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

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Why Evolutionism does NOT Expect/ Predict A Tree of Life

-
The theory of evolution does not expect nor predict a tree of life because the theory of evolution is silent on the origin of living organisms and it is the origin that determines how many trees there will be.

(it is a given that basic fact will be lost on evos)

posted by Joe G @ 9:32 AM  

164 Comments:

  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Wow. Joe Sixpack claims to know theory of evolution better than its originator Charles Darwin who introduced the tree of life. Or member of the National Academy of Sciences Ford Doolittle who wrote the following:

    "To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them, it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants."

     

  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow oleg dickinmouth can't understand simple and basic logic. Another prediction fulfilled.

    Dude if you plant 100 seeds do you really only expect 1 to take root?

     

  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW asshole, what I said has has to do with the origin of living organisms. And that is something Chucky's "theory" is silent about.

     

  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    If you examine what grew out of a single seed, does it look like a tree? That's precisely Doolittle's point. Animal lifeforms form a tree. Just like predicted by Darwin on the basis of his theory, where genes are transferred vertically.

    Early eukaryotes had other ways of transferring genes (HGT), so the tree does not apply to them.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    If you examine what grew out of a single seed, does it look like a tree?

    What single seed? The theory is silent on the number of seeds.

    Obviously you have too many issues and cannot understand that.

    oleg:
    Animal lifeforms form a tree.

    A tree based on common design.

    oleg:
    Just like predicted by Darwin on the basis of his theory, where genes are transferred vertically.

    Again his "theory" didn't say how many animal seeds there would be so it can't say how mnay trees.

    oleg:
    Early eukaryotes had other ways of transferring genes (HGT), so the tree does not apply to them.

    Then you cannot apply a tree to what they gave rise to.

     

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    That last one simply does not follow.

    Look at this picture and tell me: are those objects trees?

     

  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    That last one simply does not follow.

    It does if you have a basic grasp of logic and reasoning. Ya see there is no reason to infer organisms that engage in HGT and do not produce a tree to give rise to one tree consisting of organisms that do not engage in HGT.

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Look at this picture and tell me: are those objects trees?

    TREES- fucking plural you russian reject.

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Very good, those are trees. Aspen trees, to be exact.

    They, in fact, are a single organism, a colony grown from a single seed, with a a gigantic root system. They spread by root suckers.

    What does this have to do with the tree of life? The roots of an aspen colony represent the so-called communal period of evolution dominated by horizontal gene transfer. Ancestry is hard to trace by looking at roots. However, once we go above the ground, we are dealing with trees. Quite unequivocally.

    Likewise, life on earth in general does not have a tree structure. However, it has significant parts that do. Creationists like yourself don't give a fig about eukaryotes. They are worried the animal tree of life, which is as well defined as an aspen tree in that picture. Specifically, they are worried that humans are part of the tree. About which there are no doubts.

     

  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    However, it has significant parts that do.

    Due to a common design.

    oleg:
    Creationists like yourself don't give a fig about eukaryotes.

    Was Darwin a Creationist? How are you defining Creationist? And of course I care about eukaryotes, which of course all animals are.

    And of course humans of part of the common design tree. There isn't any evidence to teh contrary and no genetic evidence which demonstrates humans have a non-human as an ancestor.

     

  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    However, once we go above the ground, we are dealing with trees.

    Again with the plural.

    I take it you don't understand how that proves my point.

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And according to (the real) Creationists baraminology also deals with trees...

     

  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Designed-based trees, huh?

    Let's take the tree of GM cars. Where does the Chevrolet Prizm fit on that tree?

     

  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Designed-based trees, huh?

    COMMON design-based trees.

    oleg:
    Let's take the tree of GM cars. Where does the Chevrolet Prizm fit on that tree?

    Well first you start with the TRANSPORTATION tree. I am sure the Prizm would fit under "land"/ "car"/ "gasoline engines"

     

  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    That's too vague, Joe. Who are the closest ancestor(s) and descendant(s) of the Prizm? Does it fit under the GM clade or did it come from somewhere else?

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    That's too vague, Joe.

    It's actually very clear.

    oleg:
    Who are the closest ancestor(s) and descendant(s) of the Prizm?

    Umm Prizm's don't reproduce so they don't leave offspring.

    oleg:
    Does it fit under the GM clade or did it come from somewhere else?

    Car with gasoline engines clade.

    It's about the DESIGN.

    Apparently you are incapable of learning.

     

  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    I do not mean to say that cars reproduce. Ancestors and descendants are meant only in the hierarchical sense. If you do not like these terms, let's use the word predecessor, which means the next car on the hierarchy tree toward the root.

    Which car is the predecessor of the Chevrolet Prizm? Which car is the predecessor of the Toyota Prius?

     

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Each model is preceded by the model of the previous year.

    And all cars would trace their common ancestry back to the LUDC- last universally designed car.

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    That's still vague, Joe. Let me help you a bit more.

    The current, 3rd-generation Toyota Prius XW30 has been manufactured since 2009. Its predecessor, Prius XW20, was manufactured from 2003 to 2009. The first generation, Prius XW10, was made from 1997 to 2003. Here you can trace the lineage from XW10 to XW20 and to XW30. They share common design, first and foremost Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive (formerly Toyota Hybrid System).

    Now, tell me which car was the predecessor of Prius XW10.

     

  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You want vague? Just look at evolutionism's alleged trees. They are based on similarities with ancestor-descendent relationships ASSUMED.

    IOW your "trees" are not based on the relationships you speak of.

    And a common design tree isn't based on the relationships you speak of.

     

  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However being a HYBRID the predecessors would be gasoline and electric powered cars.

     

  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Reconstructing ancestral relations in nature is difficult for the simple reason that the predecessors of extant species have died out long ago. We have to rely on fossils and on molecular comparisons to determine ancestral hierarchies.

    There is no such problem with cars. Their history is well documented. Certainly so for the cars that were produced in the 1990s. If there is indeed a hierarchical tree of cars you should have no trouble producing it.

    So which car was the predecessor of the first-generation Prius?

     

  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Reconstructing ancestral relations in nature is difficult for the simple reason that the predecessors of extant species have died out long ago.

    What makes it even more difficult is our ignorance as to what makes an organism what it is.

    oleg:
    We have to rely on fossils and on molecular comparisons to determine ancestral hierarchies.

    To ASSUME ancetral hierarchies.

    oleg:
    So which car was the predecessor of the first-generation Prius?

    AGAIN, that ain't how it works with the common design tree.

    Here Look at this tree, or this tree. And then we have this tree.

     

  • At 10:17 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Your linked pictures show trees in the biological sense. But they are not examples of tree structures in the technical sense of the word that is relevant to our conversation. Each node must only have one "parent" node. The trees in your links violate that rule.

    If you insist that common design results in tree structures, show us how this works in practice. Cars are designed, so if they form a tree then you should be able to point out "parents" for every car. You have not been able to do so for either the Prius or the Prizm. That, my friend, is by design. :)

     

  • At 10:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Your linked pictures show trees in the biological sense.

    As did yours.

    oleg:
    Each node must only have one "parent" node.

    Right you get around that by having many trees. Well in that case the first prius is the root of that tree- or the hybrid prototypes are.

    But again you are trying to construct some type of hierarchy that I never intended.

    oleg:
    Cars are designed, so if they form a tree then you should be able to point out "parents" for every car.

    That isn't how one constructs a tree based on common design.

    If you want a tree with cars then "Transportation" would be the root. And then you branch out from there. Sooner or later you will get to the car branch. And on that branch you will have gas, electric and hybrids.

    Not all trees have to depict historical relationships- just look at Linnean taxonomy.

    Man are you dense.

     

  • At 10:59 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Excellent, Joe! We have established that the Prius does not have a predecessor car.

    I haven't heard from you anything about the Prizm, so let me give you the answer. You won't find any "ancestors" among the cars of the GM family. It was merely a rebadged Toyota Corolla, only made by Chevrolet.

    Speaking of the Corolla. Which car was its predecessor?

    Which car was the predecessor of the 1973 Honda Civic?

    How about the Ford Pinto?

     

  • At 11:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

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

    Thanks, Joefail.

     

  • At 11:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Excellent, Joe! We have established that the Prius does not have a predecessor car.

    Actually we have established that you do not know how to create a tree based on common design.

     

  • At 11:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard bald link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosculation

    So what?

     

  • At 11:41 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    You are right, Joe. I do not know how designed objects form a tree structure. In fact, I maintain that there is no reason to expect that.

    It's you who insists that they do. However, so far we have not seen any explicit construction of a tree structure. Lots of cars have no obvious predecessors.

    Perhaps some cars can be arranged into a tree, but those trees would be pretty minimal, with just a few nodes and hardly any branchings. The Civic tree will contain (drum roll) Civics of different generations. That's a linear sequence. One can call it a tree, but such terminology is completely unnecessary.

     

  • At 11:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

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

    Enjoy!

     

  • At 11:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent


    Yes dumbass, I know the story.

     

  • At 11:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You've no doubt read the study, then:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

     

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    You are right, Joe. I do not know how designed objects form a tree structure.

    Because you have your head up your ass and refuse to follow what I say- or you are too stupid.

    oleg:
    In fact, I maintain that there is no reason to expect that.

    Because you are obviously clueless of design standards, such as IEEE, building codes, etc.

    oleg:
    It's you who insists that they do. However, so far we have not seen any explicit construction of a tree structure.

    You are a liar.

     

  • At 11:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    You've no doubt read the study, then:


    Don't know as you are too retarded to properly post links.

     

  • At 11:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh Doug Theobald? If that is a test of common ancestry then Intelligent design is formally tested.

     

  • At 11:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If you'd move of this rinky dink platform - oh wait, probably not worth it given your readership.

    Here you go:

    "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
    Douglas L. Theobald1
    Journal name:
    Nature
    Volume:
    465,
    Pages:
    219–222
    Date published:
    (13 May 2010)
    DOI:
    doi:10.1038/nature09014
    Received28 August 2009Accepted17 March 2010"

     

  • At 11:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Oh Doug Theobald? If that is a test of common ancestry then Intelligent design is formally tested"

    And baraminology too, no doubt!

    ID flowchart

    >New information supporting evolution comes in
    >Deny
    >misrepresent

    > CLAIM IT SUPPORTS ID!

     

  • At 11:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " If that is a test of common ancestry then Intelligent design is formally tested."

    Yessss... if [that paper I haven't read] then [that outcome I'd prefer]

    All science so far!

     

  • At 12:00 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    All you need to do to prove me wrong is to present a tree diagram with cars as nodes. As many as you can.

     

  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    All you need to do to prove me wrong is to present a tree diagram with cars as nodes.

    oleg you're not even wrong. Also the alleged tree containing animals is nonsense because no one knows if some alleged transitional form is a hybrid.

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh Doug Theobald? If that is a test of common ancestry then Intelligent design is formally tested

    RichTard:
    And baraminology too, no doubt!

    No doubt. Baraminology is better tested than common ancestry, which cannot be tested.

    RiuchTard:
    >New information supporting evolution comes in

    Except "evolution" isn't being debated you equivocating cowardly liar.

    Even Theobald admits his "evidence" is minus a mechanism- asshole loser.

     

  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Yessss... if [that paper I haven't read] then [that outcome I'd prefer]

    I read the paper. It is all based on circumstantial evidence guided by Theobald's biases.

    There still isn't any way to test the claim that prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes.

     

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So yo recap I claim the theory of evolution does not expect/ predict A tree of life.

    oleg chimes in and supports my claim then goes on to act like a lttle cry-baby.

    Richtard chimes in and doesn't understand my claim, never addresses it and thinks he can refute it.

    Life is good...

     

  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Of course one needs to go only as far as Comment 1 in this thread where I quote from a paper by Ford Doolittle to find this:

    "To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them, it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants."

    Yes, there are good reasons to expect that evolution produces tree patterns. Eminently qualified biologists say that. We have excellent evidence of common-descent tree for animals. But Joe Sixpack is not convinced! Oh the horror!

     

  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Yes, there are good reasons to expect that evolution produces tree patterns.

    No, there isn't. Even Darwin went over that in his book.

    True the theory can explain a tree pattern but it does not predict one. And if you have more than one tree then that supports my claim also.

     

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just because oleg dickinmouth thinks there is evidence of an animal tree means everyone has to or they are insane or wicked.

    Too bad no one can test the claim, which means it ain't science...

     

  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In chapter 14 of "On the Origins of Species...":


    If, however, we suppose any descendant of A or of I to have become so much modified as to have lost all traces of its parentage in this case, its place in the natural system will be lost, as seems to have occurred with some few existing organisms.    -Charles Darwin chapter 14


    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.    - Charles Darwin chapter 14

     

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    doolittle:
    To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications.

    Untestable bald assertion.

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Darwin does not say in that passage that life forms do not form a tree pattern. He merely points out why it may be difficult to discern them. Related species diverge from one another so much that you wouldn't suspect that they are related just by looking at them. But it doesn't mean we never get to find that out. New fossil finds and molecular evidence help fill the gaps.

    An excellent example of that is the evolution of whales. Darwin had no idea which mammals were the closest relatives of whales. No wonder: they are so different from all other mammals! Of course now things are quite different. We know that whales are descendants of carnivorous ungulates. We have found plenty of intermediate forms and molecular evidence points in the same direction.

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Bald assertion, Joe? You haven't even read the article. Go ahead and read it. Then read the references cited by Doolittle and Bapteste.

     

  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Bald assertion, Joe?

    Yes, oleg as it cannot be tested it is a bald assertion.

     

  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Darwin does not say in that passage that life forms do not form a tree pattern.

    Yes, he does. Ya see he was referring to his tree when he said what he did.

    oleg:
    We know that whales are descendants of carnivorous ungulates.

    Except we don't know that as there isn't any way to test the claim.

     

  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    That's typical Joe. Won't learn, can't learn. Will only shriek "Bald assertion!"

    Pathetic, Joe.

     

  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    We have found plenty of intermediate forms and molecular evidence points in the same direction.

    You have a mere handful of possibilities out of the 50,000+ we should see.

    And there still isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

     

  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Typical oleg dickinmouth- can't support his claims so say his opponent is unable to learn.

    Pathetic oleg.

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The sad part of all this is oleg sez the animal tree of life is real, and that design cannot produce a tree, yet that animal tree of life is based on similarities, ie common charcteristics which is exactly how a tree based on common design is constructed.

    The point being is oleg's animal tol is a common design tree.

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, we are still waiting for you to draw up a tree of designed objects. You have said many times that you expect a tree in that case, but talk is cheap and you have not shown any real-life examples. Furthermore, I have pointed out that cars do not fit a tree pattern. You couldn't muster a coherent thought in that direction.

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Joe, we are still waiting for you to draw up a tree of designed objects.

    The tree of animals iis such a tree because it is based on similarities, ie common design.

    Also I said a tree based on COMMON design and gave you the transportation tree which has cars at the tips of one of its branches. That you are unable to understand such a tree is a reflection on you, not me.

    oleg:
    Furthermore, I have pointed out that cars do not fit a tree pattern.

    You only think you have and talk is cheap.

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And oleg the Doolittle paper supports my claim in the OP.

    Are you really that stupid that you didn't realize that?

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    OK, Joe. Draw the tree of cars. Put up or shut up.

     

  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    It is a tree of TRANSPORTATION.

    Why do you think your continued dickheadedness means something?

    Where do you think "cars" would fit on the TRANSPORTATION tree?

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also I said a tree based on COMMON design and gave you the transportation tree which has cars at the tips of one of its branches. That you are unable to understand such a tree is a reflection on you, not me.

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Oh, the Doolittle paper supports what you wrote? That's pretty funny, Joe!

    You wrote: "The theory of evolution does not expect nor predict a tree of life."

    Doolittle wrote: "it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself)"

    Here is a translation for the ignorant: Darwin's theory does predict a tree of life.

     

  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    US Army Command structure is another example of a designed tree.

     

  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Stop talking about the design tree. Draw it.

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The theory of evolution does not expect nor predict a tree of life."

    Tha means ONE.

    oleg quote-mines:
    "it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself)"

    That doesn't mean what you think it does.

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Yes, there is one tree for animals. That's what Darwin predicted.

     

  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    the animal tree is a design tree, asshole.

    US Army Command structure is a design tree, asshole.

    Transportation is a design tree, moron.

     

  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Show us a tree, Joe. With the Prius and the Civic fitting in it. You're all hat, no cattle.

     

  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Yes, there is one tree for animals.

    Based on a common design

    oleg:
    That's what Darwin predicted.

    No, he didn't. All he did was say his position can explain it.

    And as he said transitional forms wreck the tree- don't know where they go and can't tell if they are HYBRIDS.

     

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Show us a tree, Joe.

    Denton "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" page 121

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    I do not have the book, Joe. What does the figure show?

     

  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    I have already explained that we did have a example of animals whose position on the evolutionary tree was lost: whales. Precisely for the reason described by Darwin. But that changed. New fossil finds show a progression from ungulates to whales. Molecular evidence confirms that.

    And hybrids do not help you. You can cross tigers and lions, but these are very closely related. Species that are farther apart produce infertile hybrids (e.g. donkeys and horses). Crossing hippos and whales is out of the question.

     

  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    I have already explained that we did have a example of animals whose position on the evolutionary tree was lost: whales.

    There still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the changes required (to get a whale from a land mammal) are possible.

    oleg:
    And hybrids do not help you.

    They hurt you. As I said no one knows is any alleged transitional is a hybrid. For example your tiktaalik or even archie- both could be hybrids for all you know- or even convergent evolution- something else that messes up the tree.

     

  • At 1:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    I do not have the book, Joe. What does the figure show?

    It starts with TRANSPORTATION- which branches to "land", "water", "air"- for cars we follow land- so transport-> land-> surface then you can either have the type of engine or the type of vehicle.

    For example car would branch to gas, diesel, electric, hybrid with teh cars on the tips of those branches.

     

  • At 1:22 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    We know that hybrids can appear for species that are neighbors on the tree of life, like tigers and lions. We also know that hybridization is impossible between animals that are farther apart. Certainly not between ungulates and whales. Your hypothesis is dead on arrival.

    As to the tree in Denton's book, that isn't what I asked. I want to see a tree with cars classified into a tree hierarchy. With the Civic and the Prius and the rest of the ones I mentioned.

     

  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    We know that hybrids can appear for species that are neighbors on the tree of life, like tigers and lions.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    oleg:
    We also know that hybridization is impossible between animals that are farther apart.

    The theory of evolution does not predict that. Only Creationists have predicted reproductive isolation.

    The theory of evolution may explain it but it is also OK with diverged lines recrossing "down the road"- nothing in the theory prevents it.

    oleg:
    Certainly not between ungulates and whales. Your hypothesis is dead on arrival.

    Your whole position is dead in the water. You don't have any evidence taht demonstrates genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to cetaceans from some land ungulate.

    oleg:
    As to the tree in Denton's book, that isn't what I asked.

    That is too bad as that is the tree I have been talking about.

    oleg:
    I want to see a tree with cars classified into a tree hierarchy.

    You are a little baby whio will cry if you don't get your way, right?! loL

    No, oleg, I do not have to answer to your strawman.

    coward.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Crossing hippos and whales is out of the question.

    Apparently so is testing the claim that a population of land ungulates can "evolve" into cetaceans via accumulations of genetic accidents.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Blah, blah, blah.

    That is the most coherent answer you have managed in a long while, Joe. Stick with it.

     

  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blah, blah, blah.

    oleg:
    That is the most coherent answer you have managed in a long while, Joe.

    It summarizes everything you have posted.

     

  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Of course you do not have to produce the tree of cars, Joe. In fact, you do not have to produce any positive arguments. Just say "Blah, blah, blah." That works so well.

     

  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    In fact, you do not have to produce any positive arguments.

    And yet I have produced plenty and all you have is blah, blah, blah.

     

  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Notice that I NEVER said anything about a tree of cars and it was all oleg's strawman.

    Now it is my fault for not responding to his strawman.

    Go play in traffic oleg...

     

  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So wed is Joe to his ideology, or so intellectually limited, he is afraid of exploring his ideas.


    Draw the tree, Joe..

     

  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have explored my ideas. That you and oleg are too stupid to follow is a reflection on you, not me.

    What tree do you want me to draw? If you cannot visualize the transportation tree from what I provided then you are too stupid to even be having this discussion.

    And if you want to to draw oleg's strawman tree well that just proves that you are a dishonest asshole.

     

  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And your continued projections are duly noted as you refuse to explore anything pertaining to the claims of your position.

     

  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well it isn't a tree of cars- only by design.

     

  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    What tree do you want me to draw? If you cannot visualize the transportation tree from what I provided then you are too stupid to even be having this discussion.

    Draw it anyway. That way everybody is clear on your meaning.

    Or can't you? Is that it?

     

  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What tree do you want me to draw? If you cannot visualize the transportation tree from what I provided then you are too stupid to even be having this discussion.

    OM:
    Draw it anyway.

    You are too stupid to be having this discussion.

    And obviously you are just too stupid to have any discussion.

    Tell me why evotards think that if they are assholes their assholiness refutes their opposistion's claims?

    Draw a flowchart if you like but answer the question.

     

  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    That way everybody is clear on your meaning.

    Anyone with an IQ over 70 is clear on my meaning...

     

  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Anyone with an IQ over 70 is clear on my meaning..."

    Wave those hands, Joe. And IQ doesn't work that way. High IQ correlated to increase aptitudes, but isn't a guarantee of anything.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    Anyone with an IQ over 70 is clear on my meaning...

    Diagrams exist for a reason. Sometimes words are not enough.

    Presumably you now realise that you are wrong in your claims and presumably you have already tried to draw what you are being asked to draw and have realised your error. Yet you cannot admit it!

     

  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    High IQ correlated to increase aptitudes, but isn't a guarantee of anything.

    It is a sure guarantee that you are a fucking moron.

     

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Diagrams exist for a reason.

    For complete morons to drool on.

    But anyway I have the diagram. Just let me know when you would like to meet me so you can see it.

     

  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It is a sure guarantee that you are a fucking moron."

    Moron was the IQ range 51-70, back in the day. I'm pretty confident I could test above that. But please feel free to engage in IQ dick-measuring, tell me how you're a MENSA member and your IQ is much bigger than mine.

    But don't cry. *Caresses Joe's cheek*

     

  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Diagrams exist for a reason. Sometimes words are not enough."


    Great! So you'll be draing that tree diagram, then!

     

  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, for fucks sake you're a 52 year old man, and judging by your pictures, you're in no shape to be offering 'meet ups' to anyone, ethical considerations aside.

    I know you like to play outside of reality on the Internet, but really!

     

  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    Just let me know when you would like to meet me so you can see it.

    Name the time and place. I'll see you there, or somebody else from ATBC will I'm sure.

     

  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    "Diagrams exist for a reason. Sometimes words are not enough."

    RichTard:
    Great! So you'll be draing that tree diagram, then!

    OM will get right on it, moron.

    I already have one- just tell me when you are coming to see it.

     

  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I already have one- just tell me when you are coming to see it."

    Just post it here, sugarbuns.

     

  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, for fucks sake you're a 52 year old man, and judging by your pictures, you're in no shape to be offering 'meet ups' to anyone, ethical considerations aside.

    I could kick your ass inside of 5 minutes.

    Probably wouldn't even break a sweat.

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Name the time and place. I'll see you there, or somebody else from ATBC will I'm sure.

    Tomorrow evening at my house. I have some things just for evotards...

     

  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I could kick your ass inside of 5 minutes."

    No Joe, no you couldn't. It's sad your mental image of yourself is so divorced from the physical reality of what you look like. Fighters aint talkers and talkers aint fighters, and you, Joe - are a talker.

    Most fights are over very, very quickly if one of parties has any clue what they're doing. Your '5 minutes' quip just shows that as well as being physically incapable, you're also not too familiar with the subject matter.

     

  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I already have one- just tell me when you are coming to see it.

    RichTard:
    Just post it here

    Don't cry RichTard. If you are too much of a coward to face me then fuck-off. You have already proven that you are a dishonest, retarded fuck, so there isn't anything else for you to do.

     

  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " If you are too much of a coward to face me then fuck-off"

    In the parking lot where everyone knows you? You're a giggle, Joe, I'll give you that.

     

  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I could kick your ass inside of 5 minutes."

    RichTard:
    No Joe, no you couldn't.

    Yes RichTard, I could and will if we ever meet.

    RichTard:
    It's sad your mental image of yourself is so divorced from the physical reality of what you look like.

    You don't any idea what I look like.

    Richtard:
    Fighters aint talkers and talkers aint fighters, and you, Joe - are a talker.

    No, Richtard, YOU are the talker.

    Richtard:
    Most fights are over very, very quickly if one of parties has any clue what they're doing.

    I take it you haven't wtnessed many fights. True it can be over quickly but then again most likely I will have to chase you down.

    RichTard:
    Your '5 minutes' quip just shows that as well as being physically incapable, you're also not too familiar with the subject matter.

    I said inside of 5 minutes you moron coward loser liar.

     

  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you are too much of a coward to face me then fuck-off

    RichTard:
    In the parking lot where everyone knows you?

    As I thought, coward.

     

  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ohhhh! Chase me big-boy! Actually don't, think of your bad hips and back, gramps.

    Gigglefest!

     

  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, we've been through your pretend meet ups before. It's unsightly to see you crap your cyber pants. No one buys it, so do yourself a favour and grow up, eh?

     

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    .Ohhhh! Chase me big-boy!

    I don't chase cowards. And I won't have to chase you as you are too much of a coward to meet me.

     

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Joe, we've been through your pretend meet ups before.

    Sort of difficult seeing I never had a pretend meet up.

    Do you really think your cowardly lies mean something? Really?

    RichTard:
    No one buys it, so do yourself a favour and grow up, eh?

    Said the little baby who cannot support his position and whines/ cries when other people present ideas.

    Fuck you, you little baby coward.

     

  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Michael jackson used to giggle too Richtard.

    You seem to have quite a bit in common with him. Strange, that...

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Moron was the IQ range 51-70, back in the day.

    And it is a safe bet you couldn't reach that.

     

  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, let me refresh your memory. You've made all sorts of outlandish claims, but you're a fridge repairman, which is fine, there is nobility in all work. You've got a track record of pretending to be other people, pretending to be at venues that doesn't exist but now we've seen you (much like when we saw DaveScott), it's hard to be angry with this Grandpa type figure.

    Joe, you're only a danger to Yourself. You also do ID no favours, but they're not the sharpest group and if they were to weed out the unhinged, they'd have no membership. Are you really making a difference? No. You're playing 'fight the culture wars whilst making up personas'. But you're not bright enough to carry it off.

    Grow up.

     

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And it is a safe bet you couldn't reach that."

    Okay- I'll bet $1000. You do the same, we'll both put it in escrow and then I'll go and take a recognized IQ test. I'll even give you the high number. My IQ will (hopefully!) be above 70.

     

  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, let me refresh your memory.

    Translation- "Let me lie about you"

    RichTard:
    You've made all sorts of outlandish claims,...

    Evidence please.

    but you're a fridge repairman, which is fine, there is nobility in all work.

    I can repair refridgerators but I have never been a fridge repairman- you are a liar.

    RichTard:
    You've got a track record of pretending to be other people,...

    Evidence please- real evidence not more of your lies.

    RichTard:
    pretending to be at venues that doesn't exist

    Another lie.

    Richtard:
    Grow up.

    Said the lying, loser coward cry-baby.

     

  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Okay- I'll bet $1000.

    Unfortunately you are too much of a coward to shake on that...

     

  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Actually Joe, I doubt you have $1000. And I don't really want to be that guy who preys on the old and infirm.

    Let's hypothically say that the mean IQ is 100 and the SD is 15.27. What are the odds of a random person having an IQ of 70 or higher, assuming a normal distribution for IQ? Can you work that out? I can.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Actually Joe, I doubt you have $1000.

    I doubt you have a brain. I doubt you have anything but to whine at other people's ideas.

    You definiteluy have never had an original thought in your entire life.

    RichTard:
    What are the odds of a random person having an IQ of 70 or higher...

    You are not a random person. Ypu are an imbecile who proves he is an imbecile with each of your posts.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    Tomorrow evening at my house.

    What's your address?

     

  • At 1:22 PM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    Evidence please- real evidence not more of your lies.

    John Paul.

     

  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " Can you work that out? I can."

    That must must be yet another thing you don't know that I do. But I bet I can't change freon like you.

    Nice work parking-lot-Jim-John-Paul.

     

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evidence please- real evidence not more of your lies.

    OM:
    John Paul

    That wasn't a different persona and it wasn't even just me.

    Moron.

     

  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tomorrow evening at my house.

    OM:
    What's your address?

    Look it up or ask blipey- he thinks he knows.

     

  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    That must must be yet another thing you don't know that I do.

    Yes Richtard, you know how to be an asshole.

     

  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "That wasn't a different persona..." Oh, so Joe = John Paul,now.. " and it wasn't even just me." So it was in part you, or you sometimes, so the pint still stands, my less than honest chum.

    "Look it up or ask blipey- he thinks he knows"

    MEET ME AT MY HOUSE TOMORROW, BUT I WONT TELL YOU WHERE!

    Vintage Joe.

     

  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    Look it up or ask blipey- he thinks he knows.

    What name shall I use to look it up?

     

  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes Richtard, you know how to be an asshole."


    Awwww. Nice work mister sweary-pants!

     

  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    "That wasn't a different persona..." Oh, so Joe = John Paul,now.. " and it wasn't even just me."

    Wow, you are a moron. "Jofhn Paul" A) is NOT a different persona and B) was never just me and I didn't start it.

    Richtard:
    MEET ME AT MY HOUSE TOMORROW, BUT I WONT TELL YOU WHERE!

    You morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    Obviously you are too chicken-shit to even believe yourselves.

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look it up or ask blipey- he thinks he knows.

    OM:
    What name shall I use to look it up?

    As I just said to Richtard you morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    What's wrong? Don't trust yourselves?

    Losers

     

  • At 4:13 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    As I just said to Richtard you morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    If I knew, I'd not ask.

    So what is it?

     

  • At 4:14 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    As I just said to Richtard you morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    And Joe, for the record we're all separate people. So what one person knows the other does not automatically know.

    I know you are used to pretending to be a group of people, so it's an understandable mistake.

     

  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    As I just said to Richtard you morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    I don't. I have never claimed to.

    So what is your name, age and where do you live?

    I'd like to have this chat fact to face you see. See if your foul mouth is the same when we're face to face.

     

  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I just said to Richtard you morons think you know my name, age and where I live.

    OM:
    If I knew, I'd not ask.

    Ask your evotards buddies.
    Or do you not trust them?

    Moron.

     

  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I'd like to have this chat fact to face you see. See if your foul mouth is the same when we're face to face.

    My mouth will be even more foul if you were in front of me.

    But anyway ask away at atbc- they say they know all about me.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And Joe, for the record we're all separate people. So what one person knows the other does not automatically know.

    You can ask them you ignorant fuck.

    OM:
    I know you are used to pretending to be a group of people, so it's an understandable mistake.

    Nice projection you anonymous wanker with at least two different internet names still in use.

     

  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    You can ask them you ignorant fuck.

    I'm asking you.

    Nice projection you anonymous wanker with at least two different internet names still in use.

    Really? What are they then?

     

  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM and oldmanintheskydidit

    And I am sure you use more than that because you are a coward.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger CBD said…

    Joe,
    OM and oldmanintheskydidit

    One is just a short version of the other and I often sign posts at ATBC with OM.

    Hardly in the same league as you, pretending to be multiple different people.

    And I am sure you use more than that because you are a coward.

    I'm on UD right now poking fun at you. So you got that right! Is it because I'm a coward? Perhaps. Or perhaps it's because UD banned me already with my real pseudo. Who knows!

    But I never pretend to be something I'm not, you Muslim Creationist you.

     

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    One is just a short version of the other and I often sign posts at ATBC with OM.

    They are still two different "names" because you have to try to hide.

    OM:
    Hardly in the same league as you, pretending to be multiple different people.

    Liar.

    Do you think your lies and false accusations mean something?

    OM:
    I'm on UD right now poking fun at you.

    You mean you think you are poking fun at me.

    In reality you are too stupid to know when you are being made fun of.

    OM:
    But I never pretend to be something I'm not, you Muslim Creationist you.

    Right you are a faggot wanker, no pretending required.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW OM, UD has your IP address so you are being watched- dumbass

    Yup, I gave it to them, moron...

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "BTW OM, UD has your IP address so you are being watched- dumbass

    Yup, I gave it to them, moron..."

    I think he's a bit more sophisticated than that...

     

  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard thinking- Now THAT is funny...

     

  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Plus he doesn't use all the same go-to phrases like you do with your socks, Joe.

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All evotards use the same nonsense.

    That is why it is safe to infer there are but a few of you.

     

  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger CBD said…

    Dear Joe,
    BTW OM, UD has your IP address so you are being watched- dumbass

    Yup, I gave it to them, moron...

    Oh, we want to get technical do we?

    What is it then?

    And frankly, I don't much care. So what? It's just a number. There is another one above it and another one below it. My number is transitional between those.

    It's only cowards like you that care about being "unmasked". I only chose the name I did at ATBC originally because I only created the account to make a single post, to AFDave and I thought I'd never use it again. If I had anticipated the endless tard I'd probably have used my real name!

    And Joe. UD has no clue who I am. If they wanted to know all they have to do is read the posts that people write and infer who I am from what I say. Jesus, they'll "find me out" via my IP address and then say to each other "I knew it was that guy, he sounded exactly like those other users saying exactly the same things to the same people". You don't really need my I.P address to find me out Joseph. Only a fucking idiot would need that.

    Oh, that's right....

    If I were on there at the moment, which I'm not (that might, or might not, be a lie) then they certainly do not have my I.P address in any case.

    The funny thing is that so what, they are "watching" me. It's a tiny blog that is the last gasp of probably the last chance ID had at ever being taken seriously. Don't you ever wonder where the research is? Douglas Axe showing that cats can't evolve into dogs is really doing it for you?

    So why don't you "out" me Joe. See what happens. Nobody will care. Only 3 or 4 people even read this pathetic blog and now we're getting all stalker this will probably be my last post. If you want to meet up for a face to face chat in a public place then you know where to find me to arrange that.

    Other then that, keep it real. Keep up the good work!

    If you did not exist we'd have to invent you! The ultimate Poe!

    See you on UD! Or not, perhaps. Maybe. I'll see you before you see me anyway.

    Yours

    Moseph et al.

     

  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It's only cowards like you that care about being "unmasked".

    Nice projection multiple anonymous sock-puppet coward.

    OM:
    UD has no clue who I am.

    Keep telling yourself that.

    OM:
    Don't you ever wonder where the research is?

    Yes I always wonder where your position's research is. Yet you don't have anything.

    OM:
    So why don't you "out" me Joe.

    Already have- as you said no one cares because you are just another fucking wanker.

     

  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger CBD said…

    Post the I.P Joe.

     

  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anticipated the endless tard? You fucks are the source of the tard. Who are you trying to fool?

     

  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lick my asshole while I shit, OM.

    Do that for me and I will do as you ask...

    Coward

     

  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    O, Joe, since the subject of discussion is socks. Whatever happened to that "Jim" character? Did they ban him from Telic Thoughts?

     

  • At 7:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg is your babushka too tight cutting off circulation to your brain?- telic thoughts does have a banned list or are you so stupid you don't know how to access it?

    And last I checked Jim wasn't a character but don't let that stop you from being a tard.

    O and thanks for posting that Dembski prediction that turned out correct.

     

  • At 7:31 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Oh, you are quite welcome, Joe. Here is another prediction made by Paul Nelson in 2002:

    "Here's a prediction. Universal [common descent] will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner."

    Bonus: Paul Nelson Day.

     

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And it is gasping for breath! It has been gasping for breath ever since its inception. Go figure...

     

  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    And for how long will it be "gasping for breath," Joe? Care to make your own prediction? Don't be afraid to make a fool of yourself. Follow you leaders.

     

  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It will be gasping for breath until it can be objectively, ie scientifically, tested.

    To this day no one even knows if the transformations required are even feasible, never mind possible.

     

  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    O oleg, my little bushka, it appears that evotards, like you, OM, Richtard et al., blindly follow your leaders.

     

  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Too bad, Joe. Theory of evolution will keep chugging along. Creationists will keep fantasizing about its demise. It's been like that for 150 years.

     

  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah chugging along but producing absolutely nothing.

    What keeps it chugging along then? EvoTards, not science.

    Strange, that...

     

  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    oleg, Darwin did not invent the "tree of life" concept or evolution. And he didnt know anything about genetics in his time.

    Darwin's contribution is nothing more than the fallacy that evolution is caused by random accident and what he called selection.

    Evolution was well understood before Darwin and all he did was confuse the issue with mathematical impossibilities that have led dimmer biologists away from scientific discovery.

    Darwin was the biggest disaster in the history of science, worse even than geocentrism and bleeding the sick.

     

  • At 7:22 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Evolution does expect a tree of life and a tree of life does appear to exist.

    Saying that we "predict" a tree of life seems a little odd, since it is more a matter of observing it and documenting it.

    Do you deny that there is a tree of life?

     

  • At 10:51 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Truthfully, a diagram of the evolutionary chain looks less like a tree and more like a rake. If you were to put the entire history of life on a football field of 100 yards, it would start with miscrobial life, and be nothing but microbes until the 84th yard line. Yet, by the 85th yard line, all of the major metazoan phyla spread out across the earth.

    This is the Cambrian Explosion, where essentially everything happened at once. Animals got limbs and eyes all at once at this time 240 million years ago. From that point forward, functional complexity was pretty much established and was mostly static.

    The prongs of the rake do have some irregularities, but Darwin's prediction of a gradual tree shape is not supported by the fossil evidence at all.

     

  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IA,

    It isn't that Darwin predicted a tree. It's more like he just tried to explain the tree pattern people saw at the time.

    Also the discovery of convergent evolution destroys any expectations of a tree-like pattern.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home