Why Gene Duplication is NOT a Viable Blind Watchmaker Mechanism

-
Evolutionists love to call on gene duplications to explain genetic similarities between different genes and to also explain how new genes arise. They say the new genes are duplicated genes tat have accumulated mutations that changed them. But is this viable? I say that it is NOT viable for blind and mindless processes, ie the posited mechanisms of evolutionism. It isn't viable for several reasons:

1- The duplicated gene needs a new binding site. And despite Art Hunt's protestation binding sites do not get duplicated along with the gene- see Lenski's long term evolutionary experiment.

2- The duplicated gene needs to be in the correct position on the spool or it will never be seen to be expressed even if it had a binding site.

3- Waiting for two mutations makes it very clear that creating a new binding site from scratch will be very time consuming

4- To change the gene requires specific mutations which in turn are very time consuming- see step 3's paper

So when you see/ hear evolutionists claim gene duplications you know they are desperate and ignorant of what that entails.

A Clueless Tomato Addict

-
The Skeptical Zone is rife with scientifically illiterate evoTARDs. And it is very telling that they never apply their "skepticism" to the claims of their own position. But anyway am imbecilic tomato addict recently chimed in with:

If ID Creationism is any sort of science, then this is a perfectly fair question.

First ID Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Second tat pertains to the "how did the Designer do it?" question. And yes it is a fair question but it doesn't have anything to do with ID which deals with the detection and study of design in nature. We don't have to know how something was designed and manufactured to determine it was designed and manufactured. The how comes after. We don't even ask that question until intentional design has been determined to exist. The how is a separate question.

So yes, one of the research questions ID opens up is the how was the design implemented proving that ID is not a scientific dead-end.

If IDC is not science, then we can only expect continued criticism of real science.

It never says what this alleged real science is that ID criticizes. It also doesn't realize that it is the duty of all people to question science. If we couldn't do that then we would still have a geocentric view of the solar system.

But anyway it is a lie to say that ID criticizes real science- a tactic used by losers in an attempt to distract from the fact they are scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's.

A Willfully Ignorant Sensuous Curmudgeon

-
Another clueless evoTARD is the sensuous curmudgeon. It now has a post trying to lambaste the Discovery Institute pertaining to the recently announced newly discovered solar system with rocky planets. See here.

The moron thinks the discovery is bad news for Creationists yet it cannot say why. The following is what was discovered: Temperate earth-sized worlds found in extraordinarily rich planetary system (Update).

The host star is much smaller than ours. That means the habitable zone is closer to the star which means any planets in that zone will be locked-in- rotation = revolution. One side of the planets will always face the host star which means one side will always be dark and cold. No rotation means no mixing of any atmospheric gasses. It also means that the side facing the star will not have any surface water as it would have been cooked off- or blasted off by solarwinds.

No rotation also means no magnetic field which means massive amounts of radiation will be hitting the planets.

These planets have no chance of harboring native life.

That said, according to "The Privileged Planet", which TSC talks about, the odds of ET increases with Intelligent Design. And yet TSC seems to be ignorant of that also.

So Earth to TSC- If ID is true we would expect there to be more habitable and inhabited planets. It bothers me that we haven't found any

And More Ignorance from TSZ

-
The evoTARDs at TSZ are so fucking clueless that they don't understand that by using goal-oriented processes to simulate evolution the evolution being simulated cannot be evolution by blind and mindless processes. It has NOTHING to do with the fact the simulation was intelligently designed. One clueless loser sed:

 In this brilliant insight, Dembski, Marks, Ewert and Humble have discovered that all simulations of evolution that were programmed on computers, were intentionally programmed to be simulations of evolution.

No, moron, but thanks for proving that you have an inability to think. All models of evolution use goal-oriented processes that are full of the information required for them to do what they are designed to do.

And these are the assholes who think they know more about ID than IDists and yet they cannot grasp the simple fact that ID is not anti-evolution. And that is AFTER it has been explained to them ad nauseum.

The moron even says:

It should be needless to say, but what matters is of course the actual process that takes place in the simulation, not the fact that the simulation was programmed (all simulation are, that’s unavoidably the case with simulations, otherwise they wouldn’tbe simulations).

No DUH! The processes that take place are not blind and mindless. Even AVIDA, which isn't goal-oriented has information snuck in. For one reproduction is just granted. For another when realistic mutation parameters are used nothing happens- no new functions evolved.

Joshua Swamidass is still Confused

-
And he throws in a straw man too- Joshua sez:

It appears we do disagree with science ability to detect purpose. He seems to think Divine purpose is detectable with science. I do not.

Science can and does detect purpose- see archaeology and forensic science for two such scientific venues that detect purpose. The straw man is "Divine" purpose as ID is not about the Divine. As Arthur Clarke once said:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So how could we tell?

That's the problem with theistic evolutionists. Just because they think God didit but God cannot be detected for whatever reason, they think ID is also about detecting God. And yet IDists have made it very clear that Paley went too far to infer God didit when looking at design. Even Dr Behe makes it clear that it is his faith and not the evidence for Intelligent Design that leads him to God as the Designer.

So yes we can use science to detect purpose and no ID is not about detecting the divine. The authors of "The Privileged Planet" claim that the evidence points to a purpose- that our place in the universe was designed for discovery.

Only a dipshit would try to limit science, Joshua

keiths is Proudly Full of Shit

-
keiths is an ignorant ass who thinks his ignorant opinion means something. Now the asshole vomits:

What’s even stranger is that a good number of the skeptics here understand intelligent design better than the IDists do.

Total unsupportable bullshit. And also demonstrably false. Just go to TSZ and search on CSI or any posts about Intelligent Design. Not one TSZ "skeptic" has shown any knowledge of ID. Not one has shown any knowledge of science. And most appear ignorant of their own position. Alan Fox, Patrick, Robin and the rest didn't understand that his position posited blind and mindless processes. They thought blind watchmaker evolution was a strawman that I invented even though Richard Dawkins is the one who used the phrase to describe evolution.,

So keiths is not only wrong,  the sentence should read:

What’s even stranger is that a good number of the IDists here understand evolution better than the evos do.

keiths is one of the most willfully ignorant people evah

TSZ'z keiths is Still a Clueless Ass

-
keiths loves to spew his ignorant opinions as actual evidence. Now he has something he thinks goes against ID and Creation. Too bad his position cannot explain the phenomena as it can't explain sexual reproduction nor wombs.

keiths and his ignorance

Yes an embryo is akin to a parasite as it lives off of its host. Yes it is alive, wants to stay that way and does what it can to do so.

And yes, what we are observing now is after many generations of genetic entropy.

I don't know how the alleged theory of evolution explains this because as I said it doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms involved nor sexual reproduction involving meiosis.

TSZ's Allan Miller is still Confused

-
Allan Miller is the joke who thinks that genetic code isn't a real code despite the fact that it fits the definition of a real code and meets the same criteria as Morse code. Now the moron says something just as ignorant:

I occasionally had fun (we live in a rural area; we have to make our own fun) ragging Joe G about that. Evolution isn’t testable; ID is. Step 1 in ‘testing ID’: test evolution.

No, dumbass. For one ID is not anti-evolution. You have been told this and yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant. For another if we cannot test the claims of evolutionism then we can just eliminate by invoking the Hitchens- "That which can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Step 1 in testing ID is to see if law/ regularity can account for what we are investigating. Step 2 is to add chance to that. And again if no one can figure out how to test those then we can just eliminate them.

I have told this to Allan too so obviously the moron loves to wallow in his willful ignorance.

Then the moron doubles-down on his ignorance:

IOW, if something is truly not testable, you can’t claim that something that crucially depends on it is [testable].

LoL! If something is truly not testable then it can be eliminated and we move on from there. Tat is all ID requires- the elimination of other, non-telic explanations. But then again Allan is too stupid to grasp that simple point.