Joshua Swamidass is Confused

-
In the "Is evolution speculation thread" Joshua said:

Um, I do not accept neo-Darwinism. No one in science does. Neo-Darwinism was falsified in the 1960s with Haldane and Kimura.

What? How did Haldane and Kimura falsify NDE? He never says- because they didn't.

Jerry Coyne still endorses NDE. The way evolution is taught in colleges endorses NDE. All those two did was add to the concept, not falsify it.

Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless- THAT is NDE in its modern form, ie with the addition of Haldane and Kimura.

The point is the majority in science accept NDE. So I don't know what Joshua is talking about and no one there is going to challenge him so we may never find out what he is talking about.

Joshua mistakenly also sez: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/hunts-2007-critique-of-axe/1245/133

There is zero evidence conscious intelligence can produce anything like the complexity of DNA.

Dr Venter would tend to disagree

Peaceful Science Endorses Cowardly Equivocation

-
In the thread Is Evolution Speculation? the entire pint is equivocated away. What is the point? BLIND WATCHMAKER evolution, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. THAT is untestable claptrap.

Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes so there is no way universal common descent could happen under that scenario.

Darwin, the man himself, said one had prove a negative to refute his theory. Unfortunately he never demonstrated anything that needs to be refuted. He just made unsupportable claim after unsupportable claim. And all through the lense of ignorance of what the inner workings of the cell were and heredity.

It is very telling that no one on Peaceful Science has ever said how to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. Well the theistic evos there deny blind watchmaker evolution and jump to God did it via evolution- whatever that means. If God used evolution then it isn't blind watchmaker evolution. It is telic evolution. But to them that is OK.

TJ Runyon chimes in with:

I really want to see ID models for universal common ancestry

I would love to see blind watchmaker evolutionary models for universal common ancestry. However there still isn't a mechanism to produce eukaryotes so there never will be such a model. Clearly TJ is proud to be an equivocating coward.

And asshole Patrick Trischitta is there making his ignorant-based assertions. Earth to Patrick- no one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is useless and most likely harmful. Clearly you are also proud to be an ignorant ass.

I almost forgot this gem by TJ:

My favorite creationist saying is, “evolution isn’t science. You can’t test it. It isn’t falsifiable.” Then immediately after they will make arguments about proteins or something to show evolution is false. So you mean… You just falsified evolution? Something you just said can’t be done. Can’t count how many times I’ve seen that.

Umm, dumbass, evos do the same thing with ID. They say it isn't testable or falsifiable and btw we have falsified it. That said please do tell how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. If you can't then you see the problem.

Clueless evoTARDs at The Skeptical Zone

-
There is a new post @ TSZ about the book "Forbidden Archaeology". The book has 952 pages, including the appendices, bibliography, tables and index.

Enter dumbass acartia and fool Joe Felsenstein. They try to compare "Chariots of the Gods?" 192 pages and "On the Origin of Species" 502 pages, to "Forbidden Archaeology".

How freaking ignorant can they be? And they are proud of their posts, too.

See the TARD for yourselves

One of the best evidences from FA is an alleged 25 million year old mortar and pestle found in Table Mountain back in the 19th century. But they will never discuss it because they are ignorant of it.

John Harshman- Still Ignorant about Nested Hierarchies

-
John Harshman may be good at what he does but he definitely does not understand nested hierarchies. For one a phylogeny is not a nested hierarchy. For another Linnaean taxonomy is based on the premise of a Common Design and has nothing to do with descent with modification.

Harshman spews:

The support is simple: a nested hierarchy is exactly what we would expect from common descent (with branching).

That is false as every population has the chance of branching. That would mean that after only a few generations you would have the working of a mess.

It’s not what we expect from separate creation of species, which is what you mean by “common design”. 

Again, Linnaean taxonomy was predicated on a common design.

Phylogenetic analysis does not form a nested hierarchy. See Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And by the way, any pattern is determined by the mechanisms involved. Seeing that you don't know what the mechanism is that can transform populations of prokaryotes into a eukaryotes you can't even get your tree started.

Alan Fox- Proud to be Willfully Ignorant

-
Alan Fox is such a sad human- sad and willfully ignorant. Ala spews:

Yet ID doesn’t even offer a testable hypothesis?

Sure it does and I have posted it on TSZ you willfully ignorant ass. On the other hand blind watchmaker evolution doesn't offer anything.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

That is by far more than your position has, Alan

More Confusion @ TSZ by Richard Saunders

-
Richard Saunders, aka Kantian Naturalist spewed the following nonsense:

All that Lewontin is saying is that we must assume naturalism in order to do science. And he is correct.

Bullshit. No one needs to assume that nature is all there is and nature produced what we observe in order to do science. Naturalism is a dogma. Science and dogma do NOT mix, Richard.

Sir Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning are what people use to conduct science. That is anyone who wants to be unbiased and free of dogma.

Neil Rickert- Science is not about truth

-
Yes, he said it:

I did not say that there is no truth. Rather, I said that truth is not the goal of science.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, 

"It is sometimes said that science has nothing to do with morality. This is wrong. Science is the search for truth, the effort to understand the world; it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality."

And Albert Einstein

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein and Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

truth

also the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Synonyms of reality

So perhaps Neil has some other definition of "truth"- other than what Pauling, Einstein and Nelson were talking about. I always thought science was about uncovering reality- separating the real from the fantasy and fake and finding/ figuring out the truth behind some phenomena, object or event. That is what investigations are all about- at least the thousands of investigations I have conducted or been a part of were about that. 

Neil Rickert- Clueless Ass

-
Neil should just stop posting and get an education. Over on TSZ Neil spews more nonsense:

The TE sees God as the creator of all, and thus as the creator of nature. The TE expects God to do his work through nature.

The ID proponent see nature as inherently evil, and sees God as opposed to nature.

That was in response to another moron who asked:

I’ve never understood the animosity that the ID community has for theistic evolution.

That is an easy question to answer. TE's say that we cannot determine telic from non-telic processes operating in biology or with anything that is not man-made. They also disagree that blind watchmaker evolution is what the alleged theory of evolution promotes. In other words it is the TE's who have animosity towards ID.

Back to Neil's ignorance- The ID proponent does NOT see nature as inherently evil and definitely doesn't see God as opposed to nature. Neil just makes shit up because reality is too difficult for him. It is very telling that Neil never supported what he spewed. For one ID is not about God and the religious people who are IDists do not see God as opposed to Nature. According to ID nature was intelligently designed.

 

Oh Noes! Banned From the Peaceful Shit Science Forum

-
OK now it is official- I was banned from Joshua Swamidass's forum Shit Science. Why was I banned? For telling it like it is on my on blog. You see it's OK for those alleged Christians to attack people but when those people push back, well, that's a no-no. Hypocrites run Shit Science.

Support your claims with expert writings and you get accused for twisting what they say even though you quoted them verbatim.

Of course I won't be returning to your bullshit forum, Josh. I just wanted to see if theistic evos are still as dull as they were when I visited biologos- and you are. So there isn't anything else for me there anyway. I can get attacked on evoTARD forums- people I expect that from.

You and yours need to stop calling yourselves Christians, though. You may be able to convince yourselves but you ain't fooling me.

Joshy writes:

If you are temporarily suspended, chill out and do nothing. Do not make your grievances known by finding some other website keep the aggression going.

Fuck you, asshole. Nobody gives a shit about your forum. All you want is a place where everyone agrees. You aren't going to learn anything that way. You might as well just start a circle-jerk forum like after the bar closes where everyone just gossips like little old ignorant ladies.


The stroke-fest has begun Georgie Brooks checks in with

And that’s the way it should be @swamidass!

Well yeah, I was wasting my paltry allotment of daily posts correcting your ignorance, lies and misrepresentations- Josh too. There wasn't any moving forward with anything. 

George Brooks is an Ignorant ass

-
Over on the discussion board of Peaceful Science I was correcting people on their misuse of the word "macroevolution". I even provided Jerry Coyne and UCBerkley as references that supported my claim. One of my opponents wrote to Coyne who told it that my usage was correct.

On top of that I provided Ernst Mayr who said:

When we review evolutionary phenomena, we find that they can be assigned readily into two classes. One consists of all events and processes that occur at or below the level of species, such as the variability of populations, adaptive changes in populations, geographic variation, and speciation. At this level one deals almost exclusively with populational phenomena. This class of phenomena can be referred to as microevolution. (bold added)

The contention was over whether or not speciation = macroevolution. Clearly it doesn't. Coyne agrees.

Dumbass non-Christian lying punk George Brooks sez that I don't understand what Mayr is saying cuz he sez speciation is macroevolution. Georgie knows more than evolutionary biologists.

And this is the type of asshole who gets free reign on the blog and who has the power to suspend, ban or put people in moderation. Total losers run Peaceful Science.

George Brooks- momma's boy and pathological liar.

George thinks that ID is about God even after being told many, many times that ID is not about God. ID proponents do NOT assert DESIGN to prove God exists you ignorant ass.

An Example of Natural Evolution?

-
Arthur Hunt turned up @ Joshua Swamidass's forum touting plant evolution- specifically Silverswords- as evidence for something.


Art's interesting evidence

Art says:

By a standard that even the staunchest YECer accepts, it can be strongly concluded that each of these (as well as other members of the Silversword alliance) share a common ancestry.  This is because, the vast morphological differences aside, they are interfertile.  

That is not so, Art. YECs accept that plants can hybridize. Reproduction after the Kind is limited to animals. It means nothing.

As interestingly, for a number of other reasons (biological, geographic, historical, and molecular), it can be safely concluded that these vastly-different plants diverged from a common ancestor that looked something like

And Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" explains the morphological differences.

What natural evolution fails to do is account for the regulatory networks in the first place. So that is an issue that you and yours always overlook.

So no, Art did not present a case of natural evolution. That is just question-begging

Neil Rickert- Dumbass- a Car is NOT a Machine!

-
Seriously- dumbass Neil Rickert says that a car is not a machine cuz it uses the process of combustion!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What about electric cars, Neil? 

Never mind that the process of combustion requires a MACHINE.

Read it for yourself:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-living-systems-machines/1149/40


Neil, you are a joke but thanks for the laughs.

Earth to Joshua Swamidass

-
Dear Joshua- You also have serious issues and should stop calling yourself a Christian. It is people like you who give Christianity a bad name. Please stop.

I know I upset you by showing that you "test" for the common ancestry between chimps and humans was total bullshit. But you didn't have to start lying about me. All you had to do is man up and re-think your asinine position.

Grow up, Josh- everyone isn't going to agree with you all of the time. You have to grow up and be able to make a case for your claims. Don't get all pouty and start suspending people who question you

Neil Rickert- Just Say Anything

-
Neil Rickert has some mental issue with the fact that humans are machines and we are made up of machines. The definition of machine being used is:

(1) an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a [predetermined] manner

ATP synthase is one example provided.  He sez that cuz a dead person has the same assemblage of parts but no longer functions, live, functioning humans are not machines nor composed of machines. 

In other words a machine that doesn't do anything but take up space is not a machine. You rock, Neil.

Neil just ignores entire fields like biomechanics and kinesiology, both which treat organisms ass machines and composed of machines.

Then Neil sez the definitions aren't precise enough anyway. And he ends with a classic hand-wave:

If you want to see a living system as a machine, that’s your choice. For me, it just doesn’t match what I expect of a machine.

Devastating. "It just doesn't match what I expect of a machine"- powered by electricity- check; multiple moving parts to create work- check; requires refueling- check 

The Christians are upset cuz machines just can't have souls

Read it for yourselves


Edited to add- Now Neil the ignorant cry-baby has run back to Joshua Swamidass crying like a little baby cuz I bitch slapped his ignorant ass. Neil the moron sez that cars are not machines! How can anyone take this asshole seriously? No one cares if you won't respond to me Neil. You clearly don't have anything to say about the subject.

Of course I am going to make fun of you Neil. This is not an attack. You have earned every bit of this you ignorant ass.