Sunday, September 30, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The NFL Referees- How Soon We Forget
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Cry-Baby EvoTARDS Cannot Handle the Truth
Saturday, September 22, 2012
EvoTARDS Choking on E = MC^2
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manisfestations of the same thing"DIFFERENT manisfestations of the same thing. The sad part is that neither olegt nor Mike Elzinga the finga sniffer- both physicists- did not chime in to correct their ignorant brethren. That tells me that neither of themundrestands the equation or they are too cowardly to correct their own.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Global Warming Due to Solar Grand Maxima?
That's right, it looks like at the end of the 20th century, solar activity was at it highest grand maxima in 1200 years:
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
CO2 is still not the problem but that won't stop the chicken littles from spewing that it is.
A Totally Clueless Sparc- Chokes on Artificial Ribosomes
Several times I have posted about artificial ribosomes not being functional. Finally one dumbass evoTARD named "sparc" tried to put me in my place. Unfortunately for the dumbass TARD he didn't read the articles he found on the other end of his link. If he had he would have read that Church et al., used most of the original ribosome and that they just synthesized a small portion of one, from Science Daily:
Using the bacteria E. coli, Church and Research Fellow Michael Jewett extracted the bacteria’s natural ribosomes, broke them down into their constituent parts, removed the key ribosomal RNA and then synthesized the ribosomal RNA anew from molecules.
And even then, the ribosome now only produces one polypeptide, albeit a polypeptide that as not present in the bacteria the ribosome came from.
Oh well sparcky, you blew that one but I don't expect you to ever admit to that. And unfortunately the cowards who run atbc won't let me correct you in that thread- have to protect their tards at all costs.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
What is a "Plausible Evolutionary Pathway"?
I hear the following phrase quite a bit- "Plausible evolutionary pathway"- It is used wrt any biological feature that cannot be directly/ experimentally tested to see how it could arise.
For example with bacterial flagellum's evos say there are plausible evolutionary pathways that could account for their existence. However these plausible pathways can't be tested to see if they are plausible.
What's the point? Well it seems that when someone sez there is a "plausible evolutionary pathway" they mean someone imagined a pathway and told someone else.
Yup, I know what yuou are saying "All science so far!" LoL! But THAT is it. Evos really think that if someone can imagine a pathway then that is really all they need. Ya see no one will be able to prove them wrong. However what they fail to realize is "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"- Hitchens. And imagination is not evidence.
So the bottom line is when someone sez there is a "plausible evolutionary pathway", get ready for a load of bullshit.
Monday, September 03, 2012
"Your Inner Fish" Chapter 3- Handy Genes
Oh goody, genetics. Unfortunately it is more of the same- a common design used for organism development is now evidence for common ancestry. No saying how all those switches evolved in the first. No saying what DETERMINES what is to be developed. Nope common switches that help control development.
And yup just as with the PAX6 gene being able to be transferred between fruit-fly and mouse- the fly developed fly eyes- they took the sonic hedgehog gene from a mouse and used it in a fish. It worked just as the fish gene would, producing FISH parts.
I would expect this in a common design scenario. Switches can be used in multiple different scenarios.
So no, there wsn't an experiment that took fish embryos and had them develop hands- Shubin was just teasing us:
What if you could do an experiment in which you treated the embryo of a fish with various chemicals and actually changed its body, making part of its fin look like a hand?
Nope, just a tease. No one knows what determines what type of body part will develop. All Shubin et al., have done is uncover controllers, not what determines the type. And nothing that can take a fish fin with minute bones and turn them into the robust bones found in Tiktaalik.
So once again evidence for common design is used as evidence for common ancestry.
Another problem Shubin, and all evos have, is their "gene-centric" view fathered by August Weismann. Dr Denton puts that to rest in his article in "Uncommon Dissent":
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.
Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.
Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.
It's not the genes. It ain't the genome. It ain't the same ole genes used differently. And that is the main reason why evolutionism is a failure.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Richie Hughes says YES to Male Genitals and NO to Woman's Gentitalia
Yeah baby, nothing says Richie is a little cowardly faggot more than his getting upset at me posting a link to a woman's gentiatlia but being perfectly happy with Lizzie's posting a picture of a male's genitals.
EvoTARDS are two-faced equivocating, cowardly faggots.
As if we didn't already know that...
Richie Hughes, Acting Like a Little faggot on Lizzie's Blog
Richie, you just don't know your fucking place and that is hilarious.
Richie the dickless wonder:
Sal, I don’t think it’s “ceremonially in jest” at all, you would give parity / legitimacy to a website that suppresses opposing viewpoints, and I don’t think that’s what we’re about.
That is EXACTLY what you and your ilk are about you cowardly fuck. You chumps have nothing and it bothers you to no end that your opponets can actually make a case.
You’ve been afforded more privilege and courtesy than your reputation warrants.
Exactly what I have said to Richie for years. But I still allow him to post even though he cannot follow my blog rules. heck he can't follow Lizzie's rules but he licks her ass so he can stay.
So I’d like you to reconsider what you’ve said, or I’ll ask Liz to reconsider you moderation / posting privileges.
"Mommy, mommy! Look what Sal said- waah, waah"- what a shameless little faggot you are Richie.
Don’t be using this as a forum to score points with your UD buddies. I don’t think that’s what this community is about.
Yes, THAT forum is all about lying, flailing, equivocating and cowardice.
"Your Inner Fish" Chapter 2- Getting a Grip
No, unfortunately Shubin doesn't tell us how we got our grip. Nor hands. Nor any other part of our body.
Chapter 2 tries to make a case that humans have a fishy ancestry based on some similarity between bones, specifically limbs with their one big bone (eg- humerus), connected to two smaller bones (eg- radius and ulna), connected to wrist bones, carpal, metacarpal, phlanges. Tiktaalik appears to have a humerus, albeit very short and stout, along with what may be an ulna and radius, and then a bunch of small bones.
He never says how such a fin got to be that way.
So why is this evidence for common ancestry as opposed to a common design or convergence? Shubin never sez. Ya see he had already concluded that we had a fishy ancestry so he never asked those questions.
He does bring up finding the origin, not an example of, tertapod limb transition. He also brings up what could make a fish of that size leave the water- or want to leave the water. He says there were bigger and meaner fish, but Tiktaalik had already escaped to the shallows. And waiting millions of years for some genetic change that may never come isn't a good strategy.
Then there is what will you eat if you leave the water? Oh luckily other organisms had already beaten Tiktaalik to it and established themselves on land.
But anyway Neil needs to get a grip because there are alternative explanations for what he is observing and explaing.
end chapter 2
Saturday, September 01, 2012
This Just In- "Roughly" = +/- 25 million
The TARD nevers ceases to amaze me. In order to defend tiktaalik as a correct prediction, not of any Darwinian mecahnsim mind you, RichTARD the coward Hughes is now redefing the word "roughly" to be able to cover a 50 million year spread.
Ya see Shubin said he was looking for the origin of limbed animals in rocks roughly 375-380 million years old. However he should have been looking at deposits roughly 400 million years old. Richie thinks that 400 million is covered by the adjective "roughly" before the 375-380 million remark.
That has got to be one of the most cowardly and ignorant "arguments" of all time.
Nice going ace...
"Your Inner Fish" Chapter 1- Finding Your Inner Fish
OK a non-believer will review Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish". I have blogged about this being a failed prediction and this time I will add more detail from Neil to support my claim.
Chapter 1 is the set up for Neil's journey to find the origin of limbed organisms. That's right, according to Neil he was "interested in understanding the origin of limbed animals", not just any ole transitional form. And he said, wrongly as it turns out, that to find the origins of limbed animals "we can now restrict our search to rocks that are roughly 375 million to 380 million years old".
First, the set-up:
"In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223
Got that- "the transition" refers to an event, a specific event that occurred between two specified time periods, a time when there were fish and no tetrapods and the time when there were fish and tetrapods. (as I said Here and again here- just can't get enough of RichTard's cowardice and ignorance)
With that now firmly established we return to "Your Inner Fish" chapter 1 where Shubin discusses what he was looking for- hint: evidence for the transition, ie the event:
Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10 (bold and italics added)
OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed the dates. However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier.
But anyway near the end of chapter 1 Neil sez:
It took us six years to find it, but this fossil confirmed a prediction of paleontology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different types of animal, but we had found it also in the right time period in the earth's history and in the right ancient environment. (italics in original)
Oops. As it turns out Tiktaalik was not found in the right time period for Neil said he was looking for.
In order to find what he was looking for, evidence of the transition, he needed to focus on rocks 400 million years old, as the new data puts terapods in existence about 395 million years ago.
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
Back to the review- so chapter 1 is all about setting up the expedition and hindsight being 20/20 we now know it was set up under the wrong premises. But that is the nature of science-> the science of tomorrow can upset or confirm the science of today. In this case it was upset. That just means in order to find what he was looking for he just has to set out again to find the origin of limbed animals.
However I have to wonder is if Neil had the data from Poland would the rocks Tiktaalik was found in have been dated to say 400 million years old? Dating sedimentary rocks isn't as straight-forward and simple as some may want you to believe. Sometimes you could have the sediments dated by index fossils and the index fossils were dated by the sedimentary layer they were found. That makes for a fudge factor. And evolutionists have a lot of fudge.
That said Neil et al., did find a fish-like animal that had more robust fore-limbs than a regular finned fish. Was it a stand-alone population designed for a specific environment? Was it a hybrid? Was it a fish-a-pod transitional, a natural experiment to adapt from purely aquatic life to life on land? Unfortunately neither genetics nor developmental biology can tell us, yet.
Chapter 1, the big set-up was a failure. Not a total failure because genetics and/ or developmental biology can still come through AND he can always find a speciman in the "correct" time period, which can then change again.
end chapter 1