Has Natural Selection Been Refuted? The Spewage of Joe Felsenstein
-
Joe Felsenstein seems to think his raw spewage about natural selection and CSI means something.
I encourage people to read it and see if they see any evidence that natural selection can create CSI. What Joe does is totally mess up the concept of CSI.
Joe sez:
Joe, if you have populations then you are starting with the very thing that needs explaining in the first place. As I said, you are clueless.
But anyway the article is a joke and does not demonstrate that natural selection can produce anything, let alone CSI.
Joe Felsenstein seems to think his raw spewage about natural selection and CSI means something.
I encourage people to read it and see if they see any evidence that natural selection can create CSI. What Joe does is totally mess up the concept of CSI.
Joe sez:
Generating specified information
Evolution does not happen by deterministic or random change in a single DNA sequence, but in a population of individuals, with natural selection choosing among them. The frequencies of different alleles change. Considering natural selection in a population, we can clearly see that a law of conservation of specified information, or even a law of conservation of information, does not apply there.
Joe, if you have populations then you are starting with the very thing that needs explaining in the first place. As I said, you are clueless.
But anyway the article is a joke and does not demonstrate that natural selection can produce anything, let alone CSI.
posted by Joe G @ 2:44 PM
31 Comments:
At 5:54 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
ID is a purely negative, anti-evolutionary argument, part 2496212469182469812469124
At 7:46 PM,
Joe G said…
To a simple-minded fool like you, that is what you think.
Unfortunately for you reality says ID, as with ALL design inferences, is based on PARSIMONY, ie Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning.
Also, as has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.
But your ignorance of ID and science is duly noted, again.
At 9:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Proven" = idiot gets it wrong on his blog, qoutes himself. Fascinating. A bit like your predictions.
At 9:50 PM,
Joe G said…
I didn't get it wrong on my blog.
However there was this time over on the septic zone that you got it wrong, big time, and continued to quote yourself as if it made it right. I wrote about it here.
Fascinating, indeed
At 10:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
1 - red herring, you're trying to change the subject (from another substance free anti evolutionary blurt)
2 - you don't actually quote me
3 - you don't link to anything.
4 - same old creationist trope of repeating debunked and frankly idiotic claims.
Vintage Joe. Fascinating.
At 10:10 PM,
blipey said…
Natural Selection doesn't explain origins of populations, JoeTard. No one claims it does. Well, maybe you do, but I doubt you'll ever clearly state what exactly it is that you do believe. So, I'll just go with you thinking that NS explains the origin of populations.
At 10:11 PM,
Joe G said…
1- You are an ignorant moron
2- You are an ignorant moron
3- You are an ignorant moron
4- You don't have any evidence to support your false accusations, because
5- You are an ignorant moron
Vintage Richie the cupcake FAIL
At 10:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Natural Selection doesn't explain origins of populations,
I know it doesn't you ignorant piece of shit. THAT is why it doesn't explain CSI- CSI pertains to origins- dumbass.
At 10:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Mwah. Laughing at you getting it wrong never gets old. Are you going to be swapping YEC ideas with Sal Cordova?
At 10:16 PM,
blipey said…
So, only original objects contain CSI?
At 10:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie- of course you laugh at me- YOU are a fucking coward and a MORON. It's expected.
At 10:23 PM,
Joe G said…
So, only original objects contain CSI?
Only in your little-bitty mind.
At 10:25 PM,
blipey said…
I'm sure you'll now explain how CSI has nothing to do with extant populations and pertains only to origins?
At 10:27 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm sure you'll explain why you are such a belligerent asshole and an ignorant little faggot?
At 10:28 PM,
blipey said…
You're the one who said CSI pertains to origins. But you seem to also think that CSI can be measured in extant populations? Just asking fo clarification.
At 10:35 PM,
Joe G said…
You're the one who said CSI pertains to origins.
Dembski said it- Lizzie Liddle agrees
But you seem to also think that CSI can be measured in extant populations?
You're fucking hopeless- we can see if CSI is present and it is in the minimal organism.
At 10:37 PM,
Joe G said…
And Erik, YOU were the one who came here spewing ignorant nonsense. Nice to see you can have your ass handed to you and not miss a belligerent beat.
Do you ejaculate every time you get your ass handed to you? Is that why you come back for more and more?
At 1:34 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: Saying "CSI pertains to origins" doesn't mean it pertains *only* to origins.
also:
"we can see if CSI is present and it is in the minimal organism." Can you show your mathematical workings, or are you bullshitting again?
At 8:26 AM,
Joe G said…
I showed my mathematical workings Richie- ya see YOU are the total bullshitting faggot.
So fuck you and your faggot false accusations.
At 11:43 AM,
blipey said…
So, you're saying we can look at non-original objects and study CSI? If that's the case why d you object to looking at extant populations to study CSI? Seems contradictory.
At 12:08 PM,
blipey said…
Ah, that's nice JoeJoe, I just noticed that you're copying insults from me. That offer of comedy class is still open. After you graduate you can eel good about coming up with your own original material. It'll feel great!
At 12:49 PM,
Joe G said…
So, you're saying we can look at non-original objects and study CSI?
What?
If that's the case why d you object to looking at extant populations to study CSI?
I don't have such an objection. I don't even know what that means- "study CSI".
We study objects/ structures/ events to see if CSI is present.
I have been over and over this with you. Obviously, as YOU said, discussing science with a clown is foolish.
At 1:26 PM,
Joe G said…
I just noticed that you're copying insults from me.
And I noticed it actually WORKS when I say it to you, dumbass.
At 3:13 PM,
blipey said…
JoTard: "if you have populations then you are starting with the very thing that needs explaining in the first place"
It appears that you are saying that CSI cannot be relevant to the study of extant populations.
True?
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
It appears that you are saying that CSI cannot be relevant to the study of extant populations.
It doesn't appear that way to me. As you said, clowns and science do not mix.
At 5:35 PM,
blipey said…
So CSI can be relevant to the study of extant populations? This is your stance?
At 8:23 PM,
Joe G said…
CSI is present in extant organisms. That is my stance. And blind and undirected processes cannot account for it. That is also my stance.
At 9:08 PM,
blipey said…
If CSI is present in extant populations, what do you mean by "populations need explaining" in regards to CSI?
At 9:56 PM,
Joe G said…
If you want to show that natural selection can create CSI you cannot start with CSI.
At 11:59 PM,
blipey said…
Are you equating populations with CSI?
At 10:18 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, let's try this:
Are you equating populations with CSI?
Am I equating populations with CSI, with what?
Post a Comment
<< Home