Why Common Descent Fails
-
Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.
And even given populations of single-celled eukaryotes there aren't any mechanisms that can produce metazoans. So again, it is a non-starter.
So the people who say there is evidence for Common Descent do so because their faith requires it. Science does not support the claim.
Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.
And even given populations of single-celled eukaryotes there aren't any mechanisms that can produce metazoans. So again, it is a non-starter.
So the people who say there is evidence for Common Descent do so because their faith requires it. Science does not support the claim.
posted by Joe G @ 10:16 AM
41 Comments:
At 4:48 PM,
Jerad said…
Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.
You could say that ID is a non-starter because no one has been able to show how, when or why design was implemented.
And there are things in support of common descent . . .
The common genetic code COULD be a result of design but design does not dictate it. But the fact that it exists is a strong argument for universal common descent.
Not only the genetic code but the large number of shared genes is strongly in favour of common descent. Yes, a designer could have chosen to reuse design elements but not necessarily. An intelligent designer would be free to pick and choose and not be constrained. But common descent would necessarily reuse building blocks.
The fossil record which shows a clear progression of life forms argues for common descent. Again, there would be nothing to stop a designer from introducing life forms whenever they chose. If they chose to design in a manner which mirrors common descent then it's fair to ask why they would do such a thing. And you can't just keep stonewalling and say you're not ready to examine the details of how design was implemented. You can only use that excuse for so long.
And even given populations of single-celled eukaryotes there aren't any mechanisms that can produce metazoans. So again, it is a non-starter.
Aside from the fact that biologists are trying to explain that transition (while no ID proponents are even bothering to explain how or when design was implemented) you cannot argue that the idea is wrong just because you can't see how it could have happened.
So the people who say there is evidence for Common Descent do so because their faith requires it. Science does not support the claim.
Once again, because some transition has not been spelled out to your degree of satisfaction does not mean there is no evidence to support the idea. And, it must be said, NO ONE in the ID camp is even bothering to try and provide an alternative that goes beyond 'design has been detected'. You can bitch and moan and get abusive but that is the case.
You have no clear idea of when design was implemented.
You have no clear idea of how design was implemented.
And, it's true, no one in the ID camp is even trying to answer those questions. You can go on and on about how design has to be studied before those questions can be explored but that is just making excuses. NO ONE is going to look into those questions. Design was the default explanation for centuries. Centuries. And in all that time no one has come up with any kind of suggestion of how or when design was implemented.
The whole purpose of the modern ID movement is not to do science. Only Dr Behe really even tries. The rest of the movement is happy to just think that God did it.
You'll get all rude and abusive about it but it's been years and years since it's been claimed that design has been detected and nothing has been done in the ID camp since then. There is money if someone wanted to do some research. But no one is interested.
Point to a gap in our knowledge of universal common descent via modification and there will be people who are trying to close that gap. Point out a hole in ID and you get excuse after excuse after excuse.
Why don't you try and address some of those issues? Is it that you can't? Are you just going to trot out one of your overused excuses? ID doesn't have to follow your asinine agenda? But ID doesn't have a research agenda does it? Get people to accept the divine, that's the agenda. Once we get god back everything will be okay.
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
You could say that ID is a non-starter because no one has been able to show how, when or why design was implemented.
What? ID starts with the detection of intentional design. And that does not require knowing the how, when or why.
You have been told this many times so clearly you are just a willfully ignorant troll.
And your position is allegedly all about the how and to date still has nothing to say about it.
And there are things in support of common descent .
Only the same things that support a common design.
The common genetic code COULD be a result of design but design does not dictate it.
Sure it does. Codes, which are arbitrary by their vary nature, only come from intentional/ intelligent agencies. No one has ever observed nature producing a code. No one knows how nature could even do such a thing.
. Yes, a designer could have chosen to reuse design elements but not necessarily.
And yet we see it every day with human design. Why keep reinventing things? It is an engineering waste. And similar genes that produce the same protein does not and cannot explain the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related species like chimps and humans.
The fossil record which shows a clear progression of life forms argues for common descent.
Too bad you don't have a mechanism that could have produced the differences observed.
Aside from the fact that biologists are trying to explain that transition (while no ID proponents are even bothering to explain how or when design was implemented) you cannot argue that the idea is wrong just because you can't see how it could have happened.
Who is trying to explain it? What are they doing? Do tell
Once again, because some transition has not been spelled out to your degree of satisfaction does not mean there is no evidence to support the idea.
Not one alleged transition has been spelled out scientifically. All your biologists explain things in Lamarkian terms- meaning they talk about changing morphology in anatomical and not genetic terms.
You have no clear idea of when design was implemented.
True and it doesn't mater to ID.
You have no clear idea of how design was implemented.
True and the same can be said for archaeological finds as well.
We don't need to know who, how nor why in order to determine intelligent design exists. All we need is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And it remains that any and all design inferences can be falsified just by stepping up and demonstrating stochastic processes suffice. Yet you and yours have FAILED in that regard.
The whole purpose of the modern ID movement is not to do science.
And yet we have done science. Detecting intelligent design in nature requires the use of science. on the other hand your position is the antithesis of science as it makes untestable claims.
Point to a gap in our knowledge of universal common descent via modification and there will be people who are trying to close that gap.
With what are they trying to close the many, many gaps? Evo-devo was the last hope and it ain't panning out as planned. So what is left?
Look, Jerad, you are just a bluffing liar who doesn't know anything about science. If your position had the science then ID would be blown away but all you have is clueless people like yourself.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Voles remain voles even though "voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Common Descent.
At 5:16 PM,
Jerad said…
We don't need to know who, how nor why in order to determine intelligent design exists. All we need is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And it remains that any and all design inferences can be falsified just by stepping up and demonstrating stochastic processes suffice.
A very, very clear indication why ID is a science stopper. We don't need to know that.
All you have is supposed design detection. If you're wrong about that you've got nothing. If it were me, I'd be trying really hard to find some more supporting evidence. But not ID proponents. They can't be bothered. They don't need anything else. They know they are right and that's good enough for them.
All scientific knowledge is tentative which is why real scientists keep looking and searching. But not ID proponents. They've quit. They're not scientists. They have something different, they have faith. I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is an amazing and wonderful gift which I don't share but I can see its effect on people. I think having faith is hard work, it takes courage and commitment and deep strength.
And real faith is not ashamed to stand tall and take a stand. It doesn't need to pretend to be anything else. It's strong and resilient and enduring.
But it's not the same as science. It's not. ID denigrates science and faith. It makes a mockery of both. It's ashamed to be what it is and pretends to be something else.
It's not surprising that ID hasn't progressed at all in the last decade. It has produced no new ideas, no new research, nothing at all really. And, I bet, it won't in the next ten years either. Dr Dembski has left the tent. Dr Behe has nothing new to say. Dr Meyers keeps repeating himself. Nothing is coming out of the research branch of the Discovery Institute. Every year someone cranks out a new book espousing the same old ideas but there is no real progress. Time to stop pretending ID is anything other than what it is: an expression of Christian faith. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's something to be proud of.
But it's not going to stop you from shouting down work you cannot understand or carry out yourself. You're not a scientist, not even close. You publish nothing, you write nothing, you do no research, you don't teach, you just keep repeating the talking points of others because you think you're going to win some great battle. Ten years from now, twenty years from now you'll be saying the same things and ID will not have moved forward at all. It's never going to move forward. Because no one is doing any real research. No one is ever going to do any real research. Research, answering questions, trying to figure things out is not the point. Faith is the point. Stop pretending it's about anything else.
At 6:43 PM,
Joe G said…
A very, very clear indication why ID is a science stopper.
And a very, very clear indication that you are scientifically illiterate.
Tell me why it is necessary to know the who, how and why BEFORE we can determine whether or not intelligent design exists or admit that you are an ignorant troll.
All you have is supposed design detection.
That is more than what you and yours have. At least we have a methodology. You and yours are still without that basic necessity of science.
If it were me, I'd be trying really hard to find some more supporting evidence.
We have found supporting evidence from several different scientific venues. Yours still has nothing.
All scientific knowledge is tentative which is why real scientists keep looking and searching.
And yet no one is looking and searching for the mechanism that can turn fish into tetrapods. All you have is faith that it happened.
Yours doesn't have any science. All it has is faith. It is not surprising that yours is a useless and worthless position. It is not surprising that no one uses its concepts for anything useful. And it is not surprising that all it has for support is liars, losers and bluffing morons.
But hey, you are a scientifically illiterate troll who doesn't give a shit about reality.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
And again, ID does not stop anyone from looking into the who, how and why. Those are separate questions and their very existence proves that ID is not a science stopper.
Also, again, IDists know that there are by far more important questions to answer before trying to determine the who, when and how. But Jerad has already been told all of this many, many times. And that proves he is a willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate troll.
At 4:52 PM,
Jerad said…
Tell me why it is necessary to know the who, how and why BEFORE we can determine whether or not intelligent design exists or admit that you are an ignorant troll.
The point is that if you are claiming to be scientific then you have to move onto the clear and obvious fallow-on questions. Which no one in the ID community is doing. Conclusion: it's not science. There is no research agenda.
We have found supporting evidence from several different scientific venues. Yours still has nothing.
All you have is supposed design detection. If you're wrong about that you've got nothing. Fine tuning is just design detection in a different suit. And, again, if that inference fails .. . you've got nothing.
And yet no one is looking and searching for the mechanism that can turn fish into tetrapods. All you have is faith that it happened.
Clearly false, which even a cursory check of the publication record will show.
Yours doesn't have any science. All it has is faith. It is not surprising that yours is a useless and worthless position. It is not surprising that no one uses its concepts for anything useful. And it is not surprising that all it has for support is liars, losers and bluffing morons.
And your publication record which refutes the accepted paradigm is . . .
You bitch and moan and whine and complain but except for claiming you've detected design you've got nothing.
But hey, you are a scientifically illiterate troll who doesn't give a shit about reality.
Let's just check here . . .
You personally do not do an scientific research.
You personally do not publish any scientific work.
You personally do not get paid to write about science or research.
You personally do not teach science in any kind of verified situation.
You personally do nat have any significant academic scientific credentials.
Is that all correct?
And again, ID does not stop anyone from looking into the who, how and why. Those are separate questions and their very existence proves that ID is not a science stopper.
But, deny it if you can, no one in the ID camp is even trying to answer those questions. And, I contend, no one in the ID camp intends to look into those issues.
That's why ID is a science stopper. After design detection no one cares.
ID is not about science. It's about God.
Also, again, IDists know that there are by far more important questions to answer before trying to determine the who, when and how. But Jerad has already been told all of this many, many times. And that proves he is a willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate troll.
But no one is doing any such thing. No work is being done at all. You're not doing the work are you? The Discovery Institute is not doing that work. No one is even trying.
After supposed design detection . . . nada. zip.
You keep offering the same tired excuses. Day after day, week after week, year after year. And still NO ONE in the ID camp is even trying to go past design has been detected. They might try to argue against unguided universal common descent based on genetic modification but that's not the same as trying to come up with some answers about how and when design was implemented. Have you thought about why that is the case? When you can't point to the source of you're proposed 'extra programming' in cells have you really considered the 'scientific' case for ID?
Why can't ID move on from 'design has been detected'? Is is because no one cares? Probably. But it is also, maybe, because there is no evidence anyway of a designer except for contentious design detection?
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
The point is that if you are claiming to be scientific then you have to move onto the clear and obvious fallow-on questions.
That doesn't follow. Clearly you are just a moron. How pathetic are you?
And no one from your side is trying to figure out how eyes evolved. No one is trying to answer any of the follow-on questions.
All you have is supposed design detection.
We have more than that and what we have by far exceeds what your position has.
Clearly false, which even a cursory check of the publication record will show.
Your bluffing is duly noted.
You personally do not do an scientific research.
You personally do not publish any scientific work.
You personally do not get paid to write about science or research.
You personally do not teach science in any kind of verified situation.
You personally do nat have any significant academic scientific credentials.
Is that all correct?
That all pertains to you. I have many decades of research into root causes- that means many decades of scientific research. But then again you don't know jack about science
But, deny it if you can, no one in the ID camp is even trying to answer those questions.
As I told you many times those are not important questions. And there are by far more important questions to answer.
And it still remains that your position has nothing
And, I contend, no one in the ID camp intends to look into those issues.
No one cares what you contend. You are just an ignorant troll on an agenda.
ID is not about science.
All evidence to the contrary. And too bad you don't know what science entails.
But no one is doing any such thing.
How do you know?
And still NO ONE in the ID camp is even trying to go past design has been detected.
Even if you are correct, so what? The science of ID is in that design detection. And again ID does NOT stop anyone from trying to answer any follow-on questions.
Scientists have special areas of study. They don't do everything.
And again, dipshit, your position is all about the how and yet no one can answer that question.
Why isn't anyone working on the problem of how eyes and vision systems evolved? The genetic code has been called a "frozen accident" and no one is trying to figure out how it evolved.
At least we have a methodology. You and yours are still without that basic necessity of science.
Yours doesn't even have science, Jerad. You are just a total loser flailing about like a little ignorant troll.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad's side has all of the resources and no answers. It is all about the "how" and yet cannot say anything about it. It is supposed to be about genetics but still uses Lamarkian language to try to explain the "how". And out of the other side of their mouths they deny theirs is a Lamarkian claim.
Jerad is too stupid to grasp what any of that means. He is also too stupid to understand that the alleged evidence for Common Descent is absent of any mechanism. And that means the alleged evidence for Common Descent doesn't even support the claims of his position.
At 2:04 AM,
Jerad said…
And no one from your side is trying to figure out how eyes evolved. No one is trying to answer any of the follow-on questions.
Pretty clearly untrue.
We have more than that and what we have by far exceeds what your position has.
Nope. If you have falsely detected design ID implodes.
That all pertains to you. I have many decades of research into root causes- that means many decades of scientific research. But then again you don't know jack about science
Really? Let's see it then. Where is it published?
As I told you many times those are not important questions. And there are by far more important questions to answer.
Again, clearly stated, no one in the ID camp cares about trying to figure out anything about the designer or how and when design was implemented. 'God did it' is good enough.
But no one is doing any such thing.
How do you know?
Because I keep asking and no one comes up with anything. Besides, you've already admitted, no one in the ID camp cares because 'God did it' is good enough.
Even if you are correct, so what? The science of ID is in that design detection. And again ID does NOT stop anyone from trying to answer any follow-on questions.
ID doesn't care about any follow-on questions. 'God did it', job done.
And again, dipshit, your position is all about the how and yet no one can answer that question.
But scientists are trying to figure out such things. No one in the ID camp is trying to do anything 'cause 'God did it' is good enough.
Why isn't anyone working on the problem of how eyes and vision systems evolved? The genetic code has been called a "frozen accident" and no one is trying to figure out how it evolved.
Work is being done as a simple internet search will show.
At least we have a methodology. You and yours are still without that basic necessity of science.
Design requires a designer, which you haven't got. No designer, no design. Design cannot be a methodology without a designer can it?
Jerad's side has all of the resources and no answers. It is all about the "how" and yet cannot say anything about it. It is supposed to be about genetics but still uses Lamarkian language to try to explain the "how". And out of the other side of their mouths they deny theirs is a Lamarkian claim.
Uh huh. Typical whine about resources and then a misinterpretation.
Jerad is too stupid to grasp what any of that means. He is also too stupid to understand that the alleged evidence for Common Descent is absent of any mechanism. And that means the alleged evidence for Common Descent doesn't even support the claims of his position.
I say it means you don't understand the evidence and the 150 years of research and data and work.
ID was the prevalent paradigm for centuries and yet it still cannot come up with even a notion of when and how design was implemented nor can it produce a designer. No designer means no design means ID is false. Implementing design takes energy and resources . . . where did that stuff come from? No one knows or cares. 'God did it', that's all anyone in the ID camps cares. That's the real reason why no follow-on work happens. You just won't admit it because then ID isn't science, it's faith. And you're afraid to admit that.
At 10:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you are a bluffing idiot and a gullible fool.
What work is being done? Do tell or shut the fuck up.
Yes, design requires a designer. And the presence of the design says there was one. And it remains that your position has nothing. If your position had something then ID would be in trouble. But ID remains unscathed because you and yours are a bunch of anti-science losers.
You talk about me whining when all I do is produce facts. That alone tells me that you are fucked in the head.
Besides, you've already admitted, no one in the ID camp cares because 'God did it' is good enough.
You must be proud to be a moron and dick. I said ID doesn't care because those questions have nothing to do with ID. OTOH no one is looking into how eyes and vision systems could have evolved. No one. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
No one is working on the origin of the genetic code, either. No one.
All anyone is doing, if they are even doing that, is speculating and even that fails.
I say it means you don't understand the evidence and the 150 years of research and data and work.
Coming from a bluffing liar like you that is meaningless. I can support my claim- just look at Theobald's article on Common Descent @ talk origins- no mechanism is mentioned. And it is touted as the best evidence for Common Descent. You will never be able to find support for the claims of your position. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
You lose, asshole.
Jerad's side has all of the resources and no answers. It is all about the "how" and yet cannot say anything about it. It is supposed to be about genetics but still uses Lamarkian language to try to explain the "how". And out of the other side of their mouths they deny theirs is a Lamarkian claim.
The book on eye evolution- "Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved" has nothing on the genetics and everything on the physical units of the eyes and vision systems. It is all Lamarkian. Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" is the same way- no genetics and all Lamarkian.
Had Jerad any knowledge on the subject at all he would know that what I say is true. But Jerad would rather walk around with his head up his ass and think all is well.
And in the end Jerad doesn't know what science is nor what it entails. He sure as hell cannot produce any science that his position is doing to support its claims.
Show us the WORK, Jerad or admit that you are a bluffing fool.
ID was the prevalent paradigm for centuries and yet it still cannot come up with even a notion of when and how design was implemented nor can it produce a designer.
Back then their designer was God, so you lose. Back then they didn't have the knowledge nor technology to fully see the design so no, they couldn't figure it out.
That said, modern IDists know that it is a fool's errand to try to answer the questions Jerad asks. Why is it a fool's errand? We can't even answer those question for many archaeological finds and those are things we can reproduce.
At 4:15 PM,
Jerad said…
What work is being done? Do tell or shut the fuck up.
I know full well from past experience that if I bother to spend time searching for reference you will just deny them anyway. You are not arguing in good faith since you've already decided what is 'true'. So, I'm just going to leave it; anyone who is serious can find references and will know that you are just denying easily verify things.
Yes, design requires a designer. And the presence of the design says there was one. And it remains that your position has nothing. If your position had something then ID would be in trouble. But ID remains unscathed because you and yours are a bunch of anti-science losers.
If you can't find a designer then no design happened. And a designer had to implement design at some time and had to have equipment and resources none of which you can illustrate. If you can't show those things then ID is dead.
You talk about me whining when all I do is produce facts. That alone tells me that you are fucked in the head.
No facts at all. Just supposed design detection. Which no indication of when or how design was implemented. No designer means no design means your design inference is wrong.
You must be proud to be a moron and dick. I said ID doesn't care because those questions have nothing to do with ID. OTOH no one is looking into how eyes and vision systems could have evolved. No one. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
No one in the ID camp cares because they've already decided! God did it. No designer, no resources, no equipment means no design.
And it's easy enough to check on the work being done to address the question you bring up. Unless you're lazy or a denialist.
No one is working on the origin of the genetic code, either. No one.
Clearly incorrect. Anyone who is serious can check and see that you're wrong. And I'm fed up with spending time finding references that you will just deny.
All anyone is doing, if they are even doing that, is speculating and even that fails.
Funny that no one in the ID camp can even speculate on when or how design was implemented? How do you know it happened if you can't say when or how or by whom? No designer means no design.
Coming from a bluffing liar like you that is meaningless. I can support my claim- just look at Theobald's article on Common Descent @ talk origins- no mechanism is mentioned. And it is touted as the best evidence for Common Descent. You will never be able to find support for the claims of your position. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
Clearly you don't understand evolutionary theory. It's not that hard really, I guess you just don't get it OR you're denying for God.
The book on eye evolution- "Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved" has nothing on the genetics and everything on the physical units of the eyes and vision systems. It is all Lamarkian. Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" is the same way- no genetics and all Lamarkian.
Uh huh. You clearly do not understand genetically based evolutionary theory.
Show us the WORK, Jerad or admit that you are a bluffing fool.
Look it up yourself. It's easy to find. Unless you want to be a denialist like you: If if can't point to the work then you think you've won, if I do point to the work then you just deny it. I'm not playing your game anymore.
At 4:16 PM,
Jerad said…
Back then their designer was God, so you lose. Back then they didn't have the knowledge nor technology to fully see the design so no, they couldn't figure it out.
Nothing has changed. You still can't point to a designer other than the Christian God. You can'd say when or how design was implemented because you can't show the material support and effects of design implementation. But if God did it you don't have to.
That said, modern IDists know that it is a fool's errand to try to answer the questions Jerad asks. Why is it a fool's errand? We can't even answer those question for many archaeological finds and those are things we can reproduce.
So, you're not going to bother. I'm glad you have finally admitted it. ID really is a science stopper. We can't answer those questions so we're not going to try. Lovely. And you call it a science? Too funny.
At 4:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, You are clearly just a troll on some ignorant agenda. ID is not about the designer nor the process. And no amount of your whining will ever change those facts.
You are just a piece-of-shit bluffing loser. You clearly don't understand the fact that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. You clearly don't understand the current state of biology. No one is trying to figure out how eyes evolved- no one. No one is trying to figure out how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. There isn't any work being done.
And AGAIN, it is the total failure of your position to support any of its claims which has allowed ID to prosper. TOTAL FAILURE- you don't have a mechanism capable and you don't have a methodology to test your claims.
If someone had the evidence that nature could produce codes then they would present it and be awarded millions of dollars. People would have a better chance of demonstrating nature could produce Stonehenge then they will showing nature could produce the genetic code. But please, stay in your little fantasy world in which things "just happened" and here we are
At 4:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.
And forget about meiosis- "it just happened" is not an answer
At 4:29 PM,
Joe G said…
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2017/12/intelligent-design-designers-and.html
At 4:58 PM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, You are clearly just a troll on some ignorant agenda. ID is not about the designer nor the process. And no amount of your whining will ever change those facts.
No designer and no process means no design. Period. Most scientists, when faced with adversity, look for more supporting evidence. You just bitch and moan.
You are just a piece-of-shit bluffing loser. You clearly don't understand the fact that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. You clearly don't understand the current state of biology. No one is trying to figure out how eyes evolved- no one. No one is trying to figure out how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. There isn't any work being done.
Clearly not true and any serious and honest search will establish.
And AGAIN, it is the total failure of your position to support any of its claims which has allowed ID to prosper. TOTAL FAILURE- you don't have a mechanism capable and you don't have a methodology to test your claims.
ID will succeed or fail based on its own merits. And if it's meeting opposition then it's up to its supporters to find more supporting evidence instead of whining and bitching and moaning.
If someone had the evidence that nature could produce codes then they would present it and be awarded millions of dollars. People would have a better chance of demonstrating nature could produce Stonehenge then they will showing nature could produce the genetic code. But please, stay in your little fantasy world in which things "just happened" and here we are
We know you don't believe in unguided evolution. The question is: can you support ID beyond just design inference? Can you do more than just bitching and whining that no one is taking you seriously? Can you find more supporting evidence?
Common Descent, the concept that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes and/or archaea, is a failure because there aren't any mechanisms that can produce a eukaryote given populations of prokaryotes and archaea. And that means the concept is a non-starter.
Yes, yes, we know what you think of unguided evolution. But that doesn't give you design. You still have to support it. And when people are disagreeing with you then you have to try and support it with more evidence. You can't just moan and whine. Do some work! Answer some follow-on questions. Come up with some hypothesis that better explain the data.
You guys think you can just wave the design flag and that anyone who isn't an idiot will rally 'round. It doesn't work that way. People want to have more evidence and data before they make a change. But you can't seem to understand that.
This is why it's commonly asserted that ID is a science stopper. You guys don't do anything after 'design has been detected'.
At 8:38 PM,
Joe G said…
No designer and no process means no design.
You are looking for proof and that is not what science is about. The overwhelming evidence for DESIGN is evidence for a DESIGNER. And, yes, if someone were to step up and show that nature can produce what we say required a DESIGNER then the design inference is falsified- Newton's four rules applies.
Clearly not true and any serious and honest search will establish.
I have looked, asshole. What I am looking for doesn't exist.
And AGAIN, it is the total failure of your position to support any of its claims which has allowed ID to prosper. TOTAL FAILURE- you don't have a mechanism capable and you don't have a methodology to test your claims.
ID will succeed or fail based on its own merits.
Again you prove that you are scientifically illiterate. ALL design inferences are measured against nature's capabilities. That is part of Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. Clearly you don't have any investigative experience at all.
We know you don't believe in unguided evolution.
Except that I do, of course. I accept that unguided evolution can produce disease and deformities. I also accept that no one has yet to show it can do anything else.
The question is: can you support ID beyond just design inference?
Science doesn't do proof, Jerad.
In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?- page 270
ID is supported with plenty of evidence. The people who disagree don't have anything to offer as an argument. Nor do they have any testable alternative. At least ID's claims are testable.
The work is done. You are too stupid to understand it. Not our fault. You are too stupid to understand what is being debated. Again, not our fault. And to top it all off you are a bluffing idiot.
The people who say ID is a science stopper don't know what science is. And they sure as hell can't find any science to A) refute ID and B) support any alternative.
So fuck you, loser.
At 4:37 PM,
Jerad said…
You are looking for proof and that is not what science is about. The overwhelming evidence for DESIGN is evidence for a DESIGNER. And, yes, if someone were to step up and show that nature can produce what we say required a DESIGNER then the design inference is falsified- Newton's four rules applies.
I'm not looking for proof at all. I'm saying that real scientists look for more supporting evidence when their ideas are in contention. But ID just sits arounds and whines.
I have looked, asshole. What I am looking for doesn't exist.
I guess you've not good at looking then.
And AGAIN, it is the total failure of your position to support any of its claims which has allowed ID to prosper. TOTAL FAILURE- you don't have a mechanism capable and you don't have a methodology to test your claims.
ID needs to stand on its own merits, it needs to find more supporting evidence and show it's not just: this stuff looks designed. But, sadly, no one seems able to do that.
Again you prove that you are scientifically illiterate. ALL design inferences are measured against nature's capabilities. That is part of Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. Clearly you don't have any investigative experience at all.
I'm most interested in your mathematical support for design detection. Can you show me a worked out example please?
Except that I do, of course. I accept that unguided evolution can produce disease and deformities. I also accept that no one has yet to show it can do anything else.
As I recall you've never been able to provide an objective criteria for establishing when evolution is guided and when it's un-guided. Except as your own personal judgement of when something is beneficial. BUT, mutations being random, some unguided changes will be beneficial so . . . you haven't said anything at all really. Show us the math.
Science doesn't do proof, Jerad.
I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for some more supporting evidence. Which you cannot provide.
In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design.
So, you've not even going to try? Figures.
But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?
How is supposing an undetected, undefined, unseen designer a better explanation? Again, you need to find some more supporting data. Saying when design occurred would help knowing when in history to look at least. But no, you'll just whine and complain that you don't have to answer that. So you're just going to bank on some mythical designer and do nothing more.
ID is supported with plenty of evidence. The people who disagree don't have anything to offer as an argument. Nor do they have any testable alternative. At least ID's claims are testable.
Funny, when people come up with alternatives to irreducible complexity you guys just stamp your feet and deny it.
At 4:37 PM,
Jerad said…
The work is done. You are too stupid to understand it. Not our fault. You are too stupid to understand what is being debated. Again, not our fault. And to top it all off you are a bluffing idiot.
Gee, maybe you should do some work and find some more evidence then. But you won't because 'God did it' is good enough for you.
The people who say ID is a science stopper don't know what science is. And they sure as hell can't find any science to A) refute ID and B) support any alternative.
Funny that I can't find mountains of scientific work that has been done since design was detected. Almost nothing really. You're going to bitch and moan about lack of resources and shit like that. But the real truth is: no one has any kind of research agenda for ID. It doesn't exist. That's why it's a science stopper. No one is doing anything.
At 5:57 PM,
Joe G said…
. I'm saying that real scientists look for more supporting evidence when their ideas are in contention.
We have the evidence. Merely denying it proves that our critics are cowards.
I guess you've not good at looking then.
Better than you will ever be.
ID needs to stand on its own merits, it needs to find more supporting evidence and show it's not just: this stuff looks designed.
We have the evidence and the methodology. OTOH no one else has anything close to what ID has.
I'm most interested in your mathematical support for design detection. Can you show me a worked out example please?
Read Dembski.
As I recall you've never been able to provide an objective criteria for establishing when evolution is guided and when it's un-guided.
I have pointed to books that go over that very thing.
As I recall you don't know how to test the claim that unguided evolution can produce any protein machines.
I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for some more supporting evidence.
Nope, you are asking for proof and you sure as hell don't understand the evidence.
So, you've not even going to try?
Clearly you have reading issues as that doesn't even address the part you quoted. Are you retarded?
How is supposing an undetected, undefined, unseen designer a better explanation?
The designer has been detected, asshole. Your denial from ignorance is meaningless.
Saying when design occurred would help knowing when in history to look at least.
It would start before the big bang, duh.
So you're just going to bank on some mythical designer and do nothing more.
Look, you ignorant fuck, just because we don't bow to an ignorant asshole's demands doesn't mean we aren't doing anything.
But then again you are jus=t a moron on an agenda.
Funny, when people come up with alternatives to irreducible complexity you guys just stamp your feet and deny it.
Funny that no one has come up with testable alternatives to IC. You lose.
At 5:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Gee, maybe you should do some work and find some more evidence then
No amount of evidence will suffice for willfully ignorant trolls like you.
Funny that I can't find mountains of scientific work that has been done since design was detected.
You won't read about it until it is published. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. OTOH your position still can't answer the basic questions.
At 3:37 AM,
Jerad said…
We have the evidence. Merely denying it proves that our critics are cowards.
You've got nothing beyond supposed design detection (and that includes the supposition that the universe is fine-tuned).
We have the evidence and the methodology. OTOH no one else has anything close to what ID has.
I have yet to see anyone carry out the mathematical calculation in Dr Dembski's paper. Aside from that your methodology seems to be: we can't figure out how something could have happen via unguided forces therefore design.
I have pointed to books that go over that very thing.
When asked to explain it you said: the beneficial mutations are guided. BUT, since you admit some mutations are random then some of the random mutations will be beneficial. So, again, how can you tell which mutations are guided?
Nope, you are asking for proof and you sure as hell don't understand the evidence.
That is incorrect. I find your design detection methodology insufficient so I'm asking if you've got any more evidence or if you've tried to answer some follow-on questions. And you've done nothing past your supposed design detection.
The designer has been detected, asshole. Your denial from ignorance is meaningless.
No, you think design has been detected. If you're wrong you've got nothing because you haven't tried to find out anything about the designer or the design implementation.
It would start before the big bang, duh.
And you can't research that can you? How convenient. Your designer, God, can't be studied so you don't try. Like I've been saying: God did it so you quit. That's why ID is a science stopper.
Look, you ignorant fuck, just because we don't bow to an ignorant asshole's demands doesn't mean we aren't doing anything.
Like what? Let's see something?
Funny that no one has come up with testable alternatives to IC. You lose.
Too funny.
No amount of evidence will suffice for willfully ignorant trolls like you.
Not true. But you don't have any evidence. All you've got is your supposed design detection. And faith. Nothing wrong with faith, I have some excellent Christian friends. But they don't try and bend science to their faith.
You won't read about it until it is published. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. OTOH your position still can't answer the basic questions.
But it's not being written is it? The Discovery Institute has a research facility but they have such a low output no one even pays attention. AND what they do output is not published in peer-reviewed journals and is not about ID. They continually make negative arguments against unguided processes.
Instead of pretending why don't you just admit no one is doing any real ID work anymore? No one is working on publications. No one is even contemplating answering follow-on questions. No one will ever try to identify the designer (although most ID proponents admit they think it's the Christian God). No one can even decide if design was fully implemented ahead of time or whether God is continually tweaking things as they go along.
ID is dead in the water because it's stagnant.
At 1:36 PM,
Joe G said…
You've got nothing beyond supposed design detection
What we have is far more than any alleged alternative.
I have yet to see anyone carry out the mathematical calculation in Dr Dembski's paper.
If so that would be due to the total failure of your position to show any probability at all.
When asked to explain it you said: the beneficial mutations are guided. BUT, since you admit some mutations are random then some of the random mutations will be beneficial.
I said "beneficial" is a relative term and even a loss of function can be beneficial. I also pointed to books written on the subject- books that are referenced with plenty of peer-reviewed papers for support.
I find your design detection methodology insufficient
You have proven to be a scientifically illiterate troll. You have yet to provide any reasoning behind your alleged finding.
No, you think design has been detected.
It is all but proven. And no one else has anything to explain it.
If you're wrong you've got nothing
We know that, moron. We have said it over and over again. And yet no one can find any viable alternative to what we observe.
And you can't research that can you? How convenient. Your designer, God, can't be studied so you don't try.
Wow, what an ignorant fuck you are. ID is about the DESIGN and we can study the DESIGN. ID does NOT require the designer to be God.
And AGAIN your position has NOTHING that can be studied and no one is trying to find out how fish evolved into tetrapods let alone how it happened via blind and mindless processes.
Funny that no one has come up with testable alternatives to IC. You lose.
Still stands.
And again all Jerad has is to prove he is scientifically illiterate and totally ignorant.
Why should anyone listen to you, Jerad?
At 2:28 PM,
Jerad said…
What we have is far more than any alleged alternative.
You don't know when design was implemented. You don't know how design was implemented. You don't know who implemented design. You can't even say whether design was implemented all at once or piece-by-piece. Where's your 'extra programming' eh?
You got nothing. Except faith.
If so that would be due to the total failure of your position to show any probability at all.
Too funny! 'We've got this great idea but we can't work it out because you guys haven't done the work for us.' What a joke.
I said "beneficial" is a relative term and even a loss of function can be beneficial. I also pointed to books written on the subject- books that are referenced with plenty of peer-reviewed papers for support.
But you can't explain it. I guess you don't understand it.
We know that, moron. We have said it over and over again. And yet no one can find any viable alternative to what we observe.
You just deny everything you disagree with. Don't you?
Wow, what an ignorant fuck you are. ID is about the DESIGN and we can study the DESIGN. ID does NOT require the designer to be God.
But you can't say anything about the designer can you? And most ID proponents think it is God so that's why no one is trying to figure out anything past 'this stuff looks designed'. ID is a science stopper because of the people who adhere to it. You guys think God is an explanation and so science stops.
And AGAIN your position has NOTHING that can be studied and no one is trying to find out how fish evolved into tetrapods let alone how it happened via blind and mindless processes.
Clearly incorrect as even a basic internet search reveals.
Why should anyone listen to you, Jerad?
What I say doesn't really matter. But literally millions of other people are saying roughly the same things. Including close to 100% of biologists, a vast majority of chemists, physicists, geologists, etc. As has been pointed out before, it was easy coming up with a list of people named Steve who support evolutionary theory that vastly outnumbered the number of people who signed the Dissent from Darwin list sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
ID is dead. No one is doing any research, There isn't even a research agenda. There are extremely few peer-reviewed journal articles. The one person who even tried, Dr Behe, hasn't come up with anything new in almost a decade. Time to bury the corpse and move on.
Or do some work and come up with more evidence. Saying the same things over and over and over again isn't working. Even with a moron like Trump in the White House.
At 2:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you arte clearly a deluded loser. If your position had something then ID would have been a non-starter. But you and yours have nothing. Not one of your "close to 100% of biologists, a vast majority of chemists, physicists, geologists, etc." can come up with anything that refutes ID- meaning they cannot come up with something that supports materialism. Not one of your Steve's can provide a testable alternative to ID.
Your position is useless. No one is doing any research into the capabilities of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. No one uses the concept for anything.
And AGAIN your position has NOTHING that can be studied and no one is trying to find out how fish evolved into tetrapods let alone how it happened via blind and mindless processes.
Clearly incorrect as even a basic internet search reveals.
You are a LIAR.
At 5:59 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, you arte clearly a deluded loser. If your position had something then ID would have been a non-starter. But you and yours have nothing. Not one of your "close to 100% of biologists, a vast majority of chemists, physicists, geologists, etc." can come up with anything that refutes ID- meaning they cannot come up with something that supports materialism. Not one of your Steve's can provide a testable alternative to ID.
ID needs to stand on it's own merits. You need to have a research agenda. You need to provide evidence, data and publications. You've got none of those.
All you got is supposed design detection.
Your position is useless. No one is doing any research into the capabilities of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. No one uses the concept for anything.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But don't expect the world to take you seriously.
And AGAIN your position has NOTHING that can be studied and no one is trying to find out how fish evolved into tetrapods let alone how it happened via blind and mindless processes.
Deny, deny, deny.
You are a LIAR.
Not according to millions of scientists.
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a scientifically illiterate troll.
ID needs to stand on it's own merits.
What does that mean? Are we supposed to ignore what science mandates? Are you that stupid?
And again Jerad has FAILED to provide any evidence to support his claims. One has to wonder why the evolutionists had to lie and bluff their way through the last trial if they had the evidence Jerad speaks of. I say Jerad is a fucking liar and a loser.
Plenty of people take me seriously, Jerad. Your position is b=y far the minority point of vi=ew. And that is because your scientists have nothing. And you are just a cowardly liar
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
What Common Descent has to account for but cannot are the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related populations like chimps and humans. And because of that the concept is untestable and out of the realm of science.
Not one of Jerad's scientists can do that. Heck they don't even know what makes an organism what it is. They have no idea how one type of organism evolved into another. They don't even know if such transformations are even possible. It makes you wonder what the fuck they are doing.
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
And al of those scientists and still there isn't any scientific theory of evolution!
What the fuck are your scientists doing, Jerad?
At 4:11 AM,
Jerad said…
What does that mean? Are we supposed to ignore what science mandates? Are you that stupid?
It means ID doesn't win just because you find other explanations inadequate. ID has to be shown to be compellingly likely. And that means more than just saying: this stuff looks designed.
And again Jerad has FAILED to provide any evidence to support his claims. One has to wonder why the evolutionists had to lie and bluff their way through the last trial if they had the evidence Jerad speaks of. I say Jerad is a fucking liar and a loser.
I guess they didn't lie and bluff, not according to the Republican judge anyway.
Plenty of people take me seriously, Jerad. Your position is b=y far the minority point of vi=ew. And that is because your scientists have nothing. And you are just a cowardly liar
Uh huh. Why don't you guys bring up another court case then? Why aren't you doing some research? Why aren't you finding more and more supporting evidence?
What Common Descent has to account for but cannot are the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related populations like chimps and humans. And because of that the concept is untestable and out of the realm of science.
It's tested everyday. You just can't admit it because then your position looks ever more tenuous.
Not one of Jerad's scientists can do that. Heck they don't even know what makes an organism what it is. They have no idea how one type of organism evolved into another. They don't even know if such transformations are even possible. It makes you wonder what the fuck they are doing.
You could try reading some of the research papers . . . oh, I forgot, you won't do that because you might have to admit you're wrong.
What the fuck are your scientists doing, Jerad?
Read the research papers. Or even just start with a standard textbook on evolution and following through on some of the references. It's not that hard to inform yourself you know. Unless you're a denialist.
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, your ignorance is astounding. The evos lied and bluffed in Court- it is a matter of record.
I have read motre research papers than you ever will- so has all of the ID scientists. You are just a gullible loser and a bluffing fool
What Common Descent has to account for but cannot are the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related populations like chimps and humans. And because of that the concept is untestable and out of the realm of science.
Jerad lies by saying that has been tested. Jerad lies every time he posts here. Jerad thinks his lies and bluffs are actual arguments. Jerad is a pathetic little loser.
Jerad may think he has the vast majority of scientists but it is obvious they don't have any science to support their claims.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
To rcap:
1- Common Descent is untestable because no one can link the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed to the genetics and no one is even trying to do so
2- There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution
3- No one is doing any work to see if blind and mindless processes are up to the task of producing protein machines let alone the diversity of life
4- No is dong any experiments to see if prokaryotes and archaea can evolve into eukaryotes.
5- Lenski's experiment has shown that evolution is very, very limited in what it can do
6- Voles also argue against the claim of Common Descent as they have been evolving faster than most vertebrates and still remain voles.
Jerad is too stupid to understand any of those points and he sure as hell will never refute any of them
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
how to test and falsify ID
And AGAIN, that is by far more than evolutionism has
At 2:16 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, your ignorance is astounding. The evos lied and bluffed in Court- it is a matter of record.
Well then appeal the ruling. But you're not going to because you know no one will take you seriously.
I have read motre research papers than you ever will- so has all of the ID scientists. You are just a gullible loser and a bluffing fool
I wonder why no one is taking you seriously then?
What Common Descent has to account for but cannot are the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related populations like chimps and humans. And because of that the concept is untestable and out of the realm of science.
You really should work on a positive case for ID instead of just trying to take down science accepted by the vast majority of working scientists.
Jerad lies by saying that has been tested. Jerad lies every time he posts here. Jerad thinks his lies and bluffs are actual arguments. Jerad is a pathetic little loser.
Meanwhile . . .
You haven't provided an ID research agenda.
You haven't shown that you have a mathematical procedure for design detection.
You can't even begin to guess or speculate on when or how design was implemented. (Forgetting, of course, that you think it was the magic of God who doesn't need an explanation but you'd think the ID camp could at least agree on whether things were front-loaded or something else.)
I don't believe you've ever participated in a real archaeological dig. I know you can't do basic mathematics like calculus.
You can't find that extra-programming you say must exist.
Jerad may think he has the vast majority of scientists but it is obvious they don't have any science to support their claims.
You need to find something different to say 'cause that sort of thing isn't taking you anywhere.
1- Common Descent is untestable because no one can link the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed to the genetics and no one is even trying to do so
So you can't perform a internet search. Fine with me.
2- There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution
Or maybe it's too complicated for you to understand?
3- No one is doing any work to see if blind and mindless processes are up to the task of producing protein machines let alone the diversity of life
And this from the person who can't explain how to tell which mutations that are beneficial are guided and which aren't.
4- No is dong any experiments to see if prokaryotes and archaea can evolve into eukaryotes.
Another reason I know you've never really done any historical scientific research.
5- Lenski's experiment has shown that evolution is very, very limited in what it can do
Right, after 20 or 30 or 40 years under very limited and constrained conditions you decide there's nothing left to see.
6- Voles also argue against the claim of Common Descent as they have been evolving faster than most vertebrates and still remain voles.
Your interpretations of the research (or should I say your parroting of the views of others) is really funny.
Jerad is too stupid to understand any of those points and he sure as hell will never refute any of them
I don't have to refute any of them as there is plenty of others doing that very thing. But you can't find that work or you deny it when it's pointed out to you. No one no one takes you seriously.
And AGAIN, that is by far more than evolutionism has
Which is why you guys have journal after journal filled with peer-reviewed research papers. Oh . . . wait . . . . you don't. Is that because no one is doing any ID research? Gee, I think that might be the case.
At 9:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Well then appeal the ruling.
I can't, asshole. Your ignorance is amazing.
You really should work on a positive case for ID instead of just trying to take down science accepted by the vast majority of working scientists.
More ignorance. No one in ID is trying to take down science. Your position doesn't have any science
You haven't provided an ID research agenda.
And yet I have as have others.
You can't find that extra-programming you say must exist.
It's in the cells, Jerad. And you can't find anything, loser
You need to find something different to say 'cause that sort of thing isn't taking you anywhere.
It is all true. I understand facts don't mean a anything to you
Common Descent is untestable because no one can link the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed to the genetics and no one is even trying to do so.
That is a fact that Jerad will never be able to refute.
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution
That is another fact Jerad will never be able to refute
No one is doing any work to see if blind and mindless processes are up to the task of producing protein machines let alone the diversity of life
And another fact Jerad will never be able to refute
No is dong any experiments to see if prokaryotes and archaea can evolve into eukaryotes.
Yup, another fact Jerad will never be able to refute
And Jerad is too stupid to realize that it is GENERATIONS and not time that make the difference:
Right, after 20 or 30 or 40 years under very limited and constrained conditions you decide there's nothing left to see.
I didn't make that decision and it is GENERATIONS that matter.
Voles also argue against the claim of Common Descent as they have been evolving faster than most vertebrates and still remain voles.
Your interpretations of the research (or should I say your parroting of the views of others) is really funny.
And Jerad "argues" like a little wanker.
Jerad is a bluffing liar and a coward. His scientific illiteracy has been exposed over and over again.
The ID concept of guided evolution is being used as we speak. It has been used for decades- genetic algorithms. On the other hand no one uses the concept of unguided evolution for anything. It is useless.
At 3:04 AM,
Jerad said…
I can't, asshole. Your ignorance is amazing.
I meant the collective 'you'. How come someone hasn't appealed the decision then? Too scared of losing again?
More ignorance. No one in ID is trying to take down science. Your position doesn't have any science
Sigh. I said: science accepted by the vast majority of working scientists.
And yet I have as have others.
Tell us what it is then?
It's in the cells, Jerad. And you can't find anything, loser
But you can't find it. If you can't find it then you're wrong. Clearly. Are you even looking? I bet you aren't.
That is another fact Jerad will never be able to refute
Good old ID ruse: stick your fingers in your ears and deny, deny, deny.
And Jerad is too stupid to realize that it is GENERATIONS and not time that make the difference:
Generations are important as are the environmental conditions, competition, etc. How many generations is enough to say: it's never going to happen? On what basis do you make your decision?
I didn't make that decision and it is GENERATIONS that matter.
Are you saying you disagree with that decision?
And Jerad "argues" like a little wanker.
Your method of doing science (no research, no publications, no agenda, abusing your detractors) seems not to be getting you anywhere.
Jerad is a bluffing liar and a coward. His scientific illiteracy has been exposed over and over again.
Your supporting evidence? Your research? Your research agenda? Your publications? The extra programming in cells?
The ID concept of guided evolution is being used as we speak. It has been used for decades- genetic algorithms. On the other hand no one uses the concept of unguided evolution for anything. It is useless.
Too bad you can't prove that mutations are guided. Or some are anyway, apparently. You can't seem to explain how you can tell the difference between beneficial mutations that are guided and ones that are unguided. Maybe you should work on that.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Too bad you cannot test the claim that unguided evolution produced anything beyond diseases and deformities.
Too bad your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes and archaea.
Too bad your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing prokaryotes and archaea.
To bad you and yours are cowardly liars who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it
Too bad that you don't even have a scientific theory of evolution.
Too bad you don't have any science to help you.
Too bad you don't have anything to account for what happens inside of cells. You have nothing to account for the genetic code. Nothing to account for proof reading. Nothing to account for error correction. Nothing to account for editing. Nothing to account for regulation. Nothing to account for splicing.
You have nothing but your bitchy whining. How pathetic is that?
The ID concept of guided evolution is being used as we speak. It has been used for decades- genetic algorithms. On the other hand no one uses the concept of unguided evolution for anything. It is useless.
At least our concepts are useful. Too bad yours are not.
At 5:07 PM,
Jerad said…
LoL! Too bad you cannot test the claim that unguided evolution produced anything beyond diseases and deformities.
Being worked on. Tick
Too bad your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes and archaea.
Being worked on. Tick.
Too bad your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing prokaryotes and archaea.
Done that. Not that Joe understands but hey, you can't have everything. Tick.
To bad you and yours are cowardly liars who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it
Against denialists? I think we're good. Tick.
Too bad that you don't even have a scientific theory of evolution.
Tick. Guess what? None of your ID buddies is coming onto this thread to defend you. You really, really lose.
Too bad you don't have anything to account for what happens inside of cells. You have nothing to account for the genetic code. Nothing to account for proof reading. Nothing to account for error correction. Nothing to account for editing. Nothing to account for regulation. Nothing to account for splicing.
You can't provide an ID research agenda.
You can't provide any ID publications.
You can't provide any ID research.
It's all just a sham really. A way of getting God into the show. Isn't it? And what's he going to think when he sees how far you will go denying his hand? What's he going to say at the final judgement when you have to admit you didn't credit him for his creation?
The ID concept of guided evolution is being used as we speak. It has been used for decades- genetic algorithms. On the other hand no one uses the concept of unguided evolution for anything. It is useless.
Gotta love it. You don't use something so, not only isn't it true, but it's useless. Too funny.
At 5:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, your fucking lies and bluffing are boring.
You can't provide a blind watchmaker evolution research agenda.
You can't provide any blind watchmaker publications
You can't provide any blind watchmaker research.
No one is trying to figure out how blind and mindless processes produced living organisms
No one is trying to figure out how blind and mindless processes produced protein machines.
No one is trying to figure out how blind and mindless processes produced eukaryotes.
All you have are ignorant assholes such as yourself.
Too funny- ID concepts are being used whereas blind watchmaker concepts are useless. No one uses it because no one knows how.
To bad you and yours are cowardly liars who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it
And that goes for anyone interested in actual science. You are just a pathetic asshole loser, Jerad.
I don't understand why you think that is useful.
And it is still very telling that evos had to lie and bluff their way through a trial. That alone says that you are a fucking LIAR
At 5:26 PM,
Joe G said…
41 comments in and Jerad still hasn't presented any evidence that contradicts the OP. It's as if he is a lying coward.
Now I know if someone continued to call me a liar and a coward I would prove them wrong by presenting the evidence they say doesn't exist. But all Jerad can do is link to articles without actually making a case as to how it supports his claim and refutes mine. And if we use the criteria laid down by Judge Jones then Jerad will never be able to do so as there aren't any articles that flat out state blind and mindless processes did it (JJ disallowed published articles that support ID cuz they didn't specifically say so)
Post a Comment
<< Home