What does Intelligent Design say about the Fossil Record?
-
What does Intelligent Design say about the fossil record? Nothing. ID is silent on the matter. ID is about the genetics and biology. You have to first have a mechanism of producing the changes required before trying to read the fossil record.
That said, evolutionism doesn't have anything to say about the fossil record as it doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.
What does Intelligent Design say about the fossil record? Nothing. ID is silent on the matter. ID is about the genetics and biology. You have to first have a mechanism of producing the changes required before trying to read the fossil record.
That said, evolutionism doesn't have anything to say about the fossil record as it doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.
posted by Joe G @ 4:48 PM
26 Comments:
At 1:51 AM,
Unknown said…
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/a-missing-link-between-prokayotes-and-complex-cells-identified/
At 6:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Yeah, more of "it looks like it could be related to eukaryotes".
You do realize that today's Lokiarchaeota are just as evolved as today's eukaryotes, right? That means the Lokiarchaeota of today ain't the same as the Lokiarchaeota of millions of generations ago. HGT, convergence and common design could easily account for the similarities
Science, Jerad. They need a way to objectively test the claim that any domain of prokryotes can evolve into eukaryotes.
At 9:18 AM,
Unknown said…
Yeah, more of "it looks like it could be related to eukaryotes".
You continually imply that biologists have no ideas of how eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes when clearly they do have ideas and are doing research.
You do realize that today's Lokiarchaeota are just as evolved as today's eukaryotes, right? That means the Lokiarchaeota of today ain't the same as the Lokiarchaeota of millions of generations ago.
Yes, I do understand evolution.
HGT, convergence and common design could easily account for the similarities
Except you haven't got a designer or a technique or a time frame or a physical mechanism that can account for the design you claim exists.
Science, Jerad. They need a way to objectively test the claim that any domain of prokryotes can evolve into eukaryotes.
They have genetic evidence that it happened. That's the point of the article.
Anyway, it's not like any ID-supporters are coming up with the goods. I haven't seen any research into ID physical mechanisms or time lines or anything really. No real research at all. I guess ID is not generating any scientific research.
At 9:55 AM,
Joe G said…
You continually imply that biologists have no ideas of how eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes when clearly they do have ideas and are doing research.
They don't have any idea if such a thing is even possible.
Except you haven't got a designer or a technique or a time frame or a physical mechanism that can account for the design you claim exists.
Nan Madol- no designer, no technique, no timeframe, no physical mechanism, and yet we have determined it was designed.
We can and do determine design exists without knowing any of that. And as a matter of fact we don't even try to answer those until we have determined design exists. That proves that you are an ignorant troll, Jerad.
They have genetic evidence that it happened.
No, they don't. Obviously you are just a gullible moron.
Everything they found can be explained by something other than common descent.
Anyway, it's not like any ID-supporters are coming up with the goods.
Whatever, Jerad. You still have nothing. No mechanism, no way to test your claims, nothing.
ID's research is in the detection and study of design. Yours doesn't even have a methodology for detecting whatever it is you need to detect.
At 10:01 AM,
Joe G said…
You do realize that today's Lokiarchaeota are just as evolved as today's eukaryotes, right? That means the Lokiarchaeota of today ain't the same as the Lokiarchaeota of millions of generations ago. HGT, convergence and common design could easily account for the similarities
Jerad sez he understands evolution and yet prattles on after reading tat as if it was never said.
At 9:16 AM,
Unknown said…
They don't have any idea if such a thing is even possible.
Funny that they are doing research and publishing papers about it then.
Nan Madol- no designer, no technique, no timeframe, no physical mechanism, and yet we have determined it was designed.
Except that your claim of design hasn't passed scientific muster. It hasn't been accepted by a vast, vast majority of working scientists. And why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
We can and do determine design exists without knowing any of that. And as a matter of fact we don't even try to answer those until we have determined design exists. That proves that you are an ignorant troll, Jerad.
You've been saying for years that design has been detected and yet still no research. No work. Nothing. ID is beginning to sound like an idea that went no where.
No, they don't. Obviously you are just a gullible moron.
Well, find a mistake in the paper referenced in the article I linked to then.
Everything they found can be explained by something other than common descent.
You can hypothesise as much as you like. What is your specific hypothesis by the way? That's how science is done isn't it? First you have to have a clearly stated, testable hypothesis. So . . . what's yours?
Whatever, Jerad. You still have nothing. No mechanism, no way to test your claims, nothing.
And ID has what exactly? Any research? Any results? Does it even have a testable hypothesis?
ID's research is in the detection and study of design. Yours doesn't even have a methodology for detecting whatever it is you need to detect.
And your method is what exactly? How do you 'detect' design? Aside from looking at it and deciding it couldn't have come about via unguided processes? Is that even a method? It sounds like dropping back and punting.
Can you show me an example of someone using something like Dr Dembski's metric to detect design?
Jerad sez he understands evolution and yet prattles on after reading tat as if it was never said.
No one ever said today's life forms are the same as the ancient ones so your point seemed pretty stupid.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, no one is doing any research to see if such a thing is possible. All they did was find organisms that had genes usually only found in eukaryotes and they speculated because they have a requirement.
Find a mistake? Find evidence in that article that such a change is possible. And guess what? Nothing in the article supports unguided evolution you ignorant troll.
You've been saying for years that design has been detected and yet still no research.
The design detection is the research you moron. The study of the design is the research you ignorant child.
You have proven that yours doesn't have any entailments nor does it offer any testable hypotheses.
And your method is what exactly?
Exactly what I have posted on this blog. Your willful ignorance means nothing.
No one ever said today's life forms are the same as the ancient ones so your point seemed pretty stupid.
Dumbass they are using the Lokiarchaeota of TODAY to say that it is a missing link when obviously it can't be. Are you really that stupid, Jerad? Really?
At 2:50 PM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, no one is doing any research to see if such a thing is possible. All they did was find organisms that had genes usually only found in eukaryotes and they speculated because they have a requirement.
How would you find out if such a thing was possible? You'd look at the genomic evidence. Meanwhile . . . ID has done . . . shit.
Find a mistake? Find evidence in that article that such a change is possible. And guess what? Nothing in the article supports unguided evolution you ignorant troll.
So, as usual, you bail on finding an error or a mistake. Typical: say something is wrong or incorrect and then not able to find a mistake. Is that how science is done then?
The design detection is the research you moron. The study of the design is the research you ignorant child.
There is no research. Surely you've noticed. NO ONE is using design detection in research or publications. And you can easily prove me wrong by citing publications. Go on.
You have proven that yours doesn't have any entailments nor does it offer any testable hypotheses.
Joe, ID has nothing except: some stuff we can't explain looks designed. You have to acknowledge that. And say why there has been NO follow-on research.
Exactly what I have posted on this blog. Your willful ignorance means nothing.
So, no method. At all. NO publications. No research. No agenda. Nothing.
ID: some stuff looks designed and we can't explain it. Is that science? Where are the publications and the research? Where?
Dumbass they are using the Lokiarchaeota of TODAY to say that it is a missing link when obviously it can't be. Are you really that stupid, Jerad? Really?
There are looking at the genomes. Show me where they are assuming, as you claim, that the ancient forms are the same as the modern ones. Go on. Show me or shut up.
But you'll probably continue your claim that everyone else is wrong but you are right even though you bail on being able to point to a mistake that serious researchers have made. While you have no publications and no research. And you claim to understand science with no supporting evidence.
At 3:17 PM,
Joe G said…
How would you find out if such a thing was possible? You'd look at the genomic evidence.
Not of the organisms of today and that doesn't do it.
So, as usual, you bail on finding an error or a mistake.
Loser, you bailed on saying how it supports unguided evolution.
There are looking at the genomes. Show me where they are assuming, as you claim, that the ancient forms are the same as the modern ones.
Without that assumption they don't have a case, moron.
The mistake they made was concluding the evidence supports a prokaryote to eukaryote transition. Everyone else is making the mistake that this is evidence for such a transformation.
Intelligent Design has a methodology, Jerad. Your position has bald declarations and wrongful conclusion jumping.
Where's the model, Jerad? Where is the theory?
At 4:17 PM,
Unknown said…
Not of the organisms of today and that doesn't do it.
Oh, right. Joe thinks you can't do historical biological research then. He thinks: if you didn't observe it you're dead in the water.
Loser, you bailed on saying how it supports unguided evolution.
You keep dodging the issue. A vast, vast majority of biological research is consistent with unguided evolution and you say otherwise. You are in the vanishing minority. So it's fair to ask you to find mistakes in the published work of those you disagree with. But you can't. You never can.
Without that assumption they don't have a case, moron.
Show me where they make that assumption. You've made a claim now back it up.
The mistake they made was concluding the evidence supports a prokaryote to eukaryote transition. Everyone else is making the mistake that this is evidence for such a transformation.
Where in their analysis do they make a mistake? If you understand science then you should be able to find specific instances of mistakes.
Intelligent Design has a methodology, Jerad. Your position has bald declarations and wrongful conclusion jumping.
Except you can't point to published work showing the methodology in practice. Show me some peer-reviewed work that shows the ID design detection methodology.
Where's the model, Jerad? Where is the theory?
We know you think attacking evolutionary theory is good enough. But it's not. You still have to support your own view. Where is your model? Your theory? Your hypothesis?
I know you'll duck and dodge the important queries of ID. You always do. But until someone has the balls to really defend ID with some solid research and publications it's just going to be dead in the water. And no matter how much you swear and bluster and make fun of evolution none of it helps further ID. But you should know that since you claim to understand science even though you don't have any research or publications of your own to support your claims.
At 7:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Shut the fuck up. You can't point to any methodology used to determine how unguided evolution works. Your position is totally void of details
You cry about ID and yet all you have is "it looks like it evolved to me", all the while not even knowing if it can evolve. And ignoring the fact that Intelligent Design is OK with evolution.
If you cannot test your concept then it is dead in the water. Archaeology tests the claims of artifact vs nature. Forensic science does also. Both deal with past events..
A vast, vast majority of biological research is consistent with unguided evolution
Bullshit. It can't be modeled, asshole.
Show me where they make that assumption.
Show us that you aren't just an ignorant wanker.
Without that assumption the missing ink inference vanishes. Are you really tat stupid?
Where in their analysis do they make a mistake?
Are you saying they didn't make such a connection or are you just being an ignorant shit eater?
What was the point of the paper, Jerad?
We know you think attacking evolutionary theory is good enough.
Then that proves that you are a fucking douchebag loser. You are such a fucking pussy I bet that your nose bleeds every 28 days.
My posts prove that you are wrong, dickhead.
Where is this alleged evolutionary theory, Jerad?
ID is defended in peer-review, moron. Just look at any peer-reviewed paper on ATP synthase. All your position has to explain its existence is "it just happened".
No one uses unguided evolution, Jerad. Thanks to you and yours we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.
ID has a methodology and it is used every day to differentiate between artificial and nature, operating freely. There isn't anything that prevents us from applying tried and true techniques to biology.
You are just an ignorant fuck, Jerad.
At 1:23 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, Shut the fuck up. You can't point to any methodology used to determine how unguided evolution works. Your position is totally void of details
Typical. Joe can't defend his claims so he becomes abusive.
You cry about ID and yet all you have is "it looks like it evolved to me", all the while not even knowing if it can evolve. And ignoring the fact that Intelligent Design is OK with evolution.
It's not my fault you can't understand 150 years of research nor can you point out a mistake in all that work except to make claims about assumptions which you cannot support.
If you cannot test your concept then it is dead in the water. Archaeology tests the claims of artifact vs nature. Forensic science does also. Both deal with past events..
Biology tests against the historical records: the fossils, the genomes, the bio-geographic distribution and morphology. ID doesn't even test. Anything. It doesn't have tests to utilise.
Bullshit. It can't be modeled, asshole.
It's not my fault you don't understand the research. Or that you can't back up your claims.
Show us that you aren't just an ignorant wanker.
So you still can't back up your claims. Being abusive . . . is that the way to do science?
Without that assumption the missing ink inference vanishes. Are you really tat stupid?
The assumption you claimed they made was that the modern forms are the same as the ancient ones. Show me where they made that assumption.
Are you saying they didn't make such a connection or are you just being an ignorant shit eater?
I'm saying you cannot find an analytic or procedural mistake in the work.
What was the point of the paper, Jerad?
That's pretty clear in the article I linked to.
Then that proves that you are a fucking douchebag loser. You are such a fucking pussy I bet that your nose bleeds every 28 days.
Joe science: attack the other person when you can't backup your claims.
My posts prove that you are wrong, dickhead.
Too bad you always bail when questions are asked.
Where is this alleged evolutionary theory, Jerad?
150 years of research and publications. Please do try and keep up.
ID is defended in peer-review, moron. Just look at any peer-reviewed paper on ATP synthase. All your position has to explain its existence is "it just happened".
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports ID. Not just one you mis-interpret to support ID.
No one uses unguided evolution, Jerad. Thanks to you and yours we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.
Found your mysterious designer yet? Or is God being a bit coy when it comes to putting the evotards in their place?
ID has a methodology and it is used every day to differentiate between artificial and nature, operating freely. There isn't anything that prevents us from applying tried and true techniques to biology.
Show me a peer-reviewed published paper showing the methodology at work detecting design.
You are just an ignorant fuck, Jerad.
Just show us the actual ID research and stop being abusive.
At 11:14 AM,
Joe G said…
The assumption you claimed they made was that the modern forms are the same as the ancient ones. Show me where they made that assumption.
Jerad, you are an ignorant asshole. Without tat assumption they don't have a case for a missing link
Where is this alleged evolutionary theory, Jerad?
150 years of research and publications.
Ignorant and bluffing asshole.
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports ID.
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
Show us a model, a theory, testable hypothesis. Show us someone using it.
ID just has to meet the level of the current paradigm and ID exceeds it you ignorant fuck.
At 2:55 PM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, you are an ignorant asshole. Without tat assumption they don't have a case for a missing link
Then it should be easy for you to show me where they made that assumption. Or you can be abusive and dodge answering the challenge as usual.
Where is this alleged evolutionary theory, Jerad?
Do you not understand natural selection? Or sexual selection? Or genetic drift?
I get your strategy: throw up a smoke screen of denial and hold the party line. But that ain't science. Is it?
Besides, you've OBVIOUSLY dodged my queries about peer-reviewed publications showing ID design detection techniques. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
Ignorant and bluffing asshole.
That is not a refutation. That is an admission of weakness.
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
Ah but I'm asking you to show the support for your paradigm. Which you can't provide. EVEN IF evolutionary theory collapses you have not supported your ideas.
ID just has to meet the level of the current paradigm and ID exceeds it you ignorant fuck.
No publications. No research agenda. No unifying theory. ID is dying because no one can figure out and say what it means. 10 years from now it will be ignored completely. And 20 years from now it will be a footnote in books. Because it hasn't come up with the goods. No results. No research. No thing.
At 3:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Thank you for continuing to admit that you are an ignorant asshole. If they don't make that assumption then they don't have a missing link. Your cowardice for not addressing that is duly noted.
Do you not understand natural selection? Or sexual selection? Or genetic drift?
yes, natural selection is impotent, so is drift. And evolutionism cannot account for sexual selection.
Ah but I'm asking you to show the support for your paradigm. Which you can't provide. EVEN IF evolutionary theory collapses you have not supported your ideas.
Of course we have. I have done so on my blog. Others have done so also.
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
Ah but I'm asking you to show the support for your paradigm
And I have provided it. And you have nothing.
At 2:12 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, Thank you for continuing to admit that you are an ignorant asshole. If they don't make that assumption then they don't have a missing link. Your cowardice for not addressing that is duly noted.
And yet you can't show me where they made that assumption. Without support your claim is unsubstantiated. Is that how science is done?
Oh and you can't show me a peer-reviewed paper showing design detection methodology. And, as I've said before, no one is using Dr Dembski's metric; you can't find an example of being used can you?
yes, natural selection is impotent, so is drift. And evolutionism cannot account for sexual selection.
Too bad you can't prove that everything was front loaded and pre-programmed . . . somewhere . . . somehow . . . you can't say how or where or when. You can't account for the vastly varying different sized genomes that now exist. How do you account for sections of human genome that are just hundreds and hundreds of repeats? That differ from person to person? If mutations are directed. And what about broken genes? And ERVs? You've said that some diseases come about from parts of the system malfunctioning so you don't think all mutations are pre-programmed. So . . .after a couple of billion years . . . since it's not all broken down does that mean the designer has had to intervene at times? Oh, I'm sorry, you can't answer that because you haven't had time to study things. You've decided that mutations are (mostly) pre-programmed and that must have been front-loaded but you can't say if the designer has had to tweak things.
Of course we have. I have done so on my blog. Others have done so also.
Funny you can't answer some questions then eh?
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
They all do; you're just a denialist who hasn't shown a viable alternative exists.
And I have provided it. And you have nothing.
But you haven't. You can't answer questions about it. You can't even clearly state a viable hypothesis about how life developed. Except: looks designed.
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, Then they did NOT find a missing link. That means you posted the link for nothing, you moron.
Too bad you can't prove that everything was front loaded and pre-programmed
Sure I can and others will.
Funny you can't answer some questions then eh?
Nice projection as your position can't answer anything.
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
They all do;
Liar.
But you haven't.
Liar.
Your position can't account for genomes, Jerad. It has to start with them already in place. It can't account for fossils, either. Evolutionary biologists don't know how many mutations nor what genes were involved for the major transformations. They can't even tell us if a bacterial flagellum could evolve.
At 4:05 PM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, Then they did NOT find a missing link. That means you posted the link for nothing, you moron.
They were hypothesising about a possible transition and looking at the genetic evidence.
AND you still haven't shown where they made the assumption you claim they made.
Nor have you shown where anyone has used an ID detection paradigm or methodology in a peer-reviewed paper. In fact, you have completely ignored the question. Scared? Hoping the readers won't notice you'd dodged the question?
Sure I can and others will.
Let\s consider the peer-reviewed publications in support of front-loading . . . that didn't take long.
I know you disagree with unguided evolution but you cannot seriously continue to assert that there is any research or peer-reviewed publications that are explicitly in support of front-loaded ID. It just doesn't exist.
Nice projection as your position can't answer anything.
Let's just see if you've got a viable alternative eh?
Show me a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports unguided evolution. Stop being an asshole, Jerad.
They all do. You're just a denialist.
AND, even though you disagree, I can point out lots and lots of peer-reviewed work that (at least claims) to support my point of view. What have you got? Just about nothing I figure. Where is the research that explicitly supports front-loading ID?
Your position can't account for genomes, Jerad. It has to start with them already in place. It can't account for fossils, either. Evolutionary biologists don't know how many mutations nor what genes were involved for the major transformations. They can't even tell us if a bacterial flagellum could evolve.
How many mutations? Really? hahahaahahahahahahah
As I've said, there are reams and reams of published works dealing with your questions. And every time someone lists some of them for you you just deny they count.
BUT, you cannot even list a single peer-reviewed paper that explicitly supports a front-loading scenario. Nor can you point to any research, agree or disagree, which is looking into that possibility.
We know you are in denial of the 150 years of work done in support of unguided evolution. But you cannot deny that there is 150 years of work. But you can't find much, if any, work in support of front-loading, guided development. It doesn't exist. It's all just guesswork. Time to get some balls and admit it.
But you won't. You're not allowed. You're a thrall of the ID controllers. Don't talk about the designer because we can't define God. Don't talk about when or how or why because that would mean limiting our deity. Focus on attacking the 'weak' points of 'Darwinism' and help us to get more funding for our political agenda.
And you're being a good little foot-soldier and doing what you're told. Well done.
At 4:31 PM,
Joe G said…
They were hypothesising about a possible transition and looking at the genetic evidence.
What genetic evidence? The genetic evidence that the Lokiarchaeota of today have genetic sequences similar to those found in today's eukaryotes?
Nor have you shown where anyone has used an ID detection paradigm or methodology in a peer-reviewed paper.
We use it in every day life. We take those peer-reviewed papers and apply ID's methodology and it comes out intelligent design. That is how watson and Crick did it. They took the existing research, not their own, to arrive at the double helix.
Again, the design inference has testable entailments. Anyone with any courage can step up and try to model unguided evolution doing something. Anyone can present testable hypotheses for the position.
The only reason to attack ID is because you have nothing.
Let\s consider the peer-reviewed publications in support of front-loading .
This paper provides evidence for front-loading, you moron.
Let's just see if you've got a viable alternative eh?
You are no one to decide, dipshit.
ID has a methodology and yours does not.
You are so stupid that you think all peer-review supports unguided evolution. You are a moron and a gullible fool.
You can't even produce a model.
How many mutations? Really?
Yes, science requires quantification, Jerad.
As I've said, there are reams and reams of published works dealing with your questions.
Liar.
Look, obviously you are just a cowardly piece-of-shit who will ignorantly stand behind a house of cards.
You can't produce any testable hypotheses nor any models. Your "entailments" are a joke and prove that you are ignorant of science.
You sure as hell can't point to any peer-reviewed papers that explicitly support unguided evolution. This paper sure as hell didn't. Using the Lokiarchaeota of today to try to make a connection to the evolution of eukaryotes, an event that allegedly occurred some hundreds of millions of years ago, is a sign of desperation. But your position requires such a transformation so it will say anything, apparently.
At 4:40 PM,
Joe G said…
The funny part, Jerad, unguided evolution can't even account for Lokiarchaeota.
At 1:41 AM,
Unknown said…
What genetic evidence? The genetic evidence that the Lokiarchaeota of today have genetic sequences similar to those found in today's eukaryotes?
Yes Joe, we know you don't understand the reasoning procedure.
We use it in every day life. We take those peer-reviewed papers and apply ID's methodology and it comes out intelligent design. That is how watson and Crick did it. They took the existing research, not their own, to arrive at the double helix.
Building on previous work is not the issue. Watson and Crick had to publish their results. Show me a peer-reviewed, front-loading, ID supporting research paper.
Again, the design inference has testable entailments. Anyone with any courage can step up and try to model unguided evolution doing something. Anyone can present testable hypotheses for the position.
Perhaps it would be good if you stated what the design hypothesis is aside from: we can't explain how some of this stuff came about so we infer design.
The only reason to attack ID is because you have nothing.
I'm asking you to explain what your design hypothesis is. I'm asking you to show me some peer-reviewed research in support of your hypothesis. Can you do those things?
This paper provides evidence for front-loading, you moron.
Where does it say that? Please be specific.
You are no one to decide, dipshit.
Can you even provide a specific, front-loading hypothesis? Let's see if you can deliver the goods.
ID has a methodology and yours does not.
Not one that ever appears in a peer-reviewed paper. You keep bailing on showing this. Don't you?
You are so stupid that you think all peer-review supports unguided evolution. You are a moron and a gullible fool.
Well, you haven't been able to show any mistakes in any research or to show where the writers have made an ID-friendly assumption. Have you?
Yes, science requires quantification, Jerad.
And what are ID's quantifications? Show me the research which gets specific about an ID hypothesis. Go on.
Liar.
Can you or can you not provide some peer-reviewed, front-loading research or not? Can you even provide a front-loading hypothesis to test? Yes or no?
Look, obviously you are just a cowardly piece-of-shit who will ignorantly stand behind a house of cards.
Can you provide a viable, testable front-loading hypothesis? Yes or no?
You can't produce any testable hypotheses nor any models. Your "entailments" are a joke and prove that you are ignorant of science.
Show us how it's done. Show us a viable, testable front-loading hypothesis with entailments. Go on.
You sure as hell can't point to any peer-reviewed papers that explicitly support unguided evolution. This paper sure as hell didn't. Using the Lokiarchaeota of today to try to make a connection to the evolution of eukaryotes, an event that allegedly occurred some hundreds of millions of years ago, is a sign of desperation. But your position requires such a transformation so it will say anything, apparently.
I"m not going to bother arguing with you about investigations you clearly do not understand. Why don't you get on with coming up with a viable, testable, front-loading hypothesis?
The funny part, Jerad, unguided evolution can't even account for Lokiarchaeota.
Then why don't you work on your viable, testable, front-loading hypothesis. Show us how it's done since you know so much.
AND you still have not found any peer-reviewed publications which use any ID detection methodologies have you? You pretend people you disagree with are really agreeing with you but you cannot show where they make the assumptions you claim they make.
At 6:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes Joe, we know you don't understand the reasoning procedure.
No, Jerad, you are just a fucking moron.
Building on previous work is not the issue. Watson and Crick had to publish their results.
Unguided evolution doesn't have any published work.
Perhaps it would be good if you stated what the design hypothesis is aside from: we can't explain how some of this stuff came about so we infer design.
Already have, asshole.
So here we have Jerad, a fucking ignorant asshole, who can't make a case and can only "attack" ID with his willful ignorance.
One peer-reviewed article that explicitly supports unguided evolution. One model that supports it- testable entailments- you have nothing.
At 9:33 AM,
Unknown said…
No, Jerad, you are just a fucking moron.
Found an article using Dr Dembski's metric as part of design detection yet?
Unguided evolution doesn't have any published work.
They all do. You believe (without proof) that mutations are guided. And yet you cannot provide any peer-reviewed papers supporting that notion. You cannot provide a testable hypothesis of front-loaded, guided evolution.
Already have, asshole.
Really. Where was that then? What research has been done trying to establish it?
So here we have Jerad, a fucking ignorant asshole, who can't make a case and can only "attack" ID with his willful ignorance.
I'm asking you to defend your mysterious hypothesis. If you can. Judging by how well you dealt with some mathematics I'm not holding my breath.
You are the one that spends most of his blog-space attacking 'evotards' and evolutionary concepts. Where is your research in support of your claims?
One peer-reviewed article that explicitly supports unguided evolution. One model that supports it- testable entailments- you have nothing.
They all do. Unless your a deniar of course. It doesn't matter what I pick; you believe mutations are guided without evidence. You don't even understand the mathematics that shows that mutations are random. Go figure.
AND you STILL have not even acknowledged that you can't even come close to providing a peer-reviewed research paper showing ID-friendly design detection in action. Nor can you point to a case of someone making assumptions you claim they must be making.
You've got pretty much nothing haven't you?
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad you are an ignorant liar. For unguided evolution t5o be in published papers it has to be a theory or hypothesis and it is neither.
I have defended ID. Your ignorance means nothing.
You are such an asshole.
You are the one that spends most of his blog-space attacking 'evotards' and evolutionary concepts.
No, I attack blind watchmaker concepts. Saying that I attack evolutionary concepts is very misleading as ID is not anti-evolution.
One peer-reviewed article that explicitly supports unguided evolution. One model that supports it- testable entailments- you have nothing.
Or shut the fuck up. Your lies and bluffs will go the way of your posts on UD.
At 11:26 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad you are an ignorant liar. For unguided evolution t5o be in published papers it has to be a theory or hypothesis and it is neither.
I have defended ID. Your ignorance means nothing.
You are such an asshole.
and . . .
No, I attack blind watchmaker concepts. Saying that I attack evolutionary concepts is very misleading as ID is not anti-evolution.
One peer-reviewed article that explicitly supports unguided evolution. One model that supports it- testable entailments- you have nothing.
Or shut the fuck up. Your lies and bluffs will go the way of your posts on UD.
You just don't get it do you? All evolution research is regarding unguided processes. You can read it in any book on the matter.
Just because you think mutations are programmed or guided (even though you have no evidence for such a thing) you then think you can say all the research is not in support of unguided evolution. But you have not proven that mutations are guided or predetermined. You cannot find programming which determines mutations. You cannot find peer-reviewed papers supporting such a claim. You ignore the work that has been done showing mutations are random with regard to function.
So, not only is your supposition unsupported but you haven't even written it down in a testable form. And, in fact, your contention is bordering on unfalsifiable because no matter what results someone shows you you can just say: how do you know the mutations were random?
NO GUIDANCE is the most parsimonious base to start from because it does not assume an agent or some mechanism which has not been found or discovered. Or even defined.
You have not shown that mutations are guided. You cannot find a physical mechanism that could do such a thing. You cannot say how such a mechanism would work and be, as yet, undetected. And yet you think you can just make some bald statement that unguided evolution hasn't got anything.
Clearly you do not understand how science is done. You make claim after claim after claim and NEVER back them up. You even dodge answering questions about your claims. You've got no supporting work or research or results. You've just got a vague supposition which you have not worked into a viable and testable hypothesis.
And this is on top of the fact that you cannot find a peer-reviewed paper showing a design detection methodology in practice. No one, not even Dr Dembski, has ever used his metric to detect design. It's a busted flush which is why he dropped the subject years ago. It doesn't work.
IF you've got a viable, testable front-loading hypothesis that can be discussed then by all means bring it forward. And be able to answer questions about it. 'Cause that IS how science is done.
At 11:34 AM,
Joe G said…
All evolution research is regarding unguided processes.
That is your uneducated opinion. You don't have any evidence to support that claim. You don't have a model, nor theory nor hypotheses.
You ignore the work that has been done showing mutations are random with regard to function.
Double dumbass. That does not mean they are undirected and some mutations actually effect function.
One peer-reviewed article that explicitly supports unguided evolution. One model that supports it- testable entailments- you have nothing.
Or shut the fuck up. Your lies and bluffs will go the way of your posts on UD.
You are a fucking pussy, Jerad.
Bye-bye
Post a Comment
<< Home