"

     

  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Very good indeed- all in due time but my bet is someone else will get to it before me.

     

  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, a Darwinist, claims that accident is his engine and selection is his steering wheel. Lets look at his own example and see if that analogy holds up.

    First we have a strain of bacteria incapable of digesting citrates. Then a genetic mutation occurs, giving the first bacterium this novel trait (digesting citrates). What steered the genetics in this first bacterium? According to Darwinism, luck did it. Random accident did the steering.

    Next, the single bacterium divides and its lineage proliferates because of the benefits of this genetic upgrade. This is the engine (selection).

    So you got your theory backwards, but it is wrong anyway. If you cant look at that first bacterium with the novel trait and credit selection for steering it into existence, then you cant credit selection for steering. Selection is a result, not a cause, of novel traits.

    The steering takes place before selection steps on the gas pedal.

     

  • At 7:38 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, what caused the novel genetic trait of citrate digesting in that first bacterium?

    Remember Darwinist, it cant be selected until it exists. Selection, a subtractive filter, can only kill or not kill.

    The central question is what caused the novel trait to come about in the first place?

     

  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IA:
    Rich Hughes, what caused the novel genetic trait of citrate digesting in that first bacterium?

    The novel trait was getting the citrate to the already existing citrate digesting machinery.

    Which begs another question...

     

  • At 11:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Rich Hughes, a Darwinist" - If you want to put things in other's mouths, I'd suggest your cock in your mother's. I have never referred to itself as a 'Darwinist'.

    the rest of your post seems pointless..!

    you might however enjoy this:

    http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/pdf/sniegowski_lenski_1995.pdf

    "At the end of this section, we describe
    the most studied remaining case of apparently directed mutation, the so-called
    "adaptive" reversion of a lac frameshift in E. coli. After discussing recent
    results in this case, we consider the molecular models that have been invoked
    to explain it and other cases of apparently directed mutation. We stress that
    mechanism in the most plausible models,though inherently fascinating and
    potentially important to the study of mutagenesis, are consistent with the
    modern Darwinian view that variation precedes adaptation"

     

  • At 11:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Which begs another question..."

    No. It raises a question. Begging the question is a fallacy, ' petitio principii'.

     

  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    It raises a question.

    What question does it raise?

    But anyway chalk up "begging the question" as something else RichTard doesn't understand.

     

  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All these posts and still nothing on natural selection designing anything.

    Is the theory of evolution really this vacuous?

     

  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW IA Rich is too much of a coward to actually declare anything. And he is too stupid to understand what a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist is.

     

  • At 6:12 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Richard Hughes:

    "http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/pdf/sniegowski_lenski_1995.pdf

    "At the end of this section, we describe
    the most studied remaining case of apparently directed mutation, the so-called
    "adaptive" reversion of a lac frameshift in E. coli.
    ===

    Yes, we've all seen this peice, but you conveniently left off the title and reason for the paper, let's see what it is.

    The title:
    "MUTATION AND
    ADAPTATIONT: The Directed
    Mutation Controversy in
    Evolutionary Perspective"

    Notice this particlar note inside the title.

    "The Directed Mutation Controversy"

    Ah yes, Lenski and gang have been accused of directing, manipulating, rigging etc experiments, but look what other important points of the paper you diliberately left out. Points of which are the reason for the paper. In fact they are all right there in the Abstract:
    ----

    "ABSTRACT
    A central tenet of evolutionary theory is that mutation is random with respect
    to its adaptive consequences for individual organisms; that is, the production
    of variation precedes and does not cause adaptation. Several recent experimental
    reports have challenged this tenet by suggesting that bacteria (and yeast)
    "mayh ave mechanismsfo r choosing which mutations will occur" (6, p. 142).
    The phenomenon of nonrandom mutation claimed in these experiments was
    initially called "directed mutation" but has undergone several name changes
    during its brief and controversial history. history. The directed mutation hypothesis has
    not fared well; many examples of apparently directed mutation have been
    rejected in favor of more conventional explanations, and several reviews questioning
    the validity of directed mutation have appeared (53, 54, 59-61, 79,
    80). Nonetheless, directed mutation has recently been reincarnated under the
    confusing label "adaptive mutation" (5, 23, 24, 27, 35, 74). Here we discuss
    the many experimental and conceptual problems with directed/adaptive mutation,
    and we argue that the most plausible molecular models proposed to
    explain "adaptive mutation" are entirely consistent with the modemD arwinian
    concept of adaptation by natural selection on randomly occurring variation."
    ----

    So basically Old time Religion of NeoDarwinism is offended by the term "Directed Mutation" and apparently so is Lenski. So as Lenski mentions, it becomes resurrected with the term "Adaptive Mutation" which he apparently doesn't approve of either, what true believer in Darwin would ???

    So he attemps to explain it away. After all, this man has to defend his own intelligent ability of being able to rig with his intelligent fingerprints and insist his experiments never used intelligents. Why they just observed.

    His a book by Kevin Kelly, who researched the intelligent way bacteria are able to intelligently create and makes applications from this to modern technologies. He also quotes Carl Sagan's wife who is sort of on the fringes of Orthodox Darwinian thought and two scientists, Molecular Biologist, Barry Hall and Harvard Geneticist John Cairns who also buck the Darwinian Orthodoxy.

    continued below . .

     

  • At 6:13 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    continued:

    As Kelly states, " In a sense, the organism would direct mutations of its own making in response to environmental factors."
    "Both Hall and Cairns claim that they have carefully eliminated all other explanations for their results, and stick by their claim that the bacteria are directing their own mutations. However, until they can elucidate a mechanism for the way in which a stupid bacterium can become aware of which mutation is required, few other molecular geneticists are ready to give up strict Darwinism."

    "According to the laws of neodarwinism, the environment, and only the environment, can select mutations; and the environment can never induce or direct mutations. In 1988 Harvard geneticist John Cairns and colleagues published evidence of environmentally induced mutations in the bacterium E. coli. Their claim was audacious: that under certain conditions the bacteria spontaneously crafted needed mutations in direct response to stresses in their environment. Cairns also had the gall to end his paper by suggesting that whatever process was responsible for the directed mutations "could, in effect, provide a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics" -- a bald allusion to Darwin's rival-in-theory Jean-Baptiste Lamarck."

    "Another molecular biologist, Barry Hall, published results which not only confirmed Cairns's claims but laid on the table startling additional evidence of direct mutation in nature. Hall found that his cultures of E. coli would produce needed mutations at a rate about 100 million times greater than would be statistically expected if they came by chance. Furthermore, when he dissected the genes of these mutated bacteria by sequencing them, he found mutations in no areas other than the one where there was selection pressure. This means that the successful bugs did not desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to find the one that works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the bill. Hall found some directed variations so complex they required the mutation of two genes simultaneously. He called that "the improbable stacked on top of the highly unlikely." These kinds of miraculous change are not the kosher fare of serial random accumulation that natural selection is supposed to run on. They have the smell of some design."

    Out of Control
    Chapter 19: POSTDARWINISM

     

  • At 6:19 AM, Blogger Eocene said…

    JoeG:

    "BTW IA Rich is too much of a coward to actually declare anything. And he is too stupid to understand what a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist is."
    ===

    It's called BIAS the hard way.

    He's also as Jquip said, a coward at admitting mistakes. For example when he lied[okay I'll be nice - mistakenly] accused me and other creation believers of inventing and fabricating the term "hunting in wolfpacks" to describe the OBSERVED behavior of bacteria, he has yet to acknowledge from the links provided or his own personal "Google is Your Friend" search that such terminology was in fact INVENTED and coined by evolutionary researchers.

    Apparently arrogance and pride doesn't allow any admiting of errors.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home