Why Unguided Evolution is Anti-Science
-
Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution because natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not see ahead nor does it plan. That means it is nothing more than contingent serendipity. That is nice for poetry, perhaps, but it isn't science. It isn't science because it offers up no models, no entailments and no way to test its claims. Also it cannot be measured and science mandates measurements/ quantification. No one can say how many mutations it takes to evolve a bacterial flagellum from a population that never had one. No one even knows if such a thing is possible, given the blind watchmaker.
No one can present ONE peer-reviewed paper tat explicitly states that ATP synthase arose via unguided evolution. And that is because what I said above- no models, no entailments and no hypotheses.
And to top it all off no one uses unguided evolution for anything- it is a useless heuristic.
Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution because natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not see ahead nor does it plan. That means it is nothing more than contingent serendipity. That is nice for poetry, perhaps, but it isn't science. It isn't science because it offers up no models, no entailments and no way to test its claims. Also it cannot be measured and science mandates measurements/ quantification. No one can say how many mutations it takes to evolve a bacterial flagellum from a population that never had one. No one even knows if such a thing is possible, given the blind watchmaker.
No one can present ONE peer-reviewed paper tat explicitly states that ATP synthase arose via unguided evolution. And that is because what I said above- no models, no entailments and no hypotheses.
And to top it all off no one uses unguided evolution for anything- it is a useless heuristic.
posted by Joe G @ 12:08 PM
65 Comments:
At 2:51 AM,
Unknown said…
An article exploring gene duplication as a step in some ATP development:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2136729
Another such article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15473999
And another:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838057
An article about the role of gene duplication in evolution in general:
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(03)00033-8
A paper discussing a mathematical model of some gene duplications.
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/10/4387.short
And another similar discussion:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-4309-7_13
So, not only are their mathematical models of aspects of unguided processes there is also work going on finding plausible development pathways via unguided processes.
If you think mutations are guided then you find a mistake in one of the papers with the mathematical models which assign probabilities to gene duplications.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
How did you determine that gene duplications are genetic accidents, errors or mistakes?
Assigning probabilities does not make them accidents, errors and mistakes.
Put up or shut up, Jerad.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your first link.
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your second link.
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your third link.
Fourth link- nothing about unguided evolution.
Jerad, in order for gene duplications to do anything they must be duplicated, transformed and expressed. That requires too many specific mutations for accidents to account for. It is well beyond the time allotted for waiting foe two mutations. And that paper only discussed a simple binding site. Gene duplications require a new binding site PLUS changes to the DNA sequence.
There just isn't enough time.
At 10:08 AM,
Unknown said…
How did you determine tat gene duplications are genetic accidents, errors or mistakes?
Because they occur randomly. There are measure of randomness you know.
Assigning probabilities does not make them accidents, errors and mistakes.
There are tests for randomness you know. A fair coin has a 50% chance of H but is a random event. This is all undergraduate mathematics.
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your first link.
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your second link.
There isn't anything about unguided evolution in your third link.
Fourth link- nothing about unguided evolution.
They're all about unguided evolution. Unless you're a denialist.
Jerad, in order for gene duplications to do anything they must be duplicated, transformed and expressed. That requires too many specific mutations for accidents to account for. It is well beyond the time allotted for waiting foe two mutations. And that paper only discussed a simple binding site. Gene duplications require a new binding site PLUS changes to the DNA sequence.
There just isn't enough time.
Someone lied to you with some faulty genomic analysis. And you've bought into that lie. You should try reading the papers that people link to instead of just dismissing them based on a lie you were told. Unless you can't understand them . . . which is possible. I know your math abilities are pretty elementary.
If you think the mathematical models are wrong then find a mistake. Go on.
Found someone who actually used Dr Dembski's metric yet?
At 11:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Because they occur randomly. There are measure of randomness you know.
Moron. The ones and zeros on a computer buss appear to occur randomly, yet we know they are not.
There are tests for randomness you know.
Appearing random does not make them accidents, errors and mistakes.
They're all about unguided evolution
Tta is your uneducated opinion.
Someone lied to you with some faulty genomic analysis.
Nope, you are just an ignorant ass.
Jerad doesn't know what the word "explicitly" means. Jerad thinks his ignorance and gullibility mean something. Jerad doesn't understand that no one can model unguided evolution producing ATP synthase- there aren't any entailments for such a thing.
And Jerad doesn't understand how archaeology, forensic science and SETI determine intelligent design.
Your ignorance, while amusing, is just that Jerad- ignorance.
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
And Jerad cannot deal witn reality:
Jerad, in order for gene duplications to do anything they must be duplicated, transformed and expressed. That requires too many specific mutations for accidents to account for. It is well beyond the time allotted for waiting foe two mutations. And that paper only discussed a simple binding site. Gene duplications require a new binding site PLUS changes to the DNA sequence.
There just isn't enough time.
Loser.
At 4:01 PM,
Unknown said…
Moron. The ones and zeros on a computer buss appear to occur randomly, yet we know they are not.
Which is exactly why I said there are tests for randomness. I do wish you would try and pay attention. I know you don't understand that mathematics.
Appearing random does not make them accidents, errors and mistakes.
That's why there are tests. Good lord, do I have to say everything 5 times till you pay attention?
Tta is your uneducated opinion.
No, that is the opinion of the people who did the research and wrote the papers.
Nope, you are just an ignorant ass.
Well then why don't you find the mistakes which you say much exist in the published works?
And, by the way, you have again failed to find an example of someone using Dr Dembski's metric for design detection. And you have failed to admit you are ignoring the issue.
And you have failed to acknowledge that I have provided a mathematical model for an aspect of evolutionary theory when you said they didn't exist.
Jerad doesn't know what the word "explicitly" means. Jerad thinks his ignorance and gullibility mean something. Jerad doesn't understand that no one can model unguided evolution producing ATP synthase- there aren't any entailments for such a thing.
And Joe has completely dodged and failed to address the specifics in the papers I linked to.
And Jerad doesn't understand how archaeology, forensic science and SETI determine intelligent design.
Too bad Joe cannot point to a single academic piece of research which upholds his views.
Your ignorance, while amusing, is just that Jerad- ignorance.
Let's get back to the questions and issues you have failed to address:
Give us an example of a peer-reviewed paper showing a methodology of design detection as applied to some cases.
Show us an example of anyone, anywhere using Dr Dembski's metric as part of a design detection methodology.
Give us a viable, testable, clear front-loading, ID-friendly hypothesis. You have failed to acknowledge that you have dodged this question for years.
If you think you understand science better than the people who have published the papers that I have linked to and if you think that you can do better because you understand science then, please, by all means, show us what you've got. We're all waiting . . . .
At 4:10 PM,
Joe G said…
You are confusing apparent randomness with accidental. There aren't any tests that would say the ones and zeros on a computer buss are nothing but random.
No, that is the opinion of the people who did the research and wrote the papers.
You don't know that and opinions are just that.
Well then why don't you find the mistakes which you say much exist in the published works?
There aren't any published works that explicitly support unguided evolution producing multi-protein machinery.
And, by the way, you have again failed to find an example of someone using Dr Dembski's metric for design detection.
We all use the SAME methodology, Jerad. It is based on Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. There is a reason why not all rocks are artifacts and not all deaths are murders.
I have provided the evidence that supports ID. I have provided ID's entailments.
So shut the fuck up.
At 4:59 PM,
Unknown said…
You are confusing apparent randomness with accidental. There aren't any tests that would say the ones and zeros on a computer buss are nothing but random.
Yes, there are. There are many forms of mathematical tests of random values.
You don't know that and opinions are just that.
Well, if you can find a mistake in their work then please point it out.
There aren't any published works that explicitly support unguided evolution producing multi-protein machinery.
They all do. And you have, as yet, been unable to find a mistake in any of their assumptions or methodologies.
We all use the SAME methodology, Jerad. It is based on Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. There is a reason why not all rocks are artifacts and not all deaths are murders.
You have not been able to point to a published work which uses Dr Dembski's metric as part of a design detection methodology. This is a fact.
You have not even been able to point to any published work which has an ID friendly design detection paradigm.
I have provided the evidence that supports ID. I have provided ID's entailments.
You have parroted ideas and statements from other people but you have not been able to:
Provide a clear, concise, viable, testable front-loading hypothesis for guided evolution.
Provide and example of worked out design detection methodology in practice.
Provide an example of the use of Dr Dembski's metric in design detection.
Provide an example of a mistake in any published evolutionary research.
Provide any kind of evidence that mutations are guided.
Provide any kind of evidence or even a guess as to where the guidance programming is stored.
Provide any kind of evidence or guess as to how the guidance programming is encoded.
Provide any kind of evidence as to how the guidance programming affects development.
Acknowledge that mathematical models which you claim do not exist do exist.
Acknowledge that plausible evolutionary pathways for ATP synthase do exist and are being researched.
So shut the fuck up.
Instead of being abusive perhaps you'd like to work on answering some questions that you have ignored. Unless you want to assert that the way science is done is to make some claims and then run and hide when questions start coming in.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
There aren't any tests that would say the ones and zeros on a computer buss are nothing but random.
Yes, there are.
No, you are lying or ignorant.
There aren't any published works that explicitly support unguided evolution producing multi-protein machinery.
They all do
Liar.
You have not been able to point to a published work which uses Dr Dembski's metric as part of a design detection methodology.
Why Dembski's? We have tried and true design detection techniques and nothing prevents us from using them in biology, asshole loser.
I have provided the evidence that supports ID. I have provided ID's entailments.
Provide a clear, concise, viable, testable front-loading hypothesis for guided evolution.
I have provided models for guided evolution. I have provided the testable entailments for DESIGN.
OTOH you can't provide anything for unguided evolution.
Evidence for guided mutations has been presented. Models for guided evolution have been presents.
You have NOTHING but your ignorance, Jerad.
And YOU are the fucking asshole who is being abusive, Jerad. If this was a formal debate you would have been thrown out on your ass. You don't know the first thing about science.
So fuck off, asshole.
The evidence for immaterial programming in cells is:
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, in order for gene duplications to do anything they must be duplicated, transformed and expressed. That requires too many specific mutations for accidents to account for. It is well beyond the time allotted for waiting foe two mutations. And that paper only discussed a simple binding site. Gene duplications require a new binding site PLUS changes to the DNA sequence.
There just isn't enough time.
Loser.
Deal with that or shut up. Find a way to model unguided evolution causing gene duplications, creating a new binding site, producing the specific changes needed to get a new protein and getting it expressed or shut the fuck up.
Yours can't even be modelled you loser.
At 1:49 PM,
Unknown said…
No, you are lying or ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests
Liar.
No Joe, you are a denialist.
Why Dembski's? We have tried and true design detection techniques and nothing prevents us from using them in biology, asshole loser.
Show me an academic paper which uses ANY ID design detection techniques.
I have provided the evidence that supports ID. I have provided ID's entailments.
Why is it you can't answer some questions about it then?
I have provided models for guided evolution. I have provided the testable entailments for DESIGN.
Why can't you answer some questions about it then?
Evidence for guided mutations has been presented. Models for guided evolution have been presents.
The evidence is a few papers and some non-peer reviewed books. And virtually no one in biology finds the evidence compelling. So, by any reasonable measure, guided evolution has not been proven. Unless you're a 'true believer'. Are you a 'true believer' Joe? One who does NOT consider all the evidence?
You have NOTHING but your ignorance, Jerad.
I consider the preponderance of the evidence. Which is heavily weighted against guided evolution.
And YOU are the fucking asshole who is being abusive, Jerad. If this was a formal debate you would have been thrown out on your ass. You don't know the first thing about science.
So fuck off, asshole.
Too funny. The man who has spent years calling people evotards and idiots and morons and all kinds of abusive and character defaming things is now saying I'm being abusive for pointing out that there is virtually no evidence for his position. But Joe knows about science even though he can't answer questions about his hypothesis. Nor can he find any mistakes in any paper he disagrees with based purely on its conclusions.
The evidence for immaterial programming in cells is:
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
So find/show the actual thing you claim exists. Which you have not been able to do. Nor has anyone else. You want to 'do' science? Fine. Find the thing you say exists.
Jerad, in order for gene duplications to do anything they must be duplicated, transformed and expressed. That requires too many specific mutations for accidents to account for. It is well beyond the time allotted for waiting foe two mutations. And that paper only discussed a simple binding site. Gene duplications require a new binding site PLUS changes to the DNA sequence.
There just isn't enough time.
You've been lied to. You chose to believe someone who didn't understand all the evidence. You fail to account for all the criticisms of that stance. You decided you were right regardless. Is that how science is done?
Deal with that or shut up. Find a way to model unguided evolution causing gene duplications, creating a new binding site, producing the specific changes needed to get a new protein and getting it expressed or shut the fuck up.
Yours can't even be modelled you loser.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/mathme.html
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002017
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_and_theoretical_biology
http://www.biologie.ens.fr/mmee2015/
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.Buerger/Lisbon.pdf
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-mathematical-evolutionary-biology.html
Just to name a very few.
Mathematical models exists for lots and lots of areas of evolutionary theory. Including the bits you asked about as was noted in a paper I already linked to. Which you clearly didn't understand.
At 7:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests
That does not support your claim. You are a moron who couldn't make a case if you life depended on it.
The ones and zeros on a computer buss would prove to be random by any measure.
Show me an academic paper which uses ANY ID design detection techniques.
Dumbass Jerad thinks archaeologists and forensic science flip a coin to determine design or not.
Show me an academic paper which uses ANY ID design detection techniques.
I have. OTOH all you do is ask irrelevant questions.
And virtually no one in biology finds the evidence compelling.
Yet they cannot provide a viable alternative.
There is plenty of evidence for my position, Jerad. You are just an ignorant asshole.
The evidence for immaterial programming in cells is:
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
So find/show the actual thing you claim exists
The evidence says it exists, you moron. You NEVER deal with the evidence you coward.
I consider the preponderance of the evidence.
Liar.
You've been lied to.
By you and all evos. BTW I am going by a paper produced by evos, dumbass.
You chose to believe someone who didn't understand all the evidence.
Liar.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/mathme.html
Not for UNGUIDED evolution- make your case instead of posting bald links that you obviously don't understand.
Mathematical models exists for lots and lots of areas of evolutionary theory.
There isn't an evolutionary theory you moron. And seeing that no one knows how many mutations it takes to get a new multi-protein complex, it is clear there aren't any models for evolutionism.
And if those models are valid representations of unguided evolution then why can't evolutionary biologists provide the testable entailments for unguided evolution?
Jerad the ignorant literature bluffer.
At 7:15 AM,
Joe G said…
The evidence for immaterial programming in cells is:
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
And unguided processes cannot account for any of that. No one knows where to start when it comes to unguided processes producing any of that. Your position needs to start with all of that already in place. And even given all of that it can't do anything but change allele frequencies.
At 7:33 AM,
Joe G said…
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/mathme.html
This link talks about genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neither support unguided evolution. Not one part of that links supports unguided evolution.
At 8:59 AM,
Unknown said…
That does not support your claim. You are a moron who couldn't make a case if you life depended on it.
There are tests for randomness. Like I said.
The ones and zeros on a computer buss would prove to be random by any measure.
Probably not owing to what they represent.
Dumbass Jerad thinks archaeologists and forensic science flip a coin to determine design or not.
No, they don't and I never said they did. But they don't use your design detection procedures either.
I have. OTOH all you do is ask irrelevant questions.
Maybe I missed it then. But I kind of doubt it.
Yet they cannot provide a viable alternative.
Only according to denialists.
There is plenty of evidence for my position, Jerad. You are just an ignorant asshole.
You've got this notion that mutations are not random. But you've got no evidence of anything that can guide them.
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
Find some physical mechanism that is doing the guiding then.
The evidence says it exists, you moron. You NEVER deal with the evidence you coward.
So, show it to us. You say it exists, so bring it forward.
Not for UNGUIDED evolution- make your case instead of posting bald links that you obviously don't understand.
Well, show me where they've made a mistake in assuming mutations are random.
There isn't an evolutionary theory you moron. And seeing that no one knows how many mutations it takes to get a new multi-protein complex, it is clear there aren't any models for evolutionism.
There clearly is an evolutionary theory. But there is equally clearly NOT an ID theory. ID is barely even a hypothesis.
And if those models are valid representations of unguided evolution then why can't evolutionary biologists provide the testable entailments for unguided evolution?
They have. You just deny they have.
Transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, editing, splicing, alternative splicing, overlapping genes and the genetic code. Add to those the fact that basic asexual reproduction is well out of the reach of unguided evolution and we get Intelligent Design.
Then show us the physical mechanism that affects mutations so they can be considered guided. Go on.
And unguided processes cannot account for any of that. No one knows where to start when it comes to unguided processes producing any of that. Your position needs to start with all of that already in place. And even given all of that it can't do anything but change allele frequencies.
Funny there are so many papers published about that sort of thing.
This link talks about genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neither support unguided evolution. Not one part of that links supports unguided evolution.
The algorithms are models of parts of evolution and are built around unguided processes.
There is NO physical evidence for guided evolution. No mechanism. AND you can't mathematically prove the mutations aren't random. You don't even understand the methods for measuring randomness.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, The evidence for ID is in transcription, translation, the genetic code, error-correction, proof-reading, splicing and editing. ID is the only explanation for any of that.
Unguided evolution cannot be modeled. It does not have any testable entailments.
There isn't a theory of evolution or you are too stupid to find and reference it.
The algorithms are models of parts of evolution and are built around unguided processes.
Moron.
At 11:08 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, The evidence for ID is in transcription, translation, the genetic code, error-correction, proof-reading, splicing and editing. ID is the only explanation for any of that.
You haven't found a designer. You haven't found any physical mechanism that guides mutations. You accuse others of living on promises but you're far, far down that path. You haven't actually got any physical evidence at all for any of it. Just some bad interpretations of existing data and research. And virtually none of your contentions have withstood the attention of peer review.
Unguided evolution cannot be modeled. It does not have any testable entailments.
You can't even do undergraduate mathematics let alone begin to understand some of the models I posted here. Your opinion is irrelevant.
There isn't a theory of evolution or you are too stupid to find and reference it.
You infallibly deny any answers to queries you post. There's no point in keeping to try and convince you.
Moron.
Have you found the physical mechanisms you say exist that influence mutations? Can you even say where it exists or how it's encoded? And can you explain why no one has found it yet? And if it has to exist then why aren't ID-friendly researchers looking for it? Did you ever think about that Joe? Maybe it's because they really think that God is just tweaking things which a magic touch once in a while.
Have you found a peer-reviewed research paper that explicitly shows an ID friendly design detection methodology. And stop saying fields which you do not actually participate in do something which they don't.
Have you found a mistake in any peer-reviewed research paper which supports unguided evolution?
Can you solve even basic first order linear differential equations? The kind that are used for population growth models? You've already shown that your understand of set theory (the real set theory not what you think it is) and probability is minimal to non-existant. What makes you think you can declare whole areas of research invalid when you don't understand the mathematical reasoning?
Is that how science is done then Joe? Decide what must be true and then tell everyone else they're liars and 'tards for disagreeing with you. Even though you cannot come up with the goods to support what you claim must be true?
At 1:52 PM,
Joe G said…
You haven't found a designer.
We found the DESIGN. We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol and yet we know it was designed. We don't have a physical mechanism capable of producing it yet there it is.
You can't even do undergraduate mathematics let alone begin to understand some of the models I posted here.
You're just a cry-baby bluffing loser, Jerad.
Link to the theory of evolution, Jerad. Stop being such a bluffing loser.
Have you found a mistake in any peer-reviewed research paper which supports unguided evolution?
I haven't found any that support unguided evolution. I can't fund anyone who uses it for anything.
All I can find is a bunch of cowardly liars, like you. You are a pathetic loser, Jerad.
The kind that are used for population growth models?
You are an equivocating idiot. As if population growth models support unguided evolution producing anything.
What makes you think you can declare whole areas of research invalid when you don't understand the mathematical reasoning?
Jerad, why do you think your bullshit taunts mean something? We both know you can't support any of your accusations. We both know you won't out your money where your mouth is. And we both know your position can't even muster anything.
No one can model unguided evolution producing Dawkins' target sentence. I dare you to to try.
At 4:58 AM,
Unknown said…
We found the DESIGN.
Without a designer you might be mistaken.
We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol and yet we know it was designed.
Inanimate objects designed and built by human beings.
We don't have a physical mechanism capable of producing it yet there it is.
I rather suspect we could duplicate it if we wanted to. Anyway, it was constructed by human beings, known designers.
You're just a cry-baby bluffing loser, Jerad.
Link to the theory of evolution, Jerad. Stop being such a bluffing loser.
You just deny any links anyone provides so I shan't bother AGAIN.
I haven't found any that support unguided evolution. I can't fund anyone who uses it for anything.
What makes you think the couple of books you read which argue for guided mutations are correct when literally thousands of other people say that the process is unguided? Is there any other topic which you would side with a vast minority? Isn't it more likely the minority has an agenda?
All I can find is a bunch of cowardly liars, like you. You are a pathetic loser, Jerad.
You are an equivocating idiot. As if population growth models support unguided evolution producing anything.
It was just an example of a simple differential equation. Do you know how to solve differential equations? Complicated ones are used in mathematical modelling of biological systems.
Jerad, why do you think your bullshit taunts mean something? We both know you can't support any of your accusations. We both know you won't out your money where your mouth is. And we both know your position can't even muster anything.
No one can model unguided evolution producing Dawkins' target sentence. I dare you to to try.
To get Dawkin's target sentence you need a target. Unguided evolution has no target.
I and many others have spent a long time giving you links that address your requests only for you to deny every single one of them without being able to find a mistake. I won't make that mistake and waste my time again.
But I will ask you to defend your claims:
Where is the physical mechanism that guides mutations? How is it encoded? How does it affect development?
Show me a written out, clear hypothesis for your front-loading scenario. Something that is testable.
If design detection is a science then show me an ID-friendly version worked out for a life form.
Even if modern evolutionary theory is wrong that doesn't give you design. You still have to prove your case.
At 6:29 AM,
Joe G said…
We haven't found the designers of Nan Madol and yet we know it was designed.
Inanimate objects designed and built by human beings.
Which humans? How was it built?
Link to the theory of evolution, Jerad. Stop being such a bluffing loser.
You just deny any links anyone provides so I shan't bother AGAIN.
Cowardly LIAR.
Go fuck yourself you needle-dick loser.
At 6:41 AM,
Joe G said…
What makes you think the couple of books you read which argue for guided mutations are correct when literally thousands of other people say that the process is unguided?
The unguided camp doesn't have anything to support their claims. And you have no idea how many say that evolution is unguided. You are just a bluffing bitch.
To get Dawkin's target sentence you need a target. Unguided evolution has no target.
That is why it is impotent you moron.
I and many others have spent a long time giving you links that address your requests only for you to deny every single one of them without being able to find a mistake.
LoL! You are a bluffing loser, Jerad. You have NEVER addressed my requests you lying bitch.
At 6:43 AM,
Joe G said…
But I will ask you to defend your claims:
I have. You can search my blog and easily see that I have.
Jerad, The evidence for ID is in transcription, translation, the genetic code, error-correction, proof-reading, splicing and editing. ID is the only explanation for any of that.
So eat shit.
At 3:44 PM,
Unknown said…
Which humans? How was it built?
Human humans. Just like the kind who built the pyramids and the statues of Easter Island. How . . . that I'd have to look into but there doesn't seem to be any horribly difficult technological hurdle to overcome.
Link to the theory of evolution, Jerad. Stop being such a bluffing loser.
It's been done many times. You just deny them all. So I won't bother.
Cowardly LIAR.
Go fuck yourself you needle-dick loser.
Well it's true. You just decry anything that we provide that you disagree with. Without being able to point to a specific mistake.
The unguided camp doesn't have anything to support their claims. And you have no idea how many say that evolution is unguided. You are just a bluffing bitch.
Without definitive proof that mutations are guided then it's all unguided evolution. Have you got proof it's guided? i.e. have you got a physical mechanism which can account for the guidance you claim exists?
That is why it is impotent you moron.
But Dr Dawkins clearly acknowledged that he was just modelling, in a very elementary way, the effect of cumulative selection.
LoL! You are a bluffing loser, Jerad. You have NEVER addressed my requests you lying bitch.
You just deny everything that you disagree with.
I have. You can search my blog and easily see that I have.
Where is your clearly stated, concise, testable front-loading hypothesis? Just give us the link.
Jerad, The evidence for ID is in transcription, translation, the genetic code, error-correction, proof-reading, splicing and editing. ID is the only explanation for any of that.
So eat shit.
So, where is the physical mechanism which directs mutations? You say it exists but where is it? How is it encoded? How is it stored? How does it affect development? These are clearly important, sensible questions for the scenario you support. Have you got answers for these questions?
Since the answer is clearly NO, you don't have answers for these questions then we have to ask: why do you assert such ideas if you haven't got concrete, physical proof? Don't go off on some rant about evotards, don't deflect the question. Just address the issue: why do you think you're right when you've got no actual mechanism which can account for your claim?
If your assertion is based on arguments made by other people then . . . how do you know they are right? How do you evaluate their claims without having done similar work yourself?
At 8:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Human humans. Just like the kind who built the pyramids and the statues of Easter Island. How . . . that I'd have to look into but there doesn't seem to be any horribly difficult technological hurdle to overcome.
Test you claim, then. Show us that humans from hundreds of years ago could build it.
Link to the theory of evolution, Jerad. Stop being such a bluffing loser.
It's been done many times.
LIAR- Jerad you are a lying bitch. All you do is lie because all you are is a little lying bitch.
Without definitive proof that mutations are guided then it's all unguided evolution.
You don't have anything but ignorance to say they are unguided. moron.
By your "logic" the ones and zeros on a computer buss are unguided.
So, where is the physical mechanism which directs mutations?
Jerad, your position is just contingent serendipity. That means it isn't science.
Natural selection has proven to be impotent. It is so impotent it can't even produce the different breeds of dogs. It can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing anything but disease and deformities.
At 11:53 AM,
Unknown said…
Test you claim, then. Show us that humans from hundreds of years ago could build it.
First of all I don't think any serious archaeologist doubts human being designed an built it. If I had the time and money and manpower it would be interesting to tease out the particular techniques. But, really, no one except maybe Erich Von Daniken would hypothesise that it was anyone other than the human beings around at the time.
LIAR- Jerad you are a lying bitch. All you do is lie because all you are is a little lying bitch.
I've seen lots of people give you links for various statements of the theory of evolution and you always, without fail, say it's not good enough. So why bother? You're not trying to carry on a real dialogue.
You don't have anything but ignorance to say they are unguided. moron.
Mutations can be modelled with stocastic processes, no guiding mechanism has been found AND no designer has been found. Therefore, they are unguided.
By your "logic" the ones and zeros on a computer buss are unguided.
Hardly. They represent various commands and addresses and are NOT random since there are a limited number of commands and addresses and values. And they are dictated by programs which we have access to and can show a correlation between the lines of code and the state of the buss.
Jerad, your position is just contingent serendipity. That means it isn't science.
Where is the mechanism which guides mutations?
How are the guidance commands stored and encoded?
How do they affect development?
Natural selection has proven to be impotent. It is so impotent it can't even produce the different breeds of dogs. It can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.
When you've finished your usual trope of attacking evolutionary theory you should really spend some time trying to defend your claims.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing anything but disease and deformities.
Too bad for your point of view your grand designer's front loading programming breaks down so frequently that many virulent and deadly diseases have wiped out more human beings than all the wars combined. I guess s/he/it ain't such a good designer after all.
Meanwhile let's see some answer for the reasonable questions of your front-loading hypothesis. Which I still haven't seen clearly laid out and stated. Are you sure you've done so? Why don't you just tell me where to find it so I can come up with some more questions?
At 12:23 PM,
Joe G said…
First of all I don't think any serious archaeologist doubts human being designed an built it.
Ok so saying a non-human designed life is good enough.
If I had the time and money and manpower it would be interesting to tease out the particular techniques
Strange that you don't apply that to ID.
I've seen lots of people give you links for various statements of the theory of evolution and you always, without fail, say it's not good enough.
I asked for THE theory of evolution. Not some alleged statements about it.
Either it exists or it doesn't and obviously it doesn't.
Mutations can be modelled with stocastic processes,
Mutations can be modelled with guided processes, dumbass.
They represent various commands and addresses and are NOT random since there are a limited number of commands and addresses and values.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. You can't tell just by looking at the ones and zeros, which appear very random.
Where is the mechanism which guides mutations?
In the cells, just as I have said. Future research will find out exactly where it is.
You ask questions that are for future research and you expect answers. And that is in the light that your position can't answer anything.
When you've finished your usual trope of attacking evolutionary theory you should really spend some time trying to defend your claims.
I attack evolutionism as there isn't any evolutionary theory and I have defended ID. Your ignorance means nothing to me.
Too bad for your point of view your grand designer's front loading programming breaks down so frequently that many virulent and deadly diseases have wiped out more human beings than all the wars combined.
It's called entropy and it is well known.
Meanwhile let's see some answer for the reasonable questions of your front-loading hypothesis.
Talk to Mike Gene- I don't have such a thing.
However we would love to see your unguided evolution hypothesis- that way we know what you will accept
At 4:46 PM,
Unknown said…
Ok so saying a non-human designed life is good enough.
What? No, it's about not invoking causes or agents that you don't know exist.
Strange that you don't apply that to ID.
Nothing is stopping those who are ID supporters from doing that work though.
I asked for THE theory of evolution. Not some alleged statements about it.
No matter what has been presented to you you've uniformly dismissed it because you think mutations are guided despite the evidence. So there's really no point in feeding you links and references.
Either it exists or it doesn't and obviously it doesn't.
It does exist but you just deny it.
Mutations can be modelled with guided processes, dumbass.
They can be but you'd be foolish to do so in an historical context unless you knew there was an intelligent agent in operation at that time. And we don't know that so we don't make that assumption.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. You can't tell just by looking at the ones and zeros, which appear very random.
You can tell if you know how to read the register bits. I used to work with someone who could look at the register bits and tell you what assembler command it was and what memory addresses it was accessing.
And besides, we know the zeroes and ones on a computer bus are not independent events, they reflect an interprocess and we know what is causing that. There is no mystery. It's all discernible.
In the cells, just as I have said. Future research will find out exactly where it is.
You accuse evolutionary theorists of living on hopes and dreams yet you are doing that yourself. You surmise there must be some mechanism but it hasn't been found AND, to be honest, there is no ongoing research which is looking for it. Not even amongst the ID friendly scientists. And you personally are not doing any work pursuing that notion. Most of cellular chemistry has been sorted out, there's not many places such a complicated process could be hiding. So, again, the onus is on you: where is this mysterious coding? How is it encoded? How does it affect development? How long are you going to live in hope that someone, somewhere, somehow, finds that which has eluded generations of researchers and which no one is actually looking for?
You ask questions that are for future research and you expect answers. And that is in the light that your position can't answer anything.
I'm asking because without some answers your assertions have no physical evidence to stand on. Just your functional interpretation. Well, not yours actually, someone else's. Which may be incorrect.
I attack evolutionism as there isn't any evolutionary theory and I have defended ID. Your ignorance means nothing to me.
But your version of ID still needs hard physical evidence to support the claims. And it doesn't have that yet.
It's called entropy and it is well known.
Yes but it is true that more human beings have been killed by microbes and viruses than ever died in wars. And you've said that micro-evolution can easily account for those. Which means that's outside of the designer's programming. Which means the programming was somewhat limited. And failed to protect the ultimate design form?
Talk to Mike Gene- I don't have such a thing.
You do though. You think there is some coding hiding away in cells which guides mutations. If you don't think that coding was front loaded then you need to be more clear in your hypothesis.
However we would love to see your unguided evolution hypothesis- that way we know what you will accept
Oh it's easily found. 150 years of books and papers and research. Various kinds of selection and genetic drift working on a bed of mutations, gene duplications, ERVs, etc. Go to your local university library and look in the section on evolution. Or just spend some time doing an honest online search. It's not hard, if your sincere.
At 6:51 PM,
Joe G said…
What? No, it's about not invoking causes or agents that you don't know exist.
You did. And the design is evidence for the existence of designers.
Nothing is stopping those who are ID supporters from doing that work though.
Money and resources. Heck unguided evolution can't answer anything and it has all the resources.
No matter what has been presented to you you've uniformly dismissed it
No one has ever presented the theory of evolution, Jerad. You are a liar and a moron.
It does exist but you just deny it.
Strange that no one can find it.
You can tell if you know how to read the register bits. I used to work with someone who could look at the register bits and tell you what assembler command it was and what memory addresses it was accessing.
Not by looking at the ones and zeros on a buss. I used to do that type of work, too Jerad. And I know the ones and zeros look random- no way to make any sense of them just by looking at them.
And besides, we know the zeroes and ones on a computer bus are not independent events, they reflect an interprocess and we know what is causing that.
Cellular processes are not independent events. They occur as if they are following a program. They can only be explained as if they were following a program.
You accuse evolutionary theorists of living on hopes and dreams yet you are doing that yourself.
No, you are just scientifically illiterate. Design detection comes first, moron. We don't even ask those questions until design has been detected.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of the design, Jerad.
I'm asking because without some answers your assertions have no physical evidence to stand on.
And yet we have presented the physical evidence.
But your version of ID still needs hard physical evidence to support the claims.
And it has been presented.
Yes but it is true that more human beings have been killed by microbes and viruses than ever died in wars.
So?
And you've said that micro-evolution can easily account for those. Which means that's outside of the designer's programming. Which means the programming was somewhat limited. And failed to protect the ultimate design form?
We can do that for ourselves- adapt or perish.
You think there is some coding hiding away in cells which guides mutations.
Read Spetner, 1997 and 2014
Oh it's easily found.
You can't find any.
I dare you to produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing ATP synthase. No one has yet and perhaps you could win a Noble Prize.
At 4:34 AM,
Unknown said…
You did. And the design is evidence for the existence of designers.
I don't think so. The temples are not inexplicably hard to construct and we know there were humans around at the time.
Money and resources. Heck unguided evolution can't answer anything and it has all the resources.
Well, then the ID researchers should start asking people like The Discovery Institute and people like you for some monetary support. I've always said ID should be performing research.
No one has ever presented the theory of evolution, Jerad. You are a liar and a moron.
That quote you gave on the other thread is a pretty good summary.
Not by looking at the ones and zeros on a buss. I used to do that type of work, too Jerad. And I know the ones and zeros look random- no way to make any sense of them just by looking at them.
But you know they aren't random since they are determined by internal processes which are dictated by hardware and software.
Cellular processes are not independent events. They occur as if they are following a program. They can only be explained as if they were following a program.
Chemistry, physics and DNA, what else do you need?
No, you are just scientifically illiterate. Design detection comes first, moron. We don't even ask those questions until design has been detected.
And you've detected design so now it's time to get to work answering some questions. Isn't it?
And yet we have presented the physical evidence.
No, you have inferred something exists based on an interpretation of some data. And interpretation which is disputed. Now you have to find the physical mechanism you say exists.
And it has been presented.
Nope, you've just interpreted some physical data in a certain way. That is not proof that a designer or a mechanism exists. Those you have to find.
So?
The point being that your designer's design is pretty deadly since it either was implemented to bring about lots of deadly diseases or it wasn't robust enough to prevent them.
We can do that for ourselves- adapt or perish.
So, your front-loading designer doesn't mind letting millions and millions of people die from hideous diseases he could have avoided. Interesting.
Read Spetner, 1997 and 2014
What if Spetner is wrong? I rather suspect the mathematics involved is beyond your abilities so aren't you just taking it all on faith? Are you sure you aren't buying his (disputed) interpretation because it supports a view you've already decided is true?
I dare you to produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing ATP synthase. No one has yet and perhaps you could win a Noble Prize.
People are working on that of course, the specific development pathway I mean. What are ID researchers working on? Dr Gauger and Dr Axe at the Biologic Institute don't seem to publish much. And most of their stuff I've seen are attempts to show unguided evolution isn't up to the job instead of finding physical evidence for the guiding mechanism you say exists. Somewhere . . . Encoded somehow . . . Mysteriously affecting mutations and development . . . But no one can say how . . . Someone should try and figure that out.
At 12:29 PM,
Joe G said…
The temples are not inexplicably hard to construct and we know there were humans around at the time.
The entire complex is difficult to construct. They allegedly used flying dragons to build it.
Well, then the ID researchers should start asking people like The Discovery Institute and people like you for some monetary support. I've always said ID should be performing research.
ID research is in the detection and study of the design. And that is being done.
That quote you gave on the other thread is a pretty good summary.
So you cannot reference the actual theory. Figures
Chemistry, physics and DNA, what else do you need?
Your position can't account for DNA and no one has tested that claim.
The evidence for ID has been presented. Your denial means nothing, Jerad.
At 3:29 PM,
Unknown said…
The entire complex is difficult to construct. They allegedly used flying dragons to build it.
Flying dragons eh? I prefer to stick with known agents who were can be independently shown to have been around at the time.
ID research is in the detection and study of the design. And that is being done.
Except it is really is it? No research papers about design detection, no refinements of the methods, no tomes showing the methodology in practice.
Honestly, most ID-friendly publications are attempting to show the limitations of unguided evolution. Almost nothing is written or published about the 'science' of design detection. And no one is actually using it.
So you cannot reference the actual theory. Figures
I have given you links which restated the quote you posted but you just said they weren't good enough. So I quit. The theory has been explained to you many times over. You are a merchant of doubt and it's not worth arguing with you about it.
Your position can't account for DNA and no one has tested that claim.
I'm no expert but I do find parts of the RNA-world scenario plausible. And there is ongoing researc in just that area. But I have to say ID supporters are wrong to say that the origin of life is inexorably tied to evolutionary theory. As has been admitted by many biologists, pan-spermia is a valid guess as to how life arrived on Earth. Which does not change evolutionary theory at all.
AND what ID research is going on that is opposed to that being done by mainstream biologists?
The evidence for ID has been presented. Your denial means nothing, Jerad.
I didn't say you hadn't presented some ideas. But you haven't presented irrefutable evidence of:
A designer
Coding in the cell which guides mutations
Any kind of ID hypothesis which addresses how and when. I have asked you many times for this but so far you've failed to produce. You clearly favour a front-loaded scenario so . . . what exactly are you proposing?
If you look at past ideas which were initially scorned by mainstream science it is always the case that the new idea eventually wins because its supporters keep finding data which clearly fits better with their new idea. And eventually they find the data which HAS to favour the changed idea. While ID supporters claim that some new discoveries are better explained by design they have yet to find something which demands ID. They haven't found a clearly irreducibly complex morphological structure for one. Dr Dembski's design detection algorithm is a dead issue: he's not supporting it and no one uses it. Meanwhile, mainstream biological research is slowly grinding away at the gaps in the current paradigm. Slowly, painstakingly, the details are being teased out. And what ID research is being done? Virtually none.
At 11:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Flying dragons eh?
That is the word, moron. Do some research.
I prefer to stick with known agents who were can be independently shown to have been around at the time.
You can't show that humans were around and that they built it.
ID research is in the detection and study of the design. And that is being done.
Except it is really is it?
Of course it is. OTOH no one is doing blind watchmaker research.
So you cannot reference the actual theory. Figures
I have given you links which restated the quote you posted
You are an ignorant cry baby, Jerad.
I'm no expert but I do find parts of the RNA-world scenario plausible.
No one cares what you find unless you find some evidence to support your claims, which you have not.
But I have to say ID supporters are wrong to say that the origin of life is inexorably tied to evolutionary theory.
Tta is because you are a moron who couldn't understand logic and reasoning if your life depended on it.
Which does not change evolutionary theory at all.
There isn't any evolutionary theory so there isn't anything to change.
The DESIGN is irrefutable evidence for a designer. The observed cellular processes cannot be explained by physics and chemistry so that means there is something else.
Any kind of ID hypothesis which addresses how and when.
That doesn't have anything to do with ID.
Meanwhile, mainstream biological research is slowly grinding away at the gaps in the current paradigm.
That is your uneducated opinion.
At 1:24 AM,
Unknown said…
That is the word, moron. Do some research.
I'm sure it does say 'flying dragons' but I doubt anyone thinks that's what actually happened.
You can't show that humans were around and that they built it.
You can certainly show humans were around at that time and you can point to other things humans built that were large or difficult. Also, I rather suspect, that the constructions have been examined for things like tool marks and construction techniques. I bet it's even known where stones were quarried, what kind of tools were used, etc.
Of course it is. OTOH no one is doing blind watchmaker research.
Lots and lots of evolutionary papers are published every month supporting unguided evolution. While there is virtually nothing published supporting ID. And I haven't seen any research papers laying out and using a design detection methodology.
You are an ignorant cry baby, Jerad.
It doesn't matter what people spoon feed you; you've made up your mind and will ignore any evidence that contradicts you.
No one cares what you find unless you find some evidence to support your claims, which you have not.
Anyway, a lot of research is being done trying to tease out how life might have begun on earth. Some of the scenarios are getting pretty worked out now.
Tta is because you are a moron who couldn't understand logic and reasoning if your life depended on it.
I'd say the same thing if I thought it was all front loaded like you do. But I don't nor do a vast, vast majority of people doing some actual research.
Where's your laid out, testable front-loading hypothesis again? You said you have one but . . . .
Have you figured out where your guidance mechanism is hidden? How it's encoded? How it affects development? How it's passed on to offspring?
The DESIGN is irrefutable evidence for a designer. The observed cellular processes cannot be explained by physics and chemistry so that means there is something else.
Too bad a vast, vast majority of biologists disagree with you. Better get looking for more evidence eh?
That doesn't have anything to do with ID.
Which is why ID is pretty useless: it can't tell us much.
That is your uneducated opinion.
Nope, that's the truth. Lots and lots of research is going on trying to figure out a plausible origin of life scenario. You just don't want people to know that so they don't see the holes in your stance.
At 6:18 AM,
Joe G said…
I'm sure it does say 'flying dragons' but I doubt anyone thinks that's what actually happened.
No one knows, Jerad. And no one has a clue.
You can certainly show humans were around at that time and you can point to other things humans built that were large or difficult.
Actually we only assume humans built them. We have no idea how. And according to your "logic" without that we have nothing.
Lots and lots of evolutionary papers are published every month supporting unguided evolution.
Liar.
It doesn't matter what people spoon feed you; you've made up your mind and will ignore any evidence that contradicts you.
Spoken like a coward and ignorant cry-baby.
Anyway, a lot of research is being done trying to tease out how life might have begun on earth. Some of the scenarios are getting pretty worked out now.
That is your hopeful wish, anyway.
Too bad a vast, vast majority of biologists disagree with you.
Too bad that alleged vast majority can't provide evidence for a viable alternative to ID. They can't even model their position. It doesn't have any testable entailments and no one uses it for anything.
Which is why ID is pretty useless: it can't tell us much.
Nice projection, asshole.
What has unguided evolution told us? Nothing.
Lots and lots of research is going on trying to figure out a plausible origin of life scenario.
And so far it all supports ID.
At 5:01 PM,
Unknown said…
No one knows, Jerad. And no one has a clue.
Except most reasonable people will be willing to rule out 'flying dragons' as some kind of literary hyperbole.
Actually we only assume humans built them. We have no idea how. And according to your "logic" without that we have nothing.
Are you really saying that it's preferable to assume non-humans built those structures? Really? Are those temples really outside of human capacity?
Liar.
It is true. More than you have time to read.
Spoken like a coward and ignorant cry-baby.
No Joe, it's true. You have consistently and blatantly denied any evidence or data or publications which contradict your view.
That is your hopeful wish, anyway.
No that is what anyone can see if they bother to look at the publications.
Too bad that alleged vast majority can't provide evidence for a viable alternative to ID. They can't even model their position. It doesn't have any testable entailments and no one uses it for anything.
Lots of evidence. Lots of models (which you deny when they are presented to you). It's testable. And it is used in lots of ways.
But, being a denialist means you cannot accept any of those things.
Nice projection, asshole.
It's true though isn't it? ID refuses to tell us how or when or why? "That's beyond ID's scope!" we've been told. So, when are you going to get on with the next step: explaining something. Other than: gee, this stuff looks designed.
And so far it all supports ID.
Not a bit of it. ID refuses to say anything about the designer or s/he/it's motives or techniques. ID has no answers or explanations. All ID says is: this stuff looks designed. But, sorry, we can\t say anything about when or how or why. But we still think you should take us seriously. Even if we can't even say when design was implemented. We just can't go past design detection. We don't want to deny God do we. That would be bad. But God is not scientific. And we can't deny him. So we're stuck.
At 5:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Except most reasonable people will be willing to rule out 'flying dragons' as some kind of literary hyperbole.
Those dragons were most likely other powered aircraft, Jerad.
Are you really saying that it's preferable to assume non-humans built those structures? Really? Are those temples really outside of human capacity?
We will never know. That's the point.
It is true. More than you have time to read.
It's true that you are a liar and obviously you can't understand what you read.
No Joe, it's true. You have consistently and blatantly denied any evidence or data or publications which contradict your view.
No one has ever presented such evidence, asshole. You are a fucking pathetic imp.
Lots of evidence. Lots of models (which you deny when they are presented to you). It's testable. And it is used in lots of ways.
Yet no one can say what the evidence is, what those models are nor how to test the concept.
ID refuses to say anything about the designer or s/he/it's motives or techniques.
Again you prove that you are an ignorant asshole. Those questions come AFTER design has been detected.
Obviously you love wallowing in your lies and ignorance. Good luck with that.
At 1:56 AM,
Unknown said…
Those dragons were most likely other powered aircraft, Jerad.
Those dragons probably did not exist. Since there's no physical evidence they did.
We will never know. That's the point.
But the most likely and most parsimonious explanation is that human beings did the construction. Otherwise you have to assume agents for which there is no evidence.
It's true that you are a liar and obviously you can't understand what you read.
You really are a denialist.
No one has ever presented such evidence, asshole. You are a fucking pathetic imp.
Like I said, you are a denialist and a bully.
Yet no one can say what the evidence is, what those models are nor how to test the concept.
Deny, deny, deny.
Again you prove that you are an ignorant asshole. Those questions come AFTER design has been detected.
Which you has been done. In fact, you say that was done years ago so . . . time to answer some follow-on questions.
Obviously you love wallowing in your lies and ignorance. Good luck with that.
Whatever. Are you going to even attempt to support some of your claims or just bluster and bluff and be abusive?
At 6:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Those dragons probably did not exist. Since there's no physical evidence they did.
There isn't any physical evidence that humans designed and built it.
But the most likely and most parsimonious explanation is that human beings did the construction.
There isn't any evidence for that, though.
You really are a denialist.
You really are a bluffing coward.
Are you going to even attempt to support some of your claims
Already have, loser. OTOH all you have are lies and bluffs.
At 3:45 PM,
Unknown said…
There isn't any physical evidence that humans designed and built it.
Ignoring the trail of dropped stones between a possible quarry site and the constructions.
There isn't any evidence for that, though.
If you want to give credence to dragons or alien astronauts that's up to you. But that' assuming agents for which there is no evidence.
Already have, loser. OTOH all you have are lies and bluffs.
Much of what you claim is widely disputed. And yet you continue to attempt to bluff your way out of controversy. Ballsy but, I'm afraid, doomed to fail.
At 4:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Every reference of Nan Madol gives credence to flying dragons, Jerad. I am just repeating what the references say. Do try to grow up.
Much of what you claim is widely disputed.
It's only disputed by those whose world-view is compromised by it.
And yet you continue to attempt to bluff your way out of controversy.
That's all you do is bluff. ID has an actual methodology, yours does not.
At 3:38 AM,
Unknown said…
Every reference of Nan Madol gives credence to flying dragons, Jerad. I am just repeating what the references say. Do try to grow up.
It's a fable!! Have you ever seen a real dragon? Is there any physical evidence of dragons? Have we found any skeletons or remains of dragons?
People claim to have been abducted by aliens as well. And Erich Von Daniken thinks they helped build the pyramids. But no physical evidence. Just stories.
It's only disputed by those whose world-view is compromised by it.
Hardly. Some people care about real physical evidence.
That's all you do is bluff. ID has an actual methodology, yours does not.
Show me an academic paper laying out the methodology and showing it applied to a biological case. I've asked you many times now. Time to put up or admit you can't.
No more bullying, no more abuse. Show us the academic support.
At 9:37 AM,
Joe G said…
It's a fable!!
Evolutionism is a fable!!
People claim to have been abducted by aliens as well.
There is more evidence for that than there is for evolutionism.
Some people care about real physical evidence.
Not evolutionists.
Show me an academic paper laying out the methodology and showing it applied to a biological case.
Show me an academic paper laying out the methodology and showing it applied to a biological case for evolutionism, asshole.
Put up or shut up. We all know that you cannot.
Nothing prevents design detection techniques from being used in biology.
At 12:13 AM,
Unknown said…
Evolutionism is a fable!!
I don't know about 'evolutionism' but evolution is not a fable.
There is more evidence for that than there is for evolutionism.
Do you really believe that people have been abducted by aliens? You consider the evidence strong and compelling? Then why aren't you desperately trying to get in touch with the aliens to get on their good graces and learn their advanced technology? That's what I'd be doing.
Not evolutionists.
Uh huh. Because 'evolutionists' disregard the fossils, the bio-geographic data, the genomic data, the morphologic data. Right.
And ID supporters do what exactly? Ascribe to a hidden, mysterious, undefined and undetected designer who did what exactly? And when? And how? Oh right, you haven't bothered to attempt to figure those things out yet. You've found design and now you're just sitting around slapping each other on the back and doing . . . nothing. Right. That's science eh?
Show me an academic paper laying out the methodology and showing it applied to a biological case for evolutionism, asshole.
It's been done. You disagree, that's clear. But things have been presented to you. But you can't even point to any academic work which supports your supposed design methodology. You just bluff and bluster and make it about your perceived weaknesses in the other side. You still have to show your hand before you're declared a winner.
Nothing prevents design detection techniques from being used in biology.
???
Look, show us some academic support for your views or admit they don't exist. That's easy.
At 6:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, evolutionism is unguided evolution. Even Mayr goes over that in "What Evolution Is". Your ignorance, while amusing, just proves that you are ignorant.
Show me an academic paper laying out the methodology and showing it applied to a biological case for evolutionism, asshole.
It's been done.
And yet you can't find any such thing. You are a pathetic liar.
But things have been presented to you
Things have. But nothing that supports unguided evolution.
At 6:33 AM,
Joe G said…
But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.
Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.
Put up or shut up, Jerad. I am sick of your cowardly lies.
At 5:12 PM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, evolutionism is unguided evolution. Even Mayr goes over that in "What Evolution Is". Your ignorance, while amusing, just proves that you are ignorant.
The term is not much used now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
It's been done.
Good, then link to it so I can see it.
And yet you can't find any such thing. You are a pathetic liar.
Just let me see your stuff.
Things have. But nothing that supports unguided evolution.
You consistently denial/dispute anything which contradicts your view. But I have presented things. You don't.
No academic work/research/publications supporting your view of front-loading.
No clear, unambiguous statement of your biological development hypothesis.
No academic work showing applying a design detection methodology to a biological case.
But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.
You'll just continue to deny anything that contradicts your views.
Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.
Talk to her about that. Oh, I forgot, you've been banned at The Skeptical Zone for being a jerk.
Put up or shut up, Jerad. I am sick of your cowardly lies.
I've posted many things which I say support my views. Now it's time for you to post things which you say support your views.
Some academic work which supports and lays out a front-loading hypothesis.
Some academic work which shows a design detection methodology applied to a biological system.
Some academic work which supports your contention that there is some physical mechanism which guides/affects mutations which has hitherto been undocumented.
You claim you understand science. You claim you know more that people publishing research in the pertinent areas. Well, let's see it then. Let's see your evidence and arguments and publications.
At 6:22 PM,
Joe G said…
The term is not much used now.
Mayr's book is from 2004. Mayr trumps wikipedia.
You consistently denial/dispute anything which contradicts your view.
Nothing has been presented that contradicts my view. Nothing. Never.
I've posted many things which I say support my views.
I am sure that in your deluded and cowardly mind you think so.
My blog is loaded with many things that support my views. And all you can do is handwave them away.
At 1:19 AM,
Unknown said…
Nothing has been presented that contradicts my view. Nothing. Never.
Like I said, you deny anything which contradicts your view.
I am sure that in your deluded and cowardly mind you think so.
But it's not just me who thinks so is it? Except for you and a pretty small number of other ID supporters my view is consistent with thousands and thousands of biologists.
My blog is loaded with many things that support my views. And all you can do is handwave them away.
Please point out some academic work which supports your front-loading view. And please clarify your front-loading view by presenting a testable hypothesis.
Please point out some academic work which supports your view that there is some kind of physical mechanism which influences development via guiding mutations.
Please point out some academic work which illustrates a design detection methodology applied to a biological example.
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Like I said, you deny anything which contradicts your view.
Like I said you are just a lying bitch and a bluffing ignoramus.
But it's not just me who thinks so is it? Except for you and a pretty small number of other ID supporters my view is consistent with thousands and thousands of biologists.
Yet those alleged thousands of biologists can't fund support for unguided evolution. They can't even muster P(T|H) for ATP synthase.
They can't even answer the most basic question in biology- "What makes an organism what it is?"
Thousands of biologists and no one can produce a theory...
At 3:39 PM,
Unknown said…
Like I said you are just a lying bitch and a bluffing ignoramus.
You admitted on the other thread that you are closed minded and have already made up your mind.
Yet those alleged thousands of biologists can't fund support for unguided evolution. They can't even muster P(T|H) for ATP synthase.
They don't give a shit about p(T|H) because it means diddly-squat and no one uses it. And, again, you show that you have already decided that there cannot be support for unguided evolution.
They can't even answer the most basic question in biology- "What makes an organism what it is?"
How would you know? You don't read biological research because you're already decided that it's all wrong. Can you say what makes an organism what it is?
Thousands of biologists and no one can produce a theory...
Deny, deny, deny.
And yet you still cannot come up with some peer-reviewed academic work that upholds your views.
No physical mechanism that can 'guide' evolution.
No front-loaded hypothesis that can be tested.
No academic example of anyone using a design detection methodology on a biological system.
At 4:08 PM,
Joe G said…
You admitted on the other thread that you are closed minded and have already made up your mind.
You admitted that you are an ignorant coward and a lying bitch.
They don't give a shit about p(T|H) because it means diddly-squat and no one uses it.
They don't have anything, Jerad. That is why P(T|H) is o relevant and important- there isn't anything else.
And, again, you show that you have already decided that there cannot be support for unguided evolution.
Only an ignorant asshole would jump to such a stupid conclusion.
Why is it that you only spew shit and never actually make a case?
How would you know?
I have read the research. I have provided quotes from geneticists and developmental biologists.
Thousands of biologists and no one can produce a theory...
Deny, deny, deny.
Lie, lie, lie.
No academic example of anyone using a design detection methodology on a biological system.
No academic example of anything that prevents us from using a design detection methodology on a biological system. And when we do organisms come up intelligently designed. And no one has any other viable alternative.
At 1:33 AM,
Unknown said…
You admitted that you are an ignorant coward and a lying bitch.
Well maybe you should get around to providing some real academic support for your positions.
They don't have anything, Jerad. That is why P(T|H) is o relevant and important- there isn't anything else.
Make up your mind: is p(T|H) a worthless concept that Dr Dembski put into his equation just to try and appease the evotards or is relevant and important which means someone in the ID camp should be able to show me an example of it being computed? You couldn't.
Only an ignorant asshole would jump to such a stupid conclusion.
I'm sorry you're closed minded. But you are. You've already decided that evolution cannot be true.
Why is it that you only spew shit and never actually make a case?
When I make a case you just deny it.
I have read the research. I have provided quotes from geneticists and developmental biologists.
Spetner is neither of those. And it's been pointed out that you frequently quote mine papers and ignore parts that contradict your point. AND frequently you do so following the lead of someone else. Also I know the mathematics is beyond you. So you pretty much depend on other people's interpretations.
Thousands of biologists and no one can produce a theory...
So I guess you didn't really read the research then.
No academic example of anything that prevents us from using a design detection methodology on a biological system. And when we do organisms come up intelligently designed. And no one has any other viable alternative.
I didn't say it was prevented (please pay attention) I just asked for an example of someone using one in an academic paper.
Another thing I find frustrating: you have a very hard time just figuring out what the discussion is about.
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Well maybe you should get around to providing some real academic support for your positions.
YOU should, Jerad.
Make up your mind: is p(T|H) a worthless concept that Dr Dembski put into his equation just to try and appease the evotards or is relevant and important which means someone in the ID camp should be able to show me an example of it being computed?
You fucking moron- YOU need to provide P(T|H)- YOU need to provide the calculation, not ID. If an IDists did it you would just say we did it incorrectly.
It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole.
I'm sorry you're closed minded. But you are. You've already decided that evolution cannot be true.
You are sorry, Jerad. YOU are closed-minded, Jerad. ID is not anti-evolution. I did NOT decide unguided evolution couldn't do it, Jerad. There isn't any evidence, hypothesis, nor model for it.
When I make a case you just deny it.
Fuck you, liar. All you ever do is spew false accusations without ever supporting them. You are a pathetic little imp.
Spetner is neither of those. And it's been pointed out that you frequently quote mine papers and ignore parts that contradict your point.
I didn't say anything about Spetner, loser. Denton, Sermonti and a host of others have refuted you and supported me. And there isn't anything that contradicts me, asshole.
Also I know the mathematics is beyond you.
Science is well beyond you. Logic and reasoning are well beyond you and math- you don't know jack about that either.
So I guess you didn't really read the research then.
Another limp-dick false accusation.
How can anyone test the claim that unguided evolution produced any multi-protein functional structure/ system/ subsystem? I know you won't answer and that will prove my point.
At 5:16 PM,
Unknown said…
YOU should, Jerad.
I've got thousands upon thousands. You disagree with them but they are peer-reviewed and they do support my opinion.
You fucking moron- YOU need to provide P(T|H)- YOU need to provide the calculation, not ID. If an IDists did it you would just say we did it incorrectly.
No, we do not. Dr Dembski came up with it. He said it mattered. He didn't come up with a value. You punted on a value. No one in the ID camp has come up with a value of it for a pertinent biological example.
An ID supporter said some formula can help determine design and evolutionary biologist have to come up with the figures? Really? Dr Dembski made a claim, he's not supporting it. Can you support it?
It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole.
Abusive is not winning.
You are sorry, Jerad. YOU are closed-minded, Jerad. ID is not anti-evolution. I did NOT decide unguided evolution couldn't do it, Jerad. There isn't any evidence, hypothesis, nor model for it.
I have never seen you even admit that an evolutionary paper had a point or was heading in the right direction. You don't say: yeah but there are still these questions or unknowns. All you do is call names (like evotards) and say evolution has got nothing. No theory, no hypothesis, nothing. So don't even try and back down now. You have vehemently stacked your claimed by saying that modern evolutionary theory is shit. You are ideologically anti-evolution. You show that every single day.
Fuck you, liar. All you ever do is spew false accusations without ever supporting them. You are a pathetic little imp.
That is not a lie. Every time anybody presents something to you that contradicts your views you deny it. Every time. Without fail.
I didn't say anything about Spetner, loser. Denton, Sermonti and a host of others have refuted you and supported me. And there isn't anything that contradicts me, asshole.
Don't pretend that you don't take Spetner very, very seriously. That he isn't someone from whom you've gleaned a lot of your views. The others . . . . I'd want to look at particular quotes and context since you tend to quote mine and miss the overall message as has been pointed out previously.
Science is well beyond you. Logic and reasoning are well beyond you and math- you don't know jack about that either.
Joe, math beyond arithmetic is beyond you. You've shown so many, many times.
Another limp-dick false accusation.
What else can I conclude from your misunderstanding of some research?
How can anyone test the claim that unguided evolution produced any multi-protein functional structure/ system/ subsystem? I know you won't answer and that will prove my point.
Again, you admit that you don't understand the research or the theory. That's what soccer fans call an own goal.
At 5:57 PM,
Joe G said…
I've got thousands upon thousands. You disagree with them but they are peer-reviewed and they do support my opinion.
You just think they support you. Not one of them explicitly says unguided evolution didit.
You fucking moron- YOU need to provide P(T|H)- YOU need to provide the calculation, not ID. If an IDists did it you would just say we did it incorrectly.
No, we do not.
Of course you do, moron. It is YOUR position. You have nothing else.
I have never seen you even admit that an evolutionary paper had a point or was heading in the right direction.
I have never seen an evolutionary paper that explicitly claims to support unguided evolution.
Every time anybody presents something to you that contradicts your views you deny it.
It has never happened, Jerad. Never.
Don't pretend that you don't take Spetner very, very seriously.
Wow, you are just grasping out of your ignorant desperation. At least he presented a testable hypothesis.
Joe, math beyond arithmetic is beyond you.
Again with your uneducated opinion. You have shown you don't understand anything beyond 1 + 1 and even that is suspect- so fuck off.
What else can I conclude from your misunderstanding of some research?
You could actually make a case that I do misunderstand it as opposed tio just spewing it like the coward that you are.
How can anyone test the claim that unguided evolution produced any multi-protein functional structure/ system/ subsystem? I know you won't answer and that will prove my point.
Again, you admit that you don't understand the research or the theory.
You are one deluded faggot, Jerad. You are a clueless loser, obviously desperate for attention.
At 3:04 AM,
Unknown said…
You just think they support you. Not one of them explicitly says unguided evolution didit.
I guess you didn't real read many of them then. Every single one of Dr Dawkins books (and they have lots of references) discusses unguided evolution and he gleaned research which supports and agrees with that.
Of course you do, moron. It is YOUR position. You have nothing else.
It's not our position. Dr Dembski came up with some formula (which no one uses as we've established) and there is no need for any biologist to do shit about it. If you think it's important then you figure out the terms of the equation. Oh, I forgot, you can't. Oh well.
I have never seen an evolutionary paper that explicitly claims to support unguided evolution.
I guess you have reading comprehension issues then.
It has never happened, Jerad. Never.
Uh huh.
Wow, you are just grasping out of your ignorant desperation. At least he presented a testable hypothesis.
Unlike you you mean? What was his testable hypothesis?
Again with your uneducated opinion. You have shown you don't understand anything beyond 1 + 1 and even that is suspect- so fuck off.
I would say ask me a mathematical question but you don't understand it yourself well enough to understand my answer.
You could actually make a case that I do misunderstand it as opposed tio just spewing it like the coward that you are.
I don't have to make the case, you've shown it yourself on your blog many times over. The discussion of Cantor's work is a brilliant case in point. You didn't get the math, you said it was crap, you said it was useless, you dismissed the whole thing as bogus. You showed, clearly, that when you don't agree with something or don't understand it you dismiss as wrong and pointless. You do this all the time.
You are one deluded faggot, Jerad. You are a clueless loser, obviously desperate for attention.
I'm not the one with a blog asking for people to come and debate me am I? You're the one parading your views and then getting abusive and elusive when people do so.
By the way . . . you still have not:
Shown us any peer-reviewed research supporting your front-loading hypothesis.
Shown us your front-loading hypothesis.
Shown us any peer-reviewed work using a design detection methodology applied to a biological situation.
Show us any work or research looking for a mechanism in the cells which guides development and mutations.
Said anything at all about how such a guiding mechanism could be stored, encoded or how it affects development.
At 7:37 AM,
Joe G said…
I guess you didn't real read many of them then.
And yet I did read them. That means you are a lying coward.
It's not our position.
Yes it is, Jerad. Do you know what P(T|H) stands for?
I guess you have reading comprehension issues then.
Nope, you are just a deluded, bluffing coward.
Unlike you you mean?
I have presented testable hypotheses, Jerad.
The discussion of Cantor's work is a brilliant case in point.
I proved he was wrong and you cried.
You didn't get the math, you said it was crap, you said it was useless, you dismissed the whole thing as bogus.
I get the math, I proved it was crap, I proved it was useless as it isn't used for anything and that means it is bogus.
I'm not the one with a blog asking for people to come and debate me am I?
I didn't ask anyone to come debate me. And you aren't debating, you are just spewing oft-refuted nonsense.
BTW, the followig is just asking how to test your position's hypothesis:
How can anyone test the claim that unguided evolution produced any multi-protein functional structure/ system/ subsystem? I know you won't answer and that will prove my point.
That you are too stupid to grasp that fact proves that you are a scientifically illiterate asshole.
By the way . . . you still have not:
Shown us any peer-reviewed research supporting your unguided evolutionary hypothesis.
Shown us your unguided evolutionary hypothesis.
Shown us any peer-reviewed work using a design detection methodology applied to a biological situation.
Show us any work or research looking for a mechanism in the cells which allows prokaryotes to evolve beyond prokaryotes
Said anything at all about how such an non-guiding mechanism could be stored, encoded or how it affects development.
Heck yours can't even account for development, Jerad.
At 9:48 AM,
Unknown said…
And yet I did read them. That means you are a lying coward.
Then clearly you didn't understand them.
Yes it is, Jerad. Do you know what P(T|H) stands for?
Yup, I do. We had this discussion. It's a conditional probability. It's the probability of a certain pattern, T, arising under the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis, H. But since it's not a probability that evolutionary theory needs or uses biologists do not need to compute it. People who think that Dr Dembski's metric means anything have to compute it.
Nope, you are just a deluded, bluffing coward.
You didn't know that, in archaeology, artifact means man-made. You just make stuff up and then refuse to back down when you're wrong.
I have presented testable hypotheses, Jerad.
What's your front-loading hypothesis then?
I proved he was wrong and you cried.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You did no such thing. You are ignorant and so self-centred you cannot accept when you're wrong.
I get the math, I proved it was crap, I proved it was useless as it isn't used for anything and that means it is bogus.
Obviously you didn't get the math because you think you disproved it. You don't understand mathematics at all. You'd probably say that ring theory is useless as well. And measure theory. And the Goldbach conjecture. And the Axiom of Choice (which I know you've never heard of, even though it's undergraduate mathematics, because we talked about it before). Can you compute complex value line integrals? Do you know how imaginary numbers are used in engineering? Can you find a Taylor series centred at 1 for sin(x)?
I didn't ask anyone to come debate me. And you aren't debating, you are just spewing oft-refuted nonsense.
I'm sick of your name calling and pretending to understand things which you clearly don't. Someone should make it clear to other ignoramuses that you're wrong.
How can anyone test the claim that unguided evolution produced any multi-protein functional structure/ system/ subsystem? I know you won't answer and that will prove my point.
Via genome analysis and experiments like Dr Lenski's. Also observational data.
That you are too stupid to grasp that fact proves that you are a scientifically illiterate asshole.
You are an abusive jerk.
Shown us any peer-reviewed research supporting your unguided evolutionary hypothesis.
I'm not going to feed your wilful ignorance anymore. You deny every single thing presented to you that does answer your queries.
Shown us your unguided evolutionary hypothesis.
The Origin of Species is a good start.
Show us any work or research looking for a mechanism in the cells which allows prokaryotes to evolve beyond prokaryotes
I did. You denied them. As usual. I'm not feeding your wilful ignorance anymore.
Said anything at all about how such an non-guiding mechanism could be stored, encoded or how it affects development.
A non-guiding mechanism? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAH
You are really not even paying attention. I don't know why I bother.
Heck yours can't even account for development, Jerad.
So, you don't get DNA either. Figures.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Then clearly you didn't understand them.
Clearly you can't make that case.
Yup, I do. We had this discussion. It's a conditional probability. It's the probability of a certain pattern, T, arising under the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis, H. But since it's not a probability that evolutionary theory needs or uses biologists do not need to compute it.
It's the ONLY thing that evolutionism has, Jerad. And it proves your position has nothing.
You didn't know that, in archaeology, artifact means man-made.
It doesn't- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/
I have presented testable hypotheses, Jerad.
What's your front-loading hypothesis then?
My design hypotheses are easily found by searching this blog using that term.
I'm sick of your name calling and pretending to understand things which you clearly don't.
I'm sick of pathetic faggots like you spewing false accusations and accusations they eat when they try to support them.
Via genome analysis and experiments like Dr Lenski's. Also observational data.
Lenski failed to produce new multi-protein functional configurations. Genome analysis doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Clearly you are an imbecile.
The Origin of Species is a good start.
It's also a FAIL. Natural selection has proven to be impotent. All unguided evolution is is contingent serendipity.
So, you don't get DNA either
Yours can't account for DNA, dipshit. Yours can't get beyond prokaryotes-> DNA, helping bacteria develop into bacteria.
At 1:38 PM,
Unknown said…
Clearly you can't make that case.
I don't have to. You've already proved you don't understand the research.
It's the ONLY thing that evolutionism has, Jerad. And it proves your position has nothing.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
You can't compute it, you say we have to do it and you say it proves something. Too funny.
Like I said, the fact that you think p(T|H) is something biologists have to compute proves again how little you understand evolution or science in general.
My design hypotheses are easily found by searching this blog using that term.
I didn't see anything about front-loading here:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/intelligent-design-design-hypothesis.html
Just some vague stuff about complex specified information which you haven't shown how to detect.
Nor did I see anything about a mechanism that guides mutations.
Nor did I see anything about an example of a design detection methodology being applied to a biological example.
I'm sick of pathetic faggots like you spewing false accusations and accusations they eat when they try to support them.
Can't handle being disagreed with eh? By thousands and thousands and thousands of people. And you with no research or publications or even a decent hypothesis to back you up. I hate it when that happens.
Lenski failed to produce new multi-protein functional configurations. Genome analysis doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Clearly you are an imbecile.
Genome analysis tells you about the development of the life form from previous forms. Dr Lenski showed that new functions can arise. Oh, but you'll say he doesn't know if the mutations were random won't you. Like your mysterious and elusive designer decided to program in mutations to fool the evotards. Right?
It's also a FAIL. Natural selection has proven to be impotent. All unguided evolution is is contingent serendipity.
Where was that proven then? In what peer-reviewed work? Or was it just in some publication by someone like Dr Behe or Dembski who are not research biologists?
Yours can't account for DNA, dipshit. Yours can't get beyond prokaryotes-> DNA, helping bacteria develop into bacteria.
Too bad you can't be bothered to read some of the work about this. Hundreds of papers and Joe denies them all.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
You've already proved you don't understand the research.
Fuck you.
You can't compute it, you say we have to do it and you say it proves something.
No one can compute, moron. That is because no one has a relevant materialistic hypothesis to test. That means your position doesn't have a relevant hypothesis to test.
Like I said, the fact that you think p(T|H) is something biologists have to compute proves again how little you understand evolution or science in general.
You are fucking dense. P(T|H) exists only because your position, your biologists, don't have anything else. All they can do is cry about father time being all they need.
Just some vague stuff about complex specified information which you haven't shown how to detect.
Search on that too. It is all on this blog.
Nor did I see anything about a mechanism that guides mutations.
Then you are a close-minded, willfully ignorant dick- Spetner's mechanism was there as is genetic algorithms. as I said you are ignorant so you don't understand the evidence.
Genome analysis tells you about the development of the life form from previous forms.
No, it doesn't.
Dr Lenski showed that new functions can arise
No new function arose. It was an already existing function being turned on in an environment in which it is normally turned off. But anyway no one said no new function can't arise. MULTI-PROTEIN configurations, Jerad.
That "waiting for two mutations" paper seals the fate- there isn't enough time for specific mutations to accumulate and only a fool would think that any ole mutations will do the job required.
Where was that proven then?
Every day. In the wild and in the lab.
Yours can't account for DNA, dipshit. Yours can't get beyond prokaryotes-> DNA, helping bacteria develop into bacteria.
Too bad you can't be bothered to read some of the work about this.
Clearly you are just a deluded asshole who can only spew bullshit. You are the one who can't be bothered to read nor understand the Stanford article on artifacts. Talk about an own goal.
At 2:26 AM,
Unknown said…
Fuck you.
Well Joe, you don't understand the research. You keep saying it says things it doesn't. And you keep saying it doesn't say things that it does.
No one can compute, moron. That is because no one has a relevant materialistic hypothesis to test. That means your position doesn't have a relevant hypothesis to test.
But there is one! It's used everyday. It means assuming causes and mechanisms that we can observe and measure and see working. No magical designers. No undiscovered mechanisms.
It's not biology's fault that Dr Dembski proposed something he couldn't actually compute and that no one actually uses. Biology does not have to compute p(T|H) and your insistence that it does again shows you really don't understand the science. Who cares about p(T|H)? It has nothing to do with biological research. You want to know what it is, you compute it.
You are fucking dense. P(T|H) exists only because your position, your biologists, don't have anything else. All they can do is cry about father time being all they need.
The conditional probability was brought up by Dr Dembski. Dr Dembski is not a research biologist. He did not consult with research biologists. No one uses his formula INCLUDING ID proponents. Clearly it means shit and can be left along the roadside. And they don't just cry about father time. Another indication that you don't understand the research, even if you have read it.
Search on that too. It is all on this blog.
Just show me the link and I will read it. If you really have laid things out clearly and concisely then just link to that.
Then you are a close-minded, willfully ignorant dick- Spetner's mechanism was there as is genetic algorithms. as I said you are ignorant so you don't understand the evidence.
What is Spetner's mechanism? The physical mechanism? How is it stored in the cell? How is it encoded? How does it affect development? Are all those things answered?
No, it doesn't.
Deny, deny, deny.
No new function arose. It was an already existing function being turned on in an environment in which it is normally turned off. But anyway no one said no new function can't arise. MULTI-PROTEIN configurations, Jerad.
Because Dr Behe said it, you believe it. Even though a vast majority of working biologists say he got it wrong. You and he are denialists. People can hit you over the head with data and evidence and research proving you're wrong and you still won't change your mind.
That "waiting for two mutations" paper seals the fate- there isn't enough time for specific mutations to accumulate and only a fool would think that any ole mutations will do the job required.
And that work has been roundly criticised and dismissed. You don't look at all the data; you pick stuff that upholds your point of view and refuse to reconsider. Dr Behe, as much as I respect him, has shown time and time again that he misinterprets the actual science. And those criticisms are easy to find. But you and he ignore those criticisms. You double down and say everyone else is wrong. But you don't even understand the mathematics; you're just latching onto someone else who's saying things you like.
Every day. In the wild and in the lab.
Really.
Clearly you are just a deluded asshole who can only spew bullshit. You are the one who can't be bothered to read nor understand the Stanford article on artifacts. Talk about an own goal.
I did look at the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It does not dictate how archaeologist use the term 'artifact'. Which was the point of the discussion. In archaeology artifact means man-made. Move on.
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Well Joe, you don't understand the research.
I understand it better than you ever will.
But there is one! It's used everyday.
Liar- strange that no one can say what it is.
Biology does not have to compute p(T|H) and your insistence that it does again shows you really don't understand the science.
Without it you have nothing, asshole.
What is Spetner's mechanism?
Built-in responses to environment cues- just as I have been saying. And epigenetics, for one, is support for that. The SOS response is also support for it.
And all you have is "they are all accidents, errors and mistakes".
Because Dr Behe said it, you believe it. Even though a vast majority of working biologists say he got it wrong.
Look, moron, Lenski's reports confirm what I said. And not one of your vast majority can refute Behe.
And that work has been roundly criticised and dismissed.
It was evo work and ion peer-review! Obviously you are just an ignorant coward.
Dr Behe, as much as I respect him, has shown time and time again that he misinterprets the actual science.
Liar.
But you don't even understand the mathematics;
YOU are the moron who doesn't understand the implications of subtraction.
It does not dictate how archaeologist use the term 'artifact'.
Of course it does.
In archaeology artifact means man-made.
Only to an uneducated and narrow-minded dolt.
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
The absence of P(T|H) for protein machinery means there aren't any testable hypotheses with respect to unguided evolution for said protein machinery.
That you fail to grasp that simple fact proves you are scientifically illiterate.
Post a Comment
<< Home