Zachriel, Proud to be a Pathological Liar
-
Yes, this is not news- all who know Zachriel knows it is a liar and scientifically illiterate.
Now Zachriel sez:
But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to Zachriel.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.
Picking on ID is not positive evidence for evolutionism, blind watchmaker evolution.
Yes, this is not news- all who know Zachriel knows it is a liar and scientifically illiterate.
Now Zachriel sez:
ID hasn't gone away just because the scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.That is because there isn't any evidence to support the alleged theory of evolution. No one can even produce testable hypotheses for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. That means it is outside of science.
But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to Zachriel.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.
Picking on ID is not positive evidence for evolutionism, blind watchmaker evolution.
posted by Joe G @ 9:25 AM
187 Comments:
At 8:43 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is because there isn't any evidence to support the alleged theory of evolution.
Darwin, 1859.
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Darwin didn't present any evidence. He didn't present a testable hypothesis. Without that he didn't have a theory as hypotheses comer first.
At 9:14 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Darwin didn't present any evidence. He didn't present a testable hypothesis.
Origin of Species is chock full of evidence. Darwin was a scientific observer of the first rank.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Origin of Species is chock full of evidence.
No evidence of natural selection being a designer mimic. No evidence that supports universal common descent.
Darwin was a scientific observer of the first rank.
Maybe but he should couldn't make heads nor tails of what he observed.
At 12:02 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: No evidence of natural selection being a designer mimic. No evidence that supports universal common descent.
It's one thing to claim that the conclusion was wrong, but it's another entirely to think that the premier scientists of the last several generations didn't have any evidence at all. You apparently think that waving your hands absolves you from actually grappling with the evidence.
At 3:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It's one thing to claim that the conclusion was wrong, but it's another entirely to think that the premier scientists of the last several generations didn't have any evidence at all.
And yet you cannot present the evidence.
You apparently think that waving your hands absolves you from actually grappling with the evidence.
You apparently think that waving your hands absolves you from actually presenting the evidence.
But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to Zachriel.
Ooops Darwin didn't know of ATP synthase. No wonder most evos distance themselves from him.
At 8:26 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And yet you cannot present the evidence.
Start with Darwin 1859. You had said Darwin didn't present any evidence or a testable hypothesis. That's simply false.
At 9:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Start with Darwin 1859.
Read it. There isn't any evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic, as Darwin claimed. And there isn't a testable hypothesis for natural selection being a designer mimic.
You are either a fool, a liar or both.
At 9:23 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Read it.
Good. Generations of biologists have found the evidence for adaptation by natural selection to be convincing. Perhaps, having read Darwin 1859, you could point to specifics of Darwin's argument you find problematic.
At 9:25 AM,
Zachriel said…
(Your data stream is still subject to excessive noise. Nearly every one of your comments has childish insults appended. You might want to run a virus scan.)
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Generations of biologists have found the evidence for adaptation by natural selection to be convincing.
Except there isn't any such evidence. You are a liar.
Zachriel:
Perhaps, having read Darwin 1859, you could point to specifics of Darwin's argument you find problematic.
A total lack of supporting evidence and a total lack of testable hypotheses.
Perhaps, having read Darwin 1859, YOU could point to the evidence and the testable hypotheses. Or just admit that you are a lying asshole.
Nearly every one of your comments has childish insults
Wrong again. I call them as I see them and you are nothing but a lying asshole.
At 9:38 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Except there isn't any such evidence.
Generations of biologists have thought otherwise. Why not take a few specifics from Darwin's argument, and explain why it doesn't support his conclusion.
(We still recommend a virus scan. Your communications stream is still exhibiting Tourette Syndrome. It's not a big deal, as our spam filter blocks most of it, but it makes it difficult for other readers to find what little content this thread might have.)
At 10:07 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You don't seem to be able to present any of that evidence here.
Darwin 1859.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Generations of biologists have thought otherwise.
You are bluffing. I can tell because you would just present the evidence yet you don't. It's as if you are just a maggot loser.
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Well if there is evidence in that book you don't seem to be able to present it here. It's as if you are just a lying loser.
I read the book and there isn't any evidence for Darwin's claim that natural selection is a designer mimic.
At 10:11 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW Darwin never presents a way to test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. Not only that Darwin argued against a strawman. It's as if he was just being an ass when he wrote that book
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
but it makes it difficult for other readers to find what little content this thread might have.)
LoL! Seeing that this thread is about your inability to present positive evidence for the theory of evolution, we expect it not to have any content at all. And so far it is gone as predicted.
Thank you for proving the title and OP
At 11:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I can tell because you would just present the evidence yet you don't.
Darwin 1859.
Joe G: I read the book and there isn't any evidence for Darwin's claim that natural selection is a designer mimic.
Generations of biologists have thought otherwise. Perhaps, having read Darwin 1859, you could point to specifics of Darwin's argument you find problematic.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Perhaps, having read Darwin 1859, you could point to specifics of Darwin's argument you find problematic.
Darwin didn't present any evidence to support his claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. That is a huge problem.
Darwin was ignorant of genetics- another huge problem.
Darwin argued against a strawman which demonstrates he had some agenda that wasn't about science.
Darwin did tell us what evidence would falsify his concept and people have stepped forward with such evidence- which has then been predictably hand-waved away.
That is just a start and I am sure you will just ignore or hand-wave it all away.
And again I thank you for proving the title and OP.
At 3:53 PM,
Zachriel said…
Nothing you posted is specific to anything in Origin of Species. To do so requires taking Darwin's argument seriously. You might restate his argument, and show why he is wrong.
At 5:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Nothing you posted is specific to anything in Origin of Species
Spewed the pathological liar.
To do so requires taking Darwin's argument seriously.
Spewed the scientifically illiterate pathological liar.
You might restate his argument, and show why he is wrong.
Arguments are not evidence. I am asking for evidence that supports his arguments. And it is very telling that you would rather be an asshole than to present any.
At 7:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, 'pathological liar' is sheer projection. The only one caught continuously lying is you.
At 8:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I am asking for evidence that supports his arguments.
Darwin 1859, which you say you've read. If you don't think the evidence Darwin provides supports his claims, then you might want to point to specifics that you find problematic.
At 9:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, YOU are the one who made the claim that the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. We then asked you to present a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
You have failed to support your claim and you have failed to produce the hypothesis we asked for.
Darwin didn't even know about genetics. Darwin had an idea that is still, to this day, untested. And Darwin had nothing to say about cellular systems and subsystems. That means there isn't any evidence in any of his books to support the claim that natural selection didit.
And thank you for continuing to prove the title and OP.
At 9:05 PM,
Joe G said…
However, I do have my magnifying glass, pencil and notepad ready just in case you decide to tell us what pages Darwin discusses the molecular data and how natural selection can account for it.
At 9:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie I have proven that you are a pathological liar. And it is very telling that the only people who have "caught" me lying are proven pathological liars.
Fuck yourself projector-boy
At 12:49 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh give at a rest, chubs. You've "proven" nothing, but have been caught pretending to be multiple people and changing your own blog to try and prop up lies you've told.
Sad.
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Fuck you projector-boy. I have caught you and your ilk lying many times. OTOH you have nothing against me.
Heck you even tried to pretend that you invented sayings to try to make yourself feel original. Not only that you are a scientifically illiterate fucktard- proven many times over.
At 7:13 AM,
Joe G said…
And this thread proves that Zachriel is a pathological liar. As if I needed more proof for that.
At 7:59 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Zachriel, YOU are the one who made the claim that the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.
We pointed to Darwin 1859. It's a bit dated, but the overall argument still holds.
Joe G: We then asked you to present a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
There are specific hypotheses concerning ATP synthase, however, they depend on the basic argument being first established. As you probably haven't actually read Darwin's Origin of Species, try the simplified introduction to evolution from the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
Joe G: Ooops Darwin didn't know of ATP synthase.
And Newton didn't know about Neptune, so per your reasoning above Newton "didn't present any evidence. He didn't present a testable hypothesis. Without that he didn't have a theory as hypotheses comer first."
At 8:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We pointed to Darwin 1859. It's a bit dated, but the overall argument still holds.
It is unsupported by the evidence.
There are specific hypotheses concerning ATP synthase, however, they depend on the basic argument being first established.
You are lying as there aren't any testable hypotheses wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. producing ATP synthase.
And Newton didn't know about Neptune, so per your reasoning above Newton "didn't present any evidence.
Only an asshole would say that and here you are. Nice job.
So again Zachriel shows up spewing shit out of its but still no evidence. It's as if Zachriel is just a bloviating coward.
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
However, I do have my magnifying glass, pencil and notepad ready just in case you decide to tell us what pages Darwin discusses the molecular data and how natural selection can account for it.
Or perhaps you would care to present testable hypotheses for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
If not my spam filter will be rejecting your posts.
At 8:10 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Or perhaps you would care to present testable hypotheses for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
The hypothesis for the evolution of ATP synthase starts with the basic argument for evolution. If you reject that argument, please provide specifics.
At 8:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The hypothesis for the evolution of ATP synthase starts with the basic argument for evolution.
Then you shouldn't have any problems presenting it. We are waiting.
At 8:17 AM,
Zachriel said…
Darwin 1859.
At 8:18 AM,
Joe G said…
What page/ pages is ATP synthase discussed?
At 8:20 AM,
Joe G said…
OK my claims about Zachriel have, once again, proven true thanks to Zachriel.
Zachriel is a scientifically illiterate asshole and a pathological liar.
At 8:21 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: What page/ pages is ATP synthase discussed?
Do try to pay attention. It's a step-by-step argument. The argument starts with the basics of evolutionary theory. If you reject the basic theory, then the specific hypothesis concerning ATP synthase will be unsupported.
Try the simplified introduction to evolution from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and if you don't find it convincing, please provide specific objections.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
At 4:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel's comment was in the spam folder.
What page/ pages is ATP synthase discussed?
Zachriel:
Do try to pay attention.
I wish you would. The OP is very specific and yet you ignore it as if your ignorance means something beyond cowardice.
It's a step-by-step argument.
It depends on how one defines "argument".
The argument starts with the basics of evolutionary theory.
Which you don't understand.
If you reject the basic theory, then the specific hypothesis concerning ATP synthase will be unsupported.
So if the basic theory is unsupported it will remain unsupported except for in the eyes of those who don't require evidence? Weird.
Try the simplified introduction to evolution from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and if you don't find it convincing, please provide specific objections.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
Nothing there about ATP synthase. Nothing about a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
You said there was scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and refutes ID. Why can't you present it?
I say it is because you are a pathological liar and the evidence supports me. Thank you.
At 6:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: The argument starts with the basics of evolutionary theory.
Joe G: Which you don't understand.
Then this is your chance to explain.
Zachriel: So if the basic theory is unsupported it will remain unsupported except for in the eyes of those who don't require evidence?
Plotting the orbit of a satellite requires an understanding of the basics of gravitational theory.
Joe G: You said there was scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution
Darwin 1859. We're going to continue to point to Darwin 1859 until you begin to grapple with the evidence Darwin provides.
At 7:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Then this is your chance to explain.
It is? You are supposed to know the theory you are trying to defend.
You said there was scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution
Darwin 1859.
We have our magnifying glasses, notepads and pencils at the ready. Just give us the pages with the scientific evidence. You should be able to do it yet you have failed.
We're going to continue to point to Darwin 1859 until you begin to grapple with the evidence Darwin provides.
The Deniable Darwin 1996
At 7:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You are supposed to know the theory you are trying to defend.
We're somewhat familiar. We're not sure your objections to evolutionary theory.
Joe G: The Deniable Darwin 1996
That was funny. Thanks.
At 7:34 PM,
Joe G said…
So if the basic theory is unsupported it will remain unsupported except for in the eyes of those who don't require evidence?
Zachriel:
Plotting the orbit of a satellite requires an understanding of the basics of gravitational theory.
From ATP synthase to orbits. Your sad attempts at deception further prove that you are a pathetic little imp.
Evidence for unguided processes producing ATP synthase is still evidence for unguided processes producing ATP synthase regardless if I currently accept the theory of evolution.
At 7:35 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Evidence for unguided processes producing ATP synthase is still evidence for unguided processes producing ATP synthase regardless if I currently accept the theory of evolution
The evidence for the evolution of ATP is based on the evidence for the common descent of life. You have to start with that.
It is interesting that you ask for evidence, but then refuse to consider it.
At 7:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We're somewhat familiar.
And yet you can't present any supporting evidence.
We're not sure your objections to evolutionary theory.
The Deniable Darwin 1996
At 7:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The evidence for the evolution of ATP is based on the evidence for the common descent of life. You have to start with that.
What a dipshit. The alleged evolution of ATP synthase has NOTHING to do with the alleged common descent of life.
It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole.
Try again and next time bring the evidence. Spam is watching and waiting
At 7:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The evidence for the evolution of ATP is based on the evidence for the common descent of life. You have to start with that.
What a dipshit. The alleged evolution of ATP synthase has NOTHING to do with the alleged common descent of life.
It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole.
Try again and next time bring the evidence. Spam is watching and waiting
At 7:44 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And yet you can't present any supporting evidence.
Darwin 1859.
Joe G: The Deniable Darwin 1996
David Berlinski: If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata.
Well, no. Fossilization is a happenstance process, and some organism fossilize much better than others. We would not expect most organisms to form a continuous fossil records, however, there are some long sequences, such as for Cirripedia.
David Berlinski: It is the second law of thermodynamics that holds dominion over the temporal organization of the universe, and what the law has to say we find verified by ordinary experience at every turn. Things fall apart.
Heh. There's several equivalent valid statements of the Second Law, but that's not one of them.
At 7:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It is interesting that you ask for evidence,
It is even more interesting that you refuse to present any.
but then refuse to consider it.
The evidence that you are a pathological liar has been considered and accepted. Thank you.
At 7:46 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is even more interesting that you refuse to present any.
You asked us to respond to Berlinski, which we did. Now, please respond to Darwin 1859.
At 7:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Fossilization is a happenstance process,
That is why asking it to tell us about the history of life is foolish.
Not only that fossils say nothing about any mechanism. You lose regardless.
Now how about that evidence
At 7:49 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is why asking it to tell us about the history of life is foolish.
If we took photos at random while a child grew, it could still give us information about that process.
Joe G: Now how about that evidence
Darwin 1859
At 7:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You asked us to respond to Berlinski, which we did.
Now I didn't. You must be an imbecile.
Now, please respond to Darwin 1859.
The Deniable Darwin 1996- Berlinski responds to Darwin 1859 and does a good enough job. Now how about that evidence?
At 7:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
If we took photos at random while a child grew, it could still give us information about that process.
Please explain.
Now how about that evidence
Darwin 1859
So nothing then. Thanks.
At 7:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Please explain.
The amount of information would depend on the frequency of the photos, not on their regularity. Think about it. If we took photos of a child at ages 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, we could gauge the rate of growth and makes some reasonable interpolations. We don't need a continuous record or even a regular record to do this.
Joe G: So nothing then.
Generations of biologists have considered Darwin's evidence and argument to be persuasive. What leads you to think otherwise?
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The amount of information would depend on the frequency of the photos, not on their regularity. Think about it. If we took photos of a child at ages 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, we could gauge the rate of growth and makes some reasonable interpolations. We don't need a continuous record or even a regular record to do this.
You sed taking photos at random.
Generations of biologists have considered Darwin's evidence and argument to be persuasive.
And yet you can neither pint out these biologists nor the evidence they allegedly found to be persuasive. You must be lying again, as usual.
At 7:03 AM,
Joe G said…
AND not one of those biologists can produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase. They don't even know how to test for such a thing.
At 8:37 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You sed taking photos at random.
Yes, in this case, we took photos at +3, +1, +2, +1, +3, +1, +3 years.
Joe G: And yet you can neither pint out these biologists ...
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Joe G: nor the evidence they allegedly found to be persuasive.
Darwin 1859.
Joe G: AND not one of those biologists can produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
Yes, they have, but they all depend on having established the basics of evolution, especially common descent. So we start there. Darwin 1859.
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Project Steve does NOT say the biologists were influenced by Darwin 1859 and the alleged evidence it contains.
Darwin 1859
The book is evidence? There isn't any evidence in the book that demonstrates unguided evolution can do anything. We have asked you for the relevant page numbers and like the cowardly liar you are you have failed to tell us.
AND not one of those biologists can produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase.
Yes, they have,
No, they haven't, you are a liar.
but they all depend on having established the basics of evolution, especially common descent.
That is just stupid talk. The alleged evolution of ATP synthase has nothing to do with common descent. You are a dishonest imbecile.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Darwin 1859 chapter 4-
Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life.
And that is why we observe a wobbling stability with respect to biological populations.
Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations?
What is "useful" is relative and vague. It could be useful to be short, tall, long, skinny, fat, small, large, smelly, good sight, no sight, fast, slow, flying, swimming, crawling, trudging, running- whatever the relative advantage is at the time and place. Unfortunately the concept is not very useful for an alleged scientific theory.
If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?
Advantages can be non-heritable
On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
We observe otherwise.
This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
Favourable is whatever is good enough to survive
Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.
Strange, lately I have been reading evos saying that Darwin didn’t know about drift. Looks like Zachriel needs to talk to its own
No evidence there, Zachriel.
At 9:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Project Steve does NOT say the biologists were influenced by Darwin 1859 and the alleged evidence it contains.
Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution, which a thousand scientific Steves say "is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
Joe G: There isn't any evidence in the book that demonstrates unguided evolution can do anything.
Darwin and a thousand scientific Steves think otherwise. Perhaps you could look at some of the specific evidence Darwin cites and explain why it doesn't support his evolutionary theory.
Joe G: No, they haven't
It's not clear you even know what a testable hypothesis is. For instance, you insist that "Darwin didn't present any evidence. He didn't present a testable hypothesis."
Joe G: The alleged evolution of ATP synthase has nothing to do with common descent.
The evidence for the evolution of everything has to do with common descent. Now, you can say it doesn't, but if you want to follow the argument, you have to understand why the vast majority of biologists do think that common descent is a unifying principle in biology.
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution, which a thousand scientific Steves say "is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
And yet no one can say what that alleged evidence is. Heck not one of those Steves knows what makes an organism what it is.
There isn't any evidence in the book that demonstrates unguided evolution can do anything.
Darwin and a thousand scientific Steves think otherwise
And yet neither you nor anyone else can present the evidence. Is it locked away?
. Perhaps you could look at some of the specific evidence Darwin cites and explain why it doesn't support his evolutionary theory.
Perhaps you can present the evidence and tell us how it supports unguided evolution.
It's not clear you even know what a testable hypothesis is.
It is clear that you don't know what a testable hypothesis is.
For instance, you insist that "Darwin didn't present any evidence. He didn't present a testable hypothesis."
And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
he alleged evolution of ATP synthase has nothing to do with common descent.
The evidence for the evolution of everything has to do with common descent.
Wrong. The two are separate. There can be evolution without universal common descent. As a matter of fact Darwin didn't say anyuthing about the OoL and that dictates how many trees there could be.
Now, you can say it doesn't, but if you want to follow the argument, you have to understand why the vast majority of biologists do think that common descent is a unifying principle in biology.
The alleged vast majority can't even test the claim of unguided evolution producing something.
It's as if they are all as ignorant as you are.
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
OK I responded to Darwin and there wasn't any evidence in what I responded to.
At 9:14 AM,
Zachriel said…
Sixty comments into the thread, and you finally respond to our first comment.
Darwin: Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations?
Joe G: It could be useful to be short, tall, long, skinny, fat, small, large, smelly, good sight, no sight, fast, slow, flying, swimming, crawling, trudging, running- whatever the relative advantage is at the time and place.
That's exactly right!
Joe G: Advantages can be non-heritable
Sure, but Darwin is clearly referring to heritable variations, such as seen in domestication over generations.
Darwin: On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
Joe G: We observe otherwise.
You're right. If it's a minor defect, it may very well survive, and even become fixed in a population. This was worked out in the early twentieth century with the advent of population genetics. Instead of either/or benefit/detriment, we have a range of possible outcomes that are skewed towards fitness.
Darwin: This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
Joe G: Favourable is whatever is good enough to survive
In this case, he's referring to heritable differences that lead to changes in the population.
Darwin: Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.
Joe G: Strange, lately I have been reading evos saying that Darwin didn’t know about drift.
Not only was Darwin aware of neutral drift, he also proposed a punctuated equilibrium. He downplayed the importance of these mechanisms because he had bigger fish to fry.
Joe G: No evidence there
He points to the evidence of domestication, which he had already discussed in the first chapter. Keep reading for more evidence.
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
60+ comments into this thread and Zachriel still hasn't supported his claim. And evidence of domestication is NOT evidence for unguided evolution.
Zachriel claimed the book was chock full of evidence- unfortunately said evidence is not evidence for unguided evolution. Zachriel is a proven liar.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! I responded to Zachriel and proved that it is a liar.
At 9:45 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: 60+ comments into this thread and Zachriel still hasn't supported his claim.
Darwin 1859.
Joe G: And evidence of domestication is NOT evidence for unguided evolution.
It's evidence of variation, essential to evolution.
At 9:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Darwin 1859.
LoL! That's funny. Strange that you cannot tell us what pages this alleged evidence for unguided evolution is on.
It's evidence of variation, essential to evolution.
ID is not anti-evolution.
So here we are approaching 70 comments and all Zachriel can do is lie and bluff. Another prediction fulfilled.
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Baraminology accepts variation- variation is essential to baraminology.
At 10:35 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Strange that you cannot tell us what pages this alleged evidence for unguided evolution is on.
It's a single long argument where Darwin marshals evidence from many different sources. You might wnat to start with the table of contents.
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
I read the book, Zachriel. I know that there isn't any evidence for unguided evolution producing the diversity of life. I know that there isn't any evidence that refutes the claims of ID. And I know that you are a bluffing pathological liar.
And all of that was before this thread was started.
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It's a single long argument where Darwin marshals evidence from many different sources.
Many people have shredded it ever since, including Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin 1996. Heck Berlinski even shreds his attackers.
At 11:12 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I know that there isn't any evidence for unguided evolution producing the diversity of life.
You keep saying that, but have only responded substantively once. Indeed, Darwin points to many biological facts which most biologists consider evidence in support of Darwin's theory.
At 11:16 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Many people have shredded it ever since, including Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin 1996.
We responded to Berlinski, but you ignored our response.
At 11:21 AM,
Joe G said…
I know that there isn't any evidence for unguided evolution producing the diversity of life.
Zachriel:
You keep saying that,
Because it is true. Heck even Doug Theobald is smart enough to realize that the evidence for universal common descent is absent a mechanism.
but have only responded substantively once.
And you have yet to respond with anything of substance. And had Darwin wrote something of substance perhaps we could then respond to it.
Darwin has been superseded. Even your butt-butty Kevin McCarthy wonders what anyone cares about him now.
And Darwin argued against a strawman- the fixity of species. Linne had the Created Kind at the level of Genera meaning variation was part of Creationism before Darwin spewed his ignorance.
Indeed, Darwin points to many biological facts which most biologists consider evidence in support of Darwin's theory.
And educated people see it as evidence for their contrary positions.
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
ZAchriel:
We responded to Berlinski, but you ignored our response.
Because your "response" was cowardly bullshit that ignored the bulk of what Berlinski wrote. Anything else I can help you with?
At 11:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Heck even Doug Theobald is smart enough to realize that the evidence for universal common descent is absent a mechanism.
The evidence for common descent is *independent* of a mechanism of adaptation, relying only on reproductive isolation.
Joe G: And had Darwin wrote something of substance perhaps we could then respond to it.
Waving your hands doesn't make the evidence go away.
Joe G: Darwin has been superseded.
Of course he has, yet the basic theory remain intact.
Joe G: And educated people see it as evidence for their contrary positions.
Biologists are educated in biology. That's what we mean by biologist.
At 11:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The evidence for common descent is *independent* of a mechanism of adaptation, relying only on reproductive isolation.
Exactly. That means it does NOT support unguided evolution. You lose.
Waving your hands doesn't make the evidence go away.
Waving your hands doesn't make the evidence suddenly appear.
yet the basic theory remain intact.
That somethings happened in the past and via innumerable improbable coincidences, we are here- just at the right time. Some theory
And Darwin argued against a strawman- the fixity of species. Linne had the Created Kind at the level of Genera meaning variation was part of Creationism before Darwin spewed his ignorance.
Zachriel:
(crickets)
Zachriel:
Biologists are educated in biology.
And understanding biology has nothing to do with unguided evolution- thankfully.
At 11:48 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Exactly. That means it does NOT support unguided evolution.
Common descent is not the only facet of evolutionary theory. But just so we're clear, you accept common descent?
At 11:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Indeed, Darwin points to many biological facts which most biologists consider evidence in support of Darwin's theory.
Those same biologists couldn't present the testable hypothesis asked for in the OP. Those same biologists have no idea what makes an organism what it is. And that is shameful.
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Common descent is not the only facet of evolutionary theory.
That is what I have been telling you. Nice to see that you can learn, albeit in a limited sense.
But just so we're clear, you accept common descent?
I accept that offspring are descended from at least one parent. And that lineages can be formed as long as at least one offspring continues to reproduce.
But until we know what makes an organism what it is, universal common descent, while interesting, is unscientific. And universal common descent via unguided evolution is total bullshit.
Universal common descent is stuck at prokaryotes. Sagan explained mitochondria and chloroplasts, but thta turned out to be nothing more than "It looks like it coulda been bacteria cuz if you loom at 'em like this they sorta resemble bacteria". It didn't get to the nucleus and how everything was coordinated to form Eukaryota. And looking at Lenski's long term experiment it appears that mutation/ selection is very limited.
At 3:12 PM,
Blas said…
Zachriel said...
"The amount of information would depend on the frequency of the photos, not on their regularity. Think about it. If we took photos of a child at ages 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, we could gauge the rate of growth and makes some reasonable interpolations. We don't need a continuous record or even a regular record to do this."
You can do that if you have a complete set of the photos of the whole body of the child or the complete set of a specific part, then you can interpolate the growing of that part. But your set of photos is incomplete and do not have the whole body.
At 4:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Blas- Welcome to IR.
At 5:02 PM,
Zachriel said…
Blas: But your set of photos is incomplete and do not have the whole body.
Huh? We said a photo of the child. As we said, we can make usually make reasonable interpolations even if our photos are at random intervals.
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
You could only make reasonable interpolations if you already knew biology and how organisms developed.
At 5:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You could only make reasonable interpolations if you already knew biology and how organisms developed.
Not sure why you would say that.
Age, Height(cm)
3, 90
4, 95
6, 114
7, 124
10, 137
11, 145
14, 160
Now, let's take a wild guess that her height at age five is between 95 and 114 cm.
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! So the only information you could get is that the growth occurs in a sequence.
At age 5 she could match age 4 OR she could match age 6. But then again if the photos didn't have a valid frame of reference you wouldn't know how tall she is (if all you had were the photos to go by). You still lose.
At 5:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So the only information you could get is that the growth occurs in a sequence.
No, but that's one more thing we can reasonably conclude than you said we could. So, yes, we can make reasonable interpolations.
At 5:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
If we took photos at random while a child grew, it could still give us information about that process.
It could but that information would be minimal. What was your point?
At 6:02 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It could but that information would be minimal.
We would be able to interpolate all sorts of things from momentary glimpses, not just height but other attributes that show in pictures. Furthermore, we might be able to confirm our interpolations by finding more photographs.
Joe G: What was your point?
Because fossils give us snapshots of the history of life, and we can interpolate from these snapshots, make predictions, and find confirmation.
At 6:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
No, but that's one more thing we can reasonably conclude than you said we could.
I don't recall saying that- you made it up and you can't even tell the height unless they are set photos with a constant reference- ie not random.
So minimal information it is and still nothing to do with evolutionism.
At 6:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Because fossils give us snapshots of the history of life,
Which is open to interpretation. Also it is in no way analogous with a picture of one child growing up. You are proud to be dishonest.
Unless you know what makes an organism what it is your "predictions" are as valid as astrology's. And unless you have a process capable of producing what we observe, you have less than nothing.
And that, Zachriel, is where you are.
At 6:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Looking at photos and knowing something of stalactites and stalagmites, we could interpolate that the kid was dripped on and developed that way.
That, then, must be how evolution proceeds. Awesome.
At 6:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Fossils give us snapshots of some organisms that lived, died and were fossilized. That is it. It is not a history of life, they are history.
At 6:27 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Unless you know what makes an organism what it is your "predictions" are as valid as astrology's.
You don't have to know how an organism grows to make reasonable interpolations.
Joe G: Fossils give us snapshots of some organisms that lived, died and were fossilized.
Each fossil can only tell us so much, but many fossils can give us information about historical changes.
At 6:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You don't have to know how an organism grows to make reasonable interpolations.
Like what?
Each fossil can only tell us so much, but many fossils can give us information about historical changes.
Not really.
At 6:45 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Like what?
That her height at age five was between 95 and 114 cm.
Joe G: Not really.
Of course they can. For instance, long before humans, there was an age of dinosaurs.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Creationist: "God Created fish and God Created tetrapods. I bet if we look we will find that God also Created fishapods."
Prediction fulfilled.
At 6:49 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I bet if we look we will find that God also Created fishapods.
Except they didn't. Make the prediction, that is. Rather, it was evolutionary biologists who made the prediction, then went and found fossil remains to confirm the prediction.
At 6:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
That her height at age five was between 95 and 114 cm.
How do you get that from random photos?
For instance, long before humans, there was an age of dinosaurs.
Or humans just don't fossilize well. So nothing tat has anything to do with evolutionism.
At 6:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: How do you get that from random photos?
They're not random photos, but photos of a child at random intervals.
Joe G: Or humans just don't fossilize well.
The entirety of the fossil evidence makes clear that humans did not coexist with mega-dinosaurs.
At 6:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, You have no idea what baraminology predicts. It, not Darwin, predicted reproductive isolation. Creation, not materialism predicted the universe had a beginning.
The fossils tell us the story of fish->tetrapods-> fishapods. Evolutionism didn't predict that.
At 6:57 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It, not Darwin, predicted reproductive isolation.
Darwin preceded baraminology.
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
They're not random photos, but photos of a child at random intervals
You still can't tell a child's height from a photo unless you were there and verified the measurement. In which case the photos are moot and you are still a loser.
The entirety of the fossil evidence makes clear that humans did not coexist with mega-dinosaurs.
How is that possible? And that still says nothing about evolutionism.
At 7:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Darwin preceded baraminology.
Linnaeus preceded Darwin. And Darwin did NOT predict fish->tetrapods-> fishapods. You lose
At 7:02 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You still can't tell a child's height from a photo ...
Oh gee whiz, Joe G. It's a simple illustration even a child can understand.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i6EnpTqZlkA/TbwQ9gEDHjI/AAAAAAAAABg/Xx3CYWhuzII/s1600/child_height.jpg
Joe G: How is that possible?
Because there is a clear fossil succession.
Zachriel: Each fossil can only tell us so much, but many fossils can give us information about historical changes.
Joe G: How so?
At one time, mega-dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Today, they don't.
At 7:04 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW baraminology is based on the Bible. So unless Darwin preceded the Bible you are wrong, again, as usual.
At 7:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh gee whiz Zachriel, why do you cut off the part of my commennt that exposes you as an asshole?
Because there is a clear fossil succession.
And yet you have admitted that fossilization is happenstance. And that alleged succession has tetrapods before fishapods. Obviously something is wrong.
At one time, mega-dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Today, they don't.
That doesn't mean humans were not around back then and it still has nothing to do with evolutionism. You may as well be talking about day-age Creation.
At 7:12 PM,
Joe G said…
So if someone is present during a child's growth, and looks at random photos of the child, that person can say something about that child's growth.
Wow Zachriel, that is just amazing.
At 7:14 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: why do you cut off the part of my commennt
Half your comments are blacked out by our spam filter due to "vile language" and "childish insults".
Joe G: And yet you have admitted that fossilization is happenstance.
As we said, if you take photos of a child at random intervals, you don't have to know anything about the mechanism of development to observe change over time. Do you know anything about 'growing up'?
Joe G: And that alleged succession has tetrapods before fishapods.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!
Joe G: That doesn't mean humans were not around back then ...
It means "fossils can give us information about historical changes", something you denied was possible. At one time, there were mega-dinosaurs. Entire ecosystems have come and gone.
At 7:16 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So if someone is present during a child's growth, and looks at random photos of the child, that person can say something about that child's growth.
They don't have to have been there. They can look at photos taken at random intervals and observe the process of development without having to understand how it occurs, then make reasonable interpolations for the gaps.
At 9:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
They don't have to have been there.
Then they cannot verify anything.
They can look at photos taken at random intervals and observe the process of development without having to understand how it occurs, then make reasonable interpolations for the gaps.
Apparently only in specific situations. Not very useful.
At 9:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Half your comments are blacked out by our spam filter due to "vile language" and "childish insults".
All of your posts are childish and are an insult to reasoning and science. The parts you just happen to omit you then use as if it was your own idea. You are pathetic.
As we said, if you take photos of a child at random intervals, you don't have to know anything about the mechanism of development to observe change over time.
What you say is irrelevant. And change over time is not evidence for evolutionism.
And that alleged succession has tetrapods before fishapods.
Zachriel:
(childish non-sequitur)
Zachriel:
It means "fossils can give us information about historical changes",
In what context?
something you denied was possible
Liar.
At one time, there were mega-dinosaurs. Entire ecosystems have come and gone.
And still no evidence for evolutionism.
It's as if Zachriel is a piece-of-shit pathological liar.
At 9:17 PM,
Joe G said…
You still can't tell a child's height from a photo unless you were there and verified the measurement. In which case the photos are moot and you are still a loser.
That comment doesn't contain any vile language nor any childish insults and yet Zachriel the liar chose to ignore most of it.
At 7:40 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Then they cannot verify anything.
Sure. You can't know anything about anything from a photograph if you weren't there.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2010/3/16/1268741922915/Martin-Luther-King-by-Cha-001.jpg
Joe G: And that alleged succession has tetrapods before fishapods.
So if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!
Joe G: In what context?
Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
At 7:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Then they cannot verify anything.
Zachriel:
Sure.
Then we agree.
And that alleged succession has tetrapods before fishapods.
Zachriel:
So if humans evolved from monkeys
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys and that has nothing to do with what I posted.
In what context?
Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
So not in the context of evolutionism. That is what I thought. That means you shtick is nothing but a cowardly distraction. I am sure my spam filter will catch your nonsense from here on.
At 8:18 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Then we agree.
The photograph is provides us information about the past.
Joe G: Humans didn't evolve from monkeys and that has nothing to do with what I posted.
Sure it does. You pose a strawman argument. Given that humans evolved from primitive primates, that doesn't mean those primitive primates may not still have descendants with primitive features. So, given tetrapods and bony fish, we posit an ancestral fishapod. We then predict that organisms existed that exhibited both primitive and derived characteristics. When we find a fishapod, that doesn't mean that it's the first and only fishapod, only that it exhibits the predicted primitive and derived characteristics.
Joe G: So not in the context of evolutionism.
What you had said was that fossils can't give us information about historical changes. That was clearly false. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The photograph is provides us information about the past.
Photos can be setups that have nothing to do with reality.
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys and that has nothing to do with what I posted.
Sure it does.
No, it doesn't.
You pose a strawman argument.
Liar.
So, given tetrapods and bony fish, we posit an ancestral fishapod.
The fishapod has to exist between the time of fish and the arrival of tetrapods. No one has found such a thing. Obviously you are ignorant of science.
What you had said was that fossils can't give us information about historical changes.
Liar.
Geez Zachriel, if all you can do is lie in a thread that calls you a liar, then there is nothing else to discuss as you have proven my point. Thank you.
At 8:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel sez I posted a strawman argument just because the fossils show the succession as fish->tetrapods-> fishapods.
Zachriel is a pathetic piece-of-shit, scientifically illiterate ass.
At 8:32 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The fishapod has to exist between the time of fish and the arrival of tetrapods.
Gee whiz, Joe G.
If tetrapods evolved from fishapods, why are there still fishapods?!
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Gee whiz Zachriel, YOU said something about fossil succession. All I did was point out that the fossil succession shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods and you start acting like a little cry-baby.
I guess reality sucks for you.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
If tetrapods evolved from fishapods, why are there still fishapods?!
Dumbass, if tetrapods evolved from fishapods then the fossil record should reflect that. It doesn't.
If tetrapods evolved from fishapods we should find fishapods before the arrival of tetrapods. We don't. You lose.
At 8:48 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: if tetrapods evolved from fishapods then the fossil record should reflect that
No necessarily. Fossilization is a happenstance occurrence.
We only have snapshots, like of a girl growing up. We can see the changes, and we can make reasonable interpolations. Get out your scrapbook and look. Don't argue we can't know anything from snapshots. It's just not a tenable position to have.
At 8:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Gee whiz Zachriel, YOU said something about fossil succession. All I did was point out that the fossil succession shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods and you start acting like a little cry-baby.
I guess reality sucks for you.
At 8:58 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: All I did was point out that the fossil succession shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods
Sure, and we pointed out that this is not unexpected by evolutionary theory.
Joe G: YOU said something about fossil succession.
Yes, we said "fossils can give us information about historical changes," something you denied. We pointed out that fossils show that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. That seems like a pretty profound biological finding.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
All I did was point out that the fossil succession shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods
Zachriel:
Sure, and we pointed out that this is not unexpected by evolutionary theory.
So evolutionary theory has fishapods evolving from tetrapods. Got it.
Zachriel:
Yes, we said "fossils can give us information about historical changes,"
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the context.
something you denied.
I did not deny it, you are lying.
We pointed out that fossils show that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. That seems like a pretty profound biological finding.
In what way is that profound?
At 9:12 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So evolutionary theory has fishapods evolving from tetrapods.
No. Just because humans evolved from primitive monkeys doesn't mean that humans can't coexist with monkeys with primitive traits.
Joe G: Maybe, maybe not.
Well, that's a step up from your previous "not really" answer. Yes, fossils can give us information about historical changes. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
So evolutionary theory has fishapods evolving from tetrapods.
Zachriel:
No
So evidence means nothing to you then. Got it.
Maybe, maybe not.
Well, that's a step up from your previous "not really" answer.
As I said previously and you ignored, it all depends.
Yes, fossils can give us information about historical changes.
The fishapods came after tetrapods for that is what the fossil record shows. Thank you.
At 9:22 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So evidence means nothing to you then.
Sure it does. The evidence supports the existence of fishapods, as predicted from evolutionary theory.
Joe G: As I said previously and you ignored, it all depends.
You work on that. Meanwhile, from fossil evidence, we know that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, entire ecosystems have come and gone, and life today is very different from the time of the dinosaurs.
Joe G: The fishapods came after tetrapods for that is what the fossil record shows.
It's not that difficult. Try to answer this question: If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? If tetrapods evolved from fishapods, why were there still fishpods around when tetrapods walked the Earth?
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The evidence supports the existence of fishapods, as predicted from evolutionary theory.
Nope. Evolutionary theory doesn't even predict metazoans.
The fishapods came after tetrapods for that is what the fossil record shows.
It's not that difficult.
No, it isn't, yet you seem to be having some difficulty.
If tetrapods evolved from fishapods,
Then fishapods have to exist before tetrapods. Yet there isn't any evidence for that.
As I said evidence doesn't mean anything to you.
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
As I said previously and you ignored, it all depends.
Zachriel:
You work on that
What I said is a fact. Why do I need to work on facts?
At 9:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Evolutionary theory doesn't even predict metazoans.
It predicts that metazoans were preceded by less organized organisms, which is the case.
Joe G: Then fishapods have to exist before tetrapods.
Yes, that's right. You're close. However, a given fishapod may live after the first tetrapods.
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
t predicts that metazoans were preceded by less organized organisms
It doesn't predict metazoans. It cannot account for metazoans.
Then fishapods have to exist before tetrapods.
Yes, that's right.
And there isn't any evidence for that.
At 9:38 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It cannot account for metazoans.
Many of the features of metazoa have precedents in simpler organisms, including cell adhesion, communication, and specialization.
Joe G: And there isn't any evidence for that.
The prediction was that there once existed fishapods. The fossils of fishapods are the confirmation. When you can make and confirm such preditions, then scientists may take your ideas seriously. Until then, it's just rhetoric.
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Many of the features of metazoa have precedents in simpler organisms, including cell adhesion, communication, and specialization.
And your position can't account for any of that.
Zachriel:
The prediction was that there once existed fishapods.
Who predicted that and why? Are you saying that if fish, evolved lungs, slithered up on land and legs evolved well after that, then evolutionism would be falsified?
Unguided evolution didn't predict fishapods. That is all that really matters.
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
OK so Zachriel sed that we can take snapshots and gain information from them. He then sed that the fossil record contains snapshots.
Well the fossil record has fishapods arriving AFTER tetrapods. Just like taking pictures at a gathering as the people arrive. You can tell what people arrived first and what people came after.
At 10:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The prediction was that there once existed fishapods.
The alleged prediction was that there once existed fishapods that existed before the arrival of tetrapods.
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
When you can make and confirm such preditions, then scientists may take your ideas seriously.
What predictions are borne from unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution? Please be specific as we have our magnifying glass, notepad and pencil at the ready.
Until then, it's just rhetoric.
Apparently rhetoric is all you have.
At 5:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Many of the features of metazoa have precedents in simpler organisms, including cell adhesion, communication, and specialization.
Joe G: And your position can't account for any of that.
Hynes & Zhao, The Evolution of Cell Adhesion, Journal of Cellular Biology 2000.
Liu & Nash, Evolution of SH2 domains and phosphotyrosine signalling networks, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2012.
Arendt, The evolution of cell types in animals: emerging principles from molecular studies, Nature Reviews 2008.
Joe G: Who predicted that
Darwin.
Joe G: and why?
See Darwin 1859.
Joe G: Are you saying that if fish, evolved lungs, slithered up on land and legs evolved well after that, then evolutionism would be falsified?
Not sure why you would say that. There were probably many different lineages and sets of adaptations.
Joe G: Unguided evolution didn't predict fishapods.
It's a direct implication of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Joe G: Zachriel sed that we can take snapshots and gain information from them. He then sed that the fossil record contains snapshots.
Yes.
Joe G: Well the fossil record has fishapods arriving AFTER tetrapods.
So we have a picture of you dated 2004, and a picture of your daughter in 2003. My Goodness! How did that happen!!
Joe G: The alleged prediction was that there once existed fishapods that existed before the arrival of tetrapods.
That's the entailment. The empirical prediction is the existence of a transitional, meaning an organisms that exhibits both primitive and derived traits.
Joe G: What predictions are borne from unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution? Please be specific as we have our magnifying glass, notepad and pencil at the ready.
Good. Take a close look. It's called evidence.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/images/meetTik1.jpg
At 6:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Hynes & Zhao, The Evolution of Cell Adhesion, Journal of Cellular Biology 2000.
Liu & Nash, Evolution of SH2 domains and phosphotyrosine signalling networks, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2012.
Arendt, The evolution of cell types in animals: emerging principles from molecular studies, Nature Reviews 2008.
Nope, there isn't anything in any of those which says unguided evolution did it. Try again.
Who predicted that
Darwin.
Reference please.
and why?
See Darwin 1859.
Saw it and it doesn't support what you claim.
Are you saying that if fish, evolved lungs, slithered up on land and legs evolved well after that, then evolutionism would be falsified?
Not sure why you would say that.
Because fishapods are NOT a prediction of the theory.
Unguided evolution didn't predict fishapods.
IIt's a direct implication of Darwin's theory of evolution
That is your opinion and only an opinion.
Well the fossil record has fishapods arriving AFTER tetrapods.
Zachriel:
(nothing of substance)
What predictions are borne from unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution? Please be specific as we have our magnifying glass, notepad and pencil at the ready.
So no predictions then. There isn't any evidence for unguided evolution.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/images/meetTik1.jpg
And what evidence says unguided evolution produced Tiktaalik?
At 6:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel is upset because the fossil record doesn't support its claims All of Zachrielk's whining is not going to change the fact that the fossil record has fishapods after tetrapods.
At 7:10 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: there isn't anything in any of those which says unguided evolution did it
The findings show support for evolutionary origins.
Joe G: Reference please.
Darwin 1859.
Joe G: Because fishapods are NOT a prediction of the theory.
They're a prediction based on the existence of fish, the existence of land vertebrates, and the theory of Common Descent.
Joe G: What predictions are borne from unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution?
"Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution" is an analogy, not a scientific description.
Joe G: And what evidence says unguided evolution produced Tiktaalik?
It's a prediction from common descent independent of any mechanism of adaptation.
Joe G: not going to change the fact that the fossil record has fishapods after tetrapods.
So we have a picture of you dated 2004, and a picture of your daughter in 2003. My Goodness! How did that happen!!
At 8:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The findings show support for evolutionary origins
Not unguided evolutionary origins.
Reference please.
Darwin 1859.
So no reference then.
Because fishapods are NOT a prediction of the theory.
They're a prediction based on the existence of fish, the existence of land vertebrates, and the theory of Common Descent.
Not really as the same scenario could produce a slithering land animal that then went on to evolve legs.
"Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution" is an analogy, not a scientific description.
LoL! Now THAT is funny. Natural selection is blind and mindless. It is not a search heuristic. It is a result based on 3 processes. The mutations are all allegedly happenstance events, ie unguided.
Mayr, Dawkins, et al. (Coyne, Moran, etc) and UC Berkley on evolution agree with me, Zachriel.
IOW Zachriel is being an obtuse ass because it is finally figuring out its position is unscientific.
And what evidence says unguided evolution produced Tiktaalik?
It's a prediction from common descent independent of any mechanism of adaptation.
Thanks for proving you are dishonest.
Zachriel is upset because the fossil record doesn't support its claims All of Zachriel's whining is not going to change the fact that the fossil record has fishapods after tetrapods.
So we have a picture of you dated 2004, and a picture of your daughter in 2003.
And we have pictures of us from the 1990s and none of my youngest daughter.
You lose, again.
At 8:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Darwin 1859- Zachriel keeps referencing that book yet had Zachriel read and understood it, Zacho would have known it was an argument for how blind and unguided processes can produce the appearance of design. The modern synthesis added genetics and the chance variation became happenstance mutations.
All we are doing is asking how to test that claim and Zachriel goes all denial on us. That's funny.
At 9:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Not unguided evolutionary origins.
The proposed mechanisms do not require any 'guidance'.
Joe G: So no reference then.
Origin of Species is one of the most important and influential scientific works in history. Simply waving your hands doesn't make it go away.
Joe G: Not really as the same scenario could produce a slithering land animal that then went on to evolve legs.
It probably wouldn't be slithering, as the posited ancestor is lobed fish that started to walk in shallow waters.
Joe G: Natural selection is blind and mindless.
Again, that's an analogy.
Joe G: The mutations are all allegedly happenstance events, ie unguided.
Well, you tend to overload the terms, so it's hard to tell exactly how you are using them.
Joe G: And we have pictures of us
If the earliest pictures we have is a picture of you dated 2004, and a picture of your daughter in 2003. My Goodness! How did that happen!!
You act as if that means you aren't the father, which is just silly.
At 9:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The proposed mechanisms do not require any 'guidance'.
How was that determined?
Origin of Species is one of the most important and influential scientific works in history.
That is your opinion. Strange that such a book would argue against a strawman and be too vague to be of any use.
It probably wouldn't be slithering, as the posited ancestor is lobed fish that started to walk in shallow waters.
There isn't any reason for that proposition. Darwin never said what traits should appear first. Obviously you don't understand what Darwin was saying.
Natural selection is blind and mindless.
Again, that's an analogy
No, it is a fact.
The mutations are all allegedly happenstance events, ie unguided.
Well, you tend to overload the terms,
Liar.
so it's hard to tell exactly how you are using them.
I use them exactly as educated evolutionists use them. That is what has you confused.
If the earliest pictures we have is a picture of you dated 2004,
We have earlier pictures. Ya see asshole, science does not rest on what one evoTARD has or doesn't have.
The entire scientific community has fishapods arriving after tetrapods.
At 5:30 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: How was that determined?
By reading the paper.
Joe G: Darwin never said what traits should appear first. Obviously you don't understand what Darwin was saying.
The specific historical transition comes from fossil evidence.
Joe G: We have earlier pictures.
You work really hard to avoid the point.
If the earliest picture we have of a mother is from 1930, and the earliest picture of her daughter is from 1927. My Goodness! How did that happen?!
At 6:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The proposed mechanisms do not require any 'guidance'.
How was that determined?
Zachriel:
By reading the paper.
So you don't have any idea. Another prediction fulfilled.
Darwin never said what traits should appear first. Obviously you don't understand what Darwin was saying.
Zachriel:
The specific historical transition comes from fossil evidence.
What specific historical transition? The specific historical transition to fishapods that came after tetrapods?
We have earlier pictures.
Zachriel:
You work really hard to avoid the point.
Nice projection.
At 9:59 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So you don't have any idea.
How did we determine what was proposed? By reading the paper. Did you mean to ask for support of the hypothesis? Here's a review article that explains how cell adhesion proteins have homologs in single-celled organisms. They provide a picture of how large gene families have evolved.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/02/14_choanos.shtml
Also see Nichols et al., Origin of metazoan cadherin diversity and the antiquity of the classical cadherin/β-catenin complex, PNAS 2012.
Joe G: Darwin never said what traits should appear first.
Darwin said that complex traits evolved from more primitive traits, hence the more primitive traits appeared first.
Joe G: Nice projection.
You haven't addressed the point, which is obvious. If the earliest picture we have of a mother is from 1930, and the earliest picture of her daughter is from 1927. My Goodness! How did that happen?!
At 11:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
How did we determine what was proposed? By reading the paper. Did you mean to ask for support of the hypothesis? Here's a review article that explains how cell adhesion proteins have homologs in single-celled organisms. They provide a picture of how large gene families have evolved.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/02/14_choanos.shtml
Also see Nichols et al., Origin of metazoan cadherin diversity and the antiquity of the classical cadherin/β-catenin complex, PNAS 2012.
Nothing about unguided evolution in either of those. You are an asshole liar.
Darwin said that complex traits evolved from more primitive traits, hence the more primitive traits appeared first.
Darwin never stated which traits would appear first.
You haven't addressed the point,
You have failed to make a point.
OTOH you think you can handwave away the FACT that the fossil record shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods. And nothing you can say or do will change tat fact.
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Choanoflagellates are organisms that unguided evolution cannot account for. My god it's as if Zachriel is an ignorant asswipe! How did that happen!?
At 11:59 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nothing about unguided evolution in either of those.
Huh? Are you looking for magic words or what? They provide an explanation that lacks 'guidance'.
Joe G: Darwin never stated which traits would appear first.
Primitive traits. So, primitive primates preceded humans; primitive mammals preceded primates; primitive amniotes preceded mammals; etc.
Joe G: you think you can handwave away the FACT that the fossil record shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!
At 12:01 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Choanoflagellates are organisms that unguided evolution cannot account for
You had asked about the evolution of metazoa.
At 12:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You had asked about the evolution of metazoa.
I said your position cannot account for metazoans. And you have proven that to be true. Thank you.
At 12:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I said your position cannot account for metazoans.
And we provided evidence supporting the evolution of metazoans from more primitive organisms.
Better start moving those goalposts.
At 12:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
They provide an explanation that lacks 'guidance'.
No, they did not. You are a liar or confused.
Darwin never stated which traits would appear first.
Primitive traits.
Which traits are primitive and how do you know? Would primitive lungs evolve before primitive legs? How do you know?
My scenario has primitive traits appearing first. You must be an ignorant ass on an agenda.
you think you can handwave away the FACT that the fossil record shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods
Yes he does.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
And we provided evidence supporting the evolution of metazoans from more primitive organisms.
So what? Your position requires happenstance mutations. The papers did not say anything about that. IOW you are a liar.
Also the papers are pure speculation. No one actually tested the claim that single-celled organisms can evolve into metazoans because too much time is allegedly required. That is another reason your position isn't science- it hides behind father time.
At 12:16 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: No, they did not.
We provided citations to published research. They could certainly be wrong, but waving your hands isn't an argument.
At 12:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We provided citations to published research.
They do not support unguided evolution. Your handwaving will not change that fact.
If Judge Jones can reject ID's claim that peer-reviewed papers support ID just because the magic words "Intelligent Design" does not appear in them, then everyone else can reject your claims because your position's magic words do not appear in them.
At 12:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: They do not support unguided evolution.
By any reasonable sense of the word "unguided", they do.
Joe G: If Judge Jones can reject ID's claim that peer-reviewed papers support ID just because the magic words "Intelligent Design" does not appear in them,
That's was not his argument.
Joe G: then everyone else can reject your claims because your position's magic words do not appear in them.
Oh. So you do insist on magic words. Heh.
At 12:40 PM,
Joe G said…
They do not support unguided evolution.
ZAchriel:
By any reasonable sense of the word "unguided", they do.
That is your unscientific opinion and that is all.
If Judge Jones can reject ID's claim that peer-reviewed papers support ID just because the magic words "Intelligent Design" does not appear in them,
That's was not his argument.
Yes, it was.
then everyone else can reject your claims because your position's magic words do not appear in them.
Oh. So you do insist on magic words. Heh.
Darwin used them. Dawkins used them- well every evolutionist uses them. Heh
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Darwin 1859- Zachriel keeps referencing that book yet had Zachriel read and understood it, Zacho would have known it was an argument for how blind and unguided processes can produce the appearance of design. The modern synthesis added genetics and the chance variation became happenstance mutations.
All we are doing is asking how to test that claim and Zachriel goes all denial on us. That's funny.
At 12:46 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is your unscientific opinion and that is all.
It's a reasonable opinion reached after reading the paper. Maybe you're using the word 'unguided' in some unusual way. Is the Mississippi unguided as it wends its way to the sea?
Joe G: Yes, it was.
Jones ruled there was overwhelming evidence that Intelligent Design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
Joe G: Darwin used them.
That's funny. So you really are saying people have to use magic words in scientific papers.
At 12:57 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It's a reasonable opinion reached after reading the paper.
No it isn't.
Jones ruled there was overwhelming evidence that Intelligent Design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
Yes he said that also- and he was wrong.
So you really are saying people have to use magic words in scientific papers.
YOU are the asshole who called then magic. However if someone is going to say that stochastic processes produced X then it is up to them to demonstrate it and no one has.
Look just because you are an ignorant punk doesn't mean you get to ignore what is being debated.
At 12:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Jones said that the peer-reviewed papers said to support ID did not support ID because the words "Intelligent Design" were not in the papers.
At 1:12 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: No it isn't.
Handwaving. They point to natural mechanisms of variation and common descent to explain the evolution of metazoan traits. If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to be specific. That means addressing the paper.
Joe G: Yes he said that also- and he was wrong.
That was his ruling.
Joe G: However if someone is going to say that stochastic processes produced X then it is up to them to demonstrate it and no one has.
We've provided citations. Liu & Nash speak directly of shuffling, but all the papers we have cited mean stochastic variation when they talk about evolution.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
They point to natural mechanisms of variation and common descent to explain the evolution of metazoan traits.
1- They never demonstrate said evolution. They just speculate- as in "it looks like it coulda evolved this way"
2- Intelligent Design Evolution posits natural mechanisms of variation and common descent.
3- Dawkins' "weasel" program used natural mechanism of variation and common descent and was proof of evolution by design.
4- Your position requires the variation to be happenstance yet no one can demonstrate such a thing.
IOW Zachriel is a cowardly or ignorant equivocator.
That was his ruling.
That was part of it and it was incorrect. Jones also said that the papers claimed to support ID did not in fact support ID because Intelligent Design was not mentioned in them.
Again, all you are doing is proving that you are an asshole.
However if someone is going to say that stochastic processes produced X then it is up to them to demonstrate it and no one has.
We've provided citations.
The citations do not demonstrate stochastic processes didit. You are deluded.
Liu & Nash speak directly of shuffling,
Yet they do not say how they determined shuffling is stochastic.
but all the papers we have cited mean stochastic variation when they talk about evolution.
Yet no one can demonstrate the changes were stochastic. And that is all that counts.
As I said, your ignorance of what your position posits and what your opponents' positions posit, while amusing, is not evidence and is not even an argument.
At 2:53 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: 1- They never demonstrate said evolution.
They provide supporting evidence.
Joe G: 2- Intelligent Design Evolution posits natural mechanisms of variation and common descent.
"Intelligent Design Evolution"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Intelligent+Design+Evolution%22
What part of natural mechanisms of variation and common descent is 'intelligent' or 'guided'?
Joe G: 3- Dawkins' "weasel" program used natural mechanism of variation and common descent and was proof of evolution by design.
It shows how evolution can sort through stochastic variation.
Joe G: 4- Your position requires the variation to be happenstance yet no one can demonstrate such a thing.
Mutations random with respect to fitness. See Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.
Joe G: Yet they do not say how they determined shuffling is stochastic.
Think you're confusing shuffling with stacking the deck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffling
At 3:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
They provide supporting evidence.
It looks like it evolved
What part of natural mechanisms of variation and common descent is 'intelligent' or 'guided'?
"Not By Chance" Spetner 1997
3- Dawkins' "weasel" program used natural mechanism of variation and common descent and was proof of evolution by design.
It shows how evolution can sort through stochastic variation.
It shows how an intelligently designed program can use constrained variation to achieve a pre-specified goal.
Mutations random with respect to fitness.
Meaningless drivel. According to Mayr all the variation is due to chance, ie happenstance.
Yet they do not say how they determined shuffling is stochastic.
Think you're confusing shuffling with stacking the deck.
Think again.
At 3:12 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "Not By Chance" Spetner 1997
Except Spetner 1997 doesn't tell us what part of natural mechanisms of variation and common descent is 'intelligent' or 'guided'.
Joe G: It shows how an intelligently designed program can use constrained variation to achieve a pre-specified goal.
Variation is not constrained in Dawkins' program.
Joe G: According to Mayr all the variation is due to chance, ie happenstance.
We provided a direct scientific experiment showing that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Joe G: Think again.
"Shuffling is a procedure used to randomize a deck of playing cards to provide an element of chance in card games."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffling
At 3:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Except Spetner 1997 doesn't tell us what part of natural mechanisms of variation and common descent is 'intelligent' or 'guided'.
Sure he does. Only point mutations can be considered stochastic. That is until someone demonstrates stochastic processes can produce a living organism from matter and energy.
Variation is not constrained in Dawkins' program
Of course it is. For one it is constrained to English letters, lower case.
We provided a direct scientific experiment showing that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
And that is irrelevant. As I said your ignorance is getting in the way.
Shuffling is a procedure used to randomize a deck of playing cards to provide an element of chance in card games.
That doesn't mean it pertains to genetics.
At 3:27 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Only point mutations can be considered stochastic.
Not sure where you got that idea. Recombination and exon shuffling are also stochastic.
Joe G: Of course it is. For one it is constrained to English letters, lower case.
Thought you wanted to make a point. We stand corrected.
Joe G: And that is irrelevant.
It is directly relevant to your claim about variation.
Joe G: That doesn't mean it pertains to genetics
You said random wasn't in the article. That was not accurate.
At 3:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Recombination and exon shuffling are also stochastic.
How was that determined?
Of course it is. For one it is constrained to English letters, lower case.
Thought you wanted to make a point.
I made it. For another the mutations are constrained to single letters, not duplications, insertions, deletions, frame shifts, recombination- constrained.
It is directly relevant to your claim about variation.
Only if you are ignorant of what I claimed.
You said random wasn't in the article.
It isn't. Shuffling wrt genetics has not been shown to be random. Obviously you are an imbecile.
At 4:18 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Recombination and exon shuffling are also stochastic.
Joe G: How was that determined?
Mendel, Experiments on Plant Hybridization, Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn 1866.
Joe G: For another the mutations are constrained to single letters, not duplications, insertions, deletions, frame shifts, recombination- constrained.
Those sorts of variation wouldn't change the result significantly, nor would increasing the letter count somewhat. You still haven't made a coherent point.
At 4:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Baseball managers shuffle their lineup and it isn't random. Football coaches shuffle new players on the field and it isn't random.
Exon shuffling just means the exons were moved from one position to another.
Recombination- when playing cards the players often take their dealt hand and purposely recombine them into a coherent hand.
Neither word magically just means "random".
At 4:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Mendel, Experiments on Plant Hybridization, Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn 1866.
LoL! Another literature bluff. Zacho cites a Creationist and it doesn't support the claim that recombination and exon shuffling are stochastic.
Those sorts of variation wouldn't change the result significantly,
Irrelevant.
You still haven't made a coherent point.
You wouldn't know if I did. However, Dawkins' "weasel" is an example of evolution by design and has nothing to do with Darwinian processes.
At 4:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: it doesn't support the claim that recombination and exon shuffling are stochastic.
Mendel shows genetic recombination is random.
Joe G: Irrelevant.
Handwaving.
Joe G: However, Dawkins' "weasel" ... has nothing to do with Darwinian processes.
Sure it does. It has random variation, and a simple fitness landscape.
At 5:46 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Another literature bluff. Zacho cites a Creationist and it doesn't support the claim that recombination and exon shuffling are stochastic.
Mendel shows genetic recombination is random.
In what did Mendel show genetic recombination is random?
However, Dawkins' "weasel" is an example of evolution by design and has nothing to do with Darwinian processes.
Sure it does.
And yet even Dawkins agrees with me.
It has random variation, and a simple fitness landscape.
Wrong again. It has a pre-specified goal and the resources and search heuristic to make sure that it achieves that goal. Evolution by design.
At 5:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Here we are approaching 200 comments and Zachriel still has not presented any evidence in support of evolutionism that would refute anything that ID claims.
At 200 this thread closes and Zachriel will be proven to be a lying dickhead.
At 5:54 PM,
Zachriel said…
Can't help yourself can you? Good luck with that.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
We cannot help but call a lying dickhead a lying dickhead.
At 3:53 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Look at Chubs have another meltdown! Priceless.
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Chubs? Who's chubs?
Meltdown? What meltdown?
Look at Richie tardfuck Hughes, relegated to being a losing cheerleader.
At 1:07 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Duh! You're chubs. Catch up chubs!
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
And Shaq is shortie to Richie pom-poms...
At 9:13 AM,
Rolf Aalberg said…
Joe G: "We cannot...
Is he a choir?
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Rolf- have you ever read Zachriel's responses?
Post a Comment
<< Home