Intelligent Reasoning: Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus

Friday, April 19, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus

-
If this wasn't so hilarious it would be pathetic. Elizabeth Liddle is such a clueless doofus that she actually thinks that she can bluff her way through a debate.

Case in point, her newest blog entry titled Andre's Questions. Read it and follow the links.

The first link is just a Google Scolar search on the evolution of lungs. Yet the fisrt articles are just comparative anatomy and say nothing about how blind and undirected processes produced the lung by changing genomes. IOW there isn't any "step-by-step of the evolution of the lung system" to be found at the end of Lizzie's link. I would be surprised if there was a step-by-step explanation of lung development from a molecular level.

Lizzie's next bluff is a book titled Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man. Yeah right. We can't even demonstrate that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. And no one can explain the cellular differentiation process that metazoans require. IOW we don't know what makes a heart a heart. And reading the abstract it is clear that this book is just another comparative anatomy journey. And nothing that sez blind and undirected processes didit.

I take it back. This is pathetic. And unfortunately for evoTARDs, it is all they have...

38 Comments:

At 2:42 PM, Rich Hughes said…

Still crying, cupcake?
At 5:42 PM, Joe G said…

Laughing- Still laughing at the evoTARD cluelessness.
At 11:57 AM, Jerad said…

I have been reading your blog posts and your comments at Uncommon Descent for a while now and I have yet to see you propose a viable, step-by-step alternative to the modern evolutionary thesis. It's all very well making fun of other people and calling them names but what have you got as a testable, verifiable alternative? Has anyone found that extra coding you keep alluding to in cells? Is anyone looking for it? Are you?

I know it's fun to stand on the sidelines and jeer but unless/until you've got something better then it's hard to take you seriously.
At 12:08 PM, Joe G said…

Hi Jerad,

The modern evolutionary thesis isn't viable. It doesn't present any step-by-step explanation and it supposed to posit a step-by-step process.

That said Intelligent Design does NOT posit a step-by-step process. So why would I propose such a thing?

You ask for an alternative- an alternative to what? Bald declarations that natural selection is a designer mimic?

Something better? Anything is better than evolutionism and the claim that accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Extra coding? The fact that artificial ribosomes don't function is enough to tell any objective person it is there. Perhaps that is why we cannot produce life from non-living matter.

As for the sidelines, it appears that is where we all are, you included.
At 12:28 PM, Jerad said…

Without a specific model Intelligent Design is just a hypothesis. One that I'm willing to consider but, so far, no one has yet come up with anything other than:

a) in OUR experience complex, specified information comes from an intelligence.

b) We THINK undirected processes aren't up to the job.

And I just don't think that's really something I'd want to stake my claim. There's no independent evidence of an intelligence around at the time (whenever that was) with the ability or facilities to create and implement the designs (whatever they are) and no one is even willing to step up to the plate and offer an opinion of when the designs were introduced or what the designs were. You always say: we only have the designs to make inferences about the designer from but even you won't take that step and even attempt to try and answer some of the how, when and why questions.

Come on Joe, you understand design processes. You know what kind of evidence those leave and what kind of facilities are involved. Your analysis of the kind of explosives that might have been used in the Boston bombings show that you are very good at teasing out pertinent details. But you won't stick your neck out about the designer.

How can I really evaluate Intelligent Design if all I've got is: well, from our point of view, it just fits better based on our paradigm. That's nothing! There's no predictive power. There's no explanation. That's just the introduction to a whole book which no one has written yet. Give me something to chew on and I just might bite. You don't like evolutionary theory but at least there's some explanations to ponder. What are your explanations? I can't believe that you are satisfied with the Intelligent Design party line. You must have some idea of how and when and why it was done. You have shown that you are not satisfied with partial or incomplete explanations. Why not offer up your version? I really want to know what it is. Really.
At 12:38 PM, Joe G said…

Umm, your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Your posityion doesn't have any predictive power. It has nothing.

How can you really evaluate Intelligent design? Read the pro-ID literature.

As for "how, when and why", well the why was figured out to be for scientific discovery. The how and when will have to wait. Heck we still don't know how or when or why wrt many artifacts- ie things determined to be designed.

Obvioulsy the designer of life has capabilities I do not posses. The designer of bombs- well I have expertise there.
At 9:25 AM, Jerad said…

So, not even a guess from you regarding the details of when or how designs were implemented? Surely you must have thought about those issues!

I just want to know how you see design taking place and when. I kind of think you've got a sort-of front loading approach but you've been very reluctant to discuss details.
At 9:30 AM, Joe G said…

No Jerad, no guessing. And my focus is not on the when and how- why should it be? The how is obviulsy beyond my capability.

My focus is on the design so we can come to undersatnd it so we can properly maintain it and fix it when it breaks.
At 1:37 AM, Jerad said…

Well, I'm surprised that someone who is clearly intelligent and curious wouldn't have even a guess but fair enough.

But it makes ID hard to evaluate or test without it being a bit more specific.
At 6:55 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! I would say that intelligent people do NOT guess- only fools do that.

And ID is testable- it isn't hard at all.

OTOH unguided evolution is impossible to test.
At 11:23 AM, Jerad said…

Well, you made very educated and informed guesses about the kind of explosives used in Boston. You weren't afraid to speculate based on the sound and colour (and from a video clip loaded online)! And your guesses sounded spot-on to me.

You've got fossils, genomes, morphology, bio-geographic distributions . . . that's a lot of data to work with. If not you then why not someone else!!

Intelligent people makes guesses all the time! Can't remember which physicist said it but his contention was that brilliant people had 10 ideas every day . . . and 9.5 of them are wrong. But if you don't guess/hypothesise then you can't start forming potential models. In my experience, intelligent people are always wondering, supposing, guessing.

Usually when ID proponents talk about testing ID they mean showing a plausible molecular step-by-step pathway via random mutations that can explain some major morphological change. The trouble is: that would only say that one particular example MIGHT not have been designed. What kind of 'do or die' test can be applied against ID?

(And I know you're going to say: how do you know the mutations are random. But without some mechanism or influence that would affect the mutation rate . . . so far no one has found such a mechanism or cause.)
At 12:01 PM, Joe G said…

Fossils don't say anything about the how, Jerad.

Genomes don't say anything about the how, Jerad.

Morphology doesn't say anything about the how, Jerad. And biogeographic distributions definitely don't.

What you're asking of me is like asking someone from the Amazon rain forest, who has never seen technolgy, to explain the manufacture of a laptop.

BTW you should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- he explains how we can know that the mutations are not random- so does Dr James Shapiro in "Evolution A View From the 21st Century"- he calls it "natural genetic engineering" vs Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues".

Do or die test for ID, again:

Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evos have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.

How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?

1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker

2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).
At 2:33 AM, Jerad said…

Fossils and genomes and bio-geography do say something about the when though don't they?

I don't think I am asking you to extrapolate dangerously. Lots of other people are doing so. Besides, why not live dangerously? I am continually surprised that ID proponents are so reluctant to have a guess.

Ah BUT has it been proved that nature cannot account for life as we see it? Many would say it can account for life. And, at worst, shouldn't we spend more time examining the power of non-design processes before we throw in the towel?

Thanks for the references, I will try and follow through. I had wondered how you came to think that mutations might not be random.
At 7:01 AM, Joe G said…

Fossils and genomes and bio-geography do say something about the when though don't they?

Do they?

Ah BUT has it been proved that nature cannot account for life as we see it?

There isn't any evidence FOR it. And that is how science proceeds.

Many would say it can account for life.

They don't have any evidence so what they say is meaningless.

And, at worst, shouldn't we spend more time examining the power of non-design processes before we throw in the towel?

Yeah, keep looking for a non-design process for Stonehenge too. See how far you get...
At 3:20 AM, Jerad said…

Stonehenge is not alive!

Let's not reiterate your 'there is no evidence' argument. Lots and lots and lots of people disagree with you. There's nothing else to say.

But . . .

ID proponents look at fossils, genomes, biogeography and morphology and say there is evidence there for design. If that's true then there is a lot of evidence to consider regarding how and when and where design was implemented. Yet no one seems to be analysing it. Why is that? If that's not enough data then what else are y'all waiting for? You have hypothesised some other form of information inside of cells . . . well, is anyone looking for that? What form would it take? What kind of coding would it be considering we haven't found it yet?

Don't just keep saying: evotards are clueless, they don't know what they're talking about. Make a coherent, explanatory counter-argument! Present an alternative!! Something that can be analysed. Something that can make predictions about what other kind of evidence we might find! Show us how we SHOULD think about all the data!
At 7:06 AM, Joe G said…

Stonehenge is not alive!

Which means it is less comolex and less intricate than a living organism. And that means it should be easy for mother nature to produce!

Let's not reiterate your 'there is no evidence' argument. Lots and lots and lots of people disagree with you.

They can disagree all they want. The fact remains they have no evidence to support their claims.

ID proponents look at fossils, genomes, biogeography and morphology and say there is evidence there for design.

Reference please.

For fuck's sake your position has all of taht and still cannot say how. So stuff it, Jerad.

And evoTARds ARE clueless. They can't formulate a testable hypothesis for their claims.

IOW their claims cannot be analyzed.

So perhaps you should focus on your position...
At 2:27 AM, Jerad said…

I know my position. But I don't know yours. I'm trying to figure out what you think happened to produce the fossils, the genomes, morphologies past and present and the biogeographic distributions we see, past and present. And yet you have no explanation for any of these things. Or, at least, refuse to offer an explanation. Which I find bizarre. You find it reasonable to criticise a widely accepted model for all those things and yet have nothing to offer as an alternative. And yet we're told over and over again that ID is science. But, as of yet, very little scientific thinking has been presented in support of the hypothesis.

Stonehenge is not alive so cannot have been the result of descent with modification. And since it's dramatically unlike natural configurations AND since we know quite a lot about the culture that was around at the time we conclude that it was designed and created. We have a good idea how, we know when and we might even have a good idea of why. We looked at the object, analysed it, did some research and made some inferences. Just like I keep hoping ID proponents will do.

It's pointless for me to defend the mainstream view: I know what your responses will be and you've done no research yourself in the pertinent areas. But I can try and figure out what your hypothesis is. IF you have one. I'm beginning to have my doubts if there is an ID hypothesis really. Something with some substance. Some teeth. Some explanatory power. I keep asking but no one can or will come up with one. You seem like a person who prefers to be straightforward, not shy to express your opinion. And yet you won't spell out your hypothesis. Weird.
At 8:41 AM, Joe G said…

Stonehenge is not alive so cannot have been the result of descent with modification.

Being alive and descent with modification are the very things taht you need to explain.

And you can search my site for an Inteligent Design hypothesis (use those words). OTOH there aren't any testable hypotheses for unguided evolution.
At 3:05 AM, Jerad said…

Well, in this post:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/intelligent-design-design-hypothesis.html

you seem to hang your hat on irreducible complexity. So far, with the exception of Dr Behe, most people with knowledge of biological systems do not think that an irreducibly complex system has been found. BUT there is still no guesses about when or how. There is no explanatory power, i.e. you don't offer any reasons for things like the laryngeal nerve path. Or species geographic distribution. Or why so many species were 'designed' but allowed to go extinct.

By a Design Hypothesis I meant something that EXPLAINS why life is the way it is as opposed to other conceivable options. I think you know that so why duck the real issues?

Perhaps you would like to point me to a particular post or discussion. Searching for Intelligent Design Hypothesis pulled up a lot of blog posts.
At 10:02 AM, Joe G said…

So far, with the exception of Dr Behe, most people with knowledge of biological systems do not think that an irreducibly complex system has been found.

Whateber, those people cannot demonstrate blind and undirected chemical processes producing anything.

BTW we do NOT have to know when and how in order to determine design. When and how come after determining design and then studying it.

And I noticed that unguided evolution dosn't even have a hat nor a place to hang it. No testable hypotheses. No explanations for anything.

It can't even explain nerves, let alone the laryngeal nerve path.

Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossils, genomes nor biogeographical distributation of species...
At 12:50 PM, Jerad said…

So, you haven't got a detailed and specific alternative? You say the modern evolutionary theory has no evidence and can't explain anything but you've really got very little to offer instead?

You don't buy modern evolutionary theory but a vast majority of working biologists do. You want to be taken seriously as an alternate viewpoint but you can't offer something with the same level of explanatory power. Or be more specific even what you mean by design.

I'm confused Joe. You'd like people to recognise the design inference as legitimate science when you can't really tell me what it means? Really?

Let's try something . . . what if I told you that I was convinced aliens had visited the earth. But lets say my only argument was: I don't believe primitive people had the ability or intelligence to build things like the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Nazca Lines, the underwater atoll we discussed at one point, etc. What if I said: you've got no evidence or explanation for how humans living at the time designed and built those structures and artefacts. And that was it. That was my whole case. Would you buy that argument?

OR would you say: hey, wait a minute. We DO know a lot about the cultures you're referring to. We do have good ideas of how those things were created and designed. And, even if we didn't, we can't just say that ancient aliens is the only other possibility. Especially when there is ZERO independent evidence that aliens were around at the time.

See Joe, I just don't think you're the type of person that just says: oh, okay, I guess that's the answer then and lets things lie. I've watched you doggedly pursue lines of argument and reasoning. You are definitely NOT the type to just accept something on faith. So . . . .

What is the design argument in full? Was all the information front loaded? If so does that mean the designer wanted (or had to accept) limited access to the process later on? Or wanted it to appear to be 'natural'? Or . . .

And if it wasn't all front loaded then why would the mutations needs to be 'directed' (as you've implied) throughout? Are you saying some, as yet undiscovered information in the cell, is directed the mutations? How would that be done? What is the recording medium? How is that information passed on from generation to generation? Does that information suffer degradation?

I see you asking all these same questions BEFORE you accept an explanation. So I assume you have satisfied yourself about all these issues. But you won't speak about them. And I can not figure out why that is. You seem to fall back on bad-mouthing evolutionary theory but you never give an insight into what you think is the REAL explanation.

So you give me very little reason to change my mind. Or for people to take you seriously. I can't believe that you're afraid of giving your opinion. Yet . . . .
At 2:07 PM, Joe G said…

Alternative to what? That alleged majority of working biologists cannot support unguided evolution, Jerad.

You'd like people to recognise the design inference as legitimate science when you can't really tell me what it means?

You'd like people to recognise the unguided evolution as legitimate science when you can't really tell me what it means?

Intelligent Design is about the DESIGN. And reality dictates that the ONLY possible way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer or specific process used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is unless the designer steps up or there is an eyewitness.

That said I have given you the methodology used to make the design inference. And taht is more than your position has, meaning it doesn't even have a methodology.

Undiscovered information in the cell- artficial ribosomes do not function yet they are exactly the same, chemically and physically, as natural ribosomes.
At 1:39 AM, Jerad said…

"Intelligent Design is about the DESIGN. And reality dictates that the ONLY possible way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer or specific process used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is unless the designer steps up or there is an eyewitness."

So the fossils, existing and past morphologies, biogeographic distributions and genomes aren't enough? It's from such evidence that you make the design inference so why can't you go past that point? Surely the timing of the design implementations say something about the design process? How about the designs themselves? Or the geographic distributions? Or the coding method?

Seriously, it almost sounds like you don't want to go further than just saying it was designed.

"Undiscovered information in the cell- artficial ribosomes do not function yet they are exactly the same, chemically and physically, as natural ribosomes."

So, part of your case is based on something you're not sure exists? Isn't that the same kind of reasoning you accuse evolutionary theorists of practicing? Don't be a bluffing doofus! :-)

AND, the idea of some kind of meta info/data as yet undiscovered in the cell brings up something you can address: If there is some kind of control info that's been in the cell since the beginning of life on earth then why have most of the designs that have left physical evidence of their existence gone extinct? In other words: what kind of control system needs serial incremental refinement? I'm not saying such systems don't exist, I'm just asking what kind of system would that be? I'm sure you've thought this through already so . . . . does that mean the control data has some kind of ideal goal encoded and the 'natural' systems are allowed to propagate, slowly being nudged in the right direction? Oh wait, you're not sure that mutations are random . . . that's they might be directed too . . . hmmm . . . If there is controlling meta data AND mutations aren't random then why did it take hundreds of millions of years and lots of failed designs to get to where we are today? Again, I'm sure you've thought all this through. So . . .

Instead of just decrying other ideas let's hear yours. Show me why yours is superior.
At 7:07 AM, Joe G said…

So the fossils, existing and past morphologies, biogeographic distributions and genomes aren't enough?

Enough for what? None of those speak to how and obvioulsy none of those are enough for unguided evolution.

It's from such evidence that you make the design inference so why can't you go past that point?

I have explained that. Why do you ignore what I post?

"Undiscovered information in the cell- artficial ribosomes do not function yet they are exactly the same, chemically and physically, as natural ribosomes."

So, part of your case is based on something you're not sure exists?

What? I am sure it exists. It is obvious that it exists- ribosomes.

As for non-random mutations- AGAIN Dr Spetner addressed that in 1997 and Dr Shapiro addressed that last year.

Why is ID superior than unguided evolution? Well obvioulsy unguided evoluton can't even muster a testable hypothesis. It doesn't have any methodology.

ID has both.
At 2:27 AM, Jerad said…

" "So the fossils, existing and past morphologies, biogeographic distributions and genomes aren't enough?"

Enough for what? None of those speak to how and obvioulsy none of those are enough for unguided evolution."

Enough for you to make some informed guesses about the design process and timing. Let's leave your opinion of modern evolutionary theory out of it. Let's see what your hypothesis is.

" "It's from such evidence that you make the design inference so why can't you go past that point?"

I have explained that. Why do you ignore what I post?"

I keep hoping you'll show me a bit of the thinking and reasoning I'm pretty sure you've done but you're not saying. :-)

" "So, part of your case is based on something you're not sure exists?"

What? I am sure it exists. It is obvious that it exists- ribosomes."

I meant the, as of yet, undiscovered control data you think must exist in the cell.

"As for non-random mutations- AGAIN Dr Spetner addressed that in 1997 and Dr Shapiro addressed that last year."

Sure but then why was the design process spread out over hundreds of millions of years? Why was there so much waste in the system? Was the process dependent on disasters like meteorites hitting the earth and wiping out all the dinosaurs? Why didn't the design process head down the same path after the meteor strike as it had been heading before? Lots of perfectly reasonable questions that you won't address.

"Why is ID superior than unguided evolution? Well obvioulsy unguided evoluton can't even muster a testable hypothesis. It doesn't have any methodology.

ID has both."

Well, evolution has the basic scientific methodology and whatever methodologies are used in the particular field of science concerned. And I think it does have testable hypotheses that are analogous to ID's but I'm sure you've heard them before and have some reason for rejecting them.

Also, it's not clear what exactly the design detection methodology is. You can say: well, if we can't find a natural process that could have created the object in question then we infer design. But clearly that has problems. There might be natural processes that we are unaware of or ones who can have effects we are unaware of. We are still getting a handle on the conditions of the early earth, for example. And remember too the vast periods of time involved which make even highly improbable events more likely.

And, no matter what KF says, ID's definition of functional complex specified information is not rigorous enough to be measurable. At least no one has shown how to measure it in a variety of cases despite being asked to demonstrate that multiple times. If it's going to work it has to be demonstrably dependable and accurate.

Joe, you can't just keep trying to punch holes in the opponents' ideas. At some point you have to come up with some viable, powerful ideas of your own. You have to EXPLAIN things: why they are the way they are, how they got to be that way, when it happened, why they aren't a different way, etc.

Modern evolutionary theory has a big umbrella concept of all those things and is getting more and more specific about the details as research goes on. You like to look at the gaps and say the whole thing is falling apart ignoring that the structure is still standing and being added to every day. And you haven't come up with a competing idea which is anything other than vague and has very little predictive or explanatory power. Which is why I'm asking you to enlighten me and show me the power behind your idea.
At 7:34 AM, Joe G said…

Enough for you to make some informed guesses about the design process and timing.

Nope. It isn't enough for unguided evolution to determine any process.

I meant the, as of yet, undiscovered control data you think must exist in the cell.

As I said artificial ribosomes do not function. That emans they are missing something that ain't a physical component.

Sure but then why was the design process spread out over hundreds of millions of years?

Was it? First there is the design and THEN there is evolution by design.

Well, evolution has the basic scientific methodology and whatever methodologies are used in the particular field of science concerned.

What methodology does unguided evolution use? Please be specific. Tell me the methodology used to determine that all genetic changes are mistakes, errors or accidents.

And I think it does have testable hypotheses that are analogous to ID's but I'm sure you've heard them before and have some reason for rejecting them.

I haven't heard any testable hypotheses pertaining to unguided evolution. And obvioulsy you cannot produce one.

Also, it's not clear what exactly the design detection methodology is. You can say: well, if we can't find a natural process that could have created the object in question then we infer design.

Nope, I did NOT say that, Jerad.

There might be natural processes that we are unaware of or ones who can have effects we are unaware of.

The science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow may of may not bring. Science is not done via promissory notes.

And remember too the vast periods of time involved which make even highly improbable events more likely.

No, it doesn't.

And, no matter what KF says, ID's definition of functional complex specified information is not rigorous enough to be measurable.

It is more rigorous than anything that unguided evolution has.
At 7:35 AM, Joe G said…

As for how the designer didit:

What you're asking of me is like asking someone from the Amazon rain forest, who has never seen technolgy, to explain the manufacture of a laptop.
At 2:42 AM, Jerad said…

"As I said artificial ribosomes do not function. That emans they are missing something that ain't a physical component."

So, where is the evidence for such a non-physical component? When and how does it intercede? Exactly what function does it perform?

" "Sure but then why was the design process spread out over hundreds of millions of years?"

Was it? First there is the design and THEN there is evolution by design."

Well, perhaps you'd like to explain what you think the fossils imply and NOT just avoid the issue by talking about other theories. You're good at ducking and diving but not so good at taking a stand.

"What methodology does unguided evolution use? Please be specific. Tell me the methodology used to determine that all genetic changes are mistakes, errors or accidents."

Sigh. The methodology is observation, data collection, modelling building and testing. Despite your references a vast majority of biological scientists are convinced that mutations occur at random intervals. They are impossible to predict. If you want to show that they are NOT random then you have to show you can predict when they occur. Can you do that?

"I haven't heard any testable hypotheses pertaining to unguided evolution. And obvioulsy you cannot produce one."

Sigh. Have you looked? How about this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC336109/pdf/pnas00668-0272.pdf

Or this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52927/pdf/pnas01072-0458.pdf

Most real scientists don't just sit around saying: no one has shown me such and such. They are interested so they go looking!!

"The science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow may of may not bring. Science is not done via promissory notes."

Well, can you then say that the deign inference is correct when you think there isn't enough data or analysis yet to determine when and how design was implemented? When you have no evidence for non-physical control in the cell? When you have no independent evidence that there was a designer around at the pertinent time(s) with the ability and equipment necessary. Oh, I forget, you refuse to say exactly what or when the designer did anything!! In fact, you don't even have a hypothesis yet. My mistake.

" "And, no matter what KF says, ID's definition of functional complex specified information is not rigorous enough to be measurable. "

It is more rigorous than anything that unguided evolution has."

Great, then show me a couple of examples when it's worked out. You agree that that's a reasonable request I trust?

"What you're asking of me is like asking someone from the Amazon rain forest, who has never seen technolgy, to explain the manufacture of a laptop. "

Well, until you can start at least guessing at when design was implemented (at least when) then you haven't got even a hypothesis. Work on that and then present something more coherent to the world. 'Cause right now the ID community is only a community because everyone in it wants to support the design inference. But they can't agree on when or how. If they could then they'd present such a consensus. But they don't so it seems like one does not exist.
At 7:11 AM, Joe G said…

So, where is the evidence for such a non-physical component?

I just told you. The evidence for non-material information running the cell is in the fcat that artificial ribosomes do not function even though they are phyically identical to natural ribosomes.

And your links do NOT contain a testable hypothesis for UNGUIDED evolution.

You are just a bluffing doofus.

And again, the how and when come AFTER design is determined. IOW you appear to be very dense and scientifically illiterate.

BTW I cannot predict- no one can- when a one or zero will appear on a computer buss- does that mean computer signals are random and not directed?
At 12:07 PM, Jerad said…

"I just told you. The evidence for non-material information running the cell is in the fcat that artificial ribosomes do not function even though they are phyically identical to natural ribosomes."

Hardly. That could mean we haven't done a good enough job analysing all the PHYSICAL data (chemicals, temperatures, local conditions, etc) yet. OR, maybe, the synthesised ribosomes aren't exactly right. C'mon Joe! You can do better than making that kind of leap of logic!!!

"And your links do NOT contain a testable hypothesis for UNGUIDED evolution."

Really? Not even to certain aspects, small parts?

Okay, here's a hypothesis, you can test it:

No fossils of humans will be found in the Cambrian layers.

How about that?

OR:

No fossils of any multi-cellular known to exist in 2013 will be found in the Pre-Cambrian layers.

Should I go on? How many hypotheses do you wants?

"You are just a bluffing doofus."

Maybe. Have you got something better to offer or are you just going to keep trying to punch holes in something you disagree with? Where's your over-arching theory of ID? You've got tons of fossils, genomes, morphologies, bio-geographic distributions. . . . what more do you want? What else do you think you can get before you start trying to make your stance a bit more solid?

"And again, the how and when come AFTER design is determined. IOW you appear to be very dense and scientifically illiterate. "

Forgive me. I keep hearing that it HAS been determined. If you don't think it has been determined then I guess we have to take things back a step. Now ID isn't even a hypothesis, it's just a notion. I can live with that. But, of course, it does beg the question of how is design determined. Have you got a proposed method for doing that? A robust, clearly defined method that you can demonstrate on known cases? What are its chances of false positives? What are its chances of false negatives? What kind of things can you analyse?

"BTW I cannot predict- no one can- when a one or zero will appear on a computer buss- does that mean computer signals are random and not directed?"

Gee, that kind of depends on the processor and the process being used doesn't it? And it depends on what bit of the memory location you're looking at. Is it in the address or the command or the data section? C'mon Joe, you can do better than just repeating these tired old canards.

Maybe you don't really care. Maybe you've already decided and arguing about it is just something you do because you think you're right and you like making fun of people. 'Cause you really haven't seem to have thought your own viewpoint through very well. I keep asking questions you can't or won't answer. And you don't even acknowledge them. I may be wrong and stupid but you haven't shown me that you've got anything better to offer. Especially if design has not been determined!!
At 12:33 PM, Joe G said…

That could mean we haven't done a good enough job analysing all the PHYSICAL data (chemicals, temperatures, local conditions, etc) yet. OR, maybe, the synthesised ribosomes aren't exactly right.

Of course they aren't exactly right- they are missing their programming.

And all of the analyzations of the ribosome say it is designed.

No fossils of humans will be found in the Cambrian layers.

How about that?

OR:

No fossils of any multi-cellular known to exist in 2013 will be found in the Pre-Cambrian layers.

Should I go on? How many hypotheses do you wants?

What do those have to do with UNGUIDED evolution? Unguided evolution doesn't predict humans nor multi-cellular organisms.

And one more time-

Intelligent Design is NOT about the who nor how. Those are separate questions.

What part of that don't you understand?

You want more than that then read "Not By Chance" and brush up on genetic and evolutionary algorithms as those are examples of Intelligent Design evolution.

And I told you the methodolgy used to determine design. It is at least as good as what archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use.
At 12:58 AM, bpragmatic said…

Hey Joe, it is obvious that Jerad has got it all figured out. Let the guy be. Take a lesson. He and his knowledge is supreme. He has the ability to proclaim victory over any contrary opinion that asserts itself to make a claim against nde. Back off Joe. Your should know better. There are absolutely no apriori preferences that influence jerads belief system what so ever. Obviously he really is looking for evidence for what it is that he thinks he knows. He is really in an honest discussion with you Joe. cant you see that. What a gentleman and scholar. He clearly understands and has a postion to set us straight about what actually has happened and is true. It has nothing to do with any apriori opinion that he might have. We should know that he is perfectly honest and impartial to the subject matter. After all, it is widely known and can be proven that anybody who questions his particular position is clearly influenced by ficticious and stupid philosphies. Cant you see that Joe. Jerad is so humble and naive in his provacative statements of fact that you just must have to be some sort of imbecile not to think that he is not correct. Joe, please repent now, and admit that Jerad is such a brilliant person, that he has the necessary evidence to make any reasonable person conclude that his preferred explanation for living systems is beyond any sort of criticism. He of course is truly interested in considering any kind of explanation contrary, and is giving you a legitimate chance to refute what he so desperatlely wants to be the truth. Joe, give the person the respect he deserves and admit he is obviously correct.
At 2:06 AM, Jerad said…

"And all of the analyzations of the ribosome say it is designed."

What kind of numerical methods were used? When those methods are used on other known designed and undesigned objects do they give correct results?

"What do those have to do with UNGUIDED evolution? Unguided evolution doesn't predict humans nor multi-cellular organisms."

Unguided evolution predicts nothing IN THE FUTURE but predicts certain intermediate forms existed.

What do my hypothesis have to do with UNGUIDED evolution? That current forms will not be found in the past record. Which COULD be a characteristic of guided evolution (whatever that is, no one seems to want to spell it out) but is a requirement of unguided evolution.

"Intelligent Design is NOT about the who nor how. Those are separate questions."

Well then ID doesn't say much then does it? Doesn't sound like science to me if it can't answer some basic questions. Which is why it's sometimes accused of being a science stopper.

"You want more than that then read "Not By Chance" and brush up on genetic and evolutionary algorithms as those are examples of Intelligent Design evolution."

Are they analogous to what actually happened? What do they have to do with ID as it actually occurred?

"And I told you the methodolgy used to determine design. It is at least as good as what archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use."

Well, having done some archaeology I can tell you definitively that the 'methods' employed by ID advocates are weak and vague in comparison. There's lots and lots of experiments and experiences and rigour behind forensic science, there's very little behind ID. And forensic science is in the habit of explaining events and situations. ID doesn't seem to want to do that. SETI I suppose is the closest analogy and they have come close to thinking they had found some intelligent signals but because they want to be absolutely sure they (like archaeologists) make sure they first try VERY HARD to find natural explanations and/or known intelligent sources first.

Again, show me some examples of the methods and reasoning actually used by ID proponents and then I'll have a better grasp on how they're using the same general inference methods as archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers. It's not just enough to say: we use the same techniques. You have to demonstrate that. Have you done so? Has anyone done so?
At 7:12 AM, Joe G said…

Unguided evolution predicts nothing IN THE FUTURE but predicts certain intermediate forms existed.

So does guided evolution.

And Jerad- evolutionism keeps the origin of life separate even though how life originated directly impacts how it evolved.

Well, having done some archaeology I can tell you definitively that the 'methods' employed by ID advocates are weak and vague in comparison.

Bullshit. Ya see I have done some archaeology too and I know they just look for signs of work/ counterflow.

There's lots and lots of experiments and experiences and rigour behind forensic science, there's very little behind ID.

Umm the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- ie based on many experiments and experiences.

OTOH no one has any experience with unguided processes constructing stuff. And there isn't any experiments which demonstrate unguided processes can construct stuff.

You lose.
At 7:13 AM, Joe G said…

bpragmatic-

Jerad is OK. He is just lost in thinking that ID should be something it was never formulated to be.
At 11:57 PM, bpragmatic said…

joe, jerad, to me, doesnt give a shit about truth. to me, it appears he is on a mission to beat the fuck out of joe, and go back to his so called science class and declare victory over what they perceive to be a creationist. what a fucking jack ass. as if that position has anything to do with supporting his position from any kind of significantly substantianted objective verification of what the fuck is required to support the fuckheads asserstions. joe, you are more naive than i could have ever thought.
At 8:57 AM, Joe G said…

Yes, Jerad does seem to be on a mission. And yes he is misguided. But I say he is mostly harmless, confused and hurt because his position has absolutely nuthin'...
At 4:50 PM, bpragmatic said…

Sounds good enough Joe. Sorry to get a little too carried away in that last post. Keep pointing out the unverifiable conjecture and illogic used in evo arguments and maybe Jerad and others of similar thinking will benefit by better understanding reasonable limits to their consclusions on these matters.

Intelligent Reasoning

Friday, April 19, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus

38 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts