Intelligent Reasoning: How We Know Biological Intelligent Design is Possible

Thursday, October 22, 2015

How We Know Biological Intelligent Design is Possible

-
Another ignorant argument against Intelligent Design has developed in the minds of the mentally challenged. The argument is since we cannot design organisms ID is not possible.

So how do we know the biological ID is possible? Easy, the same way we know that it was possible to build Stonehenge thousands of years ago- it exists.

How do we know someone over a thousand years ago had the capability to design and build the Antikythera Mechanism? The Antikythera Mechanism!

Biological Intelligent Design exists and that is how we know it was possible. Science 101

153 Comments:

At 3:53 PM, Unknown said…

Well, one would have to look at the evidence for design. Shall we lay it all out? What is the proof that biological design has been detected?

Let's get technical. Okay with you?
At 4:16 PM, Joe G said…

It has been laid out. And guess what? There isn't any alternative explanation for the evidence.

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms. There isn't a P(T|H) to be found.

It's like trying to explain Stonehenge as a result of a geological process...
At 5:21 PM, William Spearshake said…

I believe that the concept of P(T|H) was proposed by the geniuses of ID. And then they fail to make any attempt to calculate it. Yup, nothing but science from top to bottom.

But Joe will probably not post this comment, claiming that it is off topic.
At 5:21 PM, Unknown said…

Let's examine the proof closely. Give us some links or reverences so we can have a good long look.

P(T|H) was something that Dr Dembski proposed for his unused design detection criterium. So why are you bringing it up?
At 5:42 PM, Joe G said…

P(T|H) refers to blind and undirected processes. It is up to your position to provide one since your position is all about blind and undirected processes but you can't. All you do is choke every time it gets brought up.

If you are too fucked up to understand that plain and simple point then you are too fucked to have a discussion.

Good day
At 5:43 PM, Joe G said…

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

It's like trying to explain Stonehenge as a result of a geological process...

Take out the P(T|H) and you still have nothing, dipshits.
At 8:08 PM, Joe G said…

It is strange that evolutionists don't understand that they need to provide hypotheses (H) for their position. They also have to provide a way of testing those hypotheses. Probability is one such way when there isn't any way to test it directly via experimentation. So even if Dembski never existed P(T|H) would. Even if ID never existed P(T|H) would.

The reason P(T|H) exists is because there isn't any way to scientifically test the claims of evolutionism.
At 12:07 AM, William Spearshake said…

Joe sounds awfully defensive. I wonder why?
At 1:57 AM, Unknown said…

Look, I just wanted to have a good look at the evidence/data/proof that design had been detected.

I'm assuming it doesn't depend on P(T|H) since you say you don't know what H is so . . .

Where is the proof/data/evidence?

You can't be just making a negative argument, i.e. that you don't accept the overwhelming consensus that unguided processes aren't up to it. You don't get design by attacking non-design. You still have to prove your case and I'd just like to see the evidence.
At 6:00 AM, Joe G said…

I'm defensive because your position has nothing? LoL! How does that work?
At 6:07 AM, Joe G said…

Look, I just wanted to have a good look at the evidence/data/proof that design had been detected.

Then search my blog. We have had this discussion already and you have already choked and proved you are not qualified to assess evidence.

I'm assuming it doesn't depend on P(T|H) since you say you don't know what H is so . . .

I know what H is for ID.

You can't be just making a negative argument,

And yet that is all you do except you do so from ignorance.

hat you don't accept the overwhelming consensus that unguided processes aren't up to it.

I accept that unguided processes aren't up to it. No one knows how to model such a thing and no one uses it as a research heuristic.

You don't get design by attacking non-design.

Actually science mandates that non-design be eliminated first, so ID takes that required step.

You still have to prove your case and I'd just like to see the evidence.

We have proved our case and all you can do is deny, deny, deny.

Ya see, Jerad, there isn't any reason to discuss this further until you show us what you will accept for positive evidence. If you can't do that- and we know why you can't- then there isn't any use in a discussion as all you will do is deny, deny, deny. That is because you are an infant.

But anyway, search my blog if you are interested. The positive case and evidence for ID is here.
At 6:16 AM, Joe G said…

1- Science is not done via consensus- only morons use a consensus to support their claims as opposed to actual evidence and science

2- If evos could support the claims of their position ID would be a non-starter

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

It's like trying to explain Stonehenge as a result of a geological process...

Take out the P(T|H) and you still have nothing, dipshits. Attacking ID will never provide support for your position.
At 10:00 AM, Unknown said…

Then search my blog. We have had this discussion already and you have already choked and proved you are not qualified to assess evidence.

Not much of a search feature. I just thought you could pick one or two specific things that you thought was the best explanation.

I know what H is for ID.

That's interesting. What do you think it is for ID?

I accept that unguided processes aren't up to it. No one knows how to model such a thing and no one uses it as a research heuristic.

But . . . you can't prove that unguided processes didn't do it. You can't prove a negative. So you're just convinced they couldn't do it.

Actually science mandates that non-design be eliminated first, so ID takes that required step.

But, you can't eliminate non-design since you can't prove that it didn't 'do it'.

We have proved our case and all you can do is deny, deny, deny.

I'm just asking for the specific way design was detected. I'm not denying anything at the moment.

Ya see, Jerad, there isn't any reason to discuss this further until you show us what you will accept for positive evidence. If you can't do that- and we know why you can't- then there isn't any use in a discussion as all you will do is deny, deny, deny. That is because you are an infant.

Well, design documentation would be good. Or a workshop, laboratory. Some physical evidence of a designer capable of whatever it is you're claiming they did. Mostly I think some kind of evidence showing why the designer made certain choices. That would have some explanatory power.

But anyway, search my blog if you are interested. The positive case and evidence for ID is here.

You've got lots of posts. What's the best one for showing the methodology behind design detection? One that has a specific example worked out.

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

It's like trying to explain Stonehenge as a result of a geological process...

No, Stonehenge is inanimate. It doesn't make copies of itself with variations.

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

It's like trying to explain Stonehenge as a result of a geological process...

That doesn't even follow though. P(T|H) was something used by Dr Dembski when he attempted to find a way to objectively detect design. It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. And you can see that because no one uses it.
At 10:19 AM, Joe G said…

No, Stonehenge is inanimate. It doesn't make copies of itself with variations.

You can't account for replication.

That doesn't even follow though.

Of course it follows

P(T|H) was something used by Dr Dembski when he attempted to find a way to objectively detect design.

I removed P(T|H) from the discussion, asshole.

It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

There isn't any evolutionary theory.

But, you can't eliminate non-design since you can't prove that it didn't 'do it'.

We can eliminate non-design for the simple reason there isn't any way to test it. And you are proving just that. Thank you.

You've got lots of posts. What's the best one for showing the methodology behind design detection? One that has a specific example worked out.

Search on "How to test and falsify Intelligent Design" or "ATP synthase" or "ribosome" or "genetic code".

Some physical evidence of a designer capable of whatever it is you're claiming they did.

The design is such evidence, moron.

So how do we know the biological ID is possible? Easy, the same way we know that it was possible to build Stonehenge thousands of years ago- it exists.

How do we know someone over a thousand years ago had the capability to design and build the Antikythera Mechanism? The Antikythera Mechanism!

Thank you for proving that you are too stupid to have a discussion about science and evidence. And thank you for being too much of a coward to actually ante up so we can see what pathetic level of evidence that you accept for your position.
At 10:49 AM, Unknown said…

I removed P(T|H) from the discussion, asshole.

You brought it up in the first place! And I still don't understand why. And you haven't said what H is for ID.

There isn't any evolutionary theory.

All lifeforms on earth are a result of universal common descent with variation via natural processes.

We can eliminate non-design for the simple reason there isn't any way to test it. And you are proving just that. Thank you.

Of course you can test it. See if you can find something that could not have come about through descent with variation via natural processes. Like finding a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian layer. It would have no plausible ancestors.

The design is such evidence, moron.

I'm asking you how you objectively detect design. Not via Dr Dembski's metric, that's obvious. You blog seems to weigh heavily on irreducibly complexity (http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-test-and-falsify-intelligent.html) but no verified irreducible complex biological structure has been found. You claim that ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in.html) but you give no academic references in that post. Your basic argument again seems to be from an irreducible complexity point of view. And yet, again, you can't prove a negative: that ATP synthase could not have arisen via natural processes.

So, again, I'm still wondering what your design detection procedure is.

The design is such evidence, moron.

But, if your design detection is false then you've got no evidence of a designer. Which is why I'd like to know what your procedure is aside from just not being able to figure out how something came about sans design.

So how do we know the biological ID is possible? Easy, the same way we know that it was possible to build Stonehenge thousands of years ago- it exists.

Of course a hidden designer is possible, no one disputes that. There just doesn't seem to be any real evidence one exists for biological systems.

Thank you for proving that you are too stupid to have a discussion about science and evidence. And thank you for being too much of a coward to actually ante up so we can see what pathetic level of evidence that you accept for your position.

My position is well known and easily discovered and I don't feel the need to trumpet it when I'm asking about your view and design detection procedure.

So far I've got: Some things we can't conceive of how they arose via non-intelligent processes are, therefore, designed.

If that's not true then show me where you exhibit an objective, procedure-based, methodology. One with some academic support would be nice. Even better, one with some peer-reviewed academic support.

And if you can carry on a conversation without resorting to name calling that would be nice as well.
At 11:03 AM, Joe G said…

You brought it up in the first place! And I still don't understand why

And yet I have explained why. You must be a moron.

All lifeforms on earth are a result of universal common descent with variation via natural processes.

That isn't a theory- double moron.

Of course you can test it.

No one can test it

See if you can find something that could not have come about through descent with variation via natural processes.

Living organisms, the genetic code, ATP synthase- but that doesn't test to see if blind and undirected processes COULD do it.

Like finding a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian layer. It would have no plausible ancestors.

Your position can't explain any rabbits and there is no way to know if there were any plausible ancestors to a rabbit in the Cambrian.

I'm asking you how you objectively detect design.

And I have told you how to do so.

You blog seems to weigh heavily on irreducibly complexity (http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-test-and-falsify-intelligent.html) but no verified irreducible complex biological structure has been found.

Many IC structures have been found.

You claim that ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in.html) but you give no academic references in that post.

LoL! There isn't any literature on how blind and undirected processes could construct ATP synthase. No models, no hypotheses- nothing. AND it fits the design criteria.

And yet, again, you can't prove a negative: that ATP synthase could not have arisen via natural processes.

And yet archaeologists do just that- no geological processes can produce Stonehenge. And all you have to do to refute ID's claim is demonstrate ATP synthase could arise via blind and undirected processes. But you are too much of a coward to even try.

So, again, I'm still wondering what your design detection procedure is.

I have told you.

But, if your design detection is false then you've got no evidence of a designer

True, so all you have to do to refute the design inference is find some support for your position, just as we have been saying.

Which is why I'd like to know what your procedure is aside from just not being able to figure out how something came about sans design.

And I told you. Obviously you have other issues.

My position is well known and easily discovered and I don't feel the need to trumpet it when I'm asking about your view and design detection procedure.

Your position is well known to be nothing but lies and you are nothing but a bluffing coward.

So far I've got: Some things we can't conceive of how they arose via non-intelligent processes are, therefore, designed.

Then you are a willfully ignorant troll.

And if you can carry on a conversation without resorting to name calling that would be nice as well.

What insults? I am making observations. If you don't want to be called a moron then stop acting like one.

Answer the following questions of fuck off:

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.
At 11:16 AM, Joe G said…

I love how evoTARDs ask for evidence of ID in peer-review all the while their position doesn't have anything in peer-review that supports it.
At 11:39 AM, Unknown said…

That isn't a theory- double moron.

Sure it is! It's a hypothesis of how all existing forms of life came about. The primary mechanisms are variation arising from different kinds of mutations, duplications, shuffling, viral vectors, etc and 'selection' in the form of environmental pressures favouring some morphologies over others. It's testable: find something that couldn't have come about that way. It predict future forms will be variations of existing forms. And no form will arise without antecedents.

Living organisms, the genetic code, ATP synthase- but that doesn't test to see if blind and undirected processes COULD do it.

There's no physical evidence (aside from claimed designed) that any intelligent direction was involved. And all the data is consistent with the hypothesis. Because the amount of evidence is so overwhelming it's now consider a theory.

Your position can't explain any rabbits and there is no way to know if there were any plausible ancestors to a rabbit in the Cambrian.

We haven't found any fossils that could possibly be immediate ancestors of rabbits. Or even mammals of any kind. Or anything with fur.

Many IC structures have been found.

None supported by peer-reviewed academic publications. So, again, I'd like to know if you have some other method of detecting design.

LoL! There isn't any literature on how blind and undirected processes could construct ATP synthase. No models, no hypotheses- nothing. AND it fits the design criteria.

Well, I'm not up on the current research so I'm not sure what the state of knowledge is. BUT, not knowing what a possible pathway is does not get you design. It just means we don't know.

True, so all you have to do to refute the design inference is find some support for your position, just as we have been saying.

I'm not trying to defend my position, I'm trying to figure out what kind of design detection procedures you use. And so far what I've got is perceived irreducible complexity.

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

I'm not here to defend the origin of life research. I have read a few possible scenarios and RNA world (or a modification of that) sounds the most plausible to me. But I'm far from an expert.

Given a hypothetical scenario you test it by setting up an experiment and letting it go. The Michelson Morley experiment was a baby version of that sort of thing. I know, it's not considered good work these days but it's an example of how to test a possibility.

Once you've got a basic, simple replicator then the situation becomes quite a bit clearer. Replicators replicate, some with variations, some of those variations are fatal, some are favourable and some are neutral with respect to survival and reproduction. The favourable variations become a greater proportion of the populations and new variation is introduced constantly.

As far as we can tell, by all measures and analysis, mutations and duplications and such occur randomly with respect to the health and reproducibility of the life form. As I said, many are fatal. It's a horribly wasteful process. Over time, more complicated life forms arise as genomes grow in size and modifications are stacked up with past modifications.

But again, my position is well known and I'm not looking to defend it. I'm trying to find out what objective, procedure you use to detect design. Something analytic? Like Dr Dembski's method maybe . . . Something that has has peer and academic support?
At 12:19 PM, Joe G said…

OK, Jerad doesn't know what a theory is. Jerad doesn't understand that his position doesn't have any support from peer-review. And Jerad doesn't understand that IC is supported by peer-review.

And Jerad is so fucking retarded that he sez I never said how to make a positive case for ID all the while the link he provided from my blog says exactly what the positive case is.

Tell me Jerad, why have evos been trying so hard to refute IC if it doesn't exist?
At 12:22 PM, Joe G said…

How would the existence of a Cambrian rabbit falsify a concept that cannot explain the existence of rabbits?
At 12:40 PM, Unknown said…

OK, Jerad doesn't know what a theory is. Jerad doesn't understand that his position doesn't have any support from peer-review. And Jerad doesn't understand that IC is supported by peer-review.

Modern evolutionary theory doesn't have any peer-reviewed support? Not sure what planet you're on.

Please give me a link to some peer-reviewed support for irreducible complexity.

And Jerad is so fucking retarded that he sez I never said how to make a positive case for ID all the while the link he provided from my blog says exactly what the positive case is.

Not knowing how a structure arose via non-intelligent processes is NOT a positive argument for design. Which is why I'm asking you for some other kind of procedure or process whereby you detect design.

Tell me Jerad, why have evos been trying so hard to refute IC if it doesn't exist?

My whole point of commenting on this thread was to find out if you had any objective procedures for detecting design. So far I haven't seen any. I'm trying to answer your questions in the spirit of having a conversation.

I don't think evolutionary researchers spend much time trying to refute irreducibly complexity. They address the issue when they have to or when they're trying to deal with a controversy. But there are hundreds, maybe thousands of evolutionary theorists and researchers in the world and I bet most of them spend almost no time even thinking about irreducible complexity. The ones you know have chosen to address the issue. Most don't bother.

Can we just talk about your methods of design detection? Something that is objective, hopefully mathematical, something with some academic support, and a worked out example. I know you like to go on the attack but I'm just asking for your methodology.
At 12:46 PM, Unknown said…

How would the existence of a Cambrian rabbit falsify a concept that cannot explain the existence of rabbits?

It would say that the concept was fundamentally flawed. It would say that the descendent structure hypothesised was wrong. It would say that life forms appear without a developmental pathway.

Seriously, such a find, if verified, would at the least cause a major re-evaluation of evolutionary theory. It might dissolve the whole structure.
At 1:50 PM, Joe G said…

Fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods- your "theory" is refuted. And again there isn't any evolutionary theory. So stop commenting as if one exists.
At 1:56 PM, Joe G said…

Modern evolutionary theory doesn't have any peer-reviewed support?

It doesn't. For one there isn't any such thing as a "modern evolutionary theory".

Please give me a link to some peer-reviewed support for irreducible complexity.

Read any paper that elucidates both the structure and mechanics of ATP synthase.

Not knowing how a structure arose via non-intelligent processes is NOT a positive argument for design.

True and that is why that post contained the positive criteria. Why are you such an asshole?

My whole point of commenting on this thread was to find out if you had any objective procedures for detecting design.

There are other threads for that, moron. Threads that actually discuss the objective procedure for detecting design. And guess what? It is much more than you can post for the objective procedure to determine drift and natural selection did it.

So far I haven't seen any.

That is because you are willfully ignorant, which isn't my problem.

I don't think evolutionary researchers spend much time trying to refute irreducibly complexity.

Nobody cares what you think. Evolutionary researchers, whatever that means, have enough trouble trying to make a positive case for their claims. Most don't even try.
At 1:57 PM, Joe G said…

Sure it is! It's a hypothesis of how all existing forms of life came about.

It's too vague to be a hypothesis and a hypothesis doesn't make it a theory.

The primary mechanisms are variation arising from different kinds of mutations, duplications, shuffling, viral vectors, etc and 'selection' in the form of environmental pressures favouring some morphologies over others.

And how did you determine that all those mechanisms are blind and undirected processes?

There's no physical evidence (aside from claimed designed) that any intelligent direction was involved.

There is if you know what to look for.

And all the data is consistent with the hypothesis.

What hypothesis? There isn't one concerning ATP synthase.

We haven't found any fossils that could possibly be immediate ancestors of rabbits.

EvoTARDs love to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

None supported by peer-reviewed academic publications.

All of them are.

BUT, not knowing what a possible pathway is does not get you design. It just means we don't know.

When we start teaching "we don't know" instead of indoctrinating kids into blind watchmaker evolution you will have a point. However we can use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to make a scientific inference.

I'm not trying to defend my position, I'm trying to figure out what kind of design detection procedures you use. And so far what I've got is perceived irreducible complexity.

You can't defend your position and IC is real. And no one cares if you don't like that fact.

I have read a few possible scenarios and RNA world (or a modification of that) sounds the most plausible to me.

Too bad no one can test the concept.

Something that has has peer and academic support?

ATP synthase is in peer-review. And its
At 1:58 PM, Joe G said…

LoL! I found my lost post! Cats on a keyboard wreak havoc!
At 5:01 PM, Unknown said…

Fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods- your "theory" is refuted. And again there isn't any evolutionary theory. So stop commenting as if one exists.

If you're referring to Tiktaalik then it is ture that there is a controversy and that it hasn't been resolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

But that doesn't give you design. It just means the evolutionary sequence isn't clear yet.

It doesn't. For one there isn't any such thing as a "modern evolutionary theory".

I know this is one of your favourite canards. But there is a theory and I gave you the short form. You disagree with it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Read any paper that elucidates both the structure and mechanics of ATP synthase.

How does that support irreducible complexity? Perhaps you'd like to pinpoint a particular paper?

True and that is why that post contained the positive criteria. Why are you such an asshole?

I don't see any positive criteria here: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-test-and-falsify-intelligent.html

Which post are you thinking of?

There are other threads for that, moron. Threads that actually discuss the objective procedure for detecting design. And guess what? It is much more than you can post for the objective procedure to determine drift and natural selection did it.

Fine, point out those threads and I'll read them.

Nobody cares what you think. Evolutionary researchers, whatever that means, have enough trouble trying to make a positive case for their claims. Most don't even try.

The point is that most evolutionary biologists do not spend time trying to refute irreducible complexity. It's not supported in peer-reviewed research. It's not something that worries biologists.

It's too vague to be a hypothesis and a hypothesis doesn't make it a theory.

I addressed that. There is so much data and evidence which is consistent with that basic hypothesis that it is now considered a theory.

And how did you determine that all those mechanisms are blind and undirected processes?

There's no strong evidence to suggest they are directed. And two non-peer reviewed books don't change that.

There is if you know what to look for.

Well, what is that evidence then?

What hypothesis? There isn't one concerning ATP synthase.

I already addressed that. The point being: not knowing is not evidence for design.

EvoTARDs love to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Exactly. But so far we haven't found any evidence of rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layers. Nor have we found plausible rabbit ancestors in the Cambrian or pre-Cambian layers. In fact we've found nothing at all even close to such things. So, the ever growing evidence suggests, that such things don't exist. But all scientific assumptions are provisional. Which is why evolutionary theory could be falsified by discovering rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layers.
At 5:01 PM, Unknown said…

When we start teaching "we don't know" instead of indoctrinating kids into blind watchmaker evolution you will have a point. However we can use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to make a scientific inference.

I agree. But there is no positive data suggesting design without special pleading (there must have been a designer around at the time even though we have no knowledge of such a being) so the best scientific inference is based on causes and such we know to be operation.

You can't defend your position and IC is real. And no one cares if you don't like that fact.

I'm sorry but IC has not been established as real. It's not a matter of me liking it or not. It's a matter of it being proven.

Too bad no one can test the concept.

You can test aspects of it. You can see if it's possible to induce some of the proposed steps.

ATP synthase is in peer-review. And its

But there's no peer-reviewed work suggesting its development was via directed processes.

LoL! I found my lost post! Cats on a keyboard wreak havoc!

I'm sure they do! :-)

But, again, that post does not show how you objectively detect design. Independent of what evolutionary theory says.

I just haven't seen a stand-alone, robust, objective, peer-reviewed, academically supported design detection procedure. You can't prove design by trying to shoot down natural processes. You can't prove a negative. You're not using Dr Dembski's scheme so what are you using?

And if your procedure is: once you've ruled out any known causes then it must be design . . . that's an argument from ignorance. You can't just say: we don't know so it's design. That's not a positive argument.
At 5:29 PM, Joe G said…

But there is no positive data suggesting design without special pleading

Bullshit.

I'm sorry but IC has not been established as real.

Yes, you are sorry and IC has been established many times over.

But there's no peer-reviewed work suggesting its development was via directed processes.

Given what we know about it that is the only possible explanation. No one would even know how to go about testing any alternative.

But, again, that post does not show how you objectively detect design. Independent of what evolutionary theory says.

Again there isn't any evolutionary theory and science mandates all design inference first eliminate necessity and chance explanations. So even if evolutionism didn't exist the explanatory filter mandates the elimination of necessity and chance- as does science.

The argument is once you have eliminated necessity and chance, ie nature, operating freely, AND it has some specification- for example "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

Archaeologists and forensic science look for signs of work. Behe's criteria is such a sign especially given the fact that mother nature was already eliminated.
At 5:41 PM, Joe G said…

If you're referring to Tiktaalik then it is ture that there is a controversy and that it hasn't been resolved.

EvoTARD whining and crying doesn't make it a controversy. I am sure if those tracks had been found before Tiktaalik Shubin would have dated his find to before that.

I know this is one of your favourite canards. But there is a theory and I gave you the short form. You disagree with it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That no one can link to it proves that it doesn't exist.

I don't see any positive criteria here: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-test-and-falsify-intelligent.html

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

There's no strong evidence to suggest they are directed.

There is plenty. You are just too stupid to understand it. For example Lenski's E. coli- the only gene, out of all the genes, that could transport citrate was duplicated and put under the control of a different promoter. A promoter that just happened to allow for expression of the gene in the presence of O2. It also was expressed just enough to allow the citrate to be beneficial.

Transposons- they code for two of the enzymes required for moving around.

The point being: not knowing is not evidence for design.

No, the point is your position doesn't even know where to start and it matches the design criteria. It contains two subsystems, neither of which your position can explain, that have nothing to do with each other yet are coupled together to form a very important biological function.

Which is why evolutionary theory could be falsified by discovering rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layers.

How can the existence of rabbits in the Cambrian falsify a "theory" that can't even explain the existence of rabbits? Please be specific.

And link to the theory of evolution or admit that you are a deluded asshole and liar.
At 4:29 AM, Unknown said…

Yes, you are sorry and IC has been established many times over.

Not really. And not in peer-reviewed journals. It's pretty much a dead-end idea at this point.

Given what we know about it that is the only possible explanation. No one would even know how to go about testing any alternative.

I've been telling you how to test non-directed evolutionary theory! And, again, if you're just saying ID is best based on what we know then you are papering over knowledge gaps with design instead of just saying: we don't know that bit yet.

That no one can link to it proves that it doesn't exist.

In the past I gave you lots of links. It's pretty clear you just won't accept anything.

ANYWAY, I'm trying to ask about your design detection procedures and you keep attacking evolutionary theory.

Again there isn't any evolutionary theory and science mandates all design inference first eliminate necessity and chance explanations. So even if evolutionism didn't exist the explanatory filter mandates the elimination of necessity and chance- as does science.

But you can't eliminate chance and necessity! That would be proving a negative! You cannot say natural processes couldn't possibly be responsible. You can say some happenstance is highly unlikely but you can't say it's impossible.

The argument is once you have eliminated necessity and chance, ie nature, operating freely, AND it has some specification- for example "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

That's pretty vague. How do you eliminate chance and necessity? AND, as has been mentioned before, fixing on one particular function ignores the possibility that a structure is co-opted from another purpose. This has all been discussed many times.

Archaeologists and forensic science look for signs of work. Behe's criteria is such a sign especially given the fact that mother nature was already eliminated.

But you can't just say there's no way such and such structure could definitely NOT be the result of natural processes. At most you can say it's highly unlikely. You can't prove a negative.

EvoTARD whining and crying doesn't make it a controversy. I am sure if those tracks had been found before Tiktaalik Shubin would have dated his find to before that.

I'm saying that there is a controversy amongst evolutionary biologists. No whining and crying.

That no one can link to it proves that it doesn't exist.

Again, you can't prove a negative. Just because you haven't seen something that satisfies you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
At 4:29 AM, Unknown said…

There is plenty. You are just too stupid to understand it. For example Lenski's E. coli- the only gene, out of all the genes, that could transport citrate was duplicated and put under the control of a different promoter. A promoter that just happened to allow for expression of the gene in the presence of O2. It also was expressed just enough to allow the citrate to be beneficial.

What? Out of how many lines of E. coli only one developed the ability to digest citrate. Only one. If E. coli was 'programmed' or designed to evolve or the mutation was directed then why did it happen in only one line?

Transposons- they code for two of the enzymes required for moving around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

No, the point is your position doesn't even know where to start and it matches the design criteria. It contains two subsystems, neither of which your position can explain, that have nothing to do with each other yet are coupled together to form a very important biological function.

AGAIN, not knowing is not the same as giving up and accepting design. You don't get design via gaps in knowledge. That's a negative argument.

How can the existence of rabbits in the Cambrian falsify a "theory" that can't even explain the existence of rabbits? Please be specific.

I already addressed this. A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer would be so grossly out of place that it would throw the whole theory into crisis. And that's been known for over a century and yet no such out-of-place fossil has ever been found.

And link to the theory of evolution or admit that you are a deluded asshole and liar.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Even this skeptical site admits there is a theory:

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/evolution/theoryevolutionrev2.shtml

I know doing this is pointless because there is no way you are ever going to admit that the theory of evolution is actually very clear and simple and has been studied and explored and examined for over 150 years.

AND, AGAIN, you are the one that keeps bringing up evolutionary theory. I'm trying to figure out how you decide design has been detected. So far you've given me some quotes from Dr Behe and some other sources which make a negative argument based on gaps in our current knowledge. You've given me no clear, objective measure or procedure.
At 12:00 PM, Joe G said…

Out of how many lines of E. coli only one developed the ability to digest citrate.

Out of all the humans only one developed alternating current.

If E. coli was 'programmed' or designed to evolve or the mutation was directed then why did it happen in only one line?

It wasn't a required change which is evidenced by all the colonies that survived without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

Was that supposed to refute something? How?

AGAIN, not knowing is not the same as giving up and accepting design. You don't get design via gaps in knowledge.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer would be so grossly out of place that it would throw the whole theory into crisis.

You did not address the question. If a concept cannot account for the existence of rabbits then an alleged out-of-place rabbit is moot.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Even this skeptical site admits there is a theory:

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/evolution/theoryevolutionrev2.shtml

Umm, people talking about it as if it exists doesn't mean it exists. I asked for a link to the actual theory and once again you FAILed.

Darwin had whales evolving from bears. How did that work out?

AND, AGAIN, you are the one that keeps bringing up evolutionary theory.

Liar. I bring up blind watchmaker evolution/ evolutionism.

So far you've given me some quotes from Dr Behe and some other sources which make a negative argument based on gaps in our current knowledge.

Only a complete ass would say that and here you are.
At 12:14 PM, Joe G said…

Not really. And not in peer-reviewed journals.

It is definitely in peer-review articles. ATP synthase is one of those IC structures elucidated in peer-review. It doesn't work if it is missing a core part and there aren't any precursor systems that have the same function.

I've been telling you how to test non-directed evolutionary theory!

You have failed miserably. How can we test the claim that drift and natural selection produced ATP synthase? What predictions does such a claim make? And why hasn't it been published in peer-review?

But you can't eliminate chance and necessity!

And yet we do so all of the time! Archaeology requires it as if someone shows geological processes can produce what they call an artifact their inference is refuted. If an alleged arson can be shown to be the result of some accident then that arson inference is refuted.

Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Occam's Razor and parsimony. Geological processes were eliminated as the cause of Stonehenge.

You cannot say natural processes couldn't possibly be responsible.

Yes, we can and that is also what makes ID falsifiable! All YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it and ID falls.

That's pretty vague. How do you eliminate chance and necessity? AND, as has been mentioned before, fixing on one particular function ignores the possibility that a structure is co-opted from another purpose.

It is more than your position has and AGAIN all you have to do is step up and demonstrate the power of drift and NS

But you can't just say there's no way such and such structure could definitely NOT be the result of natural processes.

Stonehenge, the pyramids, the sphinx, Nan Madol, my house, my cars, my computers- I can definitely say that nature could not ever produce any of those.

I'm saying that there is a controversy amongst evolutionary biologists.

Most don't even care as it has nothing to do with their research.

Again, you can't prove a negative.

And yet we eliminate probable causes all of the time

Just because you haven't seen something that satisfies you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

AGAIN, the design inference is as tentative as all scientific inferences. And all you have to do to refute ID is actually step up and demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it. ID exists because you can't and the evidence matches the criteria. Your position doesn't have any criteria.
At 12:17 PM, William Spearshake said…

Virgil/Frankie/Joe: "Out of all the humans only one developed alternating current."

Are you sure about that? Who was it?
At 12:54 PM, Unknown said…

Out of all the humans only one developed alternating current.

What does that have to do with bacteria? Tesla was trying to solve a particular problem not just happening on a better way to exploit natural resources.

It wasn't a required change which is evidenced by all the colonies that survived without it.

Then why did one strain develop the ability to utilise nitrate? Were those mutations random since they weren't required for survival?

Was that supposed to refute something? How?

I don't think you were using the term transposon correctly.

The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

An incomplete knowledge which jumps to the conclusion that there was a designer when no known designing beings were known to exist.

You did not address the question. If a concept cannot account for the existence of rabbits then an alleged out-of-place rabbit is moot.

If you find a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer then you will have proved that the evolution hypothesis was never true in the first place. It's like proposing a mathematical 'theorem'. If you can find a case where it doesn't work then it's chucked out no matter what proof someone else proposed. Simple.

Umm, people talking about it as if it exists doesn't mean it exists. I asked for a link to the actual theory and once again you FAILed.

Lots and lots of people agree there is an evolutionary 'theory' even if some think it's not true.

Darwin had whales evolving from bears. How did that work out?

If Darwin said that then he was wrong. Although whales and bears share a common ancestor. It seems now that whales and dolphins evolved from animals that also gave rise to hippos.

Liar. I bring up blind watchmaker evolution/ evolutionism.

And I keep asking you about your design detection techniques so why bring up evolution at all?

Only a complete ass would say that and here you are.

I'm sorry but saying some process is not capable of achieving a goal is a negative statement. And you strongly assert that natural processes aren't up to the job.

It is definitely in peer-review articles. ATP synthase is one of those IC structures elucidated in peer-review. It doesn't work if it is missing a core part and there aren't any precursor systems that have the same function.

I think you'll find that only a few ID proponents say it's irreducibly complex.

You have failed miserably. How can we test the claim that drift and natural selection produced ATP synthase? What predictions does such a claim make? And why hasn't it been published in peer-review?

You make models and test to see if the stages can happen without interference. You piece together bigger models based on steps you have elucidated. It hasn't been published because it hasn't been figured out yet. But just because we don't know yet doesn't mean it was designed.

And yet we do so all of the time! Archaeology requires it as if someone shows geological processes can produce what they call an artifact their inference is refuted. If an alleged arson can be shown to be the result of some accident then that arson inference is refuted.

Dealing with inanimate objects is fundamentally different than dealing with living things as inanimate objects don't replicate with variation.
At 12:54 PM, Unknown said…

Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, Occam's Razor and parsimony. Geological processes were eliminated as the cause of Stonehenge.

Again, a group of inanimate objects. Sometimes inanimate objects are initially identified as designed. Like pulsars. Mistakes get made all the time.

Yes, we can and that is also what makes ID falsifiable! All YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it and ID falls.

And people are working on all the things you claim are irreducibly complex and unable to have been evolved via undirected processes. My point is that jumping to design when you haven't yet eliminated all natural processes is premature. And likely to be proven false.

It is more than your position has and AGAIN all you have to do is step up and demonstrate the power of drift and NS

Good thing we already have lots of data to suggest drift and NS are perfectly powerful. AND more and more evidence is being found all the time. And since new data is being uncovered it shows again that jumping to a design interference is premature.

Stonehenge, the pyramids, the sphinx, Nan Madol, my house, my cars, my computers- I can definitely say that nature could not ever produce any of those.

All inanimate objects for which we also have evidence showing they were designed by human beings.

AGAIN, the design inference is as tentative as all scientific inferences. And all you have to do to refute ID is actually step up and demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it. ID exists because you can't and the evidence matches the criteria. Your position doesn't have any criteria.

But you don't say it's tentative. You keep saying evolutionary theory has got nothing and that its proponents are all brainwashed liars and idiots. You don't say ID is a good, tentative hypothesis; you say it's the only hypothesis. And even most ID proponents accept random mutations and NS can bring about 'micro' evolution. They've chosen to fall back upon the idea that a lot of little steps can't add up to a big step.

And, AGAIN, have you got a design detection procedure like Dr Dembski's that is objective and doesn't depend on trying to make a negative argument against another hypothesis?
At 1:01 PM, Joe G said…

Are you sure about that? Who was it?

Tesla- Nikola Tesla.
At 1:03 PM, Joe G said…

And, AGAIN, have you got a design detection procedure like Dr Dembski's that is objective and doesn't depend on trying to make a negative argument against another hypothesis?

There isn't any such thing you ignorant twerp. All design inferences have to first eliminate lesser causes. Science 101

Good thing we already have lots of data to suggest drift and NS are perfectly powerful

Liar.

But you don't say it's tentative.

Dembski wrote that very thing in 2004. You lose.
At 1:09 PM, Joe G said…

What does that have to do with bacteria? Tesla was trying to solve a particular problem not just happening on a better way to exploit natural resources.

They are both about solving problems.

Then why did one strain develop the ability to utilise nitrate?

Citrate and it did so because it solved the problem.

I don't think you were using the term transposon correctly.

Then make your case

If you find a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer then you will have proved that the evolution hypothesis was never true in the first place.

Only if said hypothesis can explain the existence of rabbits.

Lots and lots of people agree there is an evolutionary 'theory' even if some think it's not true.

And yet no one can find it. I can even quote scientists who say it doesn't exist- one even said it at a biology conference and no one tried to refute him.

I think you'll find that only a few ID proponents say it's irreducibly complex.

And no one can show otherwise so we are OK with that.

You make models and test to see if the stages can happen without interference.

No one has ever modeled natural selection and drift producing something like ATP synthase. No one knows where to start.

Dealing with inanimate objects is fundamentally different than dealing with living things as inanimate objects don't replicate with variation.

You can't explain replication! Biological reproduction is IC. We have been over this before and you choked on the evidence then, too.
At 2:54 PM, William Spearshake said…

Joe: "Tesla- Nikola Tesla."

In response to the question about his claim that only one human developed AC.

I know that Tesla was a man ahead of his time, but to discover something 24 years before he was born would be a neat trick. But I am sure that Joe won't admit that he was wrong about this. Very telling.
At 4:44 PM, Unknown said…

There isn't any such thing you ignorant twerp. All design inferences have to first eliminate lesser causes. Science 101

Quite untrue. If you find a crashed spaceship on Mars you don't need to eliminate natural processes first to establish that inanimate object was designed. You don't need to eliminate natural causes to establish that Stonehenge was man-made. An Oldsmobile, clearly man-made. Maybe not good design but clearly design. You can't extrapolate your made-up criteria for life forms to all objects. In fact most designed things are clearly designed without the need to eliminate natural processes because we have precursors and design agents we can call upon.

Dembski wrote that very thing in 2004. You lose.

Maybe he did. But you rarely say it. You mostly say: evolution's got nothing. There's no theory. Only design makes sense. Blah, blah, blah. You portray your viewpoint as the only game in town and NOT tentative or subject to confirmation. As far as you're concerned evolution is bogus and false so design is right. And if that's not what you mean to portray then you should seriously reconsider 100s of your blog posts.

They are both about solving problems.

I wouldn't say that bacteria acquiring the ability to digest citrate was a problem solving example especially when, as you pointed out, they didn't need to find a solution to survive. And, again, Tesla was consciously trying to solve a problem. And he experimented and tried different things. Bacteria don't think. They've got no cognitive abilities.

Citrate and it did so because it solved the problem.

A problem it didn't need to solve. So . . . why did it happen?

Only if said hypothesis can explain the existence of rabbits.

No, that's rubbish. If I say: every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers. And I tell you: I've checked this out for every even integer out to 2 quadrillion and it holds. All you have to do to prove it wrong is to find one counter example. One case where it's NOT true. You do not need to attack my reasoning at all. Just find a counter example.

I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to avoid finding the killer counter example to evolutionary theory like a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer. And you might be able to disprove evolutionary theory some other way. But those are two different ways of disproving a hypothesis.

And yet no one can find it. I can even quote scientists who say it doesn't exist- one even said it at a biology conference and no one tried to refute him.

Reference?

And no one can show otherwise so we are OK with that.

Again, if you want to build your case on an argument from ignorance be my guest. Just be ready to hand in the towel when the gap of knowledge is filled.

No one has ever modeled natural selection and drift producing something like ATP synthase. No one knows where to start.

I think both of those statements are untrue. I think people do know where to start and they are trying to model such things.

You can't explain replication! Biological reproduction is IC. We have been over this before and you choked on the evidence then, too.

Again, a gap in knowledge is not proof of design. You continually make a negative argument. There is no explanation, natural processes can't handle it . . . . Where is your positive case: we found evidence of a lab or resource management or design documentation? Where are the tools? The workshops? OR where is your objective, mathematical measure of design that doesn't depend on no explanation from the non-directed point of view? This is what I keep asking you to provide! A positive case for design. A case that does not depend on the failure of another hypothesis.
At 8:06 PM, Joe G said…

Quite untrue.

Quite true.

If you find a crashed spaceship on Mars you don't need to eliminate natural processes first to establish that inanimate object was designed.

We would do it just as a matter of course. Due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships we could eliminate necessity and chance right away.

You don't need to eliminate natural causes to establish that Stonehenge was man-made.

Actually we do and we did.

You can't extrapolate your made-up criteria for life forms to all objects

Why not?

In fact most designed things are clearly designed without the need to eliminate natural processes because we have precursors and design agents we can call upon.

Right, it's called knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

Maybe he did. But you rarely say it.

I shouldn't have to, duh.

You mostly say: evolution's got nothing.

Liar. I always say blind watchmaker evolution or some derivative has nothing. And that is quite true

There's no theory.

Also true

I wouldn't say that bacteria acquiring the ability to digest citrate was a problem solving example especially when, as you pointed out, they didn't need to find a solution to survive. And, again, Tesla was consciously trying to solve a problem. And he experimented and tried different things. Bacteria don't think. They've got no cognitive abilities.

All evidence to the contrary, of course. Bacteria communicate and actively change their genomes.

A problem it didn't need to solve. So . . . why did it happen?

because at least one got innovative. That is all it takes in the world of bacteria.

Again, if you want to build your case on an argument from ignorance be my guest.

That is all you have. And I already posted the reference to a biologist saying there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. You do this all of the time, Jerad.

Find the theory or admit it doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

I think both of those statements are untrue. I think people do know where to start and they are trying to model such things.

So they are just keeping it a secret then? Do you think that the target sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel" would ever be found if it wasn't part of the program?

Again, a gap in knowledge is not proof of design.

What gap? It is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that led us to the design inference. And science mandates all design inferences eliminate lesser explanations. newton's four rules of scientific investigation make that clear, as do Occam's razor and parsimony.

The problem is you are a scientifically illiterate fuck who has never conducted an investigation in your life. And if your wife was actually an archaeologist she would tell you that you don't know what you are talking about
At 8:08 PM, Joe G said…

Yes, WS, touche. I should have been more specific with my comment.
At 3:05 AM, Unknown said…

Right, it's called knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

We have knowledge of one type of intelligence, designing agent and that's human beings. We are very familiar of what they are capable of and when they've been around. You want to extend your pattern seeking into realms where we don't know there was any agent around!

All evidence to the contrary, of course. Bacteria communicate and actively change their genomes.

You seriously think bacteria have cognitive abilities? That they make choices?

That is all you have. And I already posted the reference to a biologist saying there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. You do this all of the time, Jerad.

In this conversation you said you had a reference but you didn't post it. Anyway, one biologist saying so doesn't make it true. You like to pick and choose the 'experts' you consider correct instead of taking all the evidence and data and opinions into account. Instead you frequently decry those who disagree with you as idiots or liars or worse.

So they are just keeping it a secret then? Do you think that the target sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel" would ever be found if it wasn't part of the program?

Who says they are keeping it a secret? Do you keep up with all the biological and chemical journals? What does Dr Dawkins' weasel program have to do with this conversation? Dr Dawkins designed that as a simplistic model of one narrow aspect of evolutionary processes.

What gap? It is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that led us to the design inference. And science mandates all design inferences eliminate lesser explanations. newton's four rules of scientific investigation make that clear, as do Occam's razor and parsimony.

The gap of our not knowing an undirected path to the development all of life's structures. ID wants to step into the gaps and say this must be designed because we don't know how it came about. But, as far as we know, there were no design agents around before a couple of million of years ago. So you can't use those causes to explain the effects you see.

The problem is you are a scientifically illiterate fuck who has never conducted an investigation in your life. And if your wife was actually an archaeologist she would tell you that you don't know what you are talking about

Why are you so abusive? I'm asking you to defend your design detection procedure and if you've got nothing else to say about it then perhaps we should quit. Even though you haven't defended your claim to know what 'H' is for ID. It sounds like, basically, you're buying the IC paradigm. Fine. And you've got no objective, formulatic methodology.

Your claim to know better than others who have done scientific work, published peer-reviewed academic papers and taken onboard criticism when their ideas are critiqued by others in their field make you sound foolishly arrogant. When have you even taught a scientific topic of any kind in an academic environment? What publications do you have?
At 9:44 AM, Joe G said…

We have knowledge of one type of intelligence, designing agent and that's human beings.

That is incorrect. But even if true, so what?

We are very familiar of what they are capable of and when they've been around. You want to extend your pattern seeking into realms where we don't know there was any agent around!

Yes, Jerad, when we see something that resembles what humans can do and we know it could not have been humans who did it, we infer it was some other intelligent agency. The stupid thing to do is infer mother nature magically got the ability to do something just because humans were not around.

You seriously think bacteria have cognitive abilities? That they make choices?

That is what the science says, Jerad.

In this conversation you said you had a reference but you didn't post it.

I already posted it for you in another similar discussion. That is enough. If you are too stupid to remember past discussions then you are too stupid to have a discussion.

Anyway, one biologist saying so doesn't make it true.

No one can find it, Jerad. You have failed to do so.

Who was the author, Jerad?

The gap of our not knowing an undirected path to the development all of life's structures.

By that "logic"- The gap of our not knowing an undirected path to the development Stonehenge.

ID wants to step into the gaps and say this must be designed because we don't know how it came about.

What gap? It is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that led us to the design inference. And science mandates all design inferences eliminate lesser explanations. newton's four rules of scientific investigation make that clear, as do Occam's razor and parsimony.

Keep ignoring that, asshole.

Why are you so abusive?

Why are you such an ignorant fuck?

I'm asking you to defend your design detection procedure

I have. You are choking on it.

Even though you haven't defended your claim to know what 'H' is for ID.

In have entire blog posts that do that, Jerad.

It sounds like, basically, you're buying the IC paradigm.

Science says IC is real.

Fine. And you've got no objective, formulatic methodology.

Nice projection, asshole. IC is objective. Newton's four rules are objective.

Your claim to know better than others who have done scientific work, published peer-reviewed academic papers and taken onboard criticism when their ideas are critiqued by others in their field make you sound foolishly arrogant.

Your bluffing cowardice makes you appear like a bluffing coward. Not one peer-reviewed paper supports the claim that ATP synthase can evolve via blind and undirected processes. Not one. So who do I claim to know more than, asshole? Be specific or shut the fuck up.

The problem is you are a scientifically illiterate fuck who has never conducted an investigation in your life. And if your wife was actually an archaeologist she would tell you that you don't know what you are talking about

Your position has all of the power and yet it has failed to find scientific support. And Jerad wants to blame me for his failure. Typical.
At 1:33 PM, Unknown said…

That is incorrect. But even if true, so what?

What other intelligent designing agents do you know of? It matters because we have no idea if there ever were any other beings capable of the kind of design you propose . . . what kind of design are you proposing by the way? What exactly is designed?

Yes, Jerad, when we see something that resembles what humans can do and we know it could not have been humans who did it, we infer it was some other intelligent agency. The stupid thing to do is infer mother nature magically got the ability to do something just because humans were not around.

No one is saying mother nature all of a sudden got some new abilities. We're saying that mother nature's already observed abilities were enough.

You really think you can just magic a designer out of nowhere? No tools, no labs, no documentation, no latrines, no food processing . . . nothing except a disputed design?

That is what the science says, Jerad.

Um . . . if bacteria make choices then where are those choices processed? If only one line of Lenski's E. coli developed the ability to digest citrate then how did that line come up with that strategy?

I already posted it for you in another similar discussion. That is enough. If you are too stupid to remember past discussions then you are too stupid to have a discussion.

Just tell me who, I can't possibly remember all the threads I've participated in.

No one can find it, Jerad. You have failed to do so.

Even the Discovery Institute agrees there is a 'theory' of evolution. Even Dr Behe agrees with that. And Spetner I should think. They don't think it's correct but they agree it exists.

Who was the author, Jerad?

Darwin wrote the first draft and then it was modified and augmented by 100s of biologists.

By that "logic"- The gap of our not knowing an undirected path to the development Stonehenge.

We have a plausible 'pathway' to Stonehenge. We know humans with the requisite abilities were around at the time. We have some of their tools. We have examples of 10s if not 100s of other stone circles erected at the time. We even have some idea of why it was constructed.

What gap? It is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that led us to the design inference. And science mandates all design inferences eliminate lesser explanations. newton's four rules of scientific investigation make that clear, as do Occam's razor and parsimony.

The gap in not being able to say exactly how undirected processes accomplished certain things. You said we have to eliminate chance and necessity. But you haven't yet because you don't know everything that mother nature can do. You've short-changed your own 'process'.
At 1:34 PM, Unknown said…

In have entire blog posts that do that, Jerad.

Point me to one, one that specifically says was 'H' is for ID in Dr Dembski's formula.

Science says IC is real.

No peer-reviewed, duplicated, observer independent science. Just a few books written by Dr Behe and a spattering of other stuff.

Nice projection, asshole. IC is objective. Newton's four rules are objective.

And you haven't followed those rules. You haven't yet found out everything that chance and chemistry and physics can accomplish.

Your bluffing cowardice makes you appear like a bluffing coward. Not one peer-reviewed paper supports the claim that ATP synthase can evolve via blind and undirected processes. Not one. So who do I claim to know more than, asshole? Be specific or shut the fuck up.

I have found papers in the past which give an idea of the research being done regarding ATP synthase and you just dismissed it all. So, give me one good reason why I should try again?

Here's another question: what kind of evidence would you accept? How do I know you won't continue to claim that mutations aren't random when they have been mathematically proven to be?

Your position has all of the power and yet it has failed to find scientific support. And Jerad wants to blame me for his failure. Typical.

I'm not blaming you for anything except being rude and abusive which is not up for dispute.

Now I'm trying to figure out how you've ruled out natural causes in the development of ATP synthase . . . just because you haven't seen some research which convinces you? Or is it because you read someone else making that claim?
At 7:34 PM, Joe G said…

What other intelligent designing agents do you know of?

Every living organism.

No one is saying mother nature all of a sudden got some new abilities. We're saying that mother nature's already observed abilities were enough.

And yet you cannot demonstrate such a thing.

You really think you can just magic a designer out of nowhere?

No needed. The evidence for design is evidence for a designer. That is how it works.

Um . . . if bacteria make choices then where are those choices processed? If only one line of Lenski's E. coli developed the ability to digest citrate then how did that line come up with that strategy?

Umm, we know bacteria actively communicate- it has been observed and repeated. How did Tesla come up with his AC motor?

Just tell me who, I can't possibly remember all the threads I've participated in.

Just fucking link to the theory of shut the fuck up about it.

Darwin wrote the first draft and then it was modified and augmented by 100s of biologists.

Darwin's wasn't a theory. Scientific theories require quantification and evolutionism doesn't offer up that basic foundation.

We have a plausible 'pathway' to Stonehenge.

Non-sequitur. Try again.

The gap in not being able to say exactly how undirected processes accomplished certain things.

Like being able to make Stonehenge. And it doesn't have anything to do with "exactly". No one has any idea. Speculation is only as good as imagination with respect to being evidence.

You said we have to eliminate chance and necessity

We have and all you can do is whine and cry.
At 7:42 PM, Joe G said…

No peer-reviewed, duplicated, observer independent science. And you haven't followed those rules. You haven't yet found out everything that chance and chemistry and physics can accomplish.

LoL! Science is not about absolute proof, moron. Grow up. Again you are saying that we cannot say Stonehenge was designed.

I have found papers in the past which give an idea of the research being done regarding ATP synthase and you just dismissed it all.

Not one of them address what I asked for. So far from just dismissing them not one of them helped you. You didn't even make a case you just mostly linked to papers that had nice looking titles. Again, grow up.

Here's another question: what kind of evidence would you accept?

Scientific evidence- as in the evidence such a thing is possible.

Now I'm trying to figure out how you've ruled out natural causes in the development of ATP synthase .

There isn't any research that demonstrates natural selection and drift can produce such a structure. No one can even produce a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” Behe in "Darwin's Black Box"
At 7:55 PM, Joe G said…

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

Rather than think about tat Jerad would rather flail away at ID all the while exposing his scientific illiteracy.
At 3:17 AM, Unknown said…

Every living organism.

Every living organism is a potential designing agent? Trees? Worms? Which of them is capable of the kind of design you think happened? Which of the designing agents we have knowledge of was around when you think design happened?

And yet you cannot demonstrate such a thing.

Lots and lots of data in several separate threads of evidence suggest otherwise.

No needed. The evidence for design is evidence for a designer. That is how it works.

If your evidence for a designer is wrong then there is no designer. How do you eliminate chance and necessity? What procedures and methods do you use?

Umm, we know bacteria actively communicate- it has been observed and repeated. How did Tesla come up with his AC motor?

How does bacteria communicating exhibit choices being made? I assume Tesla took known motors and modified and changed them until he had something that worked well based on his goal.

Just fucking link to the theory of shut the fuck up about it.

You said you had a quote from a biologist who said the theory of evolution doesn't exist and I'd just like to know who it is. And I'd also like to know what 'H' is for ID, something else you claimed to know.

Darwin's wasn't a theory. Scientific theories require quantification and evolutionism doesn't offer up that basic foundation.

Evolution is the changing of allele percentages in living forms owing to universal common descent with variation via natural processes. Research finds the quantification of the basic skeleton.

What's ID's hypothesis by way of contrast?

Like being able to make Stonehenge. And it doesn't have anything to do with "exactly". No one has any idea. Speculation is only as good as imagination with respect to being evidence.

We have a very, very good idea of how Stonehenge was constructed. We know it was human beings around at the time.

We have and all you can do is whine and cry.

How did you eliminate chance and necessity? What procedures and methods did you use?
At 3:17 AM, Unknown said…

LoL! Science is not about absolute proof, moron. Grow up. Again you are saying that we cannot say Stonehenge was designed.

BUT you have absolutely decided that necessity and chance cannot account for life forms. How did you eliminate the effects of necessity and chance? What procedures and methods did you use?

Stonehenge was designed and built by human beings. Your whole hypothesis depends on your claim that you have eliminated necessity and chance and I'm asking you how you did that?

Not one of them address what I asked for. So far from just dismissing them not one of them helped you. You didn't even make a case you just mostly linked to papers that had nice looking titles. Again, grow up.

What, specifically, would you accept as a plausible indication that ATP synthase developed via natural, undirected processes?

Scientific evidence- as in the evidence such a thing is possible.

What sort of thing are you looking for exactly? A sequence of DNA mutations that leads to ATP synthase? If you were given such a pathway explain to me why you wouldn't just say it can't be proven that the mutations were random.

There isn't any research that demonstrates natural selection and drift can produce such a structure. No one can even produce a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

You keep saying you've ruled out necessity and chance. Are you saying you've done that just because you haven't seen evidence that satisfies you? Wouldn't that be a negative argument?

Do you really think that Dr Behe's argument that 'it would go against all human experience' is NOT a negative argument: we haven't seen it so it's inconceivable to us.

Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

Rather than think about tat Jerad would rather flail away at ID all the while exposing his scientific illiteracy.

We figure out what kind of biological structures arise from basic chemistry then we examine ways they combine together and form more complex molecules. Etc, etc, etc. And people are doing that. No flailing, no whining, just a lot of people getting on with the work. I'm not one of those people, I don't have the training or the background or the position to participate. Neither do you. But you make claims about all that effort and I'm trying to figure out by what basis you come to your conclusions.

By what procedures and methods do you eliminate chance and necessity?
At 9:54 AM, Joe G said…

OK no theory of evolution and Jerad is refusing to answer my questions.

We're done.
At 11:17 AM, Unknown said…

Funny, you ask other people lots of questions and yet you balk when people ask you questions. And my comments started out asking you questions which you've now twisted round to make it look like I'm responsible for you quitting.

Even though you don't accept any of the versions of the theory of evolution I proffered you can't say I intentionally didn't try to answer your question. Same as with your other queries. You not liking my answers is not the same as me not answering. You can't really expect me, a non-specialist, to give your chapter and verse regarding the current state of bi9-chemical research.

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know.

You haven't told me the name of the biologist who said the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

You haven't shown me a method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 7:11 PM, Joe G said…

And still no theory of evolution. Big surprise...
At 3:02 AM, Unknown said…

And still no theory of evolution. Big surprise...

If you want to be a denialist and look foolish it's your call. It's pretty clear you will just deny any version of the theory of evolution I link to or write down so I shan't bother trying anymore.

Meanwhile . . .

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know.

You haven't told me the name of the biologist who said the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

You haven't shown me a method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 6:13 AM, Joe G said…

Lol! You are the one who is looking foolish, asshole. You are obviously too stupid to know what a scientific theory is.

Good luck with that.
At 6:18 AM, Joe G said…

Dr Giuseppe Sermonti, a former geneticist and editor of a peer-reviewed journal, said that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. There isn't any way to quantify unguided evolution and science requires quantification.
At 6:34 AM, Unknown said…

Lol! You are the one who is looking foolish, asshole. You are obviously too stupid to know what a scientific theory is.

Or maybe it's you since you are in disagreement with millions of working scientists and biologists. But hey, if you want the derision and the ridicule it's your call.

Dr Giuseppe Sermonti, a former geneticist and editor of a peer-reviewed journal, said that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution. There isn't any way to quantify unguided evolution and science requires quantification.

He is the editor of a peer-reviewed journal but he's also a bit of a flake and definitely NOT main-stream in his beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Sermonti

AND . .

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 6:38 AM, Joe G said…

Or maybe it's you since you are in disagreement with millions of working scientists and biologists.

Bluffing loser. Too bad not one of them can find a scientific theory of evolution.
At 6:40 AM, Joe G said…

BTW both CSI and IC are quantifiable
At 6:42 AM, Unknown said…

Bluffing loser. Too bad not one of them can find a scientific theory of evolution.

Like I said, if you choose to be a denier and stand in disagreement with almost every scientist on the planet then be my guest. You're the one who looks foolish and petulant. And wrong.

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

Meanwhile . . .

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 6:44 AM, Joe G said…

I am not denying anything. I am stating a fact. And you cannot refute what I said.

There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. If you can't grasp that- even though you cannot find it- you are not worth my time.
At 6:46 AM, Unknown said…

BTW both CSI and IC are quantifiable

Let's just make sure I am not making any incorrect assumptions about which quantifiable methods and procedures you are talking about.

Which specific methods?
At 6:47 AM, Joe G said…

If you are so ignorant of ID then why do you try to argue against it?
At 6:54 AM, Unknown said…

am not denying anything. I am stating a fact. And you cannot refute what I said.

There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. If you can't grasp that- even though you cannot find it- you are not worth my time.

It doesn't matter to me if people are laughing at you for being a denier, it's your choice.

If you are so ignorant of ID then why do you try to argue against it?

I just want to be sure in this particular case that I'm not misunderstanding what you are referring to. I don't want to discuss something when I'm not completely sure what quantifiable procedures and methods you mean. Is one of them Dr Dembki's measure?

Meanwhile . . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 8:28 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! People are laughing at me because they cannot find the theory of evolution? Really? No one can say what this alleged theory predicts, Jerad.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

So archaeology, forensic science and SETI and bunk, then? Is that your "argument"?

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it.

So what?

Shannon told us how to quantify information. Kolmogorov told us how to quantify complexity. Irreducible complexity depends on the NUMBER of parts in its core. Numbers are quantification.

James Shapiro has a table full of mutations tat are examples of natural genetic engineering- ie the organism directing mutations.

The Origin of mutants:

In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.
At 12:44 PM, Unknown said…

LoL! People are laughing at me because they cannot find the theory of evolution? Really? No one can say what this alleged theory predicts, Jerad.

Your call. You can deny and deny and deny but no one will take you seriously.

So archaeology, forensic science and SETI and bunk, then? Is that your "argument"?

Not at all. I know what some of the analytic, quantifiable techniques those disciplines use. I'm asking you what techniques/methods/procedures you use.

So what?

You claim they're directed but you give no way of making that determination or academic references to uphold that view.

Shannon told us how to quantify information. Kolmogorov told us how to quantify complexity. Irreducible complexity depends on the NUMBER of parts in its core. Numbers are quantification.

Number of parts in its core . . . what's 'its'? DNA?

James Shapiro has a table full of mutations tat are examples of natural genetic engineering- ie the organism directing mutations.

Let's see it then.
At 12:45 PM, Unknown said…

The Origin of mutants:

In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.

Have you read the paper or just the abstract? Under what conditions did they notice the effect they're studying? A paper from Nature is good but the abstract is just the briefest of summaries and so the effect may be severely limited to only certain kinds of cases. Also, it looks like that paper is from 1988 . . . has the effect been further studied and replicated? Is this a paper that James Shapiro puts a lot of weight on?

Turns out finding the answers to some of those questions is easy:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Heresy.cfm

From the above:

"Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect "directed" mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations" [5, 6]. Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a "hypermutable" state , either by virtue of a specific genetic "rescue" program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms [7]. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development [5]. In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene ("amplification") is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product's minimal activity [8]. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection. The final result is the appearance of highly targeted mutations. Research on all these mechanisms is actively ongoing [9]."

Dr Cairns discussed the situation with the author of the review so his work was NOT mis-represented.

It was also pointed out that the research was not suppressed or ignored. It was widely discussed and studied by other qualified researchers.

So, interesting but not 'directed' mutations. Just a situation where mutations are more likely to occur. And the research continues. So, again, no cover-up. No conspiracy. Just good science. Quantifiable evolutionary research.
At 12:45 PM, Unknown said…

Meanwhile . . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?
At 1:32 PM, Joe G said…

1- Neither you nor anyone else of this planet can tell us what the alleged theory of evolution predicts.

2- Neither you nor anyone else of this planet can tell us how to quantify unguided evolution

3- Your ignorance of science just p[roves that you are ignorant of science

4- Your ignorance of ID is not a refutation of it.

5- talk origins is not a credible source

6- Directed evolution is modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms whereas unguided evolution cannot be modeled. Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.
At 4:24 AM, Unknown said…

Even the Biologic Institute agrees that mutations are random.

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/132053353789/is-evolution-random-answering-a-common-challenge

"The net effect is that mutations occur without regard for what the organism requires, but higgledy-piggledy. In that sense mutation is random"
At 10:35 AM, Joe G said…

They are repeating the mainstream canard, duh.
At 2:20 PM, Unknown said…

They are repeating the mainstream canard, duh.

The Biologic Institute is associated with The Discovery Institute and tries very hard to find any fault it can with evolutionary theory. The fact that even they agree that mutations are random with respect to fitness means they don't think there's an argument to be made for mutations being directed. And if Shapiro and Spetner use the paper you linked to as evidence that mutations are directed then it's pretty clear they didn't check on the follow-up research and the opinions of the original researchers.

Don't see evidence of a reply I'm sure I drafted to your comment with the numbered statements. Pity, I must have mucked something up. I'll do it again later.
At 3:19 PM, Joe G said…

The Biologic Institute is associated with The Discovery Institute and tries very hard to find any fault it can with evolutionism

The fact that even they agree that mutations are random with respect to fitness

No, asswipe, they are repeating what evolutionism claims.

And if Shapiro and Spetner use the paper you linked to as evidence that mutations are directed

Spetner mentioned it back in 1997. And no one can show that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes.
At 5:37 PM, Unknown said…

No, asswipe, they are repeating what evolutionism claims.

But why are they doing that? Apparently even they can't make the case that mutations are directed. Otherwise I'm sure they would.

Spetner mentioned it back in 1997. And no one can show that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/predictable-evolution-trumps-randomness-of-mutations/

This is quite interesting but no indication that mutations are 'directed'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522932
At 5:52 PM, Unknown said…

1- Neither you nor anyone else of this planet can tell us what the alleged theory of evolution predicts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2009/09/does-evolutionary-biology-make/

2- Neither you nor anyone else of this planet can tell us how to quantify unguided evolution

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789400706798

http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011016

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022881

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26213639

3- Your ignorance of science just p[roves that you are ignorant of science

Is there a problem me asking you to clarify your position?

4- Your ignorance of ID is not a refutation of it.

I'm not saying it is. I'm trying to make sure I understand what ID is saying/defending. I thought that was a good idea.

5- talk origins is not a credible source

If you can find an error in the review of the paper you linked to then please lay it out.

6- Directed evolution is modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms whereas unguided evolution cannot be modeled. Think about it- how can we test the claim that blind and unguided processes can produce the genetic code and all of the components it requires? The same goes for living organisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_models_of_DNA

You propose scenarios, you test them. Such is the way of science. Just because you can't think of a way doesn't mean it isn't or can't be done.
At 6:23 PM, Joe G said…

But why are they doing that?

Because they are talking about evolutionism. What teh fuck is wrong with you?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/predictable-evolution-trumps-randomness-of-mutations/

This is quite interesting but no indication that mutations are 'directed'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522932

So just baldly declaring it so is good enough for you? Are you really that simple?
At 6:29 PM, Joe G said…

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

How do you know those are predictions of the theory?

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality

Ditto

You are pathetic, Jerad. You have to first find and reference the theory of evolution otherwise people can say whatever they want to.

Is there a problem me asking you to clarify your position?

You shouldn't be here asking me to do that. You need to be prepared, especially when trying to argue against a position.

If you can find an error in the review of the paper you linked to then please lay it out.

If you can find an error with the original paper and Shapiro's work and McClintock's work, then please lay it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_models_of_DNA

And?

You propose scenarios, you test them.

Exactly- your position has proposed many untestable scenarios. Directed evolution can be tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
At 3:00 AM, Unknown said…

Because they are talking about evolutionism. What teh fuck is wrong with you?

Maybe you should read the whole paragraph the quote came from. They clearly admit that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

So just baldly declaring it so is good enough for you? Are you really that simple?

Again, you can deny that data and material have been provided to you that contradicts your view but it does make you look foolish and petulant. I guess you don't understand the research that's been done.

How do you know those are predictions of the theory?

I've seen lots of similar lists AND I understand the basic skeleton of the theory.

You are pathetic, Jerad. You have to first find and reference the theory of evolution otherwise people can say whatever they want to.

I already have done many times despite your denialism.

You shouldn't be here asking me to do that. You need to be prepared, especially when trying to argue against a position.

Gee, I thought you could make some positive arguments FOR your position not just attacking evolutionary theory. Or was I wrong about that?

If you can find an error with the original paper and Shapiro's work and McClintock's work, then please lay it out.

As laid out in the review I linked to the original work misinterpreted results in a particular manner. Later work clarified the actual case. That's why I linked to the review, it does what you ask.

Exactly- your position has proposed many untestable scenarios. Directed evolution can be tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

Look at that list of predictions again. Notice how they've been shown to be correct. They've been tested.
At 3:01 AM, Unknown said…

Meanwhile, you still have to make positive arguments for ID and not just attack evolutionary theory which is why I keep asking you . . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
At 7:40 AM, Joe G said…

Maybe you should read the whole paragraph the quote came from. They clearly admit that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

They are talking about evolutionism. Obviously you are just an asshole.

Again, you can deny that data and material have been provided to you that contradicts your view

It doesn't contradict anything, moron. You have to actually make your case and you have failed to do so.

Gee, I thought you could make some positive arguments FOR your position

I have, asshole.

Look at that list of predictions again.

Not one has to do with unguided evolution. And all are meaningless unless they are actually in the theory of evolution.
At 7:44 AM, Joe G said…

Meanwhile, you still have to make positive arguments for ID

Meanwhile you are a willfully ignorant asshole.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You haven't shown why that is required.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution

You refuse to reference a theory of evolution.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity

Science says it exists. Even Larry Moran says it exists.

But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

We can model it, moron.

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

That is what they do- they are designed to solve problems and are directed to do so.

Look, Jerad, your ignorance just proves you shouldn't be having this discussion.
At 9:01 AM, Unknown said…

They are talking about evolutionism. Obviously you are just an asshole.

They didn't qualify their statement so they think that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

It doesn't contradict anything, moron. You have to actually make your case and you have failed to do so.

What ever happened to 'follow all the data'? You just deny stuff that contradicts your opinion.

Not one has to do with unguided evolution. And all are meaningless unless they are actually in the theory of evolution.

Really. So the orbit of the planets being elliptical can't be a prediction of the theory of gravitation because the theory of gravitation doesn't say that explicitly?

You haven't shown why that is required.

Otherwise how does anyone know you aren't just offering an opinion? You need to have a method or procedure.

You refuse to reference a theory of evolution.

Like I keep saying, you can deny 150 years of work if you want to but don't expect many people to take you seriously.

Science says it exists. Even Larry Moran says it exists.

In biological systems? Does he?

We can model it, moron.

You can model ruling out non-directed processes? You've not being clear.

That is what they do- they are designed to solve problems and are directed to do so.

When were they designed? Where does the direction come from? How is it encoded and stored?

Look, Jerad, your ignorance just proves you shouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm just asking you to defend some statements you've made and beliefs you hold. If you can't, you can't but I thought I'd give you the chance to do so.

Meanwhile, you still have to make positive arguments for ID and not just attack evolutionary theory which is why I keep asking you . . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
At 9:13 AM, Joe G said…

They didn't qualify their statement so they think that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

Their context was clear and only a desperate asshole would try to tell me what someone else thinks.

What ever happened to 'follow all the data'?

You do't know what that means.

You just deny stuff that contradicts your opinion.

You're just upset because you got caught equivocating and lying.

Not one has to do with unguided evolution. And all are meaningless unless they are actually in the theory of evolution.

Really.

Really, really.

So the orbit of the planets being elliptical can't be a prediction of the theory of gravitation because the theory of gravitation doesn't say that explicitly?

Get caught equivocating and spew a distraction. Typical

Otherwise how does anyone know you aren't just offering an opinion? You need to have a method or procedure.

The EF works. It is basically the same process that other sciences use to determine design from not.

Like I keep saying, you can deny 150 years of work if you want to but don't expect many people to take you seriously.

And you can keep bluffing like a little faggot and no one will take you seriously.

In biological systems? Does he?

Yes, go ask him. He does think that drift and NS can produce them but he never says how

When were they designed? Where does the direction come from? How is it encoded and stored?

You can read all about them, Jerad.

I'm just asking you to defend some statements you've made and beliefs you hold.

I have

Meanwhile, you still have to make positive arguments for ID

I have

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

The number of parts in an IC system can be counted. The number of bits in a DNA sequence can be calculated.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution

I have never seen a scientific theory of evolution. No one can reference one so obviously you are just a bluffing asshole.

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

Just watch one in action.
At 10:43 AM, Unknown said…

Their context was clear and only a desperate asshole would try to tell me what someone else thinks.

It's alright with me if you want to misinterpret things you read.

You do't know what that means.

I know you are selective in what 'data' and research you accept and what you disregard.

You're just upset because you got caught equivocating and lying.

Things I did not do. What I did do was disagree with you AND I made good faith attempts to answers your questions.

Get caught equivocating and spew a distraction. Typical

I'm just pointing out that the fact that the orbits of the planets are elliptical is not stated in the theory of gravitation but is a consequence of it. There are ramifications/predictions of the theory of evolution which are not stated in the theory itself.

The EF works. It is basically the same process that other sciences use to determine design from not.

But no one can give an objective method for eliminating chance and necessity. No test, no procedure, no quantification. I thought you said scientific theories require quantification?

And you can keep bluffing like a little faggot and no one will take you seriously.

It doesn't matter if anyone takes me seriously; my opinion is based on that of thousands of working scientists who are taken seriously.

Yes, go ask him. He does think that drift and NS can produce them but he never says how

Not the same thing as believing in IC though it is?

You can read all about them, Jerad.

Give me a link and I will.

The number of parts in an IC system can be counted. The number of bits in a DNA sequence can be calculated.

It just depends on number of parts? Really? What is the threshold for a number of parts for a system to be considered IC then?

I have never seen a scientific theory of evolution. No one can reference one so obviously you are just a bluffing asshole.

Like I keep saying, you can be a denialist if you wish but it only serves to make you look ignorant.

Just watch one in action.

Give me an example then.
At 11:06 AM, Joe G said…

It's alright with me if you want to misinterpret things you read.

That is what you are doing.

I know you are selective in what 'data' and research you accept and what you disregard.

I know that you can't support that bald assertion.

Things I did not do.

All you do here is equivocate and lie.

There are ramifications/predictions of the theory of evolution which are not stated in the theory itself.

The "theory" no one can find? LoL!

But no one can give an objective method for eliminating chance and necessity.

And yet we do it on a daily basis.

my opinion is based on that of thousands of working scientists who are taken seriously.

And more bluffing. Not one of those working scientists can make a positive case for evolutionism.

Not the same thing as believing in IC though it is?

He said he accepts IC exists. Stop being such a little dick

Give me a link and I will.

You can search for yourself. Or you can remain ignorant. I know which one you will choose.

It just depends on number of parts?

Yes, Jerad. That is in the ID literature and reproduced on this blog.

Like I keep saying, you can be a denialist if you wish but it only serves to make you look ignorant.

The fact that no one can link to it proves that you are a little lying faggot. So you lied when you said that you don't lie. You are lying every time you insist there is a scientific theory of evolution.

Give me an example then.

Your ignorance is your problem, Jerad.
At 12:06 PM, Unknown said…

That is what you are doing.

I know that you can't support that bald assertion.

All you do here is equivocate and lie.

The "theory" no one can find? LoL!

You're really not even trying to have a conversation are you?

And yet we do it on a daily basis.

Do you do so objectively or subjectively?

And more bluffing. Not one of those working scientists can make a positive case for evolutionism.

He said he accepts IC exists. Stop being such a little dick

Does he say there are irreducibly complex biological structures?

You can search for yourself. Or you can remain ignorant. I know which one you will choose.

Every thing I've read from peer-reviewed work refutes what you claim so I thought I'd give you a chance to supply a link.

Yes, Jerad. That is in the ID literature and reproduced on this blog.

So something with 2 parts is probably not irreducibly complex and something with 5 parts is? Something like that?

The fact that no one can link to it proves that you are a little lying faggot. So you lied when you said that you don't lie. You are lying every time you insist there is a scientific theory of evolution.

Since you're not actually doing any biological work or writing about it or teaching it you can afford to deny 150 of research and data.

Your ignorance is your problem, Jerad.

If you choose not to defend your position and prefer insults and abusive then I'm not obligated to take you seriously am I?
At 12:19 PM, Joe G said…

You're really not even trying to have a conversation are you?

You are the one who is lying and bluffing.

Do you do so objectively or subjectively?

Objectively- by the rules of science.

Does he say there are irreducibly complex biological structures?

Yes

Every thing I've read from peer-reviewed work refutes what you claim

LoL! If true that is only due to the fact you don't understand the claim nor the articles.

So something with 2 parts is probably not irreducibly complex and something with 5 parts is?

There are degrees of IC, Jerad. To refute the argument you have to show the maximal IC can be had via blind and undirected processes. That is why if someone show that a living organism can arise that way, say in deep sea vents (not black smokers), then ID falls. As Dr Behe said showing that a 40 protein bacterial flagellum could evolve via NS and drift would take care of the 20 protein blood clotting system (but not the other way around).

Since you're not actually doing any biological work or writing about it or teaching it you can afford to deny 150 of research and data.

Since you are an asshole and a coward you can say anything because you don't have any moral standards.

If you choose not to defend your position

I have defended it. Your willful ignorance is not a refutation.
At 4:59 PM, Unknown said…

Objectively- by the rules of science.

Funny you can't show me an objective procedure for eliminating chance and necessity. One that's quantitative. Which you said was important.

Yes

Show me where he said there are irreducibly complex biological structures.

LoL! If true that is only due to the fact you don't understand the claim nor the articles.

That is possible. But, you seem to be in the severe minority in your interpretation.

There are degrees of IC, Jerad. To refute the argument you have to show the maximal IC can be had via blind and undirected processes. That is why if someone show that a living organism can arise that way, say in deep sea vents (not black smokers), then ID falls. As Dr Behe said showing that a 40 protein bacterial flagellum could evolve via NS and drift would take care of the 20 protein blood clotting system (but not the other way around).

Guide me to information that addresses degrees of IC. Define maximal IC please or show me a reference discussing that concept.

Since you are an asshole and a coward you can say anything because you don't have any moral standards.

I'm sorry you refuse to follow all the data and hold a severe minority viewpoint. And have trouble answering a lot of questions about your stance.

I have defended it. Your willful ignorance is not a refutation.

You have refused to answer a lot of question about your view such as . .

you still have to make positive arguments for ID and not just attack evolutionary theory which is why I keep asking you . . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

You're the science genius so answering these questions should be easy. You should be able to provide one or more links for each that clears the issues up.
At 5:27 PM, Joe G said…

Funny you can't show me an objective procedure for eliminating chance and necessity.

Funny that scientists do it all of the time. Funny that you think your belligerent ignorance is an argument.

Show me where he said there are irreducibly complex biological structures.

Go ask him, loser.

Guide me to information that addresses degrees of IC. Define maximal IC please or show me a reference discussing that concept.

Why? You have proven that you are a willfully ignorant bluffing liar. You are supposed to come here prepared.

you still have to make positive arguments for ID

I have. Your willful ignorance is not a refutation.

You haven't shown me a quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes

Your ignorance is your problem

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution

I have yet to see one. No one seems to be able to find one.

How did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate,

By actively searching for a way to get more nourishment from the given environment.

Show us how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms

Pick one and read the program. They are goal-oriented targeted searches actively seeking an answer to the given problem.

Again, your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.
At 7:00 PM, Unknown said…

Funny that scientists do it all of the time. Funny that you think your belligerent ignorance is an argument.

Great then you should be able to give me an objective, quantifiable procedure that ID uses.

Go ask him, loser.

You're the one making the claim. If you can't support it . . .

Why? You have proven that you are a willfully ignorant bluffing liar. You are supposed to come here prepared.

It's okay with me if you don't support your claims.

I have. Your willful ignorance is not a refutation.

Where's your objective, quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity?

I have yet to see one. No one seems to be able to find one.

Like I said, you can denial reality all you want, it just makes you look like a fool.

By actively searching for a way to get more nourishment from the given environment.

Why did only one strain 'actively search' and the other did not?

Pick one and read the program. They are goal-oriented targeted searches actively seeking an answer to the given problem.

How is that directing the 'mutations'? That's just creating a criteria for 'the fittest'.
At 7:41 AM, Joe G said…

Great then you should be able to give me an objective, quantifiable procedure that ID uses.

I already have

You're the one making the claim.

And Larry can confirm it

It's okay with me if you don't support your claims.

I have supported my claims.

Where's your objective, quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity?

Scientists are using it. If you weren't so fucking ignorant you could look into it.

Like I said, you can denial reality all you want,

Reality says that you are a lying bitch, Jerad.

Why did only one strain 'actively search' and the other did not?

Who made that claim?

How is that directing the 'mutations'?

By actively searching for a solution and changing accordingly.
At 5:39 PM, Unknown said…

I already have

Quantifiable? Really? Where is it then? Be very, very clear instead of just hoping I'll give up.

And Larry can confirm it

I can't find that confirmation. I'll assume you just made it up unless you'd like to prove to me it exists.

Scientists are using it. If you weren't so fucking ignorant you could look into it.

Why don't you just link to it and prove us all wrong then? Unless you'd rather just hope we'll give up arguing with you so you can claim a victory.

Reality says that you are a lying bitch, Jerad.

Defend your statements. That's what you need to do. I know you like being abusive but make some attempt to curb you enthusiasm and prove you're not just a bully.

Who made that claim?

What other strain developed that ability?

By actively searching for a solution and changing accordingly.

AGAIN, by what mechanism did that particular line of E. coli 'actively search' for a solution to a problem which you admitted they didn't need to solve?

And I can't help but notice you've not answered a lot of other questions including .. . .

What's the quantifiable theory of intelligent design then?

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID even though you claimed to know. Something quantifiable I trust.

You haven't computed phi-s(T) in Dr Dembski's formula. You tried to bluff your way through computing P(T|H) but you mis-interpreted H as a numerical value which it isn't as is clear in Dr Dembski's write-up.

You haven't shown me a objectie, quantifiable method or procedure for ruling out chance and necessity and natural processes.

You refuse to accept any version of the theory of evolution even though most ID proponents accept that there is one.

We have established that you are a firm believer in irreducible complexity and we know you believe mutations are not random with regard to fitness. But I'm still not clear what measurable, quantifiable criteria you use for ruling out non-directed processes.

I'm still not clear how mutations are directed now that I think about it. What quantifiable mechanism is used? How are the 'instructions' stored and where? How are they coded?

Are some mutations random and some directed or are they all directed? How do you quantify the difference?

Mechanically how did one strain of Dr Lenski's E. coli 'decide' to mutate and develop the ability to digest citrate, an unnecessary change as you pointed out. How did the E. coli know what mutational path to follow? Where is the bacterial memory? Where and how are decisions processed?

Show us specifically how directed evolution is tested via genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
At 9:21 AM, Joe G said…

I can't find that confirmation.

Your head is up your ass. You would have to pull it out first.

Why don't you just link to it and prove us all wrong then?

I am OK with your ignorance, Jerad.

Defend your statements.

I have.

AGAIN, by what mechanism did that particular line of E. coli 'actively search' for a solution to a problem which you admitted they didn't need to solve?

Directed evolution as opposed to drift and NS, duh.

And I can't help but notice you've not answered a lot of other questions including .

They have been answered. Your cowardly willful ignorance doesn't mean anything.

What other strain developed that ability?

Thta doesn't mean they were not trying to find another solution, moron.
At 11:22 AM, Unknown said…

Your head is up your ass. You would have to pull it out first.

Okay, so you can't support your claim.

I am OK with your ignorance, Jerad.

Like I said, you can't support your claim. Fair enough.

I have.

You haven't shown that "Larry" believes in irreducibly complex biological structures. You haven't said what 'H' is for ID or IC. You make all kinds of claims you fail to support.

Directed evolution as opposed to drift and NS, duh.

You haven't said how the 'direction' is implemented or stored or encoded. In other words, you haven't even started to show it exists.

Thta doesn't mean they were not trying to find another solution, moron.

And how would you know that? If all the strains were 'trying' and only one found that particular 'solution' then it sounds more like a random process than a directed one to me. Or maybe just piss-poor direction.
At 11:33 AM, Joe G said…

I have supported my claims, Jerad.

You haven't shown that "Larry" believes in irreducibly complex biological structures

All you have to do is ask him, like I did.

You haven't said what 'H' is for ID or IC.

I have blogs posts about the design hypotheses

You haven't said how the 'direction' is implemented or stored or encoded

So you expect ID to have all the answers whereas your position has none?

If all the strains were 'trying' and only one found that particular 'solution' then it sounds more like a random process than a directed one to me.

But you are an imbecile. The ones and zeros on a computer buss would look random to you.
At 3:58 PM, Unknown said…

I have supported my claims, Jerad.

What's 'H' for ID then? What's your objective, quantifiable method or procedure for eliminating chance and necessity? Where is the coding that 'directs' mutations stored? How is it encoded? How is it decoded and implemented? Where did 'Larry' say he believed in irreducibly complex biological structures?

All you have to do is ask him, like I did.

Just give me his response and your question and we'll have a look.

I have blogs posts about the design hypotheses

So you know how to compute P(T|H) for a given example? How about for ATP synthase?

So you expect ID to have all the answers whereas your position has none?

You claim mutations are directed but you can't say how or where or when or anything.

But you are an imbecile. The ones and zeros on a computer buss would look random to you.

Nope, we've had that discussion before. I do not think they are random.
At 7:52 PM, Joe G said…

What's 'H' for ID then?

I have already blogged about that.

What's your objective, quantifiable method or procedure for eliminating chance and necessity?

The same as science currently uses.

Where is the coding that 'directs' mutations stored?

In the cell

Where did 'Larry' say he believed in irreducibly complex biological structures?

From his computer.

Just give me his response and your question and we'll have a look.

Go ask him.

You claim mutations are directed but you can't say how or where or when or anything.

The evidence for directed mutations has been presented. And directed evolution can be modeled whereas undirected evolution cannot be modeled.

I do not think they are random.

They look random.
At 1:41 AM, Unknown said…

I have already blogged about that.

Well what is 'H' for ID then?

The same as science currently uses.

Show a worked out example for ID then.

In the cell

So you don't know. You just think it must exist and have done nothing to find it.

From his computer.

So you can't back up that claim either.

Go ask him.

You made a claim that you can't back up.

The evidence for directed mutations has been presented. And directed evolution can be modeled whereas undirected evolution cannot be modeled.

Your 'evidence' seems to be the unsupported notion of irreducible complexity and ONE paper that even the authors have admitted did not definitively show that mutations are directed. You've not found the mechanism of direction, you can say where the coding is, how it's 'stored' or how it's implemented.

They look random.

You don't even understand 'random' do you?
At 9:30 AM, Joe G said…

I understand random and I also understand that you cannot form an argument.

My claim about Larry Moran can be backed up by you going and asking him. That you won't do so proves that you are an ignorant coward. As if I am going to search through hundreds of posts looking for our discussion.

The cell is a location. Tat you cannot understand that proves that you are an ignorant coward.

Irreducible complexity is supported in peer-review. Tat you are to ignorant to understand that proves that you are an asshole.

And to top it off you lie about a theory of evolution and you cannot find any support for unguided evolution. All you can do is lie and bluff.
At 9:56 AM, Unknown said…

I understand random and I also understand that you cannot form an argument.

Okay, what test of randomness would you use to check the lights on a computer bus?

My claim about Larry Moran can be backed up by you going and asking him. That you won't do so proves that you are an ignorant coward. As if I am going to search through hundreds of posts looking for our discussion.

You made the claim, it's not up to me to support it. Perhaps you're just lying about that and haven't got the balls to admit it.

You suggested I search through your posts to find something so why can't you do that?

The cell is a location. Tat you cannot understand that proves that you are an ignorant coward.

There's lots of stuff in a cell, just saying something is in there is dodging the question. AND you can't say how it's stored or how it's implemented. A pretty thin hypothesis if you ask me.

Irreducible complexity is supported in peer-review. Tat you are to ignorant to understand that proves that you are an asshole.

Seems to me you're the ignorant one for believing what some people tell you without checking it out for yourself.

And to top it off you lie about a theory of evolution and you cannot find any support for unguided evolution. All you can do is lie and bluff.

Since there's no evidence of evolution being guided by some mystery coding or an undefined and undetected designer then all the evidence supports unguided evolution. Which is a more parsimonious explanation because we don't have to invoke something we haven't found. And if you say natural processes are not up to the job that, again, is a negative argument and you can't prove a negative.

Why do you think I keep asking you how you detect design and rule out chance and necessity? Because if you had some clear, objective standard for doing so you might have something. But you haven't got such a thing. You keep saying: we do it like everyone else. But you don't. You give up or make a negative argument based on misunderstood probabilities and such.
At 10:07 AM, Joe G said…

Okay, what test of randomness would you use to check the lights on a computer bus?

I didn't say anything about lights. Obviously you are just an asshole.

Why do you think I keep asking you how you detect design and rule out chance and necessity?

You made the claim, it's not up to me to support it.

All you have to do is ask him, coward.

There's lots of stuff in a cell, just saying something is in there is dodging the question.

You know about dodging questions and you don't get to say tat my answer is a dodge. Only morons think we need all the answers now, especially given their position can't answer anything.

Seems to me you're the ignorant one for believing what some people tell you without checking it out for yourself?

That describes you, jerad. I checked and I know that IC is real. I also know that evos have been trying to refute it.

Since there's no evidence of evolution being guided

You are too stupid to assess evidence, Jerad. And you sure as hell cannot show that unguided evolution can produce something like ATP synthase or the genetic code.

Why do you think I keep asking you how you detect design and rule out chance and necessity?

because you are an ignoramus.

Because if you had some clear, objective standard for doing so you might have something.

And science has something as it does that on a daily basis.

One more time for the evoTARD- If your position had something then ID would be a non-starter. However your position has nothing and because of that ID is better suited to explain what we observe.
At 10:38 AM, Unknown said…

I didn't say anything about lights. Obviously you are just an asshole.

Whatever, how would you check to see if they are random? Which test would you use?

You made the claim, it's not up to me to support it.

What? You claimed you could rule out chance and necessity via a non-negative argument and I'm asking you how you achieved that. Are you even paying attention?

All you have to do is ask him, coward.

You you can't backup your claim. Fine. That's settled then.

You know about dodging questions and you don't get to say tat my answer is a dodge. Only morons think we need all the answers now, especially given their position can't answer anything.

Hmm . . . this from someone who keeps saying evolutionary theory is wrong because it can't answer every single pithy question that ID proponents choose to bring up. But you don't have to. Nice double standard there.

'In the cell' is a dodge because you haven't got a clue where the coding is, how it's encoded or how it's implemented. And you think your explanation is 'better' when you can't say how it works?

That describes you, jerad. I checked and I know that IC is real. I also know that evos have been trying to refute it.

You linked to a paper that even the authors have admitted did NOT prove mutations wore guided. Maybe you should do some more checking and stop believing things some people tell you just because you want to believe them.

You are too stupid to assess evidence, Jerad. And you sure as hell cannot show that unguided evolution can produce something like ATP synthase or the genetic code.

No evidence of a physical designer and no evidence of coding in the cell that could possibly direct mutations. Can't assume such things exist 'cause that would be violating the principles of science. Guess it's all undirected eh?

because you are an ignoramus.

I keep asking because you can't give me a specific, objective, quantifiable procedure for ruling out chance and necessity. Dr Dembski tried but no one can compute P(T|H) or phi-s(T) so that's dead in the water.

And science has something as it does that on a daily basis.

Show me a worked out example for ATP synthase then. One that doesn't involve a negative argument.

One more time for the evoTARD- If your position had something then ID would be a non-starter. However your position has nothing and because of that ID is better suited to explain what we observe.

ID is a non-starter. It hasn't progressed in over 10 years. It's got virtually no peer-reviewed publication record. Despite the continued claims that 'design has been detected' there is no further progress on how or when or why or by whom. Nor is there any hard, physical evidence of any coding somewhere in the cell that can affect mutations.

Seriously, you personally have been saying the same thing over and over again. I don't see any progress at all. That sounds like a non-starter to me. There isn't even a decent research agenda. Dr Gauger and Dr Axe don't really publish research, they just keep making negative arguments about how natural processes can't cut it.

Plus there is the 2005 court case which said that ID was religiously motivated and, funny thing, no one has challenged it in court. Now why it that do you suppose? If ID can't cut it in peer-reviewed journals then why can't it win in court? Especially if about 40% of the American public are creationists of some kind or another. Could it be that ID is not really science?
At 2:29 PM, Joe G said…

You claimed you could rule out chance and necessity via a non-negative argument and I'm asking you how you achieved that.

SCIENCE DOES THAT ALREADY.

You you can't backup your claim.

You're to chicken-shit to ask him, fine.

this from someone who keeps saying evolutionary theory is wrong because it can't answer every single pithy question that ID proponents choose to bring up

Liar and pathetic, even for you.

'In the cell' is a dodge because you haven't got a clue where the coding is,

It permeates the cell.

No evidence of a physical designer and no evidence of coding in the cell that could possibly direct mutations

There is such evidence, you are just too stupid to assess it.

Show me a worked out example for ATP synthase then.

Read any paper tat elucidates its structure. A child could do it.

ID is a non-starter.

Your word is meaningless, moron. Directed evolution can be modeled. Undirected evolution cannot be modeled. That means ID has more than evolutionism.

BTW the Court said the school board was religiously motivated. No one can show that ID is so motivated. However Dawkins makes it clear that evolutionism is all about atheism.
At 5:17 PM, Unknown said…

SCIENCE DOES THAT ALREADY.

Great, then show me a worked out example of that for ID. I keep asking you and you keep not do that.

You're to chicken-shit to ask him, fine.

hjahahahhaha You made a claim, you couldn't defend it. Done, sorted.

Liar and pathetic, even for you.

I'm sorry but it is true that you and your ilk continually ask evolutionary theorist to supply every single tiny detail of some undirected process and then when we ask you to provide the same thing for your ideas you bail completely.

It permeates the cell.

And what does that mean? Look, either you have a cogent case or you don't. Seems to me you are just making shit up.

There is such evidence, you are just too stupid to assess it.

You keep saying that but you keep failing to provide it. AND you keep failing to defend your claims.

Read any paper tat elucidates its structure. A child could do it.

I can do that. But you can not establish that that had to arise from a directed process. Not without assuming some cause for which we have no evidence.

Your word is meaningless, moron. Directed evolution can be modeled. Undirected evolution cannot be modeled. That means ID has more than evolutionism.

Ancient philosophers modelled an Earth centred universe. They were wrong.

BTW the Court said the school board was religiously motivated. No one can show that ID is so motivated. However Dawkins makes it clear that evolutionism is all about atheism.

ID is primarily motivated by Christian conservatives. Dr Dawkins speaks for himself, evolution has no deity, no leader. Even if he really did say that I disagree with him. And I doubt he really did say that.

You should really be looking for positive evidence for ID. You should be helping to set up positive ID research. You should be spending your rime drumming up support for ID research. But you choose to bitch and moan about Ebotards instead. Why is that? If you've got science behind you then go out and find the data snd the evidence. Stop arguing and do the work.
At 8:00 AM, Joe G said…

ID is primarily motivated by Christian conservatives.

Moron.

Dr Dawkins speaks for himself,

And yet many agree with him

You should really be looking for positive evidence for ID.

Already found and presented.

And Jerad, moron, evos claim to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life. All we do is ask them to produce it. Don't blame us because of your failure, dipshit.
At 12:36 PM, Unknown said…

Moron.

It is. You only have to look at the main players in the ID movement. Aside from a couple they are all conservative Christians.

And yet many agree with him

Their choice. He's not the boss. He's just one man.

Already found and presented.

Not really since a vast, vast majority of scientists don't think you've detected design. So you've got some work to do.

And Jerad, moron, evos claim to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life. All we do is ask them to produce it. Don't blame us because of your failure, dipshit.

No one is saying they know every single mutation. But the general trend is very clear based on several independent lines of evidence. That's what people are saying. And the evidence grows day by day.
At 12:52 PM, Joe G said…

LoL! @ Jerad- John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Not really since a vast, vast majority of scientists don't think you've detected design

LoL! That alleged vast majority cannot support any alternative.

No one is saying they know every single mutation

They don't even know if mutations can do it.
At 1:09 PM, Unknown said…

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Not all ID proponents are Christians but the majority are and those ore the guys to drive the movement. Those are the guys who publish the books (except for Dr Wells who is just a looney, quite literally).

LoL! That alleged vast majority cannot support any alternative.

Only if you are a denialist. And someone who can't compute probabilities. Have you figured out a value for P{T|H) yet? Or for phi-s(T)? If not then how are you quantifiably ruling out chance and necessity? Hmmm??

They don't even know if mutations can do it.

You can't prove that they can't. And your negative arguments are ill-founded and not accepted by peer-review.

So, maybe, you should provide an objective and clear and quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity.

Maybe you should be looking for strong, physical evidence of a designer that was around at whatever time (which you haven't specified) that design was done. It would be nice to see some evidence of the kinds of counter-flow we expect when we observe human design: workshops or labs, support facilities, evidence of technological work, etc. So far . . . zilch. Nada. Unless you're making the Christian argument that some powerful, powerfully knowledgable being that we can't see or talk to did it all without leaving a shred of evidence. You're not saying that are you? So there should be physical evidence of work aside from what you claimed was designed. We have evidence like that for the pyramids and Stonehenge. But you haven't found evidence like that for genomes. AND . . .

Maybe you should be looking for physical evidence of the coding you think is in the cell, somewhere, that can direct mutations. You have a hypothesis but you haven't found what you claim must exist. Until you do you're just living on the fringe, making claims you can't support. Like your claim that 'Larry' believes in irreducibly complex biological structures. And you're too lazy to search your own blog posts for the evidence so you imply that it's my fault for not doing the work for you and asking him myself. Is that the way science is done? Make everyone else do the work.
At 1:15 PM, Joe G said…

ID has nothing to do with Christianity.

Only if you are a denialist.

Realist- only a gullible fool thinks that evolutionism has any support.

You can't prove that they can't.

I don't have to, moron.

So, maybe, you should provide an objective and clear and quantifiable method for ruling out chance and necessity.

Science already has and uses one. I am OK with what science currently uses.

But anyway, your pussy belligerence is duly noted.
At 1:30 PM, Unknown said…

ID has nothing to do with Christianity.

All evidence to the contrary.

Realist- only a gullible fool thinks that evolutionism has any support.

The trouble with denialsim is that it doesn't generate any positive evidence.

I don't have to, moron.

You do if you think the alternative is to ASSUME there is some coding which you haven't found and a designer which you also haven't found. Unless you've thrown out Ockham's Razor and are accepting an unnecessarily complex explanation.

Science already has and uses one. I am OK with what science currently uses.

Science uses Ockham's Razor which you seem to be disregarding.

AND, again, you have no physical evidence of the coding you claim exists or the designer you claim exists. No labs, no workshops, no evidence of how design was brought about or implemented. Not very scientific is it? To be make up stuff with no evidence.

But anyway, your pussy belligerence is duly noted.

Not my fault you believe in physical things that haven't been shown to exist.
At 4:12 PM, Joe G said…

All evidence to the contrary.

What evidence?

The trouble with denialsim is that it doesn't generate any positive evidence.

Which is why your position doesn't have any positive evidence.

Unless you've thrown out Ockham's Razor and are accepting an unnecessarily complex explanation.

And millions of just-so genetic accidents is unnecessarily complex and completely untestable.

Science uses Ockham's Razor which you seem to be disregarding.

Fuck you.

AND, again, you have no physical evidence of the coding you claim exists or the designer you claim exists.

Again all you can do is deny like a little infant.

Not my fault you believe in physical things that haven't been shown to exist.

It is your fault that you are an ignorant asshole.
At 5:07 PM, Unknown said…

What evidence?

The Wedge Document for one. And most of the big names in the ID movement are paid some by the Discovery Institute who provide legal advice to sympathetic school districts and legislatures. And most ID proponents admit they think the designer is the Christian God.

Which is why your position doesn't have any positive evidence.

You should be looking for your own and stop whining about evolution.

And millions of just-so genetic accidents is unnecessarily complex and completely untestable.

Not so. Dr Lenski's experiment is a test. And mutations do happens so that's not a just so story unlike believing in an undiscovered designer or unfound coding somewhere in cells.

Fuck you.

Not my fault you think a designer exists when you've got nothing but disputed design to go on. Not my fault you are convinced by some non-peer reviewed book misrepresenting an old paper into believing that there is undiscovered coding in cells that directs mutations. You're assuming unnecessary causes. And that' not good science and it's certainly not following Ockham's Razor.

Again all you can do is deny like a little infant.

I'm not denying anything. I'm merely pointing out that you believe in some things without strong, physical evidence. Like your famous counterflow. No labs, no workshops, no resource processing. No waste products. Nada, nothing, zip.

It is your fault that you are an ignorant asshole.

It's your choice to believe in things that might not exist. Me I'd want some hard, physical evidence instead of just piles of negative arguments and some dodgy misinterpretations of research. And you can't even do the math yourself!!
At 5:13 PM, Joe G said…

Again, by your logic that makes evolutionism an atheistic thing.

You should be looking for your own and stop whining about evolution.

I have supported my own, ID is not anti-evolution and you are an ignorant coward.

Not so. Dr Lenski's experiment is a test.

Test of what? It shows the limitations of evolution.

Not my fault you think a designer exists when you've got nothing but disputed design to go on.

The people who dispute the design don't have any alternative explanation.

You're assuming unnecessary causes

So you say but cannot demonstrate. You can't even build a model for unguided evolution producing the genetic code.

I'm not denying anything. I'm merely pointing out that you believe in some things without strong, physical evidence.

You are too ignorant to make such a claim.

Like your famous counterflow

Counterflow works. What does your position have, exactly?
At 5:37 PM, Unknown said…

Again, by your logic that makes evolutionism an atheistic thing.

As a percentage there are a lot more Christians who believe in evolution (including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope) than there are atheists who believe in ID. Everyone knows it.

I have supported my own, ID is not anti-evolution and you are an ignorant coward.

Your version certainly is since you think some mystery designer planted some elusive code in cells sometime (you won't say when) and didn't leave behind any physical evidence of his presence or work. Not even a toilet. What kind of designer doesn't poop?

Test of what? It shows the limitations of evolution.

Typical denier ploy: we haven't seen such and such after 30 years therefore undirected processes don't do shit. Another negative argument by the way.

The people who dispute the design don't have any alternative explanation.

Nothing you accept you mean. Be specific. It's you who don't accept the explanation not that there isn't one. And another negative argument.

So you say but cannot demonstrate. You can't even build a model for unguided evolution producing the genetic code.

There you go again, attacking evolutionary theory without finding positive physical evidence of your designer or your coding. You can make as many negative arguments as you like but that doesn't get you those two things. You have to show they exist outside of your interpretation of DNA's properties.

You are too ignorant to make such a claim.

Hardly. You do believe in a designer when you've got nothing which indicates one exists except for a heavily disputed interpretation of the properties of DNA. Including one paper that even the authors admits came to an incorrect conclusion. And you believe in some mysterious coding that exists somewhere in the cell when you're not even looking for it!! You just bought someone else's arguments hook, line and sinker.

Counterflow works. What does your position have, exactly?

So where are all the things apart from a perceived design that we experience intelligent designers to generate? Like plans? Like workshops? Like prototypes? Like hard, physical evidence of their presence?

You want to magic a designer out of nothing by insisting that some artefact HAS to be designed. But the basis of your argument is flawed (it being mostly negative arguments topped off with some quote mining from a vast body of research) and disputed so your designer disappears into nothingness without some independent physical evidence of his or their presence. Which you do not have.

You don't get design without a designer. And you cannot show there were any designers around at the time . . . what time was it by the way? You never say that either. Your hypothesis is leaking from lots of unplugged holes.

Stop sniping and start finding evidence. Start with the coding you think exists in the cell.
At 7:17 AM, Joe G said…

As a percentage there are a lot more Christians who believe in evolution (including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope) than there are atheists who believe in ID.

very doubtful.

Your version certainly is since you think some mystery designer planted some elusive code in cells sometime (you won't say when) and didn't leave behind any physical evidence of his presence or work.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

we haven't seen such and such after 30 years therefore undirected processes don't do shit

Generations matter, moron. And it has been over 50,000 generations and no new proteins, no new systems. Nothing that can be tied to genetic accidents.

Nothing you accept you mean.

No, I mean nothing. I accept all science and it is clear that evolutionism doesn't have any.

There you go again, attacking evolutionary theory

What theory?

You have to show they exist outside of your interpretation of DNA's properties.

Your position can't even explain DNA, moron.

You do believe in a designer when you've got nothing which indicates one exists

Of course we have that evidence. Your ignorance is not an argument, Jerad.

So where are all the things apart from a perceived design that we experience intelligent designers to generate?

The design is enough, dipshit.

Where are the plans for Stonehenge? Where's the lab? Where's the workshop? Where are the tools for cutting and moving the stones?

Where are the plans for the Antikythera mechanism? Where are the prototypes? Where is the workshop and tools?

And you cannot show there were any designers around at the time

The design says there was at least one around.

The positive case and evidence for ID has been presented. Your ignorance is not going to make it go away. OTOH your position still has nothing.
At 5:02 PM, Unknown said…

very doubtful.

No, not really. Very likely. I can only think of a very few ID proponents who are not Christians whereas I can think of several well known Evolutionists who are Christian.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

I'm sorry but you do believe in an undefined and mysterious designer who left no physical traces of their work except for what you call their design. But all our experience suggests that there should be more 'counter flow' than just the design itself. And you can't find the coding you say is present and you won't say when the design was implemented. and how it's encoded and how it's transcribed. This is not my ignorance, it's you not being clear about your hypotheses.

Generations matter, moron. And it has been over 50,000 generations and no new proteins, no new systems. Nothing that can be tied to genetic accidents.

So, you're argument is: if it doesn't happen after 50,000 generations then it can't happen? That's your positive argument to rule out chance and necessity?

No, I mean nothing. I accept all science and it is clear that evolutionism doesn't have any.

Denialism doesn't get yo design.

What theory?

Denialism doesn't get you design.

Your position can't even explain DNA, moron.

People are working on that. Meanwhile, how does your hypothesis explain DNA . . . .other than just waving your hands and saying it was designed. How, specifically, physically, does your position explain design?

Of course we have that evidence. Your ignorance is not an argument, Jerad

Your evidence is what you claim to be designed artefacts. So, if you're wrong, the whole design inference implodes into dust. And what takes it's place then? You say evolutionary theory 'has got nothing' so what fills the gap?

The design is enough, dipshit.

Not if you're wrong about design. Which is why I keep asking you how you objectively, quantitatively rule out chance and necessity. Something you ceased to bother trying to answer.

Where are the plans for the Antikythera mechanism? Where are the prototypes? Where is the workshop and tools?

Are you sure you want to put so much weight on that particular object?

People do do research into such things you know as is evident just by checking Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

The design says there was at least one around.

If there wasn't one around then the design inference is wrong though isn't it?

The positive case and evidence for ID has been presented. Your ignorance is not going to make it go away. OTOH your position still has nothing.

Let's think . . . what was this designer like . . . . pretty neat not to leave any evidence of workshops or toilets or living facilities or transport mechanisms. Pretty absent not to have left any evidence of revisiting Earth to see how its designs were getting on. Pretty crap allowing its designs to be polluted with disease and pestilence and shit. More importantly . . . how was it done? Did 'they' just create some proto-type cell, create millions of copies (in case tons of them died) and set them loose? How many do you think? One million? Two? How come you aren't trying to address these issues? How come you just declare that design has been detected and then sit on you ass and do nothing? Where is the research? Where are the follow on experiments? Where is the science? It's all just kind of dead in the water.
At 7:17 AM, Joe G said…

I can only think of a very few ID proponents who are not Christians whereas I can think of several well known Evolutionists who are Christian.

There aren't any christians who can find positive evidence for evolutionism.

who left no physical traces of their work except for what you call their design.

The design is all that is needed, moron.

But all our experience suggests that there should be more 'counter flow' than just the design itself.

Evidence please.

if it doesn't happen after 50,000 generations then it can't happen?

LoL! How many generations does it take, loser?

People are working on that.

And people were working on a natural path to Stonehenge.

So, if you're wrong, the whole design inference implodes into dust.

Exactly as we have been saying for decades, moron. However it is clear that no one will ever be able to refute the design inference.

People do do research into such things you know as is evident just by checking Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

And? When you lust post a blank link it is a given there isn't anything there to refute my claim.

If there wasn't one around then the design inference is wrong though isn't it?

Your scientific illiteracy is amazing. Detect design first, moron.

The positive case and evidence for ID has been presented. Your ignorance is not going to make it go away. OTOH your position still has nothing.
At 9:23 AM, Unknown said…

There aren't any christians who can find positive evidence for evolutionism.

That wasn't the point! Are you paying attention?

The design is all that is needed, moron.

Not if your design detection is wrong.

Evidence please.

When we study human designed things we always find more than just the design itself.

LoL! How many generations does it take, loser?

It varies since mutations are random. And it depends on what you're looking for. I'm not sure you really understand what evolutionary theory is saying since you constantly attack strawmen.

And people were working on a natural path to Stonehenge.

Some people are but we know people made it. We found their tools. AND there are literally hundreds of stone circles in Britain.

Exactly as we have been saying for decades, moron. However it is clear that no one will ever be able to refute the design inference.

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.

And? When you lust post a blank link it is a given there isn't anything there to refute my claim.

It wasn't a blank link. I clicked on it and got a Wikipedia page. Ah, I get it now, the reason you don't believe any of the links I post is you don't even bother to look at them. Got it.

Your scientific illiteracy is amazing. Detect design first, moron.

It's still true though that there can't be design without a designer. So, if there wasn't a designer around . . .

The positive case and evidence for ID has been presented. Your ignorance is not going to make it go away. OTOH your position still has nothing.

Your positive case is mostly negative arguments and some cherry picking of research, some of which has been overturned by later work. Why do you think ID 'lost' in Dover? It had no scientific standing. And if that wasn't true then how come the court's decision hasn't been appealed? (here come the conspiracy theory . . . )
At 9:48 AM, Joe G said…

Are you paying attention?

Yes, you are making unsubstantiated claims.

Not if your design detection is wrong.

Already covered, decades ago

When we study human designed things we always find more than just the design itself.

Your say-so isn't evidence.

I'm not sure you really understand what evolutionary theory is saying since you constantly attack strawmen.

Seeing that you cannot reference the theory of evolution and you cannot say what this alleged strawman is, your spewage means nothing.

Some people are but we know people made it.

And yet you cannot convince those other people. They must be close relations of yours.

We found their tools.

LoL! We found some tools, but not any for cutting the stones, transporting the stones and placing the stones.

AND there are literally hundreds of stone circles in Britain.

AND there are literally millions of natural stone formations.

It wasn't a blank link. I clicked on it and got a Wikipedia page

But there wasn't anything on that page that said they found prototypes nor a workshop nor any tools that were used to make it.

It's still true though that there can't be design without a designer.

It's still true though that the evidence for design says there was a designer around.

Your positive case is mostly negative arguments

What teh fuck is wrong with you? Newton, Occam and parsimony all mandate that design inferences eliminate alternatives first.

Why do you think ID 'lost' in Dover?

An ignorant judge who didn't listen to the ID experts and wanted to punish the school board for being religiously motivated.

It had no scientific standing.

You wouldn't know and you sure as hell cannot say how evolutionism is science.

And if that wasn't true then how come the court's decision hasn't been appealed?

The school board was voted out and the new members are scientifically illiterate.

But it doesn't matter as the decision only pertains to that small, insignificant school district. According to the judge had the school board not been religiously motivated the decision would have been different.

AND only a moron would think that science can be decided by a Court. The judge fell for a literature bluff. The defense lawyers were too stupid to object to the literature bluff.

What do you think is going to happen when the next case it is made clear that ID is not anti-evolution and the power of directed evolution is beautifully exemplified by evolutionary and genetic algorithms? And what happens when evos are forced to concede that theirs cannot be modelled?
At 10:25 AM, Joe G said…

1- Evolutionism makes a claim- there is a step-by-step physicochemical process for producing the diversity of life starting from some primitive replicators capable of imperfect replication.

2- Evolutionists are asked for the evidence to support that claim

3- Evolutionists stomp their feet and try to turn the tables without realizing that their opponents’ positions do not make such a claim

You just can’t make this stuff up.
At 2:21 AM, Unknown said…

Yes, you are making unsubstantiated claims.

It is true that there are many Christians who accept unguided evolution.

Your say-so isn't evidence.

Are you saying there are any man-made objects for which we have no idea whatsoever how they were made? As was clear from the Wikipedia articles I've linked to that is not the case for Stonehenge or the Antikythera device. We do have pretty good ideas.

LoL! We found some tools, but not any for cutting the stones, transporting the stones and placing the stones.

You are badly misinformed. You shouldn't just read ID supporting books and articles.

AND there are literally millions of natural stone formations.

Sometimes you seem unable to stay on topic.

But there wasn't anything on that page that said they found prototypes nor a workshop nor any tools that were used to make it.

It discusses theories of its development and uses. More denialism?

What teh fuck is wrong with you? Newton, Occam and parsimony all mandate that design inferences eliminate alternatives first.

And those are your negative arguments: chance and necessity aren't up to the job. THEN you have to make a positive case. Which you haven't done.

An ignorant judge who didn't listen to the ID experts and wanted to punish the school board for being religiously motivated.

Then why hasn't the case been appealed? Ten years on and NO ONE is every trying the same thing again. They don't want to lose again.

You wouldn't know and you sure as hell cannot say how evolutionism is science.

The judge said it had no bearing in science and NO ONE has appealed the decision or tried a similar thing.

The school board was voted out and the new members are scientifically illiterate.

And you know this how?

But it doesn't matter as the decision only pertains to that small, insignificant school district. According to the judge had the school board not been religiously motivated the decision would have been different.

He went beyond that as well you know.

AND only a moron would think that science can be decided by a Court. The judge fell for a literature bluff. The defense lawyers were too stupid to object to the literature bluff.

So, Dr Behe and Meyer couldn't convince the judge because . . .

What do you think is going to happen when the next case it is made clear that ID is not anti-evolution and the power of directed evolution is beautifully exemplified by evolutionary and genetic algorithms? And what happens when evos are forced to concede that theirs cannot be modelled?

Bring it on. I wonder why someone hasn't done that? Probably because they don't want to waste their money on another loss.

2- Evolutionists are asked for the evidence to support that claim

The combination of the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic historical evidence and over 150 years of new research.

3- Evolutionists stomp their feet and try to turn the tables without realizing that their opponents’ positions do not make such a claim

They're just pointing out that ID has no explanatory power. It can's say why some aspects of life forms are the way they are except to say 'that's the way the designer did it.' Which is pretty close to 'God works in mysterious ways.' Just another reason why ID is considered a science stopper. ID proponents aren't interested in doing anything except proving some things were designed. They do NO work past that point. They never do. They don't even try. They think that's all they have to do. Sounds pretty religious to me.
At 2:34 AM, Unknown said…

You remind me of the Von Daniken kooks who said the ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids when the ancient Egyptians told us why the pyramids were built. We have their own words.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bI47YJQY_K8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=ancient+egyptian+pyramid+texts&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Von Daniken thought he detected some non-human designs. He was wrong. He still is wrong as he's not stopped flogging his rubbish. I thought it was compelling when I was 14 but then I learned about the real science and archaeology.
At 7:24 AM, Joe G said…

You remind me of a drooling imbecile, Jerad.
At 7:32 AM, Joe G said…

It is true that there are many Christians who accept unguided evolution.

Evidence please. Your word means nothing.

Are you saying there are any man-made objects for which we have no idea whatsoever how they were made?

That is true.

As was clear from the Wikipedia articles I've linked to that is not the case for Stonehenge or the Antikythera device. We do have pretty good ideas.

That is only opinion.

You are badly misinformed

And yet you cannot produce anything that refutes my claim.

Sometimes you seem unable to stay on topic.

And you are an imbecile, 100% of the time.

It discusses theories of its development and uses.

No tools nor workshops. Do try to follow along.

And those are your negative arguments: chance and necessity aren't up to the job. THEN you have to make a positive case.

And we have. Why do you think your ignorance means something?

Then why hasn't the case been appealed?

I told you why, asshole.

So, Dr Behe and Meyer couldn't convince the judge because

The judge was a moron.

The combination of the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic historical evidence and over 150 years of new research.

None of it supports unguided evolution. Obviously you are just a gullible ignoramus.

They're just pointing out that ID has no explanatory power.

It has more than evolutionism, which has nothing.

Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole. You are also a gullible fool.
At 10:34 AM, Unknown said…

You remind me of a drooling imbecile, Jerad.

Because I disagree with you and I have a lot of support for my views.

Evidence please. Your word means nothing.

Kenneth Miller has said so in his own book. I have several Christian friends who've told me. I've heard the Archbishop of Canterbury assert his support for evolutionary theory. I believe the Pope has also expressed his support. I'm not talking about some bumbkin down on the farm. The Archbishop is a highly intelligent man who has studied theology for decades.

That is only opinion.

The truth is you will continue to deny anything that contradicts your claims unless you witness it personally. And yet you believe in a mystery designer and unfound coding in the cell. Nice double standard.

No tools nor workshops. Do try to follow along.

Clearly you do not understand how to make historical inferences based on similar machined items and knowledge of the abilities of the people around at the time.

And we have. Why do you think your ignorance means something?

You've claimed to have detected design based on improbabilities (Dr Dembski's formula which no one actually computes and the flawed notion of irreducible complexity) and misinterpreting some research as proof that mutations are directed. But you have found no physical evidence of a designer or your hidden coding. Nor have you even guessed at when design was implemented. You are just like the Christians, you think living things were programmed to evolve which implies there was a target and I bet you think it was modern human beings.

I told you why, asshole.

Then why hasn't someone else tired again someplace else? Without resorting to a conspiracy theory.

The judge was a moron.

You think everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Do you have a jurisprudence degree? Have you studied similar legal cases?

None of it supports unguided evolution. Obviously you are just a gullible ignoramus.

All of it supports unguided evolution because there is/was no designer and there is no coding in the cell. You can't find either one. Your arguments are much like the Christians who claim because we experience damn near perfect solar eclipses there must be a god. They used to say the same thing about rainbows. All arguments from incredulity.

It has more than evolutionism, which has nothing.

You can't say WHEN design was implemented. You can't say HOW. You can't say WHY. You can't say BY WHOM. You can't find a designer. You can't find mutation directing coding. You can't compute Dr Dembski's formula. You can't prove there is a biological structure that is irreducibly complex. It's all just smoke and mirrors and magic. Which is why there is no positive ID research agenda. There's nothing to research. There's no designer to find and there's no coding to study.

Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole. You are also a gullible fool.

I didn't just read a few non-peer reviewed books and then decide that the vast, vast majority of working biologists are morons and stupid. I don't call names and act like a bully on a couple of blogs. I don't deny real evidence. And I don't claim everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and a fool.

Probably time to stop this thread as well. You've already made up your mind and nothing is going to change it.
At 11:42 AM, Joe G said…

You don't have any support for your views.

Kenneth Miller has said so in his own book.

He is a known liar. Also if evolutionism is true then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then Christianity is bullshit.

The truth is you will continue to deny anything that contradicts your claims unless you witness it personally.

Liar.

Clearly you do not understand how to make historical inferences based on similar machined items and knowledge of the abilities of the people around at the time.

You stupid ass. We know of their abilities because of what they left behind. And ID makes the same type of historical inferences, moron.

You've claimed to have detected design based on improbabilities

Nope, try again ole ignorant one.

But you have found no physical evidence of a designer or your hidden coding.

Yes I have, asshole.

Then why hasn't someone else tired again someplace else?

It's coming.

You think everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.

The judge bought the word of the anti-ID mob and rejected the words of the ID experts. He was fooled by a literature bluff.

All of it supports unguided evolution

How would you know? the premise can't be tested.

I didn't just read a few non-peer reviewed books and then decide that the vast, vast majority of working biologists are morons and stupid

They cannot find support for unguided evolution, moron. They don't have any ideas on how to test the claim that drift and natural selection produced the diversity of life.
At 5:43 AM, Unknown said…

He is a known liar. Also if evolutionism is true then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then Christianity is bullshit.

Kenneth Miller is a known liar? Strange world you live in where everyone who disagrees with you is a liar and a fool.

Yes I have, asshole.

No physical evidence of coding, just a belief that mutations are guided and supposing the guidance must be in the cell. AND you haven't found any evidence of a designer except to claim something was designed.

It's coming.

Really? All I see is the Discovery Institute pushing to change laws instead of trying to establish ID as science. The Wedge Strategy you know.

The judge bought the word of the anti-ID mob and rejected the words of the ID experts. He was fooled by a literature bluff.

Again, he disagreed with you so he's a moron. Your humility is awe inspiring.

How would you know? the premise can't be tested.

It's tested every day. Haven't found any evidence that contradicts the modern evolutionary theory yet. Despite your claims and work you haven't done.

They cannot find support for unguided evolution, moron. They don't have any ideas on how to test the claim that drift and natural selection produced the diversity of life.

Of course they do. They keep researching and examining and looking for more data. And, so far, it's all consistent. Doesn't mean the theory is complete or completely filled in but the broad outline is apparent. Too bad ID hasn't moved forward in a decade or more. No research, no new explanations, nothing about when design was implemented, nothing about how design was implemented, no separate evidence of a designer.
At 3:40 PM, Joe G said…

A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District
At 5:00 PM, Unknown said…

A Response to the Opinion of the Court in
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

Too bad Dr Behe was unable to support his arguments to the point where the judge accepted his version of the science. And, strangely enough, no one has tried anything similar since. After 10 years.

ID had its day in court. It punted and failed. Why didn't it hire better attorneys if it was their fault? Why didn't the witnesses for the defence make their cases more convincingly? And, most importantly, why, after a decade, has no one else tried to pull the same stunt? Why has The Discovery Institute fallen back to a more cowardly position of 'teaching the controversy'? Have you read the Wedge Document? Do you really understand the motivation behind the movers and shakers of Intelligent Design? The people who pay Drs Dembski and Behe money every year to promulgate the doctrine?

You infer a designer when there's no evidence aside from disputed design one existed. You infer physical coding inside the cell when none has been found. You think ID can get away with making vague claims about things being designed and supposing that stacks up against the explanatory power of evolutionary theory.

I keep hearing from your ilk that evolutionary theory 'has got nothing', that it's on the way out. Shall we make a bet? I'm willing to bet that 20 years from now evolutionary theory will be strong and healthy but that ID will be pretty much where it is right now. Are you willing to take that bet?
At 1:53 AM, Unknown said…

Even the NY Times has articles about things we know about the history of Stonehenge and the people who built it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/science/stonehenge-begins-to-yield-its-secrets.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=digg&_r=0
At 9:51 AM, Joe G said…

The NY Times is a scientific paper then? Really? How long did it take us to learn all of that? How did we learn that? How do they know those people built it and didn't just stumble upon it and set up camp there?
At 9:53 AM, Joe G said…

Too bad Dr Behe was unable to support his arguments to the point where the judge accepted his version of the science.

The judge was a moron, Jerad. He said he watched "Inherit the Wind" for a historical perspective.

Also the judge said he ruled on the religious motivations of the school board. Jones has no idea what science is and a Court is not a place where that is settled.
At 11:40 AM, Unknown said…

The NY Times is a scientific paper then? Really?

Of course not. But it was a nice summary of some of what we've learned through archaeological investigations and discussed some of the newer techniques.

How long did it take us to learn all of that? How did we learn that? How do they know those people built it and didn't just stumble upon it and set up camp there?

Through excavations and other investigative techniques. To get the full story you'd have to read the research papers. But it sounds like you didn't even fully grasp the NY Times article.

The judge was a moron, Jerad. He said he watched "Inherit the Wind" for a historical perspective.

If he was so stupid he should have been easy to convince. I guess the defence witnesses fucked that up.

Also the judge said he ruled on the religious motivations of the school board. Jones has no idea what science is and a Court is not a place where that is settled.

I guess the defence was unable to put their case through then. You'd think someone like Dr Behe, a researcher and a lecturer, would have been able to get his point across better than he seems to have done.
At 11:49 AM, Joe G said…

Through excavations and other investigative techniques.

Wow, exactly as I have been saying. Go figure.

If he was so stupid he should have been easy to convince.

Moron. He was so stupid that he was convinced by the lies of the evos.

I guess the defence was unable to put their case through then.

That doesn't even respond to the comment. You must be an imbecile. The school board's religious motivation was a matter of public record.
At 11:58 AM, Unknown said…

Wow, exactly as I have been saying. Go figure.

So, what's your point? My point is that we have a lot of knowledge about who and how and when Stonehenge was designed and constructed. And the research results are easy to find.

Moron. He was so stupid that he was convinced by the lies of the evos.

Then Dr Behe failed to show that the 'evos' were wrong in a way that the judge was influenced. And that should have been easy according to you. Dr Behe fucked up.

That doesn't even respond to the comment. You must be an imbecile. The school board's religious motivation was a matter of public record.

My point is that if the defence had made their case well enough the religious motivations of the board would have been a non-issue. If the defence had managed to prove that ID is science then it wouldn't have mattered what beliefs were involved. But the defence failed according to you. Because the judge didn't understand what they were saying.
At 12:04 PM, Joe G said…

Strange that we don't know who nor how and when changes. And all we know came AFTER we determined it was in fact an artifact.

Then Dr Behe failed to show that the 'evos' were wrong in a way that the judge was influenced.

The judge fell for a literature bluff.

My point is that if the defence had made their case well enough the religious motivations of the board would have been a non-issue.

They were the only issue, dipshit.
At 12:09 PM, Unknown said…

Strange that we don't know who nor how and when changes. And all we know came AFTER we determined it was in fact an artifact.

All the data we're finding now was already in existence some was rather easy to see even a couple of hundred years ago. ID can not find ANY supporting data for their design inference. There is ZERO designer evidence: no tools, no settlements, nothing.

Also, Stonehenge is an inanimate object which cannot create offspring with variations.

The judge fell for a literature bluff.

Then the defence didn't skewer that bluff well enough. They had their chances and they failed. Clearly.

They were the only issue, dipshit.

Then the defence failed badly to make their case. Clearly. Why was that do you think?
At 12:50 PM, Joe G said…

ID can not find ANY supporting data for their design inference.

We have evidence from physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry and biology.

Also, Stonehenge is an inanimate object which cannot create offspring with variations.

Your position cannot explain reproduction, dipshit.

Then the defence didn't skewer that bluff well enough. They had their chances and they failed. Clearly.

Then that is on the lawyers, not ID, dipshit.

Then the defence failed badly to make their case

The facts are the facts, asshole. The religious motivation was already part of the public record. Are you retarded?
At 4:59 PM, Unknown said…

We have evidence from physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry and biology.

You have claims that things looked designed to you. But you have no workshops, no documentation, no tools, no living facilities, nothing at all that would indicate an intelligent designer had been around at the time EXCEPT for disputed claims of design. And, truth be told, no follow on research whatsoever. Not a thing. No one is doing any ID research at all.

Your position cannot explain reproduction, dipshit.

And your version is what exactly? The designer did it? Gee that's really useful. A designer that we can't see or talk to or know anything about. Wow, that's real science.

Then that is on the lawyers, not ID, dipshit.

Well, why did the lawyers fail then? What did they get wrong? Why couldn't they show up the other sides' arguments as false and a lot of bluffing? Why did the defence fail so badly?

The facts are the facts, asshole. The religious motivation was already part of the public record. Are you retarded?

The judge said ID was not science. That is not related to the stance of the school board. IF the defence had made their case that ID WAS science then the judge would not have made that call. But he did which means the defence was unable to make a credible argument that ID WAS science. They screwed up. Clearly. OR ID is not science. Your call.
At 7:17 PM, Joe G said…

You have claims that things looked designed to you

And you have nothing.

And your version is what exactly?

Thank you for conceding the point.

And yes, saying it was designed is useful you ignorant twit. If it wasn't useful we wouldn't have archaeology nor forensics.

The judge said ID was not science.

A judge, any judge, is not in any position to make that determination.

The defence made a good case for ID. The judge ignored it and was fooled by a literature bluff.
At 1:30 AM, Unknown said…

And you have nothing.

Denying over 150 years of published research. All of which refutes your claims of an unknown and undetected designer and some mystery coding 'in the cell' . . . some where . . . no one can find it. Funny that.

Thank you for conceding the point.

What? I asked you what your version of the origination of reproduction is. Aside from 'the designer did it' which doesn't explain much. Especially since you can't tell us anything about the designer or when s/he/it operated or how they implemented design. And why the designer is now completely absent. Funny that, some mystery being wafted in a long time ago, set it all up (according to you) and then vanished into oblivion. Leaving no signs of settlements, workshops, waste materials . . . like s/he/it what never there.

And yes, saying it was designed is useful you ignorant twit. If it wasn't useful we wouldn't have archaeology nor forensics.

hahahahahahahahha Archaeology and forensics don't just stop by concluding 'okay, that's designed but that isn't'!! Unlike ID they go on to do more work and research trying to answer all the question ID cannot: who, when, how, why, etc. You should really come up with a different comparison.

A judge, any judge, is not in any position to make that determination.

My point is he wouldn't have made that statement IF the defence had shown ID was science. Which they did try to do. They just did it really badly apparently.

The defence made a good case for ID. The judge ignored it and was fooled by a literature bluff.

Clearly the defence did NOT do a good job. IF they had there would have been a massive protest when he handed down his decision. As it was only the cranks objected.

ID is more like the people who claim crop circles are done by aliens than it is like forensics and archaeology. You ignore all the evidence against your position and do no work of your own.
At 7:06 AM, Joe G said…

Denying over 150 years of published research.

Liar. You can't produce any research that I deny. And there are biologists who agree with me.

All of which refutes your claims of an unknown and undetected designer and some mystery coding 'in the cell'

Liar

I asked you what your version of the origination of reproduction is.

Your position doesn't have anything and trying to turn that around is a sign of desperation.

Aside from 'the designer did it' which doesn't explain much.

It does to investigators.

Especially since you can't tell us anything about the designer or when s/he/it operated or how they implemented design.

That comes later, dickhead.

And why the designer is now completely absent.

How do you know?

Archaeology and forensics don't just stop by concluding 'okay, that's designed but that isn't'!!

Moron- they both determine design first and only then do they try to answer the other questions. You are so ignorant that you can't even follow along.

Unlike ID they go on to do more work and research trying to answer all the question ID cannot: who, when, how, why, etc.

Those questions are for after we have determined design and have studied it. And answering them is going to take all the resources- the resources evos are wasting.

Which reminds me- your position can't answer anything and it has all of the resources.

My point is he wouldn't have made that statement IF the defence had shown ID was science.

The defense did that. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.

Clearly the defence did NOT do a good job.

Or the judge already had his mind made up before the trial began- as the evidence shows.

You ignore all the evidence against your position and do no work of your own.

There isn't any evidence against ID. You are just a gullible and ignorant parrot.
At 12:38 PM, Unknown said…

Liar. You can't produce any research that I deny. And there are biologists who agree with me.

It's dead simple, you deny it all.

Liar

You haven't found the coding in the cell have you?

Your position doesn't have anything and trying to turn that around is a sign of desperation.

You don't get design even if you could manage to 'kill' evolution. You still have to prove your case, Which you can't. You lose.

It does to investigators.

Not if there isn't a designer around.

That comes later, dickhead.

You keep saying that but nothing ever happens. No work is being done.

How do you know?

No evidence of a designer now. Except for your bogus claim that mutations are directed. You lose.

Moron- they both determine design first and only then do they try to answer the other questions. You are so ignorant that you can't even follow along.

Too bad ID has claimed that design was detected a long time ago but haven't been able to move on to the follow on questions. Why is that do you think?

Those questions are for after we have determined design and have studied it. And answering them is going to take all the resources- the resources evos are wasting.

Typical whining ID response. They say: oooo, lots of people are sympathetic, many people are really on our side. But NOTHING ever happens. No research, not even a research agenda. Just a lot of whining and complaining and excuses. No work at all. Forty percent of US citizens believe there was some kind of design involved in development of human beings and ID can't seem to get some funding for some research. Pretty piss-poor isn't it?

Which reminds me- your position can't answer anything and it has all of the resources.

Do better then. Go ask for some money from the churches.

he defense did that. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass.

Didn't do it well enough. Even the Discovery Institute isn't contesting the decision.

Or the judge already had his mind made up before the trial began- as the evidence shows.

Then someone should pony up the money and appeal. But they haven't. They've figured out they can't win that argument. Because ID is NOT science. Not yet anyway.

There isn't any evidence against ID. You are just a gullible and ignorant parrot.

Spoken like a true Christian believer. Just like a vast majority of the ID proponents. Nice bedfellows you've chosen to sleep with. As the Clash said: he who fucks nuns will later join the church.
At 12:57 PM, Joe G said…

It's dead simple, you deny it all.

You are dead simple and you cannot support your lies.

You haven't found the coding in the cell have you?

The evidence for it exists.

You don't get design even if you could manage to 'kill' evolution.

ID is not anti-evolution, dipshit. And we get to design due to the overwhelming evidence- the same evidence your position can't explain.

Not if there isn't a designer around.

The design says there was one

Except for your bogus claim that mutations are directed.

Only your ignorance says it is bogus. You don't have any evidence to refute my claim and you are too stupid to grasp the evidence that supports it.

Too bad ID has claimed that design was detected a long time ago but haven't been able to move on to the follow on questions.

You must be retarded as that doesn't even make sense. Should evolutionism move on to the OoL?

ID is science because it matches the definition of science. Unlike your position ID posits testable entailments. And if there was evidence against ID I would expect to read about it but no one seems to be able to find it.

BTW the Discovery Institute published a book blasting Jones and pointing out all of the mistakes he made.
At 5:28 AM, Unknown said…

The evidence for it exists.

No, it doesn't. Mutations are NOT directed. You just want to believe they are so you uphold a few non-peer reviewed books that say they are.

ID is not anti-evolution, dipshit. And we get to design due to the overwhelming evidence- the same evidence your position can't explain.

It is anti-modern evolutionary theory. There is no overwhelming evidence of design. Just a few cranks who are trying to prove God exists. And people like you who like thumbing your nose at authority.

The design says there was one

Your design inference is incorrect. So, no designer.

Only your ignorance says it is bogus. You don't have any evidence to refute my claim and you are too stupid to grasp the evidence that supports it.

There is lots of research that shows that mutations are random with respect to fitness. And so far you've only found ONE old paper that even the authors now admit did not show that some mutations are directed. You lose.

You must be retarded as that doesn't even make sense. Should evolutionism move on to the OoL?

Yup, the research is ongoing. But NO ONE in the ID community is working on anything past design detection. No one.

ID is science because it matches the definition of science. Unlike your position ID posits testable entailments. And if there was evidence against ID I would expect to read about it but no one seems to be able to find it.

You just deny the evidence against ID, as usual. No point in arguing with you.

BTW the Discovery Institute published a book blasting Jones and pointing out all of the mistakes he made.

Then why didn't they give money for an appeal? And why haven't they tried the same trick again? Because they don't want to lose again. The first time was bad enough. Made them look pretty foolish.
At 7:38 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, you can deny the evidence all you want. It isn't going away. The genetic code and the way it is carried out is evidence for programming in the cell.

There isn't any modern evolutionary theory. And your position has nothing.

There isn't any evidence against ID. Your bluffs are meaningless. You don't have an argument.

But anyway ID will have another day. And I am sure it will go much better this time.
At 10:42 AM, Unknown said…

Jerad, you can deny the evidence all you want. It isn't going away. The genetic code and the way it is carried out is evidence for programming in the cell.

According to a couple of books you read when you can't understand the background research or mathematics.

There isn't any modern evolutionary theory. And your position has nothing.

Good thing no one takes you seriously.

There isn't any evidence against ID. Your bluffs are meaningless. You don't have an argument.

No argument you understand at least.

But anyway ID will have another day. And I am sure it will go much better this time.

10 years on . . . so far . . . nada, nothing, zip-point-jack. No real research either. No one has moved beyond "we can't figure out how natural, unguided processes did that so it must be designed.' No workshops, no design documents, no designer detected except for your wanting it to be so.
At 12:11 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You are nothing but an ignorant asshole and a bluffing fool.

Nice job.
At 1:38 AM, Unknown said…

Jerad, You are nothing but an ignorant asshole and a bluffing fool.

Nice job.

There is still no physical evidence of 'extra' coding in the cell. No one in the ID community is even trying to draw conclusions about the designer even though everyone's been saying design was detected a long time ago. No one in the ID community is even saying when design was implemented or how it was physically done. They think God did it and they're afraid to admit it. You keep saying it's because of a lack of resources when it's really just that, as far as most ID supporters are concerned, once design has been detected it proves God exists which has always been the point so no further work is necessary.

Except for one old paper you've shown no real evidence that mutations are guided. And the authors of that paper now admit it was an incorrect interpretation.

You haven't even got an objective, quantifiable design detection technique. You personally just depend on the work of people like Dr Behe to tell you that chance and necessity have been ruled out in certain cases because you can't do the work yourself. And you deny any and all evidence that Dr Behe got it wrong because your mind is closed to anything but what you want to believe. Just like the Christians. Funny that.

Maybe you should start asking some of your ID heroes why there is so little work going on. Maybe you should wonder where the money that you pay for their books and stuff goes. Maybe you should read the wedge document and see what the prime motivation behind the ID movement is.
At 10:39 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You can't answer any questions about evolution. You have no way to test the claim that natural selection and drift produced any bacterial flagellum let alone the diversity of life.

You don't have an objective, quantifiable anything. You are just a piece-of-shit loser.

No one uses unguided evolution for anything. It is a useless concept.

Why Invoke Darwin?- I am sure you will ignore that also- or you will stomp your feet and whine like the crybaby that you are.

Intelligent Reasoning

Thursday, October 22, 2015

How We Know Biological Intelligent Design is Possible

153 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts