Hands from Fins? More EvoTARD Nonsense
-
Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor. Too bad t6hat Shubin cannot tell us how those HOX genes evolved in the first place and also too bad he completely neglects the most probable cause of HOX similarity- a Common Design.
Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it isn't* the type that evoTARDs think.
Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.
But anyway perhaps the evos will try to actually test this latest grand claim by manipulating the gar genome to find out if hands will develop. I doubt it as they never actually try to test their claims.
*HT Jerad
Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor. Too bad t6hat Shubin cannot tell us how those HOX genes evolved in the first place and also too bad he completely neglects the most probable cause of HOX similarity- a Common Design.
Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it isn't* the type that evoTARDs think.
Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.
But anyway perhaps the evos will try to actually test this latest grand claim by manipulating the gar genome to find out if hands will develop. I doubt it as they never actually try to test their claims.
*HT Jerad
posted by Joe G @ 11:45 AM
19 Comments:
At 2:49 AM,
Jerad said…
Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor. Too bad t6hat Shubin cannot tell us how those HOX genes evolved in the first place and also too bad he completely neglects the most probable cause of HOX similarity- a Common Design.
How the genes evolved is not the point. Even if you try and twist the discussion that way.
A common design is NOT the most probable as you have no outside evidence of a designer.
Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it is the type that evoTARDs think.
I think you didn't say what you meant to say. Try again.
Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.
And what is the problem?
But anyway perhaps the evos will try to actually test this latest grand claim by manipulating the gar genome to find out if hands will develop. I doubt it as they never actually try to test their claims.
But manipulating the genes would be DESIGNING them wouldn't it? Perhaps you should think your position through more clearly.
Figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet?
Got your big legal challenge to evolution started in the courts yet?
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
How the genes evolved is not the point.
That is and always has been the point.
A common design is NOT the most probable as you have no outside evidence of a designer.
The design is evidence for the designer, duh. And if your position had something- some methodology to test its claims, then it would be science. Too bad it doesn't have that
I think you didn't say what you meant to say.
You're just an imbecile who can't think for himself. A common design is a common genetic origin, double-duh.
And what is the problem?
Two different HOX genes from two very different lineages. Are you really that dense?
But manipulating the genes would be DESIGNING them wouldn't it?
It would show what is possible by doing so, duh.
Figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet?
Not until someone tells me what use it is. And no one can tell what use Cantor's nonsensical and easily refuted diatribe about all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. Not even you and you claim to be a mathematician. That means you are just a sad and sorry person. Congratulations.
Got your big legal challenge to evolution started in the courts yet?
I have scientific challenges to evolutionism and I have said what they are. And neither you nor any other evo can say anything to refute them. I am more than OK with that.
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
So mice have HOX genes from two different lineages, only one of which is their alleged line. And Jerad doesn't see that as a problem.
No surprise there...
At 2:13 AM,
Unknown said…
That is and always has been the point.
Then why were you discussing what you can conclude from HOX gene similarities?
The design is evidence for the designer, duh.
You have no evidence for a designer apart from an unproved claim that something was designed. You have no tools, no labs, no plans, no waste products, no documentation. When humans design things they leave evidence of having implemented the designs. You don't have that.
And if your position had something- some methodology to test its claims, then it would be science. Too bad it doesn't have that
You're entitled to your ignorance.
You said: Hands and Fins Share Common Genetic Origin - yes they do except it is the type that evoTARDs think.
Read that again, especially the part where you said except it IS the type
A common design is a common genetic origin, double-duh.
That's not what 'a common genetic origin' means. But you're used to misusing words aren't you? Like when you got LASER wrong.
Two different HOX genes from two very different lineages. Are you really that dense?
They're in different lineages. So?
Not until someone tells me what use it is. And no one can tell what use Cantor's nonsensical and easily refuted diatribe about all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. Not even you and you claim to be a mathematician. That means you are just a sad and sorry person. Congratulations.
Bluff and bluster. You made a claim that you can't back up. Stop being a baby and admit it.
I have scientific challenges to evolutionism and I have said what they are. And neither you nor any other evo can say anything to refute them. I am more than OK with that.
So you haven't initiated a court case like you said you were going to. Another claim you didn't back up.
So mice have HOX genes from two different lineages, only one of which is their alleged line. And Jerad doesn't see that as a problem.
Are you sure that's what the report says? That's not what you wrote in your post. You should really pay more attention.
At 11:30 AM,
Jerad said…
So mice have HOX genes from two different lineages, only one of which is their alleged line. And Jerad doesn't see that as a problem.
That's not what you said in your post. You said:
Neil Shubin is at it again with more of his nonsensical "your inner fish" diatribe. Shubin says that cuz gars and mice have very similar HOX genes that means mice and those fish share a common ancestor.
and
Years ago scientists also discovered that flies and mice have similar HOX genes for eye development- PAX6. And evos have said that flies share a common ancestor with brine shrimp, not fresh water fish. Not that evos would ever admit that was a problem.
So, mice and gars have some very similar HOX genes. Not identical note. AND mice and flies have some similar HOX genes. You didn't say if they're the same HOX genes that are similar in mice and gars. Nor did you say whether the similar HOX genes are the same between mice and gars and flies and brine shrimp. Which seems to me to be a possibility based on what you wrote.
You need to work on your blog posts and make sure they say what you think they say.
At 11:33 AM,
Jerad said…
And you still can't figure out the relative cardinality of the primes, an idea that YOU proposed and claimed could be determined. You have only yourself to blame for looking like a fool.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
And you still can't figure out the relative cardinality of the primes
That is your uneducated opinion anyway. Heck if you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given what I have told you about the concept.
At 12:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Then why were you discussing what you can conclude from HOX gene similarities?
Because it is also a point, Jerad. Do you really think this debate has only one point that it is challenging?
You have no evidence for a designer apart from an unproved claim that something was designed.
Science isn't about proof, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relations AND if your position had something to refute it it would. But it can't
You're entitled to your ignorance.
And you are entitled to yours. I am OK with the fact that no one can refute my claim.
Read that again, especially the part where you said except it IS the type
Oops, nice catch
That's not what 'a common genetic origin' means.
Why not? If the both originated via a common design it would fit just fine.
They're in different lineages. So?
So nature spliced two different lineages together for some genes?
So mice have HOX genes from two different lineages, only one of which is their alleged line. And Jerad doesn't see that as a problem.
Are you sure that's what the report says?
That is what the science says. But then again you don't know anything about it.
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
So mice have HOX genes from two different lineages, only one of which is their alleged line. And Jerad doesn't see that as a problem.
That's not what you said in your post.
That is what the science says. If you weren't so ignorant of the science you would have known that.
So, mice and gars have some very similar HOX genes. Not identical note. AND mice and flies have some similar HOX genes. You didn't say if they're the same HOX genes that are similar in mice and gars. Nor did you say whether the similar HOX genes are the same between mice and gars and flies and brine shrimp. Which seems to me to be a possibility based on what you wrote.
Do your own research, Jerad. Then get back to me and we can discuss it.
At 2:18 PM,
Jerad said…
That is your uneducated opinion anyway. Heck if you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given what I have told you about the concept.
You made the claim, you can't back it up.
And you are entitled to yours. I am OK with the fact that no one can refute my claim.
You can't uphold your claims.
That is what the science says. If you weren't so ignorant of the science you would have known that.
It's not what you said in your post. You didn't establish your point. You just blathered without being precise.
Do your own research, Jerad. Then get back to me and we can discuss it.
I'm not the one making a claim contrary to accepted interpretations. It's up to you to support your claims. Which you don't seem to be able to do.
I'm not going to hammer you for an obvious mistake you made in your post, which you now admit. That's understandable and everyone does it. But when you double down on claims you can't support then expect some kick-back.
If you write something then it's up to you to defend it. It's not up to me to do all the work to figure out what is really right. Don't publish stuff that you haven't checked out if you expect to be taken seriously.
At 2:20 PM,
Jerad said…
You're a parent. You know that you can't just keep telling your child what they should have done. They have to figure out how to walk the talk themselves.
I don't need to prove anything to point out when you're wrong or unsupported. It's up to you to do that.
At 3:14 PM,
Joe G said…
You made the claim, you can't back it up.
Of course I can.
You can't uphold your claims.
I have. Evos can't uphold theirs
It's not what you said in your post
I shouldn't have to repeat what is already known
I'm not the one making a claim contrary to accepted interpretations
They can't support those interpretations.
I'm not going to hammer you for an obvious mistake you made in your post,
It was a typo, dipshit
I don't need to prove anything to point out when you're wrong or unsupported.
You cannot point out that I am wrong and only your ignorance sez my claims are unsupported
At 4:00 PM,
Jerad said…
Of course I can.
Science says you can't.
I have. Evos can't uphold theirs
And you have no publications, no results and no academic support.
I shouldn't have to repeat what is already known
Here's the childish behaviour again. You didn't say what you thought you said and now you're just stonewalling.
They can't support those interpretations.
Dodge. You are the one making a claim contrary to accepted results; it's up to you to defend your claims. Which you can't do.
It was a typo, dipshit
Which is why I said I wasn't going to hammer you with it. Are you even paying attention?
You cannot point out that I am wrong and only your ignorance sez my claims are unsupported
Except it isn't just me. It's a vast, vast majority of scientists. And because you're too much of a coward to attempt to get your ideas published or tested in a court of law you keep wanting to believe that no one can contradict you.
If you're right then you should be able to get your ideas published. (And now he's going to claim there's some great conspiracy against his ideas and for the status quo. Denial, denial, denial.) You say Cantor was wrong and yet, despite the fact that his ideas were highly controversial at the time, he got them published in a journal. And then they were tested by the mathematical community. You don't even try. You sit there banging away at your keyboard believing that the world is against you but you don't even try to work your ideas out and get them noticed. You are afraid that the rest of us are right and you'll have to face up to the fact that you've been spouting mounds of shite for years and years. So you play it safe, you don't even try to develop your ideas and get them considered. That's cowardice. And fear of being wrong.
Real scientists, real mathematicians are not afraid of the opinion of others. They welcome them. They come up with lots and lots of ideas, they try and work them out and then they bounce them off of people (some of whom they don't even like) to see if they're rigorous to stand up to scrutiny. Because, the way ideas get accepted is when they can stand up to the greatest assaults.
But you can't even defend your own claims. You haven't done anything except talk. And talk is cheap.
At 12:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Science says you can't.
That is your ignorant opinion, anyway.
And you have no publications, no results and no academic support.
Neither do the evos. Please try to pay attention.
You are the one making a claim contrary to accepted results; it's up to you to defend your claims.
What a dumbass. Why are those results "accepted? and who accepts them. The people making the original claim have to support otherwise Hitchens is applied- that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Also a common design is observed all throughout the real world. So I have that as evidence it occurs.
Except it isn't just me. It's a vast, vast majority of scientists. And because you're too much of a coward to attempt to get your ideas published or tested in a court of law you keep wanting to believe that no one can contradict you.
That alleged vast majority cannot support their claims and only a complete morn thinks that science is done via consensus. Evos don't have anything published that supports their claims. There isn't anything in any journal that shows how ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift or any other non-telic process. You lose, again.
You say Cantor was wrong and yet, despite the fact that his ideas were highly controversial at the time, he got them published in a journal. And then they were tested by the mathematical community.
And yet a simple test of set subtraction refuted Cantor.
Also you are the liar and coward here, Jerad. You claim there is a use for saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and yet you have never said what it is nor have you provided any references to support your claims.
And I have supported my claims. Don't blame me for your obvious willful ignorance. Evos have never supported theirs. Grow up, loser.
At 4:44 PM,
Jerad said…
Neither do the evos. Please try to pay attention.
Deny, deny, deny. Doesn't mean you win. It just means you're a denialist.
What a dumbass. Why are those results "accepted? and who accepts them. The people making the original claim have to support otherwise Hitchens is applied- that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Also a common design is observed all throughout the real world. So I have that as evidence it occurs.
They are accepted because they are scrutinised and examined and checked and frequently repeated. You don't do any research so it all seems like smoke and mirrors. But it isn't. The claims are supported by research and data. No matter what denialists like you claim.
That alleged vast majority cannot support their claims and only a complete morn thinks that science is done via consensus. Evos don't have anything published that supports their claims. There isn't anything in any journal that shows how ATP synthase evolved via natural selection, drift or any other non-telic process. You lose, again.
Deny, deny, deny. Find mistakes in the research and come up with something else viable. Which you haven't been able to do.
And yet a simple test of set subtraction refuted Cantor.
Nope, you just denied his results. But his work shows something is wrong with set subtraction. Too bad you don't understand his proof eh?
Also you are the liar and coward here, Jerad. You claim there is a use for saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and yet you have never said what it is nor have you provided any references to support your claims.
Even IF there is no application of that fact is doesn't mean it isn't true. You're harping on that point is just a coward's way of avoiding the issue. Another denialist ploy when you can't come up with the goods.
And I have supported my claims. Don't blame me for your obvious willful ignorance. Evos have never supported theirs. Grow up, loser.
You can't figure out the relative cardinality of the primes. And you can't prove the primes are more or less dense than the square numbers. You're just a bluffing denialist.
At 4:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Deny, deny, deny.
I am stating a fact. Obviously you are just an ignorant and gullible ass.
They are accepted because they are scrutinised and examined and checked and frequently repeated.
That is your ignorant opinion anyway. Too bad it is false.
Find mistakes in the research and come up with something else viable.
What research? I can find mistakes in research that doesn't exist.
Nope, you just denied his results.
Nope, set subtraction proves he was wrong. As I said before you are too stupid to understand the ramifications of set subtraction.
Even IF there is no application of that fact is doesn't mean it isn't true.
It means it is useless and therefor anyone can say anything about it without any consequences. But thank you for finally admitting what I have been saying has been true all along.
You can't figure out the relative cardinality of the primes.
And yet I have. Then that made you so angry that you moved the goalposts.
At 4:52 PM,
Joe G said…
And if I am really in denial then it should be easy for you to show that. And it is very telling that you never do. It's as if you are just a bluffing coward.
At 5:02 PM,
Jerad said…
That is your ignorant opinion anyway. Too bad it is false.
That is evident from the century and a half of published research and data.
What research? I can find mistakes in research that doesn't exist.
You are such a chicken-shit. You cannot even pick a piece of research and point out a mistake.
Nope, set subtraction proves he was wrong. As I said before you are too stupid to understand the ramifications of set subtraction.
Find a mistake in his proof then. You can't do that so his result stands and contradicts set subtraction. Your denying it doesn't make it go away.
It means it is useless and therefor anyone can say anything about it without any consequences. But thank you for finally admitting what I have been saying has been true all along.
I said IF. Anyway, it's clear you don't understand mathematics and can't make mathematical arguments. Cantor was right and you're wrong. And you can't find a mistake in his work. And you can't figure out the relative cardinality of the primes. And you can't support your assertion about the relative cardinality of the squares and primes.
And yet I have. Then that made you so angry that you moved the goalposts.
But you haven't. You can't tell me what it is. You only assert it is greater (or is it lesser) than that of the squares. That's not figuring out what it is. You're just bluffing and hoping I give up.
And if I am really in denial then it should be easy for you to show that. And it is very telling that you never do. It's as if you are just a bluffing coward.
It's easy to see you're in denial. There's 150+ years of evolutionary research and data which you denial. And there's over 100 years of mathematical work and research which proves you're wrong. You don't understand any of it so you deny it and claim no one has refuted you. Which doesn't cut it. It's just denialism.
At 5:31 PM,
Joe G said…
That is evident from the century and a half of published research and data
There isn't any research tat shows natural selection, drift or any other non-telic process can produce complex protein machinery. Heck there isn't any such research that shows those processes can produce proteins. Obviously you are just a gullible loser.
You cannot even pick a piece of research and point out a mistake.
You are such a chickenshit. You can't even reference any research that shows non-telic processes can produce anything.
Find a mistake in his proof then.
Set subtraction proves that his "proof" was off the mark.
I said IF.
It is obvious there isn't any use for it or you would have said what it is by now. Obviously you are just a bluffing wanker.
You only assert it is greater (or is it lesser) than that of the squares.
If that was the case then you should easily refute my claim
It's easy to see you're in denial.
Bluff
There's 150+ years of evolutionary research and data which you denial. And there's over 100 years of mathematical work and research which proves you're wrong.
And yet you can't reference any of it. Go get fucked, coward.
Post a Comment
<< Home