Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Richard Tardboy Hughes Chickens Out

-
As if we didn't predict this- Richie Tardboy Hughes invited me over to AtBC so he could show me the entailments for unguided evolution. A day later and Richie appears to have bailed-> no surprise there. And no one stepped up to try to cover for him-> again no surprise.

When it comes to supporting evolutionism evos cower. Why is that?

84 Comments:

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

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=8850#entry243182

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What, Richie? You are stalling because you are bluffing.

    Typical cowardly move.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Still waiting your participation, Joe.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only a coward would need someone else before they can make their case.

    Richie chickens out...

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm still there, trying to get you to participate. :D

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are there, stalling like the coward that you are.

    Make your case or shut up.

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

    Do you agree with what I have written so far?

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You haven't written anything about the entailments for unguided evolution. Obviously you are a coward.

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

    I haven't got to the entailments of guided and unguided, because I'm still waiting for you agreement or modification. I thought you said you would participate?

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, cupcake, the entailments must already exist. All you have to do is reproduce them. Then we discuss them. That is it.

    I did not need all of your stallings to post the entailments for ID. So why are you being such a cowardly asshole?

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Entailments are clearly contingent on definitions. I'll be over at AtBC waiting for your promised participation.

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And definitions are found in dictionaries. Buy one, loser.

    I am participating. I will engage fully when you post those entailments for unguided evolution. You seem to be too chicken-shit to do so.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You promised to participate. I'm over at AtBC waiting.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am waiting for those promised entailments for unguided evolution.

    You have the entailments of a bluffing coward.

    Nicely done.

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You promised to participate. I'm over at AtBC waiting.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You promised entailments and I am waiting.

    Come back when you finally grow a pair and actually ante up

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

    Don't be scared, Joe. Participate.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Don't be scared, Richie, post those promised entailments!

     
  • At 2:08 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Rich just wants you to answer a couple of questions, why not answer them?

     
  • At 6:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie just needs to post the entailments for unguided evolution. They should exist regardless of me.

    He needs to post the entailments, say why they support unguided evolution (make a case) and then we can talk.

    Anything else is just a stalling bluff. He won't post here cuz he sez I will try to control the discussion. Well I am not going to let that asshole control it either.

    Post the entailments or admit they don't exist.

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe is scared that he'll actually have to commit to a position rather than just fling dung like he always does.

    By keeping ID amorphous Joe can change his position when things invariably don't go well.

    He wants me to do all the work and then attack my premises. BY having agreement on them we can avoid that. Transparent and cowardly.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, your pathetic projection is duly noted.

    Richie is scared that he'll actually have to commit to a position rather than just fling dung like he always does.

    By keeping evolutionism amorphous Richie can change his position when things invariably don't go well.

    He wants me to do all the work and then attack my premises.

    What a cowardly thing to say. If you could actually make a case then any attacks would be futile.

    Richie is indeed cowardly and transparent.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Earth to Richie and Jerad- Richie's argument needs to hold regardless of who it is presented to.

    Also I was under the impression he was going to show his cards, I was going to show mine and then the discussion begins to see which stands up.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Earth to Richie and Jerad- Richie's argument needs to hold regardless of who it is presented to.

    Agreed. But why not answer a couple of questions? I still don't get why you won't do that? It can't possibly hurt your case. If you're so sure then answering a couple of questions isn't going to make any difference.

     
  • At 8:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie is trying to play a semantic game when all he needs to do is lay down his hand. If he can't make his case without me answering his questions then it is a given that he can't make his case.

     
  • At 2:05 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Richie is trying to play a semantic game when all he needs to do is lay down his hand. If he can't make his case without me answering his questions then it is a given that he can't make his case.

    What game is that? I thought he just wanted to make sure you agreed on some definitions? What's the problem?

     
  • At 5:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, Definition s already exist and they are what they are. Neither Richie nor myself can change them.

    It appears that you are as dim as he is.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, Definition s already exist and they are what they are. Neither Richie nor myself can change them.

    Well, if he used the 'right' ones then why not agree? If he didn't then you disagree. Simple.

    It appears that you are as dim as he is.

    I'm just curious as to why you didn't answer his question. It all seems straightforward to me.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, if he used the 'right' ones then why not agree?

    I don't even know what that means. The reader should be able to tell which definition applies. If not then Richie failed to make his case.

    Yes, it is all straightforward. Either there are entailments for unguided evolution or there isn't. If there are then someone should be able to present them. If there isn't then someone will jack around, like Richie.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I don't even know what that means.

    The appropriate one for the situation.

    The reader should be able to tell which definition applies. If not then Richie failed to make his case.

    Fine, is he using the one that applies, yes or no?

    Yes, it is all straightforward. Either there are entailments for unguided evolution or there isn't. If there are then someone should be able to present them. If there isn't then someone will jack around, like Richie.

    He just wants to make sure you both agree on the starting point, I still don't get what the trouble is. Why not just say: yes, that's the definition or no: that's not right and move on?

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't anything to agree on. It is what it is.

    It's like saying I won't lay down my hand just because I have been called. We need to discuss what the cards mean.

    Look not even Dawkins can say what the entailments of unguided evolution are. they don't exist. Richie is a bluffing loser and you are an ignorant chump.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't anything to agree on. It is what it is.

    When you agree to play poker you have to agree on the variation and such. Even the game of hearts has various versions.

    It's like saying I won't lay down my hand just because I have been called. We need to discuss what the cards mean.

    I've played games with people who don't play aces-high and I thought I'd won a hand. So we had to have the discussion about the local rules later rather than at the beginning.

    Look not even Dawkins can say what the entailments of unguided evolution are. they don't exist. Richie is a bluffing loser and you are an ignorant chump.

    Well, then it wouldn't hurt to answer his questions and see what he comes up with. You'll look vindicated.

    You act like you're afraid of something which I don't get.

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When you agree to play poker you have to agree on the variation and such.

    This is science and it already has rules.

    You act like you're afraid of something which I don't get.

    You are a bigger ass than I thought.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    This is science and it already has rules.

    Yes it does. BUT sometimes words have different definitions depending on the discipline. And sometimes words used in a particular scientific field have a different meaning than common usage. As I was discussing with you on one of the math threads. For example: in calculus does not mean the same in general usage or in dentistry. Three completely different meanings.

    Anyway, it hurts your cause not a bit to answer the questions.

    You are a bigger ass than I thought.

    I just said you seem to be acting that way. It was just an observation.

    Here's some meanings of entailment that I found:

    1. To have, impose, or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence: The investment entailed a high risk. The proposition X is a rose entails the proposition X is a flower because all roses are flowers.

    2. To limit the inheritance of (property) to a specified succession of heirs.

    3. To bestow or impose on a person or a specified succession of heirs.

    n.
    1.
    a. The act of entailing, especially property.
    b. The state of being entailed.

    2. An entailed estate.

    3. A predetermined order of succession, as to an estate or to an office.

    4. Something transmitted as if by unalterable inheritance.


    Would you accept 'necessary consequences' as a fairly good replacement in biological discussions? It shouldn't be that hard to find some necessary consequences of unguided evolution.

     
  • At 2:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    logical consequence


    It shouldn't be that hard to find some necessary consequences of unguided evolution.

    Disease, deformities, change and stasis. Is there anything else?

     
  • At 4:34 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Disease, deformities, change and stasis. Is there anything else?

    Life forms that are better and better able to exploit an environmental niche.

    Over the whole history of life on earth life forms have got more complex on average.

    More and more cross-dependencies. Like parasites and flowers that can only be pollinated by certain species of birds.

     
  • At 5:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How/ why does unguided evolution entail any of that?

    Make your case as opposed to baldly asserting it.

    We have direct observations of accidents, mistakes and errors causing damage, hence my entailments. We don't have any evidence for them producing what you posted.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    How/ why does unguided evolution entail any of that?

    If you have an unguided process clearly you will get lots and lots of mistakes and bad variation. But because the variation is random it will slowly edge into more and more specialised niches in the environment. Some variants will be better suited for their environments. No direction means that life forms will slowly, gradually explore and colonise more and more environments that require finely tuned abilities. Then, when the niche changes or alters significantly the specialised lifeforms can't all 'evolve' away fast enough and many die. Some who species and genuses die off completely because their niche disappeared.

    Genomes full of mistakes, dead genes and repeated sections are another entailment. If there's no direction than some non-coding bits will get carried along, not cleaned up every so often.

    Make your case as opposed to baldly asserting it.

    You just ask what some entailments are. So I just quickly listed some that came to mind.

    We have direct observations of accidents, mistakes and errors causing damage, hence my entailments. We don't have any evidence for them producing what you posted.

    Well, when you look at genomes of many, many different life forms it becomes apparent that there's a lot of stuff that's not necessary. Or you can see things like endogenous retro-viruses that have inserted themselves into certain lines at certain times. It's pretty messy really and that all follows from an unguided process.

    You can see lots of goofy stuff in morphologies as well: stuff that is still hanging around with no or little practical use. Stuff that is pretty badly 'designed'. Things even us stupid humans can see could be done 'better'.

    Fossils tell us that this sort of thing has been going on and on and on. Life has slowly, very slowly expanded into most environments on this planet. Many life forms have died off for various reasons. Maybe their environment altered drastically. Maybe they were hunted to extinction by another life form. Maybe they were just out competed, a variation came along that was better able to exploit the local resources and left more offspring.

    The bio-geographic record tells us that similar, but not identical, such niche exploration took place in similar areas around the planet. There was a wolf-like creature in Australia (before it was driven to extinction) that occupied a similar niche to the North American wolf. They ended up roughly in the same 'place' but following different paths and history which we can trace in the fossil record. But some creature, which could easily exist in many, many places only occur in certain ones. Again, this is consistent with an unguided process: a variation arose in one place (but not others) so we find it only in one place.

    A guided process COULD follow the same patterns IF the designer was trying to mimic an unguided process but a designer would not be limited to such meanderings. IF there was a designer that wanted to be detected then I would expect to find life forms that CLEARLY did not match up with the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic data. Like finding a rabbit in a Cambrian layer for example. But, so far, no such clear anomaly has been found. So far the weird things have been explained. Maybe next week everything will change.

    So, yes, the whole thing could have been directed but without clear evidence of a designer outside of biology (I don't buy the fine-tuning argument clearly) and with our current ideas and theories not being contradicted by the data AND having good explanatory power then I find the unguided, non-directed explanation the most parsimonious, the one that requires the least assumptions and only uses basic physical laws we can observe.

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But because the variation is random it will slowly edge into more and more specialised niches in the environment

    Cuz you say so?

    Genomes full of mistakes, dead genes and repeated sections are another entailment.

    Cuz you say so?

    You just ask what some entailments are. So I just quickly listed some that came to mind

    They aren't entailments of unguided evolution.

    Well, when you look at genomes of many, many different life forms it becomes apparent that there's a lot of stuff that's not necessary.

    Not really. And unguided evolution can't even explain genomes.

    Or you can see things like endogenous retro-viruses that have inserted themselves into certain lines at certain times. It's pretty messy really and that all follows from an unguided process.

    No, it doesn't follow from unguided processes.

    Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no idea how to make a case.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Cuz you say so?

    No, because the process is unguided and depends on random variation then even small sub-niches eventually get tested without the need for direction.

    Cuz you say so?

    No, because mutations and other transcription mistakes are unguided sometimes they break genes which are not eliminated so they stick around. Sometimes things get duplicated and, since there's no one there to edit the genome, the duplications are left in. Even if the percentage of worthless base pairs in a human genome is 10% or 20% that's still a lot of rubbish which costs resources to reproduce and don't make sense from a design/guided point of view.

    They aren't entailments of unguided evolution.

    Why not? An unguided process is going to leave junk lying about and hit deadends and create forms which are eventually discarded or left to die off. The process as we can discern from the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records has been extremely wasteful and meandering.

    Not really. And unguided evolution can't even explain genomes.

    Yeah really. Some of the DNA sequences used to identify people come from sections that are repeated hundreds of times. Then there's the broken genes, the endogenous retroviruses. A lot of rubbish in the genome. Why is the genome of a marbled lungfish about 40 times the size of the human genome but a variety of puffer fish have a genome about one tenth that of humans? There's an ameboid that looks to have a genome over 200 times the size of ours. WTF??

    No, it doesn't follow from unguided processes.

    Of course it does. If the process is undirected then you expect to see rubbish and broken bits still being reproduced. It's NOT consistent with any design I've known. Who would design in such a waste of resources?

    Plus the genome illuminates the phylogenetic tree. A designed system would NOT have to do that yet all the ones we've looked at so far do.

    Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no idea how to make a case.

    You can disagree with me but you can't say I didn't try to make a case and bring some concepts to the table.

    Tell me where you've listed some entailments of design and I'll compare. Reuse of parts? Information laden encoding? (Have you found that extra coding in the cell yet?) How many of your entailments are optional and how many are absolute?

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, because the process is unguided and depends on random variation then even small sub-niches eventually get tested without the need for direction.

    More "cuz you say so".

    No, because mutations and other transcription mistakes are unguided sometimes they break genes which are not eliminated so they stick around. Sometimes things get duplicated and, since there's no one there to edit the genome, the duplications are left in. Even if the percentage of worthless base pairs in a human genome is 10% or 20% that's still a lot of rubbish which costs resources to reproduce and don't make sense from a design/guided point of view.

    How do unguided processes account for duplications?

    You can disagree with me but you can't say I didn't try to make a case and bring some concepts to the table.

    You tried and failed.

    Tell me where you've listed some entailments of design and I'll compare. Reuse of parts? Information laden encoding? (Have you found that extra coding in the cell yet?) How many of your entailments are optional and how many are absolute?

    Yes we know there is extra, immaterial coding and I have presented the evidence for it. And it is a much better case than yours for unguided evolution.

    Unguided evolution doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond prokaryotes, Jerad. It cannot explain the fossil record, genomes nor biogeographical data.

    Search on my blog for "the design hypothesis"

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Guided evolution is exemplified and modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms.

    How can we model unguided evolution?

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    More "cuz you say so".

    If you've got a ball in a room that moves 1 inch in a random direction at every 'step', eventually it will cover the whole room. You can design a simple program which randomly blacks out a pixel on a screen. If you let it run long enough it will eventually black out all the pixels. Random processes can cover a large 'area'.

    How do unguided processes account for duplications?

    It's been observed to happen. And it's clear from the genomic record. As I said, human beings can be distinguished from each other based on different number of duplications. Now, either your designer is considering every single new human genome that is 'produced', deciding when to add in a duplicate OR duplications happen randomly.

    You tried and failed.

    You haven't really got an argument against my statements though except to say 'sez you' and 'you failed'. Where is my reasoning wrong?

    Yes we know there is extra, immaterial coding and I have presented the evidence for it. And it is a much better case than yours for unguided evolution.

    No, you don't know that. You surmise that but until you find it you don't know there is any. There may be other influences (like epigenetics) that explain why 'artificial' ribosomes don't behave as expected. You have NOT proven that there is extra programming. You have NOT found the extra programming. You haven't got a hypothesis of how the extra programming is encoded or stored or how it might affect development.

    Unguided evolution doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond prokaryotes, Jerad. It cannot explain the fossil record, genomes nor biogeographical data.

    Sure it does. It's called reproduction with variation. Offspring differ from their parents. Some offspring are more 'successful', i.e. they leave more offspring.

    Search on my blog for "the design hypothesis"

    I did. That's quite a long post which I shall read later.


    Guided evolution is exemplified and modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms.

    Okay. Give me some solid predictions of guided evolution? Give me a mechanism, a physical, solid mechanism.

    How can we model unguided evolution?

    Using stochastic methods among others.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you've got a ball in a room that moves 1 inch in a random direction at every 'step', eventually it will cover the whole room

    Not necessarily.

    How do unguided processes account for duplications?

    It's been observed to happen.

    So tat means unguided evolution did it? No, Jerad, you are confused.

    You haven't really got an argument against my statements though except to say 'sez you' and 'you failed'. Where is my reasoning wrong?

    You "reasoning" isn't even wrong.

    Yes we know there is extra, immaterial coding and I have presented the evidence for it. And it is a much better case than yours for unguided evolution.

    No, you don't know that.

    The evidence is irrefutable.

    Transcription, translation, the genetic code, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing- ALL require knowledge AND the genetic code is arbitrary which means it is not reducible to physics and chemistry.

    Obviously you are too stupid to assess the evidence.

    Unguided evolution doesn't have a mechanism to get beyond prokaryotes, Jerad. It cannot explain the fossil record, genomes nor biogeographical data.

    Sure it does. It's called reproduction with variation

    Reproduction with variation produces humans from humans- cats give rise to cats, dogs to dogs, prokaryotes to prokaryotes.

    As I said you don't have a mechanism capable of doing much of anything.

    Guided evolution is exemplified and modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms.

    Okay. Give me some solid predictions of guided evolution? Give me a mechanism, a physical, solid mechanism.

    Are you really that stupid? In order to be modeled it has to have a mechanism. Goal-oriented targeted searches.

    How can we model unguided evolution?

    Using stochastic methods among others.

    Strange that no one has modeled it.

     
  • At 1:23 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Not necessarily.

    Yeah, it's a finite space and the ball covers a non-zero patch at every move. Given time, it will cover the whole floor.

    So tat means unguided evolution did it? No, Jerad, you are confused.

    No, zero, zip, nada evidence duplications are guided. Assuming they are guided is invoking an agent not proven to exist. Science goes with the most parsimonious explanation: unguided.

    You "reasoning" isn't even wrong.

    Does that mean you can't say where it's wrong?

    The evidence is irrefutable.

    Nope. First of all you base your 'reasoning' on a very few examples. Secondly you are unaware of all the pertinent bio-chemical research. Thirdly, you haven't found the extra programming.

    Transcription, translation, the genetic code, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing- ALL require knowledge AND the genetic code is arbitrary which means it is not reducible to physics and chemistry.

    Those things all require procedures, not knowledge. A computer algorithm, which is non-intelligent, can carry those things out. You THINK the algorithm couldn't have arisen via natural processes. Get your argument straight.

    The genetic code is arbitrary, it might have even ended up as something else. Give that there could be many genetic codes it's reasonable to assume that the one that arose first and/or was best suited became dominant.

    Obviously you are too stupid to assess the evidence.

    Just because I disagree with you (as do millions of other people) doesn't mean I'm stupid. You can't shame people into agreeing with you.

    Reproduction with variation produces humans from humans- cats give rise to cats, dogs to dogs, prokaryotes to prokaryotes.

    Why? Who says there's an 'edge'? The fossils strongly imply that whales, for example, arose from a land dwelling critter much like a hippo. And that humans and chimps share a mutual ancestor. And when we look at the genomes, the morphology and the bio-geographic distributions . . . it all fits together.

    Alternatively, some designer kept tweaking and fiddling with the genomes or the unfound 'extra programming'. No evidence of extra programming. No evidence of guided mutations. No evidence of a designer.

    Are you really that stupid? In order to be modeled it has to have a mechanism. Goal-oriented targeted searches.

    Give me some predictions. Give me a physical mechanism. How was design implemented? How were genomes changed? What technique? What equipment? Design is NOT a mechanism, it's an attempt at an explanation. But one that, without further work, only addresses a first step, not how or when. No dates. No physical mechanism. No reasoning. No evidence.

    Strange that no one has modeled it.

    You mean: you are unaware that someone has.

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, it's a finite space and the ball covers a non-zero patch at every move. Given time, it will cover the whole floor.

    Not necessarily. One inch moves could easily keep it within a 3x3 foot area.

    No, zero, zip, nada evidence duplications are guided.

    No, zero, zip, nada evidence duplications are unguided.

    Science goes with the most parsimonious explanation: unguided.

    Wrong. Science goes with "we don't know" and does not assume what it needs to demonstrate.

    Does that mean you can't say where it's wrong?

    Not even wrong

    First of all you base your 'reasoning' on a very few examples.

    Not at all. There are many examples. I provided more than a very few.

    Secondly you are unaware of all the pertinent bio-chemical research.

    Nope, try again.

    Thirdly, you haven't found the extra programming.

    We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol yet it is obvious they existed.

    Transcription, translation, the genetic code, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing- ALL require knowledge AND the genetic code is arbitrary which means it is not reducible to physics and chemistry.

    Those things all require procedures, not knowledge.

    Procedures come from knowledge, duh.

    A computer algorithm, which is non-intelligent, can carry those things out.

    A computer algorithm is intelligent. It traces its intelligence back to its designer(s).

    You THINK the algorithm couldn't have arisen via natural processes.

    There isn't any evidence for it. Science requires that.

    Just because I disagree with you (as do millions of other people) doesn't mean I'm stupid.

    I made my case against you.

    Reproduction with variation produces humans from humans- cats give rise to cats, dogs to dogs, prokaryotes to prokaryotes.

    Why? Who says there's an 'edge'?

    EVIDENCE and ALL observations and ALL experiments.

    The fossils strongly imply that whales, for example, arose from a land dwelling critter much like a hippo. And that humans and chimps share a mutual ancestor. And when we look at the genomes, the morphology and the bio-geographic distributions . . . it all fits together.

    The fossils should show thousands of transitions between whales and their alleged land ancestor. We have about 5-10. Common design explains all similarities and it is something we have direct experience with.

    We have no idea what makes a whale a whale, a chimp a chimp and a human a human. That makes your claims untestable and therefor outside of science.

    Give me a physical mechanism.

    Goal-oriented targeted search- it is in use today and very effective.

    Design is NOT a mechanism

    Yes, it is- by definition, asshole.

    You mean: you are unaware that someone has

    OK your bluff is called. Produce the model of unguided evolution producing ATP synthase or present whatever you have so we can have a good laugh

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Not necessarily. One inch moves could easily keep it within a 3x3 foot area.

    It could. But that's not the way these things tend to work out based on empirical evidence.

    No, zero, zip, nada evidence duplications are unguided.

    Sorry. Assuming guided is NOT the default. No extra assumptions if possible.

    Wrong. Science goes with "we don't know" and does not assume what it needs to demonstrate.

    Okay, but then you can't assert design.

    Not even wrong

    Tell me where I'm wrong.

    Not at all. There are many examples. I provided more than a very few.

    As far as I recall, your evidence for 'extra programming' in the cell is because laboratory created ribosomes don't perform correctly. If you've got more then I'm happy to consider it.

    Nope, try again.

    Then you will be aware of some of the stochastic models.

    We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol yet it is obvious they existed.

    You can't generalise some aspects of non-living examples to living, self-replicating systems.

    Procedures come from knowledge, duh.

    Procedures can arise from cumulative variation. Things that 'work' are kept, things that don't work are discarded.

    A computer algorithm is intelligent. It traces its intelligence back to its designer(s).

    But it, in itself, has no knowledge. It's not intelligent. It doesn't think. IF an algorithm arose from non-intelligent processes then . . . .

    There isn't any evidence for it. Science requires that.

    There is evidence. First of all, no hard physical, independent evidence of a designer. Secondly, no evidence of guided mutations. Then there's the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic records. You never seem willing to address the bio-geographic record I notice. All of these records are consistent and DO NOT contradict an unguided hypothesis. A designer COULD choose to follow a path which looks like things were unguided but . . . with no outside evidence for a designer then . . . don't assume causes you don't need. That's science isn't it?

    I made my case against you.

    Is it published? Have other people who know the field reviewed it? Have you considered ALL the evidence?

    EVIDENCE and ALL observations and ALL experiments.

    No, no experiment and no observations say: there is an edge to evolution. 'We looked for 40 years and didn't see it' is not evidence. That's an argument from ignorance.

    The fossils should show thousands of transitions between whales and their alleged land ancestor. We have about 5-10. Common design explains all similarities and it is something we have direct experience with.

    The fossils should show . . . hahahahahahah Why are you demanding that every single minor transitional form be represented in the fossil record? If I looked at your childhood photo album are there not gaps? Do I then assume that you were tweaked by an intelligent designer because I didn't see a segment of your development?

    You have no evidence or explanation of a designer operating at that time. And the natural processes are sufficient.

    We have no idea what makes a whale a whale, a chimp a chimp and a human a human. That makes your claims untestable and therefor outside of science.

    Gee, doesn't the genome and the epigentics factors do t hat?

    Goal-oriented targeted search- it is in use today and very effective.

    And how, exactly, did your designer do that? Technically?

    Yes, it is- by definition, asshole.

    Nope, in biology it's a paradigm.

    OK your bluff is called. Produce the model of unguided evolution producing ATP synthase or present whatever you have so we can have a good laugh

    I'll have a look.

     
  • At 7:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Assuming guided is NOT the default.

    "We don't know" is the default.

    Okay, but then you can't assert design.

    We infer design due to the evidence.

    Procedures can arise from cumulative variation.

    Bald assertion. You are just a deluded dick, Jerad.

    But it, in itself, has no knowledge.

    It doesn't need it. The programmer haz it.

    IF an algorithm arose from non-intelligent processes then . . . .

    If pigs could fly

    First of all, no hard physical, independent evidence of a designer.

    There's plenty. You have no idea what evidence is and how to assess it. And all you have to explain what we observe is sheer dumb luck.

    No, no experiment and no observations say: there is an edge to evolution.

    As I said, you have no clue at all. Lenski has more than proven there is an edge. And no one has a mechanism capable of producing anything but more of the same.

    There isn't one case of microevolution that can be extrapolated into macroevolution. Not one. And SCIENCE tells us why:

    Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

    As far as I recall, your evidence for 'extra programming' in the cell is because laboratory created ribosomes don't perform correctly. If you've got more then I'm happy to consider it.

    Transcription, translation- ALL of what I posted- proof-reading, error-correction, alternative splicing, editing, the genetic code.

    The only explanation you have is "it just happened, dude". You don't have any evidence. You don't have any models. You don't have any predictions. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required. You are stuck at bacteria.

    And design is both a paradigm and a mechanism. We do not have to know anything about the designer nor the process before we can infer design.

    One more time- you are a total fucking asshole because your position cannot explain the fossil record. It can not explain genomes. It cannot explain the biogeographic distribution. You are a deluded twerp.

    Descent with modification is of no help to you. Not only that your position can't even account for that process. Basic asexual reproduction is irreducibly complex and way out of the reach of stochastic processes.

    Peering into Darwin's Black Box:
    The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life

     
  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Not even wrong

    Tell me where I'm wrong.

    Are you really that dim? You aren't even addressing the issue. All you are doing is baldly asserting shit.

     
  • At 2:14 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There's plenty. You have no idea what evidence is and how to assess it. And all you have to explain what we observe is sheer dumb luck.

    There is no hard, fast physical evidence of a designer. There's stuff you think is designed but that's not evidence if you're wrong. Modern evolutionary theory depends on known physical laws of chemistry and physics.

    As I said, you have no clue at all. Lenski has more than proven there is an edge. And no one has a mechanism capable of producing anything but more of the same.

    How has he proven there is an edge? Because something didn't happen in three decades? Gosh, no one has observed men walking on the moon for the last 40 years, does that mean it can't happen?

    Dr Lenski is working in very limited environments with very simple life forms. Even so, you never know what might happen.

    There isn't one case of microevolution that can be extrapolated into macroevolution. Not one. And SCIENCE tells us why:

    In fact science does not say that there is any kind of gap. Evolution is evolution. The fossils, the genomes, the morphologies and the bio-geographic distributions (which you NEVER address) are records of it.

    John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    This article

    http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/11/12/mcdonald-the-great-darwinian-paradox/

    explains how you're using an isolated quote from that paper and ignoring the rest of it where Darwinian processes are vigorously defended. That's quote-mining. And a lose.

    IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.

    'the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes'? What?

    All genes are variable. As has been noted, many changes result in death or disability. But not always. You really should have read all of McDonald's paper.

    Transcription, translation- ALL of what I posted- proof-reading, error-correction, alternative splicing, editing, the genetic code.

    You think that requires extra coding. But you haven't found it. You have no proof.

    The only explanation you have is "it just happened, dude". You don't have any evidence. You don't have any models. You don't have any predictions. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required. You are stuck at bacteria.

    uh huh

    And design is both a paradigm and a mechanism. We do not have to know anything about the designer nor the process before we can infer design.

    Design is NOT a mechanism. I can design a building or a genome in my head but that doesn't bring it into existence. Infer all you like but you have no proof, no mechanism, no counter-flow, no timeline.

    One more time- you are a total fucking asshole because your position cannot explain the fossil record. It can not explain genomes. It cannot explain the biogeographic distribution. You are a deluded twerp.

    I'm a 'total fucking asshole' because I can't explain something? What is your problem? Why can't you act like an adult? If you don't want to discuss things then quit.

    Descent with modification is of no help to you. Not only that your position can't even account for that process. Basic asexual reproduction is irreducibly complex and way out of the reach of stochastic processes.

    The fossils, the genomes, the morphologies and the bio-geographic records say otherwise.

    Peering into Darwin's Black Box:
    The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life


    Read the reviews of Dr Behe's books. He got a lot wrong.

     
  • At 6:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is plenty of evidence for a designer, including the total failure of materialism to explain what we observe.

    There isn't any evidence that descent with modification can produce the diversity of life- heck it can't even get beyond prokaryotes as there isn't anything in a prokaryote that can be modified to produce a eukaryote. And you are totally ignorant of that fact.

    You link to Smilodon's retreat is a joke. Kevin is an ignorant asshole who doesn't even understand genetics. Notice there isn't any evidence in his article that refutes McDonald- nothing.

    And AGAIN design is a mechanism by definition. Obviously you enjoy being a willfully ignorant ass.

    Peering into Darwin's Black Box:
    The cell division processes required for bacterial life



    Read the reviews of Dr Behe's books.

    That wasn't Dr Behe, asshole. It is evidence that refutes your position so I can understand why you wouldn't want to read it.

    However no one has refuted what Dr Behe has written.

    Transcription, translation- ALL of what I posted- proof-reading, error-correction, alternative splicing, editing, the genetic code.

    You think that requires extra coding.

    Nope, there isn't any doubt. And you don't have an alternative explanation.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There is plenty of evidence for a designer, including the total failure of materialism to explain what we observe.

    Even if the materialistic hypothesis was a failure that doesn't give you design, that's not the way science works. Is it?

    Is this the same designer who's tried to kill us with malaria and the plague and polio and ebola and asteroids but gave us a 'perfect' eclipse? Nice guy.

    There isn't any evidence that descent with modification can produce the diversity of life- heck it can't even get beyond prokaryotes as there isn't anything in a prokaryote that can be modified to produce a eukaryote. And you are totally ignorant of that fact.

    Tell me what is wrong with one of the chimeric or autogenous models of eukaryote development.

    You link to Smilodon's retreat is a joke. Kevin is an ignorant asshole who doesn't even understand genetics. Notice there isn't any evidence in his article that refutes McDonald- nothing.

    He's not trying to refute McDonald though is he? He's trying to show how you took a quote out of context. Did you even read the article? Including the concluding paragraphs reproduced of McDonald's conclusion?

    And AGAIN design is a mechanism by definition. Obviously you enjoy being a willfully ignorant ass.

    Without implementation design goes nowhere. The implementation is key. How was implementation accomplished?

    That wasn't Dr Behe, asshole. It is evidence that refutes your position so I can understand why you wouldn't want to read it.

    Dr Behe did the ground work though. And if that's wrong then . . .

    However no one has refuted what Dr Behe has written.

    Uh huh.

    Nope, there isn't any doubt. And you don't have an alternative explanation.

    Correction: you don't agree with the proffered explanation which is not the same thing.

    And where is this extra programming? If it's not found in the next 10 or 20 or 50 years will you change your mind? When artificial ribosomes are created and function as expected will you change your mind? Are you really ready to consider all the evidence? Are you going to keep quote mining research papers for the occasional sentence or paragraph which, taken out of context, seems to uphold your position?

    Science doesn't work by cheery-picking data and quote-mining publications. Most of the work done refuting claims by ID proponents is just a matter of providing data and results they ignored.

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Even if the materialistic hypothesis was a failure that doesn't give you design, that's not the way science works.

    The design inference mandates the elimination of necessity and chance.

    Is this the same designer who's tried to kill us with malaria and the plague and polio and ebola and asteroids but gave us a 'perfect' eclipse?

    No, disease was given by unguided evolution.

    Tell me what is wrong with one of the chimeric or autogenous models of eukaryote development.

    They are untestable.

    He's trying to show how you took a quote out of context.

    He failed, as usual.

    Dr Behe did the ground work though.

    Wrong, tat scientist did the work, not Behe.

    You can't find anything wrong with the article and you are desperate.

    BTW no one has found anything wrong with Behe's idea.

    Correction: you don't agree with the proffered explanation which is not the same thing.

    There isn't any explanation, Jerad.

    And there isn't any "extra" programming. However the only thing that can explain what we observe is programming. And all your position can say is "it just happened, man".

    Are you really ready to consider all the evidence?

    I already have. I was an evolutionist until I started looking closer at all of the evidence. OTOH you are an ignoramus who couldn't assess the evidence if you life depended on it.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The design inference mandates the elimination of necessity and chance.

    So . . .if something is a possibility, maybe a very, very remote possibility then you cannot make the design inference?

    No, disease was given by unguided evolution.

    So what was designed then? Diseases were not designed (but the designer let 'em happen I guess) but what about prions?

    They are untestable.

    What's to stop some one from doing an experiment in the lab to see if the same outcome could be induced?

    He failed, as usual.

    You should try reading the whole article first, you didn't even know he was upholding McDonald's whole paper, not just the paragraphed that was quotemined.

    BTW no one has found anything wrong with Behe's idea.

    So you refute every single negative review of Dr Behe's books? All of them? Pick one and find the mistake then.

    There isn't any explanation, Jerad.

    There is, you just deny it.

    And there isn't any "extra" programming. However the only thing that can explain what we observe is programming. And all your position can say is "it just happened, man".

    Joe, you used to use the phrase 'extra programming' yourself!! You've back off now because you realise you can't find it and that makes you look foolish.

    I already have. I was an evolutionist until I started looking closer at all of the evidence. OTOH you are an ignoramus who couldn't assess the evidence if you life depended on it.

    Well, you sure seem to ignore a lot of data and evidence now. Your grasp of the mathematics is extremely shaky to non-existent for one.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So . . .if something is a possibility, maybe a very, very remote possibility then you cannot make the design inference?

    So you are ignorant of science. Science is tentative, Jerad. All scientists understand that the science of tomorrow can either confirm or refute the science of today. yet they press on.

    So what was designed then?

    Everything that has the hallmarks of design.

    What's to stop some one from doing an experiment in the lab to see if the same outcome could be induced?

    Have at it. We more than welcome all attempts at such a thing. They can only help us.

    You should try reading the whole article first,

    I did read it.

    you didn't even know he was upholding McDonald's whole paper,

    Fuck you.

    not just the paragraphed that was quotemined.

    There wasn't any quote-mine. There isn't any evidence for macroevolution, Jerad.

    So you refute every single negative review of Dr Behe's books? All of them? Pick one and find the mistake then

    YOU pick one and show how it refutes him. He has already defended himself against all evo bullshit.

    There is, you just deny it.

    Liar. But then again we all know that is all you can do.

    And where did I use "extra programming" Jerad?

    Well, you sure seem to ignore a lot of data and evidence now.

    That is your lowlife opinion. However I can easily say the same about you and I can actually make a case.

    Your grasp of the mathematics is extremely shaky to non-existent for one.

    That is your lowlife opinion, Jerad. However we have noticed that you have absolutely nothing beyond bluffs and lies.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So you are ignorant of science. Science is tentative, Jerad. All scientists understand that the science of tomorrow can either confirm or refute the science of today. yet they press on.

    Yes but I was talking about the design inference not being valid until you eliminated chance, even something very, very, very, very unlikely. Is that true or not?

    Everything that has the hallmarks of design.

    Which is what exactly? Not diseases, ruled those out.

    I did read it.

    Clearly not, because you said he was trying to refute McDonald when he wasn't and he says so VERY CLEARLY.

    Fuck you.

    You're not my type.

    There wasn't any quote-mine. There isn't any evidence for macroevolution, Jerad.

    Yes it was because McDonald clearly explained later in his paper that his work UPHELD what you say it doesn't. You grabbed one paragraph out of pages and pages because it sounds like it supports your beliefs. That's quote-mining. That is NOT considering all the evidence.

    YOU pick one and show how it refutes him. He has already defended himself against all evo bullshit.

    Let's deal with your claim first, that no one has refuted Dr Behe's work. Find a mistake in one of the reviews.

    Liar. But then again we all know that is all you can do.

    You say there are no explanations, there are explanations. You just disagree with them.

    And where did I use "extra programming" Jerad?

    You mentioned it once when I asked you why you thought synthetic ribosomes didn't behave as expected. You claimed there was extra programming in the cell, had to be.

    That is your lowlife opinion. However I can easily say the same about you and I can actually make a case.

    But you can't find a mistake in anyone else's case. Funny that.

    That is your lowlife opinion, Jerad. However we have noticed that you have absolutely nothing beyond bluffs and lies.

    I'm sorry it is true that your mathematical ability is sub-calculus level. You deny accepted and established work, you can't compute a conditional probability, you think the naturalistic hypothesis can be a number. If it's not basic arithmetic you struggle.

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Science is not about absolute proof, Jerad. We go with what we know. That means we can tentatively eliminate necessity and chance. Duh.

    Which is what exactly?

    Figure it out.

    Clearly not, because you said he was trying to refute McDonald when he wasn't and he says so VERY CLEARLY.

    I didn't say that. I said he didn't present any evidence that the part I quoted was incorrect.

    Let's deal with your claim first, that no one has refuted Dr Behe's work. Find a mistake in one of the reviews.

    Find a review that actually stands up.

    You say there are no explanations, there are explanations.

    There are imaginative speculations, perhaps, but they are not explanations.

    You mentioned it once when I asked you why you thought synthetic ribosomes didn't behave as expected. You claimed there was extra programming in the cell, had to be.

    So you can't support your claim. Got it. There is software running the show- that is what I said.

    I'm sorry it is true that your mathematical ability is sub-calculus level.

    You are sorry, that is true. However evolution and biology do not require calculus. And YOU can't even subtract!

    You deny accepted and established work,

    No, refuting nonsense is not denying. Obviously you are just a big baby.

    you can't compute a conditional probability,

    No, YOU can't. You can't even present the conditional probability. You can't even say if there is a feasibility.

    you think the naturalistic hypothesis can be a number.

    Only if one doesn't exist, then it gets a zero. I have explained that and obviously you are too stupid to understand it.

     
  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Find a mistake in that article, Jeard. Or admit that you are too stupid and cowardly to try

     
  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, Smilodon equivocates. No one is doubting adaptations. That has NOTHING to do with what Meyer, Behe, Wells, et al., used the quote for.

    Major innovations, including new body plans that require new body parts. That still remains a mystery and was not addressed by McDonald in that paper nor anyone else.

    The quote stands and your equivocation means nothing.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Find a mistake in that article, Jeard. Or admit that you are too stupid and cowardly to try

    Joe, you are making a claim that runs contrary to a vast assemblage of accepted work and results. I will have a look at that paper regarding Dr Behe's work but you have never, ever been able to point to a specific mistake in a bit of research even when you've been given the chance to pick one yourself.

    Thanks for getting my name wrong again.

    Jerad, Smilodon equivocates. No one is doubting adaptations. That has NOTHING to do with what Meyer, Behe, Wells, et al., used the quote for.

    Gee, I thought you didn't read their stuff? Fine, so there is no mistake in the work? And you haven't taken the quote out of context as implied in the article I linked to?

    And if you accept adaptations which are genetic changes (unless you can point to some programming somewhere which is dictating it . . ) then are those carried by random or guided mutations? If those kind of changes are guided then why do some species die out instead of having their mutations guided so that they can survive?

    Major innovations, including new body plans that require new body parts. That still remains a mystery and was not addressed by McDonald in that paper nor anyone else.

    Except that we have evidence it happened in the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records. AND you still took his statement out of context, you put a spin on it he did not intend.

    You think there is a mystery but enough small adaptations add up to major changes. Unless you have some reason to deny it. There's no evidence that there's a line that evolution can't cross. Just a bunch of people who say: I haven't seen it so it can't happen.

    And, if you're supposed to first COMPLETELY rule out chance before inferring design then you have only waited a few decades. That's not ruling out chance is it? That's just arguing from incredulity.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, the paper has nothing to do with Behe's work. You are a confused child.

    And no, I can't point out mistakes in papers that do NOT exist. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution producing molecular machinery. So stuff it already.

    And no, I did not take the quote out of context. I did not quote-mine. There isn't anything but Smilodon's asinine article tat says we did.

    Except that we have evidence it happened in the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic records.

    That is the propaganda, Jerad. There isn't any genetic data that shows the changes required are even possible.

    You think there is a mystery but enough small adaptations add up to major changes.

    There isn't any evidence for it, dumbass. There isn't one case of microevolution that can be extrapolated into macro. Not one.

    You lose, asshole.

    And, if you're supposed to first COMPLETELY rule out chance before inferring design then you have only waited a few decades.

    Imbecile. We do what we can. The science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow will uncover.

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Muscles cannot move without the nerves that make it so. Those nerves are useless without the ions to power them. Those ions are useless without a way to get them in and out of the nerve.

    Bones and articulated joints are a whole different problem.

    The point being is that structural issues are at the heart of all limiting factors when it comes to small changes adding up to something big.

    Unless you have the neuro-muscular-skeletal system all together and working, you won't have a viable organism. Macro irreducible complexity...

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    And no, I can't point out mistakes in papers that do NOT exist. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution producing molecular machinery. So stuff it already.

    You can't find a mistake. Clearly. You have conceded.

    And no, I did not take the quote out of context. I did not quote-mine. There isn't anything but Smilodon's asinine article tat says we did.

    McDonald's paper itself says you twisted the research.

    That is the propaganda, Jerad. There isn't any genetic data that shows the changes required are even possible.

    There is nothing that says they couldn't happen. Except a small number of people who argue out of incredulity: we can't see how this could happen and we haven't seen it happen therefore it can't happen.

    There isn't any evidence for it, dumbass. There isn't one case of microevolution that can be extrapolated into macro. Not one.

    What's to stop it? Your not seeing it? Dr Behe saying it couldn't happen? Your complete bias approach to the data?

    You lose, asshole.

    Unguided evolutionary theory is winning every day. Intelligent design is falling further and further behind. No research, no research agenda (I asked and you couldn't provide these), diddly-squat publications.

    Imbecile. We do what we can. The science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow will uncover.

    But you have NOT ruled out chance so, by your own admission you cannot yet infer design. And you cannot say, as you do often and repeatedly, that there is no evidence to support unguided evolution. You cannot pretend to be scientific one minute and then tell everyone else their ideas are shit the next.

    Muscles cannot move without the nerves that make it so. Those nerves are useless without the ions to power them. Those ions are useless without a way to get them in and out of the nerve.

    Bones and articulated joints are a whole different problem.

    The point being is that structural issues are at the heart of all limiting factors when it comes to small changes adding up to something big.

    Unless you have the neuro-muscular-skeletal system all together and working, you won't have a viable organism. Macro irreducible complexity...


    What does this have to do with the conversation?

    AND, just because you can't imagine how these things came to be via natural processes doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. You have not ruled out natural processes or chance. You can't. It's not possible. Therefore you cannot logically jump to design.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can't find a mistake.

    You can't find anything.

    McDonald's paper itself says you twisted the research

    That is your lowlife opinion. Too bad you can't actually make a case.

    There is nothing that says they couldn't happen

    Dumbass you need POSITIVE evidence and you don't have any.

    Unguided evolutionary theory is winning every day.

    There isn't any such theory. You are a lying lowlife.

    But you have NOT ruled out chance so, by your own admission you cannot yet infer design.

    We have ruled out chance and necessity. The mere fact that no one can propose a testable hypothesis is enough.

    And you cannot say, as you do often and repeatedly, that there is no evidence to support unguided evolution.

    I don't say that. You are a demented loser.

    What does this have to do with the conversation?

    It is what prevents macroevolution, you imbecile. THAT is what says it couldn't happen.

    Are you really that ignorant, Jerad?

    AND, just because you can't imagine how these things came to be via natural processes doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

    Imagination is not science, dumbass. No one can demonstrate that it can happen. No one has a clue as to how it could happen.

    You have not ruled out natural processes or chance

    No one can even say if such a thing is feasible so you lose.

     
  • At 4:21 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You can't find anything.

    We're talking about you not being able to point out a mistake in any research papers which you claim are wrong.

    That is your lowlife opinion. Too bad you can't actually make a case.

    But it's not just my opinion is it?

    Dumbass you need POSITIVE evidence and you don't have any.

    There is positive evidence in the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic records. You, on the other hand, have no positive evidence for design except that you can't understand how it could have happened having already pretended that chance is inadequate. You've violated your own precepts.

    There isn't any such theory. You are a lying lowlife.

    Funny so many books and research papers are published about it then. I tell you what, take one of the popular books (my favourite is The Greatest Show on Earth) and show me some mistakes.

    We have ruled out chance and necessity. The mere fact that no one can propose a testable hypothesis is enough.

    How can you rule out chance? That's like saying there is no way you could get 500 heads in a row when you flip a coin. I agree, it's highly unlikely but it could happen. You can't rule out the possibility.

    I don't say that. You are a demented loser.

    You say that all the time!! hahahahahahah

    It is what prevents macroevolution, you imbecile. THAT is what says it couldn't happen.

    Except it could happen. It might be highly unlikely but you have not actually ruled out chance.

    Are you really that ignorant, Jerad?

    It's not my fault you've short-changed your own, stated methodology by incorrectly ruling out chance.

    Imagination is not science, dumbass. No one can demonstrate that it can happen. No one has a clue as to how it could happen.

    Which is just not true at all. There are lots and lots of hypothesis which you chose to ignore because you've already decided what is true.

    No one can even say if such a thing is feasible so you lose.

    Of course it's feasible. Maybe highly unlikely but possible.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can't find a mistake

    You can't find a paper, clearly you have conceded the point.

    Thank you.

    But it's not just my opinion is it?

    Yes, it is. If it wasn't you could actually make a case yet you can't.

    There is positive evidence in the fossil, genomic, morphologic and bio-geographic records.

    For what?

    You, on the other hand, have no positive evidence for design except that you can't understand how it could have happened having already pretended that chance is inadequate

    We have presented the positive evidence for ID, asshole.

    Funny so many books and research papers are published about it then.

    Funny that you can't link to it, loser.

    I tell you what, take one of the popular books (my favourite is The Greatest Show on Earth) and show me some mistakes.

    There isn't any science in that book.

    How can you rule out chance?

    I told you how you ignorant asshole. Stop being such a lowlife, Jerad. Stop asking questions that were answered.

    Except it could happen.

    Nope.

    It's not my fault you've short-changed your own, stated methodology by incorrectly ruling out chance.

    No one incorrectly ruled out chance. You are a moron.

    Which is just not true at all. There are lots and lots of hypothesis which you chose to ignore because you've already decided what is true.

    Liar.

    Of course it's feasible.

    Liar

     
  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You can't find a paper, clearly you have conceded the point.

    You continually deny what I present is evidence without pointing out where the mistakes lie. I'm tired or your game playing. You haven't been able to find a mistake so the issue is ended.

    Yes, it is. If it wasn't you could actually make a case yet you can't.

    It's not just my opinion since there are others who have posted responses which disagree with your interpretations. It's not just me.

    For what?

    Maybe you should try harder to keep up with the conversation by at least looking back over the thread to see what I was addressing without me having to copy and paste paragraphs of responses.

    We have presented the positive evidence for ID, asshole.

    No physical evidence outside of what you claimed was designed. No laboratories, no workshops, no tools, no industrial waste or by products. No plans or blueprints. No living quarters or support structures. You have zero evidence of a designer except that you can't accept that some things weren't designed. That's it.

    Funny that you can't link to it, loser.

    I have. You deny everything.

    There isn't any science in that book.

    And you know because you have published what exactly that has been peer-reviewed? Or put up for scrutiny in front of the whole world to have a shot at? Go on, write your own book and show us.

    I told you how you ignorant asshole. Stop being such a lowlife, Jerad. Stop asking questions that were answered.

    Because you're wrong. Even the smallest, most remote chance means you haven't ruled it out.

    Nope.

    Joe thinks he can prove a negative.

    No one incorrectly ruled out chance. You are a moron.

    You don't understand the mathematics as we have already established.

    Liar.

    Show me the math where you rule out chance.

    Liar

    Show me the math where you rule out chance.

     
  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You continually deny what I present is evidence without pointing out where the mistakes lie.

    You are an equivocator, Jerad. Still waiting on one paper that demonstrates prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. Then you need to show how it was all unguided.

    Put up or shut up.

    Show us the math where you ruled in chance, Jerad. Show us the feasibility.

    Dr Johnson already took care of that in his book on nature's probability and probability's nature. He is much more of a mathematician than you will ever be.

    Asexual reproduction is well beyond the reach of unguided evolution. You lose.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You are an equivocator, Jerad. Still waiting on one paper that demonstrates prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes. Then you need to show how it was all unguided.

    Every single reference I give you you claim is wrong BUT you have never found a mistake. You are not operating in good faith. You are being intentionally manipulative.

    Show us the math where you ruled in chance, Jerad. Show us the feasibility.

    We're talking about your assumptions, where you ruled out chance. There is always a chance something could happen, no matter how unlikely. Show how you rule that out.

    Dr Johnson already took care of that in his book on nature's probability and probability's nature. He is much more of a mathematician than you will ever be.

    Funny that his work did not pass peer-reviewed, is not much referenced by anyone, that there is not a whole field of work and research based on his contentions. Dead in the water.

    Asexual reproduction is well beyond the reach of unguided evolution. You lose.

    Uphold that claim. Find a mistake in some research which supports unguided evolution rather than just being a coward and claiming it's all wrong.

    Find a mistake. Time to stop ducking and dodging. Find a mistake.

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Every single reference I give you you claim is wrong BUT you have never found a mistake.

    You have never posted any papers on the evolution of prokaryotes to something other than prokaryotes. So fuck off you lying bitch.

    We're talking about your assumptions, where you ruled out chance.

    I went over that with you. It is directly related to your inability to do as I requested. Loser.

    Funny that his work did not pass peer-reviewed,

    Pussy- find a mistake then or eat it, bitch.

    Asexual reproduction is well beyond the reach of unguided evolution. You lose.

    Uphold that claim.

    I did you ignorant child molester.

    You are one fucking piece-of-shit loser, Jerad.

    Good luck with that.

     
  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You have never posted any papers on the evolution of prokaryotes to something other than prokaryotes. So fuck off you lying bitch.

    Temper, temper. I got tired of you claiming everything I linked to was wrong so I figured: why bother. You don't read or understand the things I link to anyway.

    I went over that with you. It is directly related to your inability to do as I requested. Loser.

    Uh huh. You still haven't really ruled out chance.

    Pussy- find a mistake then or eat it, bitch.

    I'm sure others already have done. I know lots of people have reviewed Dr Behe's work and explained what he got wrong. And with Dr Dembski's work. It's all just kind of . . . wrong. Not according to me, according to people working in the pertinent fields.

    Asexual reproduction is well beyond the reach of unguided evolution. You lose.

    Well, get your designer to show you how to model it with an algorithm then so you can show the rest of us.

    I did you ignorant child molester.

    You are one fucking piece-of-shit loser, Jerad.

    Well why do you bother to argue with me then? Unless it's because you like being abusive. You always seem to degenerate to that when you get frustrated.

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't read or understand the things I link to anyway.

    Lying bitch. You are a pussy for your false accusations.

    You still haven't really ruled out chance.

    Thanks to losers like you, we have. Johnson goes over the numbers and you just choke on them.

    I'm sure others already have done.

    I am sure you are a cowardly puke.

    I know lots of people have reviewed Dr Behe's work and explained what he got wrong.

    THIS IS NOT DR BEHE'S WORK. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE. Also Behe has rebutted all criticisms so fuck off, loser.

    And we aren't arguing, Jerad. You are spewing shit and I am making you eat it.

     
  • At 2:40 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Lying bitch. You are a pussy for your false accusations.

    Try this one then:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/1521654031000141231/abstract

    Or this one:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/86/17/6661.short

    Or this one:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5057/622.short

    This one looks good too:

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351

    If you say these are wrong then please point to specific places where they are wrong.

    Thanks to losers like you, we have. Johnson goes over the numbers and you just choke on them.

    Isn't he a lawyer? Anyway, I haven't got his book so I can't look at his work.

    I am sure you are a cowardly puke.

    My, we are grumpy today aren't we?

    THIS IS NOT DR BEHE'S WORK. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE. Also Behe has rebutted all criticisms so fuck off, loser.

    Because Dr Behe says he has? I don't think so.

    And we aren't arguing, Jerad. You are spewing shit and I am making you eat it.

    Is that why you have to be verbally abusive?

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/1521654031000141231/abstract

    Obviously Jerad didn't read the article. This paper uses the usual untestable pap- that chloroplasts and mitochondria were once free-living bacteria, cuz they sort of look like bacteria!

    That is NOT science, Jerad and it does not account for the nucleus.

    Loser.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/86/17/6661.short

    Things look the same therefor unguided evolution didit? REally, Jerad? You didn't read that article either.

    They are not showing that such a thing is possible, Jerad. They are trying to speculate how it could have arose.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5057/622.short

    Geez, Jerad, you are desperate and you obviously don't understand science- this isn't science, Jerad.

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351

    More of the same- it looks like it could have been free-living bacteria.

    That is the extent of what you will find on it, Jerad. And that comes to absolutely nothing but "it looks like it to me"

    That isn't science, Jerad.

    And No, Donald Johnson is not a lawyer. You can't show that Behe's critics have refuted him. And I am treating you the way you deserve to be treated, You are a total fucking asshole.

    You obviously have no idea what science is.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Obviously Jerad didn't read the article. This paper uses the usual untestable pap- that chloroplasts and mitochondria were once free-living bacteria, cuz they sort of look like bacteria!

    Why is that pap? Please give references. You always ask me so it's fair for you to do the same.

    Things look the same therefor unguided evolution didit? REally, Jerad? You didn't read that article either.

    Where does it say that specifically?

    They are not showing that such a thing is possible, Jerad. They are trying to speculate how it could have arose.

    You always say evo's have no idea how things happened. Clearly they do have ideas. And those ideas are based on evidence and data. How can anyone possibly prove that something in the past happened a certain way when we cannot go back and see? Would you throw out all historical science because there's no way to know? You think some designer did it all but you weren't there to see it so how do you know that?

    Geez, Jerad, you are desperate and you obviously don't understand science- this isn't science, Jerad.

    Show me where it's wrong.

    More of the same- it looks like it could have been free-living bacteria.

    It's not just a wild-ass guess though.

    Anyway, you asked for some of the reasoning going on, I've shown some. You can disagree with it but you can't say it doesn't exist.

    That is the extent of what you will find on it, Jerad. And that comes to absolutely nothing but "it looks like it to me"

    There's a lot more. I just wanted to see if you'd take the exercise seriously. Which you didn't so I'm not going to bother anymore. You've already made up your mind, things look designed to you and that's the end of it.

    That isn't science, Jerad.

    Found your programming yet? That you're sure exists but you can't find it? Figured out how it's stored or encoded? Are your speculations science Joe or just wishful thinking? Figured out how this unseen programming interacts with the chemical processes in the cell to induce and guide mutations?

    Are you doing science or just speculating about stuff you don't really know that much about? You diss people who have spent years and years studying the processes involved and then you accuse them of not doing science.

    If you're so much better at it then why don't you have a publication record? Why haven't you figured out things that no one else has? Why are you so reluctant to even discuss in detail some of your notions? Why can't you pick an algorithm and show how it gives results consistent with intelligent design evolution?

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is that pap?

    I explained why you fucking asshole.

    Where does it say that specifically?

    Read the paper- do you know what "homologous" means?

    Jerad no one can account for the NUCLEUS. No one. And saying mitochondria look like bacteria therefor they were is not science.

    It is all just wild guesses and none of it can be scientifically demonstrated.

    But anyway thanks for proving that you will accept anything if you think it supports your lame-ass position.

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    . How can anyone possibly prove that something in the past happened a certain way when we cannot go back and see?

    Don't make claims if they cannot be scientifically tested. And don't blame us because your position makes untestable claims.

    Hiding behind father time is a sure sign that you have nothing.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I explained why you fucking asshole.

    Not scientifically you didn't.

    Read the paper- do you know what "homologous" means?

    It's doesn't mean the researchers just said: gosh, that looks the same to me, job done.

    Jerad no one can account for the NUCLEUS. No one. And saying mitochondria look like bacteria therefor they were is not science.

    There's a lot more to it than that otherwise there wouldn't be so many research publications about it and they wouldn't be so long. But I know you have to misrepresent the work so you don't have to point out specific errors.

    It is all just wild guesses and none of it can be scientifically demonstrated.

    Clearly you didn't read through the explanations of why they make certain assumptions. This is exactly why I'm not going to bother to fall for your ploy of getting me to provide links just so you can say it's all shit.

    Don't make claims if they cannot be scientifically tested. And don't blame us because your position makes untestable claims.

    Let's see . . . that throws out every single historical science because there is no way to ever, beyond a shadow of doubt, prove that something happened n a certain way. It's all just guess according to you.

    Hiding behind father time is a sure sign that you have nothing.

    Well, how long do you think it took for humans to develop then? When do you think design was implemented?

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I explained why, scientifically, asshole.

    It's doesn't mean the researchers just said: gosh, that looks the same to me, job done.

    Basically that is all they did.

    Look Jerad, there aren't any experiments that demonstrate prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes.

    Evos can't even agree if eukaryotes gave rise to prokaryotes or if endosymbiosis produced euks from proks. There isn't any way to tell, scientifically.

    Let's see . . . that throws out every single historical science because there is no way to ever, beyond a shadow of doubt, prove that something happened n a certain way.

    Science is NOT about proof, you ignorant ass. And archaeology and forensic science are pretty successful, which proves you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I explained why, scientifically, asshole.

    Did you mention specific points that were made that you disagreed with? Did you give references to other research that supported your view? Did you present any new work which would suggest it's time to reconsider the work of others?

    Basically that is all they did.

    I guess you didn't follow the arguments then.

    Look Jerad, there aren't any experiments that demonstrate prokaryotes can evolve into something other than prokaryotes.

    So, if you can't do an experiment it's not science? Is that what you think? That kind of rules out a lot of what is called science doesn't it.

    Evos can't even agree if eukaryotes gave rise to prokaryotes or if endosymbiosis produced euks from proks. There isn't any way to tell, scientifically.

    People are working on various ideas, looking for evidence, testing different notions. Some ideas are kept, some are thrown away. That's the way it works: toss an idea out there and see if it is support by evidence and data or not.

    What do you think biological researchers should do instead?

    Science is NOT about proof, you ignorant ass. And archaeology and forensic science are pretty successful, which proves you are an imbecile.

    So, you can draw conclusions even if you can't absolutely, completely, prove something happened. Based on data and evidence and multiple threads of both. Isn't that what biological researchers are doing?

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Did you mention specific points that were made that you disagreed with? Did you give references to other research that supported your view? Did you present any new work which would suggest it's time to reconsider the work of others?

    It is all "it looks like it coulda been bacteria", Jerad. Are you really that stupid?

    So, if you can't do an experiment it's not science?

    OK it's looks designed is good enough for science then.

    Thank you, loser.

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It is all "it looks like it coulda been bacteria", Jerad. Are you really that stupid?

    As I said: clearly you didn't follow all the arguments.

    OK it's looks designed is good enough for science then.

    That is not what I said, please try and focus.

    Do you think that science can only be based on experimental results? Yes or no?

    Is it possible to have historical sciences which depend on inference and reasoning but not actual observation of past events?

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I clearly followed the arguments. You can't make a case to the contrary. I have been all over this issue for decades. That is why I know that you have shit and nothing more.

    Do you think that science can only be based on experimental results?

    Science requires quantification- period, end of story. Einstein's ideas would not have been widely accepted, if at all, without the scientific evidence gathered from solar eclipses.

    Theoretical musings are fine but if they don't have scientific support they remain musings. Untestable ideas are just that and although they can start something scientific, they aren't science by themselves.

    Is it possible to have historical sciences which depend on inference and reasoning but not actual observation of past events?

    You are obviously an asshole- Yes, Jerad, if you can test your ideas of how something happened then it's OK. If you can't then it ain't science.

    Prokaryotes also look like they came from eukaryotes. I posted the link- read the article.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home