Joshua Swamidass does the Dance

-
Christian that Affirm the Science of Evolution (CASE)- What a sad CASE it is:

I, personally, am a Christian who affirms evolutionary science.

What does that mean? There isn't any science behind 99% of the claims evolution makes.

I affirm evolution because it looks like life evolved, and there is no conflict between evolution and a faith grounded in Jesus.

The questions are from what did the diversity evolve from and what is the extent evolutionary processes can change a populations?

Dumbass Joshua is ignorant of the fact that Creationists accept that organisms evolved from the originally Created Kinds.

Methinks Joshua doesn't know what science entails. He will definitely NEVER say anything about science and the (alleged) evolution of vision systems. Because he can't. Science still has no idea how or even if vision systems evolved.

Joshua Swamidass- all mouth and no substance.

 

Is Joshua Swamidass out of touch with reality?

-
I swear Joshua Swamidass has honesty issues. Now he says:

Moreover your definition of evolution is as archaic as that of an ID proponent. You might be out of touch with evolutionary science in particular.

And yet he NEVER provides that "proper" definition! That's because he has no idea what he is talking about.

Then asshole liar Mikkel Rumraket chimes in with:

Theism has no particular predictions, and therefore zero explanatory power. 

LoL! Your side has no particular predictions and therefore ZERO explanatory powers. Your side doesn't even have a methodology to test its claims, asshole.


Peaceful Science is overrun by liars and story-tellers

 

Easily Refuting Patrick Trischitta

-
Trischitta spews:

This is so silly, just like evolutionary science isn’t the study of God-guided evolution, it isn’t the study of Godless evolution either. Evolutionary science is neutral on whether evolution is God-guided or Godless. Is this so hard to accept?

Richard Dawkins disagrees with you. Will Provine wrote the following:

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

--------------

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

---------

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Peaceful Science Promotes Lies and Protects Liars

-
Peaceful Science is a joke, evoTARD echo chamber. It promotes lies and protects the liars. Not one of the pathetic anti-ID minions would last a day on an pro-ID forum without being corrected and proven to be an imbecile. Not one.

Peaceful Science is a sham. They don't even understand what science entails.

Faizel Ali is Confused or Just another Liar

-
What?:

Evolutionary theory is driven 100% by science.

1- There isn't any scientific theory of evolution
2- There isn't any science behind the claim that blind and mindless produced eukaryotes from the given starting populations of bacteria.
3- There isn't any science behind the claim that nature invented the biological codes, such as the genetic code
4- There isn't any science behind the claim that nature invented the parts to carry out those codes in a biologically relevant manner

Thanks to your alleged "evolutionary theory" we don't even know what makes a human a human.

Is Joshua Swamidass Full of Shit? Or just Sadly Confused?

-
What the fuck is a "non-Darwinian mechanism" Joshua? Joshua says anything:

Someone needs to let him know that we all agree that non-Darwinian mechanism are important too.

According to evolutionary biology ALL mechanisms are blind and mindless meaning they are all Darwinian mechanisms. Notice how Joshua NEVER supports what he says by naming these alleged non-Darwinian mechanisms. That is because Joshua Swamidass is a snake.

Does anyone know what Joshua is talking about? Or do you agree that he is talking out of his ass, as usual?

"Scrutinizing Our Own Hypotheses"- Earth to Joshua Swamidass

-
Scrutinizing our own hypotheses is title post over on Peaceful Science. Joshua Swamidass is upset with ID because we haven't done a good enough job, in his mind, of trying to falsify our claims.

Earth to Joshua Swamidass- For IDists to falsify our claims we would be doing the exact work evolutionists should be doing to support their claims- none of which they are trying to falsify for the mere fact they are still trying to find ways to test them.

The following exchange is very telling also:

The onus is on those who are convinced that life came into existence without any guidance or planning, due to chance combinations of atoms and molecules plus later chemical developments, to give a credible account of how it could have happened.

 Joshua responds with:

That is the part that is not how science works.

WRONG! Those making the claims have to not only have a methodology to test those claims but to have actually tested them. Science requires testability. From UC Berkeley:

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science.

ID has that, Joshua.

Swamidass lays a doozy:

I would be really impressed of IDists tried to falsify their theory, but I have yet to see this.

 What. The. Fuck? Dr. Behe has done exactly that- he has looked high and low for anything that would show blind and mindless processes could produce any bacterial flagellum. That is why he wrote the first book. He ran out of ways to do what you are suggesting.

Even after the book was published there have only been lame attempts to refute its claims.

Peaceful Science is run by scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant ass-hats.

ETA Michael Behe:

If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion.

The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory.

Swamidass is clueless and apparently proud of it.

Joshua Swamidass and Peaceful Science- Still Choking on Polar Bears

-
Peaceful Science is in an uproar over polar bears and their ApoB gene. That is both an animal and a gene that those ignorant assholes do not have a mechanism capable of producing. So they ignore that fact and prattle on like a bunch of ignorant children.

Swamidass spews:

From our point of view, even if this is true, he neglects constructive neutral evolution, so it doesn’t really matter.

You don't have a methodology to test your claim of constructive neutral evolution. That means it is NOT scientific.

So, not only is the animal and gene beyond the capabilities of any mechanism they can call upon, they are too stupid to understand that. The point is if they could do that- account for the animal and the gene, then THAT would be their evidence against ID. But they cannot do that so they have to whine about whether or not changes to the gene in polar bears is a damaging change that is just beneficial to polar bears. But they probably can't even show those changes were due to blind and mindless processes.

They don't have anything but to try to argue minutia. And that is very telling

Joshua Swamidass- Dishonesty or Foolishness?

-
Over on Peaceful Science Joshua spews:

The deep irony is that mainstream secular science is already consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Only if  "Christian and theistic convictions" mean that no God worth worshipping exists. As if it had to be said-

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

click here for a hint:

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.



1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.


The earth just happening due to gravity and the collapse of a cosmic cloud is not on par with Christian beliefs.

Joshua Swamidass obviously has no clue at all. If he was my doctor I would find another and very quickly.

Proof that Peaceful Science is a Joke

-
These morons can't even separate what an IDist says from ID. Read their discussion of an upcoming book - "The Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer.

It has NEVER been hidden that some or even most IDists think that the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible. NEVER. Those IDists have NEVER been candid that their conclusion of who is not based on the evidence and science, but on faith. The evidence and science supports the design inference but they all agree it is faith that led them to God.

If the universe is fine tuned for life, then why all of the arguments against abiogenesis?

Mainly because living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry.

Also, couldn’t God fine tune the universe so that evolution produces genetic information?

Pure ignorance. Why not have a genetic algorithm produce itself?

And again, ID is OK with evolution by design.

Dumbass Swamidass chimes in:

Actually I’m really curious now. If they give up on the anonymous designer, that would be new and a really good move for them. No one ever bought that gambit,

No, Josh, you are willfully ignorant. You have either not read anything by IDists or you didn't understand it. It is still too much of a leap to go from intelligent design exists to God did it.

You say you are interested in science and yet want ID to skip over that part. Clearly you are a loser on an agenda.

What about the people who choose ID for the fact it doesn't make the leap to the God of Abraham?

And why is it so difficult to understand that the God Hypothesis is a SUBSET of ID? Perhaps if you pull your head out of your ass you will be able to think.

Is Art Hunt a Coward or does He Agree with ENV?

-
The T-urf 13 saga continues. Art Hunt has responded to ENV.  However, when you read that response Art dodges the most important part:

1- It is exceedingly unlikely that T-urf13 arose de novo by unguided mutations. This, in itself, is a prima facie reason to consider alternative explanations.

That was Art's entire spiel. That T-urf 13 arose via blind and mindless processes. And yet when challenged he doesn't even attempt to address it.

Does that mean he agrees with ENV? He does say he has another response coming but my bet it will be on something other than the main point.

If Art Hunt balks on the challenge then he has nothing and should just shut up about it.

My prediction is he will balk on the challenge and he will continue to spew his puerile nonsense. And Peaceful Science will continue to slop it up because they don't know any better.

Differential Reproductive Success or Equivocating Cowardice?

-
The desperate TARD never stops. Differential reproductive success is supposed to be some magical process capable of producing the diversity of life, starting from some molecular replicators. And yet when we look at differential reproductive success (DRS) in the real world, in real time, there is nothing that says it can any moar than shift the allele frequencies within a population, over time.

As Dr. Behe has explained in "Darwin Devolves" it is much easier to gain DRS by loss of function due to random, as in happenstance, genetic change. And producing more of certain strains of bacteria will never produce a eukaryote.

Also, when the only goal is to survive, a change in behavior can accomplish that more readily than waiting for a genetic change to come along.

Even given DRS all of the offspring are still the same basic type as their parents and every other in the population. For example, even if every one of Brigham Young's 41 biological children, had 41 children and so forth, there would just be a massive family reunion- all human.

What evos refuse to accept is that the whole debate is whether or not the variation that leads to the differential reproductive success arose by chance or design. So saying "differential reproductive success" is still nothing but  cowardly equivocation.

DRS is what passes for science over on Peaceful Science

"Where is the evidence that the genetic code is the result of design?"- the Denial by Peaceful Science

-
Peaceful Science wants to know "Where is the evidence that the genetic code is the result of design?"

The CODE is the evidence. 

And guess what? You have no idea how to test the claim that nature did it. YOU don't have any science behind your claim that nature did it. YOU have nothing to account for any of the codes that rule biological organisms.

Not only is there the CODEs but also the systems that carry them out. All of which require planning.

Again. ALL of our knowledge and observations say that codes only arise from intentional agencies with minds that can plan. 100%. We have NEVER observed nature doing so.

And, as I have said, we don't even know how to test the claim that nature can produce codes.

This is too funny- Peaceful Science is supposed to be about science and yet they clearly don't have a clue as to what science entails.

Arthur Hunt- Question-Begging Ass

-
Arthur Hunt has become a lowlife, question-begging ass. He stays the course:

Yet it happened, essentially in real time, by random recombination processes that are well-known in plant mitochondria.

That is what you have FAILed to demonstrate, asshole. You don't just get to baldly assert it. You actually have to come up with a methodology to determine it.

This is amazing. The article Hunt is allegedly responding to  says right in it that he needs to find evidence that support his claims that blind and mindless processes did it:

1. It is exceedingly unlikely that T-urf13 arose de novo by unguided mutations. This, in itself, is a prima facie reason to consider alternative explanations

Like a coward Hunt ignores that. And:

But how does Hunt know that T-urf13 evolved by unguided mutational events from scratch? He doesn’t. Or, at the very least, he has not established that T-urf13 evolved by blind evolution.

Again, that is ignored by the coward.

Hunt sez he is preparing a response. But it is a given said response will not have the science that demonstrates what Hunt sez is true.

 

T-URF 13- Personal Incredulity vs. Wishful Thinking with Strawman Humping thrown in

-
Evolution News and Views has weighed in on Art Hunt's nonsensical claim that t-urf 13, found in the mitochondria of certain maize, refutes Dr. Behe's claim that IC = intelligent design.

As I have said many times now that protein is only ONE part of the 3 part IC structure. 3 parts is less than the 5 part mouse trap. Meaning it doesn't refute anything even if Art's claim is true.

But that isn't the point. Over on Peaceful Science they STILL don't understand that the entire onus is on ART to show that the structure arose via blind and mindless processes. That includes the plant itself.

Peaceful Science choking on T-URF 13- ENV's post is linked to there. Or just click on the link on my right side bar.

Swamidass:

It is also notable that the argument matches nearly exactly Behe’s statement of incredulity.

It deals with yours and Art's wishful thinking. You do realize the onus is still on Art to make his case and he has failed, right?

There is a complex protein that arose de novo in corn. It is so complex that both ID and mainstream scientists agree that, by Behe’s math, it should be impossible by natural processes. They conclude design.

Impossible by blind and mindless processes. Not impossible by "built-in responses to environmental cues".

The strange thing about this protein though is that it’s two main functions are causing sterility and rendering the corn more susceptible to a virus.

From an evolutionary science point of view, this all makes sense to us.

What? In what way does it make sense?

Now, for the ID perspective, why in the world would God have designed and specially created this particular complex protein?

Get stuffed. From an ID perspective God isn't required. Your problem, Joshua, is you are ignorant of Intelligent Design. Willfully so.

I know these are not scientific questions, but ID leads me here. 

LIAR. Your own ignorance leads you there.

Maize arose via numerous rounds of artificial selection. This could have easily triggered "built-in responses to environmental cues". And male sterility in plants isn't a bad thing. It allows for more variation because the now they need the male spores from a different source. So there you have it. The built-in response was due to the over artificial interbreeding of the plant.

Dumbass Swamidass just has to make ID a theological argument all the while ID is not. Swamidass loves humping that strawman.

Again, ID does not require the intervention of God or any Intelligent Designer. It is all accomplished by way of design- as in organisms were intelligently designed with the information required to evolve and adapt.

If trying to understand ID makes me anti-ID, I’m in a very strange predicament. Right now ID makes no sense to me scientifically. Asking questions, including of leaders in the ID movement, only makes it less coherent.

What am I to do?

Start by pulling your head out of your ass, Joshua. Then read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch; "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene; "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution" by Dr. Lee Spetner. That will give you a good base from which to continue.

ID is all about cause and effect relationships. You don't seem to understand that. Do you really think nature can produce codes? How does that make sense, scientifically?

You don't have a scientific alternative to ID, Joshua. So what, exactly, does make sense to you, scientifically?


ETA- We cannot rule out that t-urf 13 was a design screw-up. Meaning it was a corrupt built-in response...

"how does “the design inference” help me understand anything about biology?"

-
The smell of a double-standard. How does “the blind watchmaker” help me understand anything about biology? It doesn't. It doesn't help anyone and as a mater of fact hinders progress and turns scientists into guessers and speculators.

But I digress, so back to the original question- how does “the design inference” help me understand anything about biology? 

Pretty much the same way the design inference helps us understand Stonehenge better than we could if we called it a natural formation. The same way determining a death is murder helps us better understand that death. Why have design-centric venues at all if it didn't matter?

How something came to be the way it is, is one of the basic questions in science. The cause. The root cause. That means if biological organisms were intelligently designed, it would get to the bottom of the root cause. Knowing that organisms were designed to evolve and (may) contain "built-in responses to environmental cues" would tell us how the variations arise. Knowing what makes an organism what it is would help us determine the extent of evolutionary change. And knowing that there is more to life than chemistry and physics should help us better understand it.

The entire investigative process changes once intelligent design is determined. We start asking questions we never asked before. Why, becomes a valid question. Purpose is then implicated in our existence. 

We start using our engineering skills to better understand what is going on. Meaning we may be able to better predict problems and implement treatments, repairs and cures.

All of a sudden the codes that rule biology make sense. No more wasting time and effort trying to find a non-telic origin for something that didn't originate via non-telic processes.

There will be no more saying "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (FC)


You can only understand the essence of anything intelligently designed by studying it as an intelligently designed object, structure or event. And we will never understand the essence of life until we give up denying the design inference.

What is Joshua Swamidass talking About?

-
Joshua Swamidass is confused:

In science we have ruthlessly high standards.

All evidence to the contrary, of course.

It is part of our culture to shred arguments, because we believe that good arguments, those based correctly on evidence, will survive.

And yet so many arguments, not based on evidence, have survived.

Joshua says that science hates bad arguments and yet look at his bullshit argument for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor- rats and mice share a common ancestor and yet they are allegedly more genetically different than chimps and humans.

That's it. That is his "argument" chimps and humans share a common ancestor-> mice a rats are more genetically different than chimps are from humans and rats and mice share a common ancestor.

Forget that rats and mice have pretty much the same body plan whereas humans and chimps do not.

He goes on to spew:

If and when ID comes up with factually sound and solid argument, using the rules of science that I know, I will be among the first to acknowledge it. They are fairly far from this at this time.

1- ID is NOT an argument for God
2- ID has factually sound and solid arguments, using the rules of science
3- Joshua is ignorant of ID and doesn't seem to understand science
4- Joshua cannot form sound and solid arguments, using the rules of science, that support any other position besides ID

I would love to take on this buffoon in an open debate.