Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 19, 2016

UK Jerad Chokes, as usual

-
No Jerad, you do not get to post on my blog seeing that you cannot support your claims and can only hurl bullshit around. You are a total loser for failing to link to the alleged theory of evolution. You are totally ignorant of science and you are too fucking stupid to understand simple explanations.

And to top it off you are a pathological liar and coward. Those are your best points.

And one more thing:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

 Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

 A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

 Therefor design is a mechanism.

 It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

 As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.

 Buy a dictionary, loser.

posted by Joe G @ 6:13 PM  

39 Comments:

  • At 2:22 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

    So, you need to have an agent, equipment, etc. In other words, 'design' without execution is nothing. Fine.

    Now you need to get onto figuring out how, when, etc. And determine why we never see the evidence of construction.

     

  • At 6:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    See, you are too fucking stupid to follow a simple post. Design includes the execution, moron. And we do see evidence of construction. What we never see is evidence for sheer dumb luck.

    And again we are not on your asinine agenda. It isn't our fault that your position has nothing so you are forced to flail away like an ignorant ass.

     

  • At 6:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

    The part Jerad quoted includes the execution! How fucking stupid are you, Jerad?

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    But there are other definitions for design aren't there. Regardless, you still need some agent to implement the design. Who's your agent? When did they work? How did they implement their design? What was their mechanism(s)? Where is your evidence for the tools and stuff used? You make all kind of requests that evolutionary theory provide you with each and every step and yet you can't even come up with more than: this stuff appears to be designed because we can't figure out how unguided natural processes could have done it. Nothing beyond that. No timeline, no location, no equipment, no documentation, no agent. De nada. Zip.


    From my dictionary:

    design |dɪˈzʌɪn|

    noun

    1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made: he has just unveiled his design for the new museum.

    • [mass noun] the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing of something before it is made: good design can help the reader understand complicated information.

    • [mass noun] the arrangement of the features of an artefact, as produced from following a plan or drawing: inside, the design reverts to turn-of-the-century luxe.

    2 a decorative pattern: pottery with a lovely blue and white design.

    3 [mass noun] purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object: the appearance of design in the universe.


    verb [with object]

    decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), by making a detailed drawing of it: a number of architectural students were designing a factory | (as adjective, with submodifier designed) : specially designed buildings.

    • do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind: [with object and infinitive] : the tax changes were designed to stimulate economic growth.


    PHRASES

    by design

    as a result of a plan; intentionally: I became a presenter by default rather than by design.

    have designs on

    aim to obtain (something), typically in an underhand way: he suspected her of having designs on the family fortune.

    • informal have an undisclosed sexual interest in: a bloke called Kevin who, in Henry's view, had had designs on Elinor.


    ORIGIN

    late Middle English (as a verb in the sense ‘to designate’): from Latin designare ‘to designate’, reinforced by French désigner. The noun is via French from Italian.

     

  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    From the online Cambridge English Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/design)

    verb: "to make or draw plans for something, for example clothes or buildings:"

    noun: "a drawing or set of drawings showing how a building or product is to be made and how it will work and look:"


    Hmm, didn't see anything about construction in those definitions. So, where are the plans from your designer eh? Filed in some intergalactic planning agency or just in the mind of God?

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    From the online Oxford dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/design):

    Noun:

    A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made:
    ‘he has just unveiled his design for the new museum’

    1.1[mass noun] The art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing of something before it is made:
    ‘good design can help the reader understand complicated information’

    1.2[mass noun] The arrangement of the features of an artefact, as produced from following a plan or drawing:
    ‘inside, the design reverts to turn-of-the-century luxe’

    Verb:


    1Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), by making a detailed drawing of it:
    ‘a number of architectural students were designing a factory’

    1.1 Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind:
    [with object and infinitive] ‘the tax changes were designed to stimulate economic growth’

     

  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad the fucking imbecile strikes again- design as a mechanism does not need to satisfy ALL definitions of design, just one. You must be one desperate moron, Jerad.

    Regardless, you still need some agent to implement the design.

    LoL! Nothing gets by you, Jerad.

    And AGAIN you fucking ignorant asswipe- evolutionism claims to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life including biological systems and subsystems. That is why we ask evos to support that claim. ID doesn't make such a claim and because of that is not required to support it. I know I have been over and over that with you so why are you so fucking retarded and willfully ignorant?

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/mechanism

    a method or process for getting something done within a system or organization

    see also: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-design-is-mechanism-for-still.html

     

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Perhaps it would be best to make sure when you use the word design you let the readers know which definition you are using then.

    Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to have the step-by-step process, only that one exists. Please pay attention. And, as a simple search in Google Scholar, people are very much interested in figuring a lot of them out. It's only ID proponents that want to throw in the towel and give up. And why it that? Is that how science is done? You've been looking for a few decades and you can't find it therefore design. Is that how you do science?

    So, because ID proponents don't make any claims except 'some stuff look designed' they don't have to do any work? Is that how you do science then? Make some weak claim and then just sit?

    You guys continually avoid any and all follow-on questions to your claim that design has been detected. And, as I've said before, no one is working on answering those questions. So, it seems to me, that ID is something of a science stopper. We don't have to answer those questions and we aren't even working on them. That's not science, that's philosophy. Or, in ID's case, theology.

    Because it always has been about God. Since day 1. In fact, ID is primarily designed to stealth God into science classrooms. Believers don't need ID to believe so what's it for?

    Have you finished looking at all the articles that come up under Google Scholar when you search for "origins ATP synthase"? If you're going to do science you've got to consider all the data and research not just the stuff whose conclusions you agree with. Unless you're not really doing science at all. If you're just following someone else's lead then whatever I guess.

     

  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps it would be best to make sure when you use the word design you let the readers know which definition you are using then.

    Spoken like an imbecile, Jerad. If people are too stupid to figure it out on their own then why should I bother?

    Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to have the step-by-step process, only that one exists.

    There isn't any difference. AGAIN Darwin 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." [Darwin1859, pg. 175]

    That means evos have to demonstrate that biological diversity arose via numerous, successive, slight modifications. However it seems that you are too stupid to grasp that fact.

    And, as a simple search in Google Scholar, people are very much interested in figuring a lot of them out.

    A simple google search says bigfoot and ghosts exist.

    You've been looking for a few decades and you can't find it therefore design. Is that how you do science?

    No, that is your asshole, cry-baby version of it.

    So, because ID proponents don't make any claims except 'some stuff look designed' they don't have to do any work?

    Again that is just your asshole, cry-baby version of it. And determining design takes quite a bit of work, loser. OTOH all you asswipes do is say the blind watchmaker didit

    And also AGAIN- we are not on your asinine agenda. I say there are more important questions to answer and all of your questions are for others to deal with. Tat is life after ID is accepted.

    But then again you are just too fucking stupid to understand that and you are ignorant of science. Heck you can't even understand simple definitions. No wonder you can't communicate properly

     

  • At 1:45 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Of course there's a difference between saying there should be a step-by-step process and we've figure out a step-by-step process. Researchers are trying to figure one out for ATP synthase as can be easily confirmed with a simple Google scholar search. Have you found something which couldn't have arisen via a step-by-step process? Nope, you haven't.

    Darwin showed how his theory could be refuted but that's not how he confirmed it. I know you'll keep denying it until absolutely every single biological transition is elucidated. But you're a denialist Creationist. So who cares what you think?

    It is true that many ID proponents have decided that science will never find a step-by-step process. I've heard some of them say so. Give it a couple of decades and if you can't figure it out, give up. That's some science eh? You've done much the same thing, you've decided science will never figure out an unguided progression.

    No one is saying unguided processes just did it. Darwin himself spent a couple of decades considering evidence and he still was reluctant to publish. The last 150 years have added mountains of data. Which you deny because otherwise you'd have to admit you haven't looked at it. You've been swayed by other people who say there is no evidence or that the evidence says something it doesn't. But you haven't looked at it yourself. Especially the bio-geographic distribution evidence. You can't explain it at all.

    Or how about this: your imaginary designer came up with some complicated and advanced system for designing life forms so they could adapt but why didn't s/he/it just skip all the millions and millions of years of descent with modification? What was the point? Did all those dinosaurs have to live (for tens of millions of years) just so that most of them could die off? Really? Or are you saying that this amazing designer just threw down a first life form, wished it luck and buggered off? That we are the result of a process of gradual degradation in that first life? Is that what you're saying? Come to think of it, what are you saying really? Oh, I remember: at sometime, somewhere, somehow, for some reason design was implemented without leaving any labs or tools or waste or documentation but we can't say exactly what that design was or what it looked like. Wow, that's good science eh?

    By the way, no one in the ID camp is doing any design detection anymore. They've all decided with some vague mathematical handwaving. No one used or uses Dr Dembski's formula. No one.

    So, it's everyone else's fault you're not doing some research because ID has not become accepted? Really? What are the other, more important questions that you're not working on. Go on . . .

    The truth is there is no ID research agenda. You'd think it would be easy enough for some of the big names in ID to get together and publicly declare a research program so that it was clear they were doing something. But they're not doing anything. No one is doing anything except trying to show that natural processes are incapable. And they're not getting that right.

     

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course there's a difference between saying there should be a step-by-step process and we've figure out a step-by-step process.

    That is your opinion and only an opinion. I will go with Darwin over you.

    Researchers are trying to figure one out for ATP synthase as can be easily confirmed with a simple Google scholar search.

    LoL! What a moron. That isn't how you do it. Find an actual paper or research program. Or shut up about it.

    Have you found something which couldn't have arisen via a step-by-step process?

    Yes, many things. And you haven't found anything that could arise via a step-by-step process and that is more important. Yours is an untestable position.

    Darwin showed how his theory could be refuted but that's not how he confirmed it.

    His "refutation" required one to prove a negative which is a no-no in science. And his falsification showed us how to test his claims.

    I know you'll keep denying it until absolutely every single biological transition is elucidated.

    Liar I dare you to post references to that.

    It is true that many ID proponents have decided that science will never find a step-by-step process

    And so far we have been right. All you have are promissory notes because you are sorry.

    You've done much the same thing, you've decided science will never figure out an unguided progression.

    For good reasons- there isn't any way to test the claim- no models, nothing.

    No one is saying unguided processes just did it.

    Of course they are.

    Look Jerad, you are just a gullible chump swallowing everything the likes of Dawkins can spew. You are unable to think for yourself and unable to tell us how to test teh claims of undirected/ blind watchmaker evolution.

    You are nothing but a bluffing coward. The biogeographical evidence does not support undirected evolution you incompetent moron

    By the way, no one in the ID camp is doing any design detection anymore.

    Fuck you and your ignorant accusations.

    Look I know it hurts that you cannot figure out how to test the claims of your position. But attacking ID with your total ignorance just proves that you are a desperate loser.

    BTW the peer-reviewed paper waiting for two mutations kills your position's mechanism. But I know that you are too stupid to understand why. Take gene duplications and then divergence. Many specific mutations are required to just do that never mind form a new binding site for the newly duplicated gene.

    Science refutes your claims, Jerad. And not only that you still don't have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required. Genetics doesn't help you as genomes do not determine what type of organism will develop. But then again you are too stupid to understand that.

    Perhaps you should stick to elementary school math

     

  • At 3:10 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Every time I link to a paper you deny it shows what it shows. Oh, by the way, that paper you linked to was examining the chances of two specified mutations occurring. Which is like asking what are the chances of a specific person winning the lottery as opposed to the chances of someone winning the lottery. Funnily enough, in the first paragraph the authors state: "we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution." Thanks for that. Nice to know you agree that Dr Behe got some things wrong. Do you even read the stuff you link to?

    You can refute evolutionary theory in more than one way. Go find a fossil that's out of place. It doesn't take any special skills or laboratory to do that.

    So, you are willing to throw in the towel and say science will never find a plausible step-by-step process. Is that how you do science? We can stop looking because we won't find something?

    The biogeographic evidence does support unguided evolution. Unless you can explain how Koalas were 'guided' to evolve only in Australia when they clearly can exist and thrive in other areas. And that's just one example of life forms some of which do even better after being transplanted to a new location far from where they developed.

    It's true, the ID camp is doing no design detection anymore. If that's wrong show me some work along those lines in the last couple of years.

    "[G]enomes do not determine what type of organism will develop." Right. So if you and a chimp were born in the same area and given the same things to eat what would differentiate between you? What would determine who became a chimp and who became a human?

     

  • At 3:13 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Oh, did you notice that the paper you linked to uses a random mutation rate?

    So, you referenced a paper which you think upholds your position but at the same time it argues against Dr Behe's position and it uses random mutations.

    Nicely done. You just refuted two of your positions.

     

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, did you notice that the paper you linked to uses a random mutation rate?

    Yes moron. It is a paper that totally refutes your position. I see that you are too stupid to understand that. Yes it argues against Behe but fails to refute his claims. It shows there isn't enough time in the universe for undirected evolution to do what you claim.

    It's as if you are just a complete imbecile.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Every time I link to a paper you deny it shows what it shows.

    Every time you link to a paper you FAIL to make your case and the paper never supports your claims.

    Oh, by the way, that paper you linked to was examining the chances of two specified mutations occurring.

    Yes, I know and I even explained why that is a problem for you. Obviously you are just a moron.

    Funnily enough, in the first paragraph the authors state: "we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

    And Behe addressed that and demonstrated they are gravely mistaken.

    Go find a fossil that's out of place.

    You don't have a mechanism capable of explaining the organisms tat leave fossils.

    So, you are willing to throw in the towel and say science will never find a plausible step-by-step process.

    How long do you need? Science cannot wait for what tomorrow may of may not uncover.

    The biogeographic evidence does support unguided evolution.

    It can't you fucking moron.

    Unless you can explain how Koalas were 'guided' to evolve only in Australia when they clearly can exist and thrive in other areas.

    Undirected evolution cannot explain koalas. It can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    "[G]enomes do not determine what type of organism will develop."

    Right. So if you and a chimp were born in the same area and given the same things to eat what would differentiate between you? What would determine who became a chimp and who became a human?

    BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGH

    That doesn't even make any sense. The chimp will still be a chimp and a human will still be a human. Just because no one knows what makes a chimp a chimp or a human a human doesn't change the fact that chimps and humans exist as such.

    You must be the most ignorant fuck ever, Jerad.

    BTW the peer-reviewed paper waiting for two mutations kills your position's mechanism. But I know that you are too stupid to understand why. Take gene duplications and then divergence. Many specific mutations are required to just do that never mind form a new binding site for the newly duplicated gene.

    Science refutes your claims, Jerad. And not only that you still don't have a mechanism capable of producing the changes required. Genetics doesn't help you as genomes do not determine what type of organism will develop. But then again you are too stupid to understand that.

    Perhaps you should stick to elementary school math

    That you are too stupid to understand the bolded part says all I need to know about you.

     

  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Except the paper does not refute my position, it upholds it. Show me where in their argument they made a mathematical mistake. They are pretty specific in their criticism of Dr Behe's statements. Show me where they are wrong.

    Can you find a fossil that is out of place or not? It's an easy enough thing to do requiring no special training or background. You just have to look.

    If science can't wait to see if someone will eventually come up with a complete and plausible step-by-step unguided process then why should it wait for ID proponents to come up with information about when design was implemented, etc.

    What makes a chimp as opposed to a human if it isn't its genome? Seriously, you don't even make sense sometimes.

    Show me where in that paper that unguided evolution is refuted. Be specific. You cited the paper now I expect you to defend that use. It should be easy since you are so good at science and mathematics.

    Like figuring out the relative cardinality of the primes. Oh, wait . . . you never figured that out did you. Except in some vague fashion. But you couldn't even justify the bounds you declared.

    Oh, how about specifying where the extra programming in cells is. No, sadly, you weren't able to do that either. Too bad eh?

    And that's on top of not being able to say when or how design was implemented. In fact, you won't even commit to a front-loading scenario. What do you believe anyway? And since you're so good at science what research have you done? What publications do you have? What conferences have you participated in?

    Could it be that you have actually done no scientific work at all? That you have, in fact, just read a few non-peer reviewed books and publications and thenceforth abused people online who disagree with you? Can you point to anything you have done beyond just being an online bully? Anything? Can you actually demonstrate that anyone takes you seriously? At all?

     

  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Jerad that paper demonstrates there isn't enough time in the universe for undirected evolution to produce the diversity of life. You must be one of the most willfully ignorant people ever.

    So seeing that you don't have a mechanism and are too stupid to understand peer-reviewed science I have nothing left to say to you.

    What makes a chimp as opposed to a human if it isn't its genome?

    That isn't even an argument. I posted Denton in which scientific research says genomes do not determine what type of organism will develop. You just ignored it as if your willful ignorance is an argument.

    Behe responds to Durrett et al

    and also:

    Best of Behe- responses to Durrett et al

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW the peer-reviewed paper waiting for two mutations kills your position's mechanism. But I know that you are too stupid to understand why. Take gene duplications and then divergence. Many specific mutations are required to just do that never mind form a new binding site for the newly duplicated gene.

    What part of that is Jerad too stupid to understand?

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    I guess you didn't understand the paper then because the authors certainly didn't draw the same conclusion as you did. Which is not too surprising since you don't even understand conditional probabilities.

    Where in their statements criticising Dr Behe did they make a mistake then? If they're wrong you should be able to point out where. I've heard Dr Behe's responses but I want you to point out where the authors were incorrect.

    What does determine what type of organism will develop if it's not the genome + environmental factors of course. Is ti your mystery extra programming that hasn't been found and that no one is looking for? Is it the mitochondrial DNA? You can't just parrot what other people are saying if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Millions of years to get TWO specific mutations means it will take many more millions of years to get 4 and so on. There isn't enough time.

    BTW the peer-reviewed paper waiting for two mutations kills your position's mechanism. But I know that you are too stupid to understand why. Take gene duplications and then divergence. Many specific mutations are required to just do that never mind form a new binding site for the newly duplicated gene.

    Where in their statements criticising Dr Behe did they make a mistake then?

    Read Behe's responses

    What does determine what type of organism will develop if it's not the genome + environmental factors of course.

    No one knows. All we do know via genetic research is it isn't the genome. Don't blame me for the facts of science.

    You can't just parrot what other people are saying if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

    That is all you do- parrot the willful ignorant and known liars

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the paper:

    For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral.

    Several million years to fruit flies means it would take much longer in humans. The longer the breeding period the longer the wait.

     

  • At 3:57 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    It seems like you haven't actually read (or understood) the paper you link to:

    "They assumed an effective population size of 10,000 and a per nucleotide mutation rate of μ = 10−8. In this situation, the expected number of segregating sites in a 1-kb sequence is 1000(4Neμ) = 0.4 so it makes sense to talk about a population consensus sequence. The authors defined this as the nucleotide at the site if there is no variability in the population and if the site is variable, the most frequent nucleotide at that site in the population. Using a generation time of 25 years, they found that in a 1-kb region, the average waiting time for words of length six was 100,000 years. For words of length eight, they found that the average waiting time was 375,000 years when there was a seven- of eight-letter match to the target word in the population consensus sequence (an event of probability ∼5/16) and 650 million years when there was not."

    "Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years."

    "To be precise, the last argument shows that it takes a long time to wait for two prespecified mutations with the indicated probabilities. The probability of a seven of eight match to a specified eight-letter word is 8(3/4)(1/4)7 ≈ 3.7 × 10−4, so in a 1-kb stretch of DNA there is likely to be only one such match. However, Lynch (2007, see p. 805) notes that transcription factor binding sites can be found within a larger regulatory region (104 – 106 bp) in humans. If one can search for the new target sequence in 104 – 106 bp, then there are many more chances. Indeed since (1/4)8 ≈ 1.6 × 10−5, then in 106 bp we expect to find 16 copies of the eight-letter word."

    Note the phrase 'prespecified mutations'. And note how they mention that there may be many copies of the specified site. The whole point about prespescifying changes the probabilities. The chances of you winning the lottery are much lower than the chances of someone winning the lottery.

     

  • At 4:02 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Also, from the paper:

    " Ignoring the fact that humans and P. falciparum have different mutation rates, he then concludes that “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years” (Behe 2007, p. 61), which is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given.

    Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 106 and μ1 = μ2 = 10−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Math having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600."

    Show me where they have made an error. I've heard Dr Behe's rebuttal and I think he made a mistake. And not just the ones noted here. So, where did these authors go wrong?

    So what is the genome for then? Why is ours different from a frog or a banana? Why are some plant genomes much larger than ours? Surely we are more complicated life forms than ferns for example.

     

  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Behe points out their errors, read his responses. And your position requires many pre-specified mutations- the duplication event is one and then there are many more to get that duplicate to have another function. That you keep ignoring tat says tat you are willfully ignorant.

    Our genome is for providing the raw materials for our development and to sustain us.

    Look if you think the genome makes us what we are then go do the research and find the science tat agrees with you. I have read the books of several developmental biologists and not of them come to that conclusion via science.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From Behe:

    Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate. Furthermore, DURRETT and SCHMIDT (2008) err in several ways in applying their model to the PfCRT data:

    For the rate of the first mutation, Durrett and Schmidt use a value estimated for the alteration of a transcription-factor-binding site, where any of 10 nucleotides could be changed. In the case of the protein, however, it is likely that a particular nucleotide of a particular amino acid residue’s codon must be changed. This introduces a 30-fold underestimate of the waiting time.

    They use the model that they developed for an initial neutral mutation, but it is likely that the initial protein point mutation is deleterious. If it is strongly deleterious, their calculation could be low by many orders of magnitude, as their own model for deleterious mutations shows.

    Finally, their model is incomplete on its own terms because it does not take into account the probability of one of the nine matching nucleotides in the region that is envisioned to become the new transcription-factor binding site mutating to an incorrect nucleotide before the 10th mismatched nucleotide mutates to the correct one. Since the mutation rates for all nucleotides are presumably of the same order, this introduces an independent underestimate of a factor of nine for their own model. In applying the model to the PfCRT protein, this overlooked factor is much more severe. If after the first ‘‘correct’’ mutation, a mutation occurs in an amino acid codon other than the needed second one, there is a strong chance that it would damage the activity of the protein. Since the gene for the protein is .1000 nucleotides in length, this introduces an underestimate of several orders of magnitude.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More from Behe:

    The first problem was a simple oversight. They were modeling the mutation of a ten-nucleotide-long binding site for a regulatory protein in DNA, so they used a value for the mutation rate that was ten-times larger than the point mutation rate. However, in the chloroquine-resistance protein discussed in The Edge of Evolution, since particular amino acids have to be changed, the correct rate to use is the point mutation rate. That leads to an underestimate of a factor of about 30 in applying their model to the protein. As they wrote in their reply, "Behe is right on this point." I appreciate their agreement here.

    At least they admitted to the mistake

     

  • At 4:08 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Since you're just going to copy-and-paste from Dr Behe (who, again, is not asking the right question, OF COURSE if you want to wait for a prespecified mutation at a specific position you will POTENTIALLY wait a long time) then there's no point in having a discussion about that.

    Evolutionary theory most emphatically does not specify mutations. You really don't get it at all. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

    So, how is it that Down Syndrome is caused by a copy or partial copy of Chromosome 21?

    How is it that some people suffer from sickle cell anaemia and others don't? Nothing to do with their genome?

    Sufferers of GM2-gangliosidosis, AB variant can't blame their genome?

    Are you saying that the genome has nothing to do with whether you are male or female?

    Explain how the genome provides raw materials but doesn't make us what we are to a large extent. There are always environmental factors that figure in but, again, a human and a chimp raised in the same environment eating the same food will not develop into the same thing even though their genomic 'raw materials' are almost exactly the same. Where does the difference between humans and chimps come from if not from their genome?

     

  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OF COURSE if you want to wait for a prespecified mutation at a specific position you will POTENTIALLY wait a long time) then there's no point in having a discussion about that.

    You are one ignorant fuck, Jerad. A gene duplication followed by function altering mutations are pre-specified. I have only been telling you that for days.

    Evolutionary theory most emphatically does not specify mutations.

    Umm that is irrelevant and seeing that you cannot link to the actual theory you have no idea what it says.

    And the following proves that you are a clueless dolt:
    So, how is it that Down Syndrome is caused by a copy or partial copy of Chromosome 21?

    How is it that some people suffer from sickle cell anaemia and others don't? Nothing to do with their genome?

    Sufferers of GM2-gangliosidosis, AB variant can't blame their genome?

    Umm you have reading comprehension issues, moron. Genomes INFLUENCE development. So yes that means bad things can happen when you randomly change genomes. Humans with SSA are still HUMAN. Humans with down syndrome are still HUMAN.

    Are you saying that the genome has nothing to do with whether you are male or female?

    Nope. A HUMAN female is still a HUMAN. A HUMAN male is still a HUMAN.

    And again provide the evidence and peer-reviewed science if you think I am wrong. Or shut the fuck up as your ignorance, while amusing, is not an argument.

    Developmental biologist Sean Carroll couldn't do it in any of his books and neither did Shubin is his. And Dawkins doesn't do so either.

     

  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is Jerad so stupid that he thinks any ole mutations will do? That is where Behe left Durrett and Schmidt- in a stupor saying that organisms get several simultaneous mutations at a time.

    No Jerad, in order to get a duplicate gene to acquire a new function not any ole mutations will do. Buy a vowel and get an education.

     

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    As usual you don't understand probabilities. No surprise there.

    Humans are still humans because of their genome. Down syndrome is from a genetic situation. You have a bad argument and you can't admit it. Your eye colour is not influenced by your genome, your genome dictates your eye colour.

    What is true is that your denialist creationism can't understand any of the arguments presented.

    I didn't say any old mutation will do. And that's not what Durrett and Schmidt said either. But if you can't bother to try and learn then who cares. You clearly do not want to be taken seriously. I'm happy to help you to look foolish though. The man who knows so much about science but does no research, has no publications, doesn't teach, doesn't write books . . . In fact can't prove his science chops at all. Not even the other denialists at UD take him seriously.

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As usual you don't understand science. No surprise there.

    Humans are still humans because of their genome

    That is your ignorant opinion. The scientific research says otherwise.

    Down syndrome is from a genetic situation.

    I know and so what?

    Look Jerad, it is clear that you don't know jack about biology and science. It is clear that you drank the evoTARD Kool-Aid and cannot think for yourself. It is clear you will never support anything you say.

    And it is obvious that you cannot understand an argument

     

  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your eye colour is not influenced by your genome, your genome dictates your eye colour.

    Moron- what determines what type of eye will develop, Jerad? Show your work or shut up.

     

  • At 4:43 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    So you agree that eye colour is determined by the genome. You'd be a fool not to. Doewn syndrome is caused by a genomic configuration.

    What does make humans humans then? Go on, tell us alllllllll about it. Is it that 'extra coding' you keep inferring but can't find? You are so funny because you always talk so big and then once you've said something you can't defend you just get abusive and change the subject.

    You don't do any research, you don't publish any results, you don't lecture or teach, you don't write books for the general public. You haven't even come up with a comprehensive layout of your hypotheses for this website. I'm betting because you know that if you tried to lay it all out the utter lack of explanation and evidence would be incredibly obvious. So you do the merchant of doubt thing and just keep trying to score points by sniping away from the sidelines. But it's not getting you anywhere is it? No one takes you seriously. And ID is going no where as well. Dr Dembski has bailed. The Discovery Institute hasn't come up with anything better than 'teach the controversy' in years. No research, no innovative, no ground breaking new hypotheses, no work at all about when design was implemented or how. (That's my favourite bit, even ID proponents can't come up with a coherent, plausible version of when design was implemented. You've got your front loaders like you and you've got your tweakers like Dr Behe. But no one in the ID community has the chutzpah to even admit that there's a big hole right in the middle of ID: when was design implemented. No one will say. Is that how you do science? Act like cowards? Don't say anything in case you get shot down? Too funny.)

    Anyway, I'll give you points for persistence but even you must be getting a bit concerned that nothing is being done about trying to establish some of ID's basic tenets. Not that it matters much really, not when it's God behind it all. You gotta love it though, a whole branch of pseudo-science built on the back of a (probably) mythical being.

     

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What a fucking loser you are, Jerad. And a coward too. I see you couldn't answer my question- no surprise there.

    ID's basic tenets have been established. And your4 position is the pseudo-science position as it makes untestable claims. Obviously you are a scientifically illiterate crybaby.

    And yes I and others have come up with a comprehensive design hypothesis. OTOH no one has come up with one for blind watchmaker evolution. No one knows how to test the claim that blind watchmaker processes didit.

    No one on your side is doing any research into the blind watchmaker thesis. It isn't used by anyone for anything. You are just a gullible baby and your posts prove that- that and you are a pathological liar.

    I am done with you as you clearly have nothing to add and your ignorant spewage is more than annoying.

     

  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    The genome plus environmental factors determine what type of eye will develop obviously. Too bad you can't come up with an alternative eh?

    ID's basic tenets are: we can't figure out how (insert some biological structure here) could have come about via natural processes and it looks complicated so it much be designed. Seriously, there is no used method for mathematically determining design. There is no research ongoing regarding the how and when design was implemented. ID proponents can't even agree if design was front-loaded or imposed every so often. It's better just to admit that than to bluff that there is a 'comprehensive design hypothesis'. If there was one you would parade it out . . . but you don't.

    As has been said thousands of times: find a misplaced fossil and you could blow evolutionary theory apart. Funny you haven't done that AND aren't even trying. That's what's so funny. Even with a simple way to falsify evolutionary theory you aren't even trying!! Gotta love it.

    All evolutionary research is into undirected natural processes. You cannot prove that a single one of those processes is guided or directed. All you can do is point to a couple of non-peer reviewed books that no one takes seriously. But, that's how you do science: find someone who you agree with, back them and deny everything else.

    I don't mind if you stop responding to me. It means you're tired of running away from questions you can't answer. And it also means your blog is going to look very lonely. None of your UD buddies come and read it do they? They don't offer support or positive comments do they? You can just keep banning people you disagree with but then you'd have no comments at all!! :-) Gotta love that.

    Who are you gonna abuse then? Maybe you'll get to some of the things you can't deal with:

    The relative cardinality of the primes. You can't figure it out. Everyone knows it but you can't admit you can't find it.

    The geographic distribution of species. You can't come even close to explaining why lemurs only exist in Madagascar. No ID proponent can.

    You can't point to the 'extra programming' in cells that helps direct mutations. You claim it's been detected when you've just inferred it. You've got some definition issues for sure. You're just waving your hands really fast and hope that no one asks you to show the extra coding. Which you can't do. AND, as well you know, no one is looking for it. No one in the ID camp is looking (God doesn't need extra coding), you're not looking for it (you're incapable), the people who wrote the books that convinced you it exists are not looking for it.

    Ten years from now all the stuff I just said will still be true. And you and your denialist Creation buddies will still be trying to convince people that evolutionary theory is bogus and that ID is the way to go. But you won't have any research or data or results to back you up. Partly because you can't even look and mostly because no one is even trying to look.

    How long are you going to keep up the pretence, that ID is a viable an active area of science? For example: why isn't there a real ID journal? That's not expensive, it should be easy to set up, especially if it's online. But, it ain't there. Funny that.

     

  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The genome plus environmental factors determine what type of eye will develop obviously

    Obviously you are just an imbecile. Present the evidence that supports your claim or retract it.

    And AGAIN- you don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond prokaryotes which means you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms tat were fossilized.

    Look, asshole, you don't have any evidence to support your claims. All you can do is whine and cry because you are nothing but an ignorant little baby.

    ID is more scientific than your position will ever be. But then again you are ignorant of science.

    Ten years from now your position will still be untested and untestable. It will still be useless and worthless, just like you.

    Bye-bye loser

     

  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    The genome dictates what proteins are 'constructed' in cells. Different mixes of proteins determine what type of cell you get. Cell s make up biological structures/organs/bodies.

    Perhaps you'd like to provide something else that dictates what proteins are constructed?

    You keep denying evolutionary theory doesn't have a mechanism (which isn't true, various forms of 'selection' acting on morphological differences dictated by inheritable differences plus genetic drift can account for most things) when you can't say when design was implemented or how mutations are 'guided'. You really need to come up with something soon. What form does the extra coding take? How does it interact with cell processes? Etc, etc, etc.

    I'm not whining or crying at all. My position is in no danger of falling. I just enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. And pointing out that no one takes you seriously. Especially your UD buddies (I guess they aren't really your buddies). In fact, no one from the ID camp even reads your blog do they? It's been months and months since one of them even commented here. I guess you're just too insignificant for them to pay attention. You do all that work and no one cares. No one is holding you up as a bastion of ID ideology. No one is linking to your posts. You even get banned from posting at UD, at least twice. Sounds like you're really just pretty insignificant. And you still can't:

    Tell us what is the relative cardinality of the primes. You really can't.

    Explain the geographic distribution of species. You have no clue at all of how mutations are guided (according to you) so you can't say why lemurs only appear in Madagascar or penguins only appear in the Antarctic. You say shit but then you can't defind it.

    And you really don't have a clue where the extra coding in the cell is. You can't point to it, you have no idea how it'e encoded, you can't say how it interacts with cell processes. Can you even specify when it interacts with cell processes? How about that? It must be when the cell reproduces so as to induce mutations. Well, how does that work . . . exactly? Or are you just going to wave another promise of things to come without any real research or evidence to back you up?

    You think you're scoring points attacking evolutionary theory but your jibes are misplaced. You make all kinds of grandiose claims about your view of biological development but you never can come up with a clear, coherent, testable hypothesis and some research or data to back it up. Where is the extra coding? Just answer that question, that would be a start.

    But you can't. It's all just a denialist, Creationist dream because you are so determined to take down evolutionary theory you've sold your soul to pseudo-science. And now you're stuck.

    Good luck with that. Dr Dembski has bailed on ID. Except for Dr Behe there aren't many serious people left.

    And almost no one reads your blogs. It's almost like ID doesn't really matter. :-)

    I expect to see lots of abuse if you have the balls to let this post through. But I don't expect you to even try and answer the things you keep ignoring and dodging. Because you can't. And you can't even be bothered to try. God doesn't need to be explained or defended eh? That's what your position is equivalent to. Unless you start proving otherwise.

     

  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Different mixes of proteins determine what type of cell you get.

    Evidence please

    You keep denying evolutionary theory doesn't have a mechanism

    That isn't what I said, moron. Try again. Link to the actual evolutionary theory or shut up about it already

    My position is in no danger of falling

    And yet it has failed because no one can test its claims. If you doubt that then tell us how your mechanism produced all of the protein machines. Be sure to include that it didn't take specific mutations to do so

    Dr Dembski has bailed on ID

    Liar

    BTW I get over 100 reads a day, loser

    And of course I let your post through. It proves that you are a desperate and clueless fuck.

    As for the programming- I am OK with the fact it will be discovered. I am OK with the fact that you and yours have no idea how transcription, editing, splicing and translation reduce to physics and chemistry. You see it is your failure to provide any answers that has allowed me to infer the programming exists.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home