More EvoTARD Ignorance
-
Over on Dr Hunter's blog "Darwin's God" there is this lowlife moron who goes by Ghostrider who actually said there is a theory of evolution cuz "theory of evolution" gives you 11 million hits on google. Read it for yourself.
The problem started when I said there isn't any such theory, backed it up with two biologists saying the same and then ghostrider failing to find it. You would think with 11 million hits the actual theory of evolution would be in there somewhere, but it isn't. And it isn't in there because it doesn't exist. But that won't stop people from talking about it as if it does exist. Then again people also talk of Santa Claus- 51 million hits. By ghostrider's "logic" Santa Claus is more than 4x likely to exist than the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.
Over on Dr Hunter's blog "Darwin's God" there is this lowlife moron who goes by Ghostrider who actually said there is a theory of evolution cuz "theory of evolution" gives you 11 million hits on google. Read it for yourself.
The problem started when I said there isn't any such theory, backed it up with two biologists saying the same and then ghostrider failing to find it. You would think with 11 million hits the actual theory of evolution would be in there somewhere, but it isn't. And it isn't in there because it doesn't exist. But that won't stop people from talking about it as if it does exist. Then again people also talk of Santa Claus- 51 million hits. By ghostrider's "logic" Santa Claus is more than 4x likely to exist than the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.
posted by Joe G @ 11:04 AM
44 Comments:
At 4:45 PM,
Jerad said…
Denying there is such a theory and/or not understanding it are NOT the same thing as the theory not existing. Universal common descent via inherited modification. You might not believe it but the theory exists.
But I forget, you're the guy who didn't know what laser stood for and then argued about it when you were shown to be incorrect even though you would never, ever find any source which agreed with your version. You're never wrong are you? Must be nice. I wonder why your are rich or in charge of something.
Have you figured out the 'relative' cardinality of the primes yet?
Found a fault with Cantor's work yet? A fault that anyone else in the world agrees with?
Have you launched your great legal challenge against evolution being taught in US public schools?
Or are you just spending hours and hours trying to argue with people on blogs?
At 6:35 AM,
Joe G said…
I rest my case in the fact that no one can link to this alleged theory of evolution. That means you can't.
So fuck off as you are a proven liar, loser and bluffing coward.
At 7:30 AM,
Joe G said…
"There is no theory of evolution"- cytologist Jerome Lejeune at the 1982 close of the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (no one disagreed and the meeting ended)
"There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution." geneticist and former editor of a peer-review journal, Giuseppe Semonti
It takes an incredibly dishonest loser to claim there is an evolutionary theory without being able to reference it. Enter Jerad, et al.
Every time I say there isn't a theory of evolution I always get attacked but never get refuted. Go figure...
At 1:55 AM,
Jerad said…
Joe finds two quotes that support his view and ignores thousands, if not millions of other that don't. Typical denialism. Pick the stuff that agrees with you and ignore or deny that which doesn't.
Universal common descent via inheritable variation.
At 2:05 AM,
Jerad said…
Giuseppe Semonti is a creationist. Just your kind of person eh? :-)
I love the way William keeps answering your questions on Darwin's God and how you keep dancing around to make it look like he hasn't. Now I know why you haven't brought your legal case against teaching evolution to the courts: you know you'd have to actually show your ignorance and you don't want to look like a fool. :-)
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad you are a fuckingh liar and a cowardly bluffer. It is very telling that no one can link to this alleged theory of evolution. William dances and never answers anything. You are a pathetic little-minded drooler.
It takes an incredibly dishonest loser to claim there is an evolutionary theory without being able to reference it. Enter Jerad, et al.
Every time I say there isn't a theory of evolution I always get attacked but never get refuted. Go figure...
Jerad looks like a fool for being unable to link to the alleged ToE.
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
I love the way William keeps answering your questions
I love the way that you lie as William has failed to answer anything. Do you really think that you can lie about that and get away with it? You are a pathetic piece of shit.
At 9:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe finds two quotes that support his view and ignores thousands, if not millions of other that don't.
Umm, you are a loser, Jerad. The people who say that there is a theory of evolution cannot link to it. So why would anyone believe them? I know why you would- you believe anything that you think is true. Evidence doesn't mean anything to you.
Jerad, if you cannot link to the theory of evolution don't bother posting here
At 3:51 PM,
Unknown said…
Deny, deny, deny. Universal common descent via inheritable variation. Why is that not a theory? Go on, don't just deny come up with an actual argument. It has explanatory power, it can be disproved, it makes predictions. And don't just quote a few fring people. Look at all the data. All of it. The genetic data. The bio-geographic data. The morphological data. The fossil data. And that's just the old stuff. Look at the new work. One of your above quotes was from the mid. 80s and taken out of context. Is that the best you can do? Maybe it is. That's pretty piss poor.
Do you know how insulting you are? Generations of mathematicians spend decades of their lives working with something you claim is incorrect because you came up with some idea which you can't even support. What is the relative cardinality of the primes? You can't answer that question because your idea doesn't work. But you won't admit it.
Generations of biologists spend decades studying and investigating aspects of evolutionary theory and you just deny anything that is presented to you and all you've got in support is a few non-peer reviewed books and various quotes, some taken out of context and some from blatant fringe figures. And yet, you're right and almost every one else is wrong.
The science of climate change is upheld by a vast majority of people who know the field and have spent a lot more time than you have actually investigating the issues rather than just speculating as you do without any real academic experience. And, again, you're right and all those intelligent, serious, dedicated scientists are wrong.
You consign thousands, millions of people to the intellectual waste bin because you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. And have been shown to be wrong over and over and over again.
And why would all those intelligent, insightful, dedicated scientists and mathematicians be so stupid? Because they're worried about their jobs? Clearly you don't really understand academics at all. Scientists LOVE showing someone else is wrong. They would make a career, go down in history if they proved Cantor or Darwin wrong. They would be famous beyond all recognition. They would earn a lot more money doing that then just sticking to the party line.
But oh no, not in your world. You are so convinced that your are right that you have to make up reasons why people don't agree with you. As long as one of those reasons isn't that you are wrong. Deny, deny, deny. And you haven't got a single academic publication to your name. Or even a website laying out your ideas in coherent fashion. You haven't haven't got shit really. But you're right, you're always right. Even if you can't understand basic undergraduate mathematics. Even if you can't understand why carbon dioxide levels in a few hundreds parts per million can make a difference. Even if you can't understand the basic theory of evolution which was spelled out 150 years ago. Deny, deny, deny.
At 6:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Universal common descent via inheritable variation. Why is that not a theory?
That is too vague to be a scientific theory. And it is untestable.
What gets varied? How do you know that varying it can produce the results you require? Where's the science?
Darwin had bears evolving into whales. How did that work out?
Look at the genetics. Yours can't even explain the genetic code nor asexual reproduction.
Newton had the science to support his claims. His was a scientific theory. Einstein's addition was a scientific theory. It has been proven by observation.
One of your above quotes was from the mid. 80s and taken out of context.
Liar. Is that the best you can do? Also Sermonti isn't a creationist. Haters like you call him that because he has laid bare the claims of evolutionism- as a good scientist should.
Generations of mathematicians spend decades of their lives working with something you claim is incorrect because you came up with some idea which you can't even support.
And more lies. You are one degenerate twit, Jerad. And obviously you don't know jack about science.
Prove Darwin wrong? No one can show he is right. He didn't make any testable claims. And now all evos do is hide behind father time and do cargo cult science.
Who is looking into natural selection's ability to create multi-protein machines? The best you have is Lenski and he has shown that evolution is very, very limited.
No one is using evolutionism to guide their research. It is a useless concept.
Climate change- yes it does and will do so regardless of us. However it seems our urban heat islands- not CO2- are the main problem. And besides, history says humans prosper when its warmer.
Look, Jerad, just because you drank the Kool-Aid and are unable to think for yourself doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Now either link to the theory of evolution or admit that I am right. And no one has ever used Cantor's concept on the cardinality of countable and infinite sets. All you are doing is proving that you are a pathetic cry-baby.
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
It must be frustrating for evolutionists. On one hand they say Darwin is irrelevant and on the other they reference him when asked for a theory of evolution. Unfortunately, at best Darwin's is a theory only in the general sense and not in the scientific sense. It doesn't make any testable claims. For example although he could imagine the vision system evolving by means of natural selection, he never said how to test the claim. And no one since then has said how to test that claim.
A few years ago there was a paper that attempted to refute Behe's "edge of evolution" pertaining to the problem of getting specific mutations. And it could be that given enough time (generations), and a large starting population, the edge may be impinged upon. But that is no where near enough to account for the diversity of life. And given that evos rely heavily on gene duplications followed by divergence of one of the copies, you can see that they also rely on multiple specific mutations. Too many for stochastic processes to produce. Unless we just disregard the findings from waiting for two mutations
Genetics is an evo's enemy. For one there isn't anything in genetics that indicates changes to genomes can produce the diversity of life regardless of time. And for another the genetic code is inexplicable in terms of stochastic processes.
Fossils- it's pretty lame to say that you have a theory that explains fossil succession when you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms in the first place.
I digress- Darwin's wasn't a scientific theory. He didn't know enough to make testable claims.
At 4:57 PM,
Jerad said…
That is too vague to be a scientific theory. And it is untestable.
Incorrect. Darwin himself showed how it could be tested and disproved.
What gets varied? How do you know that varying it can produce the results you require? Where's the science?
Genes vary. Why are you asking such elementary questions?
Darwin had bears evolving into whales. How did that work out?
Blatantly false.
Look at the genetics. Yours can't even explain the genetic code nor asexual reproduction.
What? Are you just flinging about stuff you can't answer?
Newton had the science to support his claims. His was a scientific theory. Einstein's addition was a scientific theory. It has been proven by observation.
Evolutionary theory has also been verified by observation.
Liar. Is that the best you can do? Also Sermonti isn't a creationist. Haters like you call him that because he has laid bare the claims of evolutionism- as a good scientist should.
He's a creationist. He thinks 'god did it'.
And more lies. You are one degenerate twit, Jerad. And obviously you don't know jack about science.
But you do. Without even a bachelor's degree or a single academic publication. Right.
Prove Darwin wrong? No one can show he is right. He didn't make any testable claims. And now all evos do is hide behind father time and do cargo cult science.
As I said, Darwin laid down criteria for falsifying his ideas.
Who is looking into natural selection's ability to create multi-protein machines? The best you have is Lenski and he has shown that evolution is very, very limited.
He has shown nothing of the kind. Except that people who think that 30 years is enough time to prove a negative: that evolution couldn't do it.
No one is using evolutionism to guide their research. It is a useless concept.
Clearly you don't follow evolutionary research.
Climate change- yes it does and will do so regardless of us. However it seems our urban heat islands- not CO2- are the main problem. And besides, history says humans prosper when its warmer.
We'll see how you prosper when the mean average temperature goes up by a couple more degrees.
Look, Jerad, just because you drank the Kool-Aid and are unable to think for yourself doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Whatever.
Now either link to the theory of evolution or admit that I am right. And no one has ever used Cantor's concept on the cardinality of countable and infinite sets. All you are doing is proving that you are a pathetic cry-baby.
I already told you what the basic theory was. And you still cannot figure out the relative cardinality of the primes. And I'm willing to bet that you never will.
At 5:01 PM,
Jerad said…
It must be frustrating for evolutionists. On one hand they say Darwin is irrelevant and on the other they reference him when asked for a theory of evolution. Unfortunately, at best Darwin's is a theory only in the general sense and not in the scientific sense. It doesn't make any testable claims. For example although he could imagine the vision system evolving by means of natural selection, he never said how to test the claim. And no one since then has said how to test that claim.
He clearly did say how to test the theory.
A few years ago there was a paper that attempted to refute Behe's "edge of evolution" pertaining to the problem of getting specific mutations. And it could be that given enough time (generations), and a large starting population, the edge may be impinged upon. But that is no where near enough to account for the diversity of life. And given that evos rely heavily on gene duplications followed by divergence of one of the copies, you can see that they also rely on multiple specific mutations. Too many for stochastic processes to produce. Unless we just disregard the findings from waiting for two mutations
And your alternative is: the designer did it. Wonderful. And how do you test that?
Genetics is an evo's enemy. For one there isn't anything in genetics that indicates changes to genomes can produce the diversity of life regardless of time. And for another the genetic code is inexplicable in terms of stochastic processes.
Uh huh. No wonder you haven't got any scientific publications.
Fossils- it's pretty lame to say that you have a theory that explains fossil succession when you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms in the first place.
According to you. Which doesn't make you right.
I digress- Darwin's wasn't a scientific theory. He didn't know enough to make testable claims.
Again, he himself stated how his theory could be refuted.
At 11:30 AM,
Joe G said…
He clearly did say how to test the theory.
He clearly didn't know anything of genetics. And because of that you are wrong.
And your alternative is: the designer did it
Wrong again. Your ignorance is your problem.
Again, he himself stated how his theory could be refuted.
He didn't have a theory and he said one had to prove a negative, which is a no-no in science.
At 11:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Genes vary.
Yes they do and yet nothing says that varying genes can produce the diversity of life.
Darwin had bears evolving into whales. How did that work out?
Blatantly false.
Read the book. What I said is in "On the Origins of Species"
Also Sermonti is not a Creationist- he even said so.
I already told you what the basic theory was.
You are an ignorant fuck and a proven liar. Link to the theory or fuck off, loser.
At 11:42 AM,
Joe G said…
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” Charles Darwin in "On the Origin of Species..."
At 2:21 AM,
Jerad said…
Your quote from Darwin does not say that's what he thought happened, only that it could. You have reading comprehension issues clearly.
Sermonti is a creationist. Just like intelligent design supporters. They say they aren't creationists because they don't want to get tossed into the looney bin.
Darwin did say how his theory could be refuted. And he mostly got things right even though he didn't know about genetics.
The core of his theory is: universal common descent via inheritable variations. You've built your whole stance on denying this basic, simple statement so you pretend that it's not a theory or even a hypothesis.
You are a creationist because you think some undefined, undetected designer hid some undiscovered genetic programming somewhere in biological cells without leaving any empirical evidence of their presence or methods or efforts. If this designer can do that without labs or equipment or power supplies or documentation, etc then you are proposing a designer in the same mold as the Christian god. And when anyone asks you about such things you just duck and dive and say the same stupid thing that all ID/creationists say: a) that's beyond what ID says, b) we're working on that c) we cannot speculate on when or how or why. The truth is NO ONE is working on any of those issues because most ID proponents think God did it and that's good enough for them. Your issue is that you just want to thumb your nose at science so you hooked your cart onto the ID horse. Which puts you in the same caravan as creationists, supporting their ideas. So, functionally, you are a creationist. And until you can come up with some plausible, testable hypothesis of who the designer was, how they did what they did, when they did what they did, etc, then you will continue to be categorised as a creationist because without support your ideas are equivalent to God did it. You've got nothing beyond that.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! By Jerad's "logic" Darwin was a Creationist. And Darwin's quote was part of his alleged theory- although his wasn't a theory in the scientific sense.
Darwin did say how his theory could be refuted.:
He required one to prove a negative to falsify his claims. And that goes against science. He never said how to test the claim that the vision system evolved via natural selection.
The core of his theory is: universal common descent via inheritable variations.
That isn't a theory as it is too vague and untestable.
Look, Jerad, you are just a gullible loser. You are totally ignorant of science and biology.
BTW, moron, the designer has been detected via the design. And no one is working on the hows of natural selection. No one uses evolutionism for anything. Your alleged theory is useless and doesn't help in any research.
But anyway thank you for helping me prove that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.
At 10:01 AM,
Joe G said…
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin 1859, pg. 175.
See, he wants us to prove a negative. And to test his claims we have to find that biological systems can be "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" and yet no one has ever done so. It's as if evos are chickenshit liars because they refuse to put their position's claims to then test.
At 3:50 AM,
Jerad said…
Darwin's quote about bears said he could see something happening, he did not say it did happen. And he was unaware of fossils that would later be discovered. He didn't get everything right, no one does.
He also said if anyone found a fossil clearly out of temporal place that would refute his theory. And anyone can go and look for fossils. It's called research. That's the refutation I was referring to.
Besides, ID proponents are always trying to prove a negative; all the Biologic Institute's research is directed at showing that undirected natural processes couldn't do it.
He didn't need to say how every single example could be refuted. He postulated a general theory and gave some examples based on his research and experience.
And until you come up with even some vague idea of who the designer was (a very advanced alien perhaps) then you are exactly the same as a creationist. Some mysterious, undefined, undocumented, unseen being did it. And you call that science. Where are the workshops? Where are the power sources? Where are the plans? Where are the test results? Oh, I forget, God doesn't need any of that stuff so it doesn't matter if we find them. Creationism. Pure and simple.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Darwin's quote about bears said he could see something happening, he did not say it did happen.
A difference without a distinction.
ID proponents are always trying to prove a negative; all the Biologic Institute's research is directed at showing that undirected natural processes couldn't do it.
Actually there isn't any evidence that undirected processes could do it. No one even knows how to test the claim. You lose.
And until you come up with even some vague idea of who the designer was (a very advanced alien perhaps) then you are exactly the same as a creationist.
That is your uneducated opinion and it means nothing.
What do you have? Some mysterious, undefined process just happened and continued to happen and here we are!
Look your anger just proves that you are a clueless fool. You cannot find the alleged theory of evolution and that has you all upset.
Good.
At 7:22 AM,
Unknown said…
There's a huge difference between saying something could happen and saying it did I guess you have comprehension problems.
Denying most of the evidence doesn't make you right. And since you do no research of any kind yourself or publish things that are reviewed by people in the field why should anyone take you seriously? Oh, sorry, I forgot: no one does take you seriously.
It's not a mysterious, undefined process. You really should stop making yourself look foolish. I'm not angry at all. I continue responding to you because I find your denialist responses amusing.
I told you what the basic theory of evolution was as Darwin stated it. It has since been expanded and modified as any scientific concept should be done as new evidence comes to light. You do no work, your Creationist buddies are NOT trying to find out anything about their designer (because they think it's God). Meanwhile, you're being the good little yes-man, foot soldier who loudly repeats what someone else has said and throws yourself in the front line becoming cannon fodder so the guys who write the books you buy can have nicer houses and cushy publishing deals. And it's always been about God. Always. But you even deny that. Enjoy the company, funny that they don't flock to your blog. You even got thrown off of Uncommon Descent at least twice. I guess that shows how much respect they have for you eh?
At 11:18 AM,
Joe G said…
There's a huge difference between saying something could happen and saying it did I guess you have comprehension problems.
Darwin said that vision systems could evolve and yet we still don't have the evidence to support that claim. The bear thing was the closest he came to an actual prediction.
It's not a mysterious, undefined process.
Of course it is as no one even knows if there is a process capable of doing what you say.
I told you what the basic theory of evolution was as Darwin stated it.
And that proved that you don't know what a scientific theory entails.
But anyway, you have failed to reference an actual theory of evolution and you are ignorant of science. All you can do is bluff like the coward that you are.
At 2:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, the evidence says that you're being the good little yes-man, foot soldier who loudly repeats what someone else has said and throws yourself in the front line becoming cannon fodder so the guys who write the books you buy can have nicer houses and cushy publishing deals. You don't know jack about science and even less about biology.
BTW, moron, I was banned from UD for the way I deal with cowardly liars, like you. Nice own goal...
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Now for this= I had said:
Darwin had bears evolving into whales. How did that work out?
and darwin said:
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” Charles Darwin in "On the Origin of Species..."
So yes, Darwin had bears evolving into whales. Jerad has reading comprehension skills...
At 2:24 AM,
Jerad said…
Darwin himself pointed to precursors to our vision system, precursors that exist now.
It's not a mysterious, undefined process. Genetic variation is inheritable.
The basic theory is: universal common descent via inheritable variation.
What's your counter theory? Go on . . . that sometime, somewhere, somehow some undefined and unknown 'designer' did something that we can't say exactly what it was or how they did it? Please clarify any of the unknowns in that statement.
You were banned from UD because you can't carry on a conversation without resorting to abuse. You've got anger issues I guess.
Even if Darwin did think that bears evolved into whales he would not say so today since we have better evidence for the real transition. He got the general ideas correct but not all the details. New evidence means you have to alter the finer points. Unlike creationists who just deny, deny, deny all the while trying to prove a negative without coming up with an viable alternative.
What is your hypothesis since you find the theory of evolution lacking? You never do seem to come up with anything. Funny that. Maybe you're too busy trying to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes.
At 6:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Darwin himself pointed to precursors to our vision system, precursors that exist now.
LoL! That isn't even evidence they evolved let alone that natural selection didit.
It's not a mysterious, undefined process.
It is as no one has ever seen it do what you claim. No one knows how to test it.
The basic theory is: universal common descent via inheritable variation.
Too vague to be a theory or a summary of one. As I said you are ignorant of science
You were banned from UD because you can't carry on a conversation without resorting to abuse.
Wrong again. You were proven to be lying and continued to lie because lying is all you have.
As for Darwin- he wouldn't even posit natural selection as a creative force if he was alive today. He wouldn't posit universal common descent given there aren't any known mechanisms to produce it.
What is your hypothesis since you find the theory of evolution lacking?
What theory of evolution? No one seems to be able to find it.
However ID better explains the evidence than evolutionism ever will. At least ID makes testable claims.
Earlier you said that Darwin said how to test his ideas and yet you FAILed to provide that. OTOH IDists have said exactly how to test our claims.
At 6:27 AM,
Joe G said…
The basic theory is: universal common descent via inheritable variation.
Darwin's mechanism was natural selection. As I have said you have no clue at all.
At 10:55 AM,
Jerad said…
Since we can observe possible precursors to full-blown vision systems then it's reasonable to extrapolate their presence in the past.
The theory is being tested every day. Only you deny that.
You were banned for being a jerk, that is true. Your language and manner was deemed inappropriate.
Iif you could find a fossil out of place or a biological system that could not have arisen via an undirected, step-wise process then evolutionary theory would collapse. That is true. No matter who said it.
ID proponents always say ID explains the diversity of life better but it can't answer loads and loads of questions and issues:
Why are lemurs only found on Madagascar? They could live and thrive elsewhere?
Why do whales have leg bones under their skin?
Why do humans have their breathing tube connected to their eating tube? It's easy enough to design a safer system than that.
Why is there such immense variation in genome sizes?
Why does the number of repeats in human genomes vary so incredibly?
What about ERVs?
Let's hear your explanation for some of those things. Or at least some vague idea of why design was implemented and how. 'Cause otherwise all you got is the Creationist cry of God/the designer did it.
You say life forms were designed to adapt . . . how exactly?
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Since we can observe possible precursors to full-blown vision systems then it's reasonable to extrapolate their presence in the past.
There isn't anything to extrapolate seeing that you don't have a mechanism capable of producing any vision systems.
The theory is being tested every day.
Except there isn't any theory to test, loser.
Iif you could find a fossil out of place or a biological system that could not have arisen via an undirected, step-wise process then evolutionary theory would collapse.
Yours can't explain fossils, Jerad. And no one has shown that "an undirected, step-wise process" can do anything but cause diseases and deformities. AND IC refutes the claim.
ID proponents always say ID explains the diversity of life better but it can't answer loads and loads of questions and issues:
That is your ignorance speaking. Also not one evo can answer any relevant questions.
Why are lemurs only found on Madagascar?
Evolutionism cannot account for lemurs. You lose
Why do whales have leg bones under their skin?
Yours cannot account for whales and only wishful thinking says they have legs under their skin.
Why do humans have their breathing tube connected to their eating tube?
LoL! How would we talk if the two were separated?
What about ERVs?
What about them? Your position has nothing to explain them.
You say life forms were designed to adapt . . . how exactly?
Look, moron, if you don't like ID then do the science and confirm your position. Absent that then just shut the fuck up as all you are doing is proving that you are a mindless child.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
And still no theory of evolution. It must be sad to say such a thing exists and yet no one can find it.
At 11:10 AM,
Joe G said…
“Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system- it doesn't look good for evos...
At 11:31 AM,
Jerad said…
You keep dodging answering any questions. But, then again, God doesn't need an explanation does he. You are a functional creationist.
I didn't say whales have legs, you do have comprehension issues.
It would be very easy to talk (which depends on movement of air) and breath through a separate tube from ingesting of food. You really are struggling to keep up here.
So you can't explain how life forms were designed to adapt. Even though you claim they are. You can't explain why lemurs are only found in some locations. You can't explain whales' leg bones. You can't explain why humans don't have separate eating and breathing orifices. You can't explain ERVs.
You quote one comment from a blog post . . . big whoop.
You can't just get your way by denying what millions of other intelligent scientists accept, you have to do some work. And you haven't. Or can't. I know that the vast majority of ID proponents think the designer is God so can't be bothered to even look into how and when. Is that how you do science then? Just ignore certain questions? Don't even bother to address them? That's not how any science I know is done. You're supposed to ask questions and try and find answers. But in in ID, once you think you've proven there is design that's it! Job done! But, oh dear, most educated people don't agree. Well, let's propose some international conspiracy that's keeping ID from being accepted and then try and change some laws so we can stealth introduce ID into schools. Is that how science is done? The churches are sitting on millions of dollars, why are they funding ID research? Because the designer is God and they don't care past that. And neither do you. That's why you're a functional creationist. You talk their talk every day. And do nothing to prove otherwise.
At 11:45 AM,
Joe G said…
You keep dodging answering any questions
Nice projection. You keep refusing to link to the alleged theory of evolution. So thank you for proving my point.
I didn't say whales have legs
They don't have leg bones either, assface.
It would be very easy to talk (which depends on movement of air) and breath through a separate tube from ingesting of food.
Evidence please. Your ignorant spewage doesn't cut it.
So you can't explain how life forms were designed to adapt.
Don't have to as that doesn't have anything to do with ID. OTOH your position claims to have a step-by-step process for doing so yet you have nothing.
You quote one comment from a blog post . . . big whoop.
It is enough to shoot down your diatribe.
You can't just get your way by denying what millions of other intelligent scientists accept,
Of course I can when what they accept is not due to science.
Who is funding undirected evolutionary research? Where is such research being conducted? Who uses undirected evolution for anything?
Look, Jerad, it is clear that you have no intention of linking to a theory of evolution. It is clear that you are ignorant of biology, ID and science.
But in in ID, once you think you've proven there is design that's it! Job done!
Spoken like a willfully ignorant ass. Nice job.
At 12:15 PM,
Jerad said…
Google 'whale leg bones' and look at the images. Perhaps vestigial leg bones would be more accurate. Explain the purpose of those? Couldn't the designer have done without those?
Whales and dolphins breath through separate orifices. They're even mammals like us. Easy for some incredibly intelligent designer I'd say.
If you can't say how life forms are designed to adapt then how do you know they are? You're just blowing smoke as usual.
You can deny what I give you but that doesn't mean an answer hasn't been provided. You don't even bother to try and answer most of the time. Is that how science is done then?
Except for a few fringe loonies all evolutionary research is based on natural, undirected processes. Which you deny of course but since you can't find any extra programming or even say how life forms could be designed to adapt then . . . . you don't win, you aren't even in the race.
You are a functional creationist. You say the same things many of them do. You don't do any research of your own. No one is doing any research into some of your claims. Like them you deny mountains of work that don't support your views and hold up a paltry few (mostly non-peer reviewed) publications that do support your views. Is that how you do science then? Ignore most of the data? Ah but then you're not really a scientist are you? You have no publications and no research work. You're like an armchair quarterback; you stand on the sidelines and claim to know better than the people playing the game. But you don't and you continue to run away from answering questions about your views. And making claims you can't back up.
.
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
And still no theory of evolution.
I know about the leg bone claim for whales. No one can show it is a leg bone, dipshit. EvoTARDs just assume it is because they say whales evolved from land mammals. However the better choice is it is a vestigial rear flipper bone.
Whales and dolphins breath through separate orifices.
What does that mkean? They breath through their nostrils just as we do.
If you can't say how life forms are designed to adapt then how do you know they are?
LoL! What an ignorant ass you are. First something is determined to be designed and then the how and who come into play. You have it all backwards.
Except for a few fringe loonies all evolutionary research is based on natural, undirected processes
Prove it. Your word is meaningless.
You are a functional creationist.
You are a cowardly liar and piece-of-shit loser. You are ignorant of science and you think your ignorance is an actual argument.
No one is doing any research into some of your claims.
Your ignorance is not an argument.
Like them you deny mountains of work that don't support your views
LoL! There isn't such a mountain and no one has ever presented any evidence that doesn't support my views.
What data am I ignoring, Jerad? Why is it that you can only spew false accusations and can never back them up?
Ah but then you're not really a scientist are you?
Compared to you I am one of the best scientists in the world.
Look, Jerad, it is obvious that you are angry and upset. You have proven my point about there not being a theory of evolution. You have proven my point that evolutionism doesn't make testable claims. And you have proven my point that you are a scientifically illiterate troll.
At 4:34 PM,
Jerad said…
Leg bone or rear flipper bone . . . why is it there? Was that designed? Were the cells in whales designed to leave those vestigial bones? How was that done?
They breath through a tube that is not connected to their esophagus. You really do have trouble following arguments at times.
So, you admit, you can't say how life forms are designed to adapt? You just think they are then. Since you can't find the coding that accomplishes that.
Show me the research that is being done that supports your claims that life forms are designed to adapt. Show me the research that is looking for the extra coding in cells. Show me anyone who even thinks there is such a thing as relative cardinality.
Just because you believe mutations are guided and think you can deny all evolutionary research as not supporting unguided processes doesn't mean shit until you can find the coding that does what you claim. Can you find it?
You are not a scientist. You do no research. You don't publish. You don't participate in academic forums or conferences. You don't teach as a qualified teacher.
In fact, your claim that my inability to answer your questions is some kind of proof shows that you are not a scientist.
You are funny in your blatantly double standards and denialism. I'm not angry at all. I just like watching you embarrass yourself. Over and over and over again. It's fun winding you up. You're completely predictable and wrong. And, for all your blog writing and commenting you have convinced no one of your case. Not a single person I'd bet. Because no one, not even your ID buddies (who kicked you out) at UD take you seriously. If they did they would have defended you more. But they tossed you away because you were embarrassing to them. With your profanity and paper thin arguments. They didn't need you so they tossed you aside. Like a used diaper, full of shit and a bit stinky.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Leg bone or rear flipper bone . . . why is it there?
Yours cannot account for any bones, loser. And ID is OK with a design getting clipped.
They breath through a tube that is not connected to their esophagus.
Your position cannot account for that. However it seems like a great design:
First having a separate hole for breathing and eating allows whales to minimize the likelihood of blocking their air passage due to food trapped in their throat.
More importantly having a separate air passage and food passage means that whales are able to swallow their food underwater without worrying about taking water into their lungs as most mammals risk opening the air passage to their lungs when they eat.
If a human were to try and consume food underwater there is a chance that their nostrils or air passage would open up causing their lungs to take in water.
So, you admit, you can't say how life forms are designed to adapt?
And we can't say how Stonehenge was designed nor what it was for. And you can't say how natural selection didit.
And obviously you are angry. You can't find the alleged theory of evolution and you make shit up as if it means something. You have no idea how to test any of the claims made by evolutionism and you think ID has say something about things it doesn't claim.
As for UD all the evidence says I was banned for dealing with liars and losers like you in a way that they didn't like.
Who uses unguided evolution to guide their research? No one. Who can test the claim that natural selection can produce adaptations? No one. Who has determined that all mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes? No one.
It's as if Jerad is totally clueless...
At 6:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Summarizing ID theory: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2015/05/intelligent-design-should-be-promoted.html
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
At 3:46 AM,
Jerad said…
I'm glad you agree with me that having an esophagus that is separated from the windpipe is a good idea. Now: why didn't your designer chose to do that for humans? Or for all mammals? How is it that if the designer introduced an initial front-loaded, pre-programmed genome many moons ago that whales and dolphins got to have a better system than humans? I mean if everything was preprogrammed then you'd think the designer would want its top-line critters to be well designed.
Your ignorance of the research into Stonehenge is not an argument. As I've told you many times before. Since you're too lazy to search for yourself and you need everything spoon-fed to you start here:
http://www.stonehenge.co.uk/history.php
The trouble is ID doesn't claim anything about process or timing or purpose. It just points a finger and says: we can't figure out how undirected processes did that, it must have been designed.
You were repeated warned at UD for inappropriate language and tone.
As has been pointed out to many, many times research has been done to show that mutations are random with respect to fitness. But since you can't understand the math you just deny, deny, deny.
How do you measure high information content? Can you show a worked out example for a genome? One where the math is done correctly? What do your four premises say about when design was implemented? Can they explain why lemurs only occur in Madagascar? Can they tell us why humans have not been given a system wherein feeding and breathing are through completely separate tubes as the dolphins and whales enjoy? Do your four premises even address whether or not design was front loaded or step-wise? Is anyone even trying to answer any such questions? I know you're not.
The Discovery Institute funds the Biologic research facility. They can work on whatever they like. And they're not trying to answer any of those questions. You can tell by looking at their website. Look at what they've 'published'. Oh, I forgot, you don't need to do that because you know more about science than just about any one don't you. Silly me. You should be on the vanguard of research . . . . but you're not. I wonder why . . .
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Whales do not talk, moron. You must be one stupid fuck, Jerad.
Your ignorance of the research into Stonehenge is not an argument.
Your false accusation is not an argument. We don't know how Stonehenge was designed nor what it was for. Your link full of speculation is meaningless.
The trouble is ID doesn't claim anything about process or timing or purpose.
Look, fuckhead, everything we know about Stonehenge came well after design was detected and then studied.
It just points a finger and says: we can't figure out how undirected processes did that, it must have been designed.
That is your ignorant scenario anyway. And guess what? If you or anyone exlse could figure out how undirected processes didit then ID would be falsified. But you don't have a fucking clue.
You were repeated warned at UD for inappropriate language and tone.
There were many cowardly liars there
As has been pointed out to many, many times research has been done to show that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
As has been pointed out many times saying that is meaningless as it does not say if the mutations were accidents, errors and mistakes. It's as if you are impervious to the facts.
How do you measure high information content?
Shannon told us how, moron.
Can you show a worked out example for a genome?
Already have OTOH you cannot say how undirected processes produced any genome. You can't say how to test Darwin's claims nor any other evoTARD claims.
Published? There isn't anything in peer-review that supports evolutionism you ignorant fuck. Grow up
BTW yours can't even explain lemurs, loser.
At 2:27 AM,
Jerad said…
Whales breath through a completely separate tube than their esophagus is the point and humans could very well do the same and still talk. You seem to have trouble remembering what the arguments are.
You always say we have no idea about how Stonehenge was built or why but when someone shows you ideas about those things you just deny they even exist. That's why no one takes you seriously, you can't even address things when they've been handed to you. You can't say why they're wrong, you just say they are.
I've been hearing biological design was detected for well over a decade now and yet no one is doing any follow on research. Funny that, it's like the ID community doesn't feel the need to investigate God.
It was obvious from reading your posts at UD that you were abusive and rude. And even they finally had to apply their stated standards and boot you out. At least twice eh Virgil?
I guess you don't understand what random with regard to fitness means. And you claim to understand biology.
Show me how to use Shannon information to measure what you claim can be measured in the human genome. Spell it out or link to your claimed work.
Lemurs arose from an initial small population of early primates that migrated to Madagascar and then became geographically isolated. Subsequent generations branched into the species we has subsequently discovered, developed in isolation from other primates which is why there is no overlap. What is your explanation?
I know you won't have an explanation except for some extremely vague handwringing. You keep making claims for a mechanism which you cannot even come close to exhibiting. And your claims for that mechanism are vague and ill-defined. Things are designed to adapt? What does that mean in opposition to what evolutionary theory says?
Why can't ID proponents come up with something of substance instead of continually trying to prove a negative: that natural, undirected processes can't do it? I'll tell you why that is the case: ID has no interest since God is their explanation. Evolutionary biologists ARE working on how ATP arose, it's easy enough to see that with a simple internet search. But NO ONE in ID is even considering doing any research into the designer, how design was implemented, when design was implemented, where design was implemented, etc. You're not doing that work even though you claim to understand biology. Why aren't you doing that work? Could it be that you don't know how?
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Whales breath through a completely separate tube than their esophagus is the point and humans could very well do the same and still talk.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
You are one ignorant fuck, Jerad. Do tell how that would work.
You always say we have no idea about how Stonehenge was built or why but when someone shows you ideas about those things you just deny they even exist.
All we have are guesses and all we have came AFTER many, many years of investigation, moron.
I've been hearing biological design was detected for well over a decade now and yet no one is doing any follow on research.
How do you know? We have heard or over 150 years that NS didit and yet no one knows if it could.
It was obvious from reading your posts at UD that you were abusive and rude
Yes I was abusive and rude to pathological liars, like you.
I guess you don't understand what random with regard to fitness means.
What a jackass you are. I explained that and you just ignored my explanation because you are a willfully ignorant asshole.
Show me how to use Shannon information to measure what you claim can be measured in the human genome.
I have blogged about it many times. Search the blog.
Lemurs arose from an initial small population of early primates that migrated to Madagascar and then became geographically isolated.
Nice story. Too bad for you it doesn't have anything to do with blind watchmaker evolution.
Why can't ID proponents come up with something of substance instead of continually trying to prove a negative: that natural, undirected processes can't do it?
LoL! What a moron- It's you and yours that have proven undirected processes cannot do it. There isn't any research, there aren't any testable hypotheses and no one has a clue how to test it.
Evolutionary biologists ARE working on how ATP arose,
Reference please.
Why aren't you doing that work?
We don't work under your ignorant agenda, Jerad.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
All of this and still no scientific theory of evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home