Earth to Swamidass- Put Up or Shut Up- You are Pathetic
-
Joshua Swamidass is a pathetically clueless loser. He oversells the evoTARD claims without even looking at them. Now he is lying, again.
To date NO ONE knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce irreducibly complex structures like any bacterial flagellum. You have nothing.
Joshua, you are such a willfully ignorant punk that you don't even understand ID. You definitely have mental issues regarding science and you have no clue how to test the claim that non-telic processes produced any claimed IC structure.
You are a coward.
Joshua Swamidass is a pathetically clueless loser. He oversells the evoTARD claims without even looking at them. Now he is lying, again.
They do not actually engage the scientific point that Orr offered, or that Muller is making, and the immense amount of scientific data supporting this mechanism.Neither Orr nor Muller made a scientific point, dipshit. All they did was speculate.
To date NO ONE knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce irreducibly complex structures like any bacterial flagellum. You have nothing.
Joshua, you are such a willfully ignorant punk that you don't even understand ID. You definitely have mental issues regarding science and you have no clue how to test the claim that non-telic processes produced any claimed IC structure.
You are a coward.
posted by Joe G @ 9:31 AM
20 Comments:
At 12:27 AM,
JV said…
To date NO ONE knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce irreducibly complex structures like any bacterial flagellum. You have nothing.
To date NO ONE has been able to find a mechanism that guides mutations. If no one can find such a thing then evolutionary processes are unguided.
The default assumption is that there is no guiding mechanism because to assume there is one goes against the basic precepts of science as stated by Newton.
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
To date NO ONE has been able to find a mechanism that guides mutations.
Yes, we have. It has been written about, too.
If no one can find such a thing then evolutionary processes are unguided.
That is stupid talk. No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolutionary processes can do anything but damage and destroy.
The default assumption is that there is no guiding mechanism because to assume there is one goes against the basic precepts of science as stated by Newton.
Wrong, dumbass. The default is "we don't know". And seeing that the evidence says that living organisms were the product of intelligent design, THAT default position says they were also intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by means of intelligent design.
And YOU still have NOTHING. No scientific theory because you can't even muster testable hypotheses. And because it is untestable it is unscientific.
At 4:10 PM,
JV said…
To date NO ONE has been able to find a mechanism that guides mutations.
Yes, we have. It has been written about, too.
Where is it then and how does it work? Specifically.
That is stupid talk. No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolutionary processes can do anything but damage and destroy.
It's easy: if you can't find a guiding process or mechanism then it's all unguided. And I assert that you have yet to demonstrate a guiding process or mechanism.
Wrong, dumbass. The default is "we don't know". And seeing that the evidence says that living organisms were the product of intelligent design, THAT default position says they were also intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by means of intelligent design.
"We don't know" is NOT an explanation. It's the truth. We don't know. The question is: which of the competing explanations is most parsimonious.
The evidence says that complex biological systems arose over the course of hundreds of millions of years, at least, and when trying to find an explanation of how that occurred you want to assume the presence of some undefined and undetected designer which flies in the face of the basic precepts of science. You can't even hypothesise design unless you first accept the notion that a designer exists. It makes no sense to check for design unless you have already accepted that a designer exists which has not been established. If there is no designer then there cannot be design. And, It's true, the ID community has not come up with a dependable, objective, empirical design detection criterium. It doesn't exist. What you've got is: we can't see how unguided processes came up with some structure so we think it was designed. You claim that you have ruled out unguided processes but you have no tested procedure for doing so. All you have are assertions. Which is why there are no peer-reviewed publications establishing a design detection methodology.
And YOU still have NOTHING. No scientific theory because you can't even muster testable hypotheses. And because it is untestable it is unscientific.
If you've got something better then publish it; preferably in a peer-reviewed journal. Put your ideas up for scrutiny by the scientific community. If they are as good as you say they are then they will progress.
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Something better? Better than what? Your untestable bullshit and bullshit lies are still NOTHING.
It's true. The ID community has a dependable4, objective, empirical design detection criterium. On the other hand our opponents can only lie.
Why is there NORTHINBG in peer-review supporting unguided evolution? What are the testable hypotheses?
We can' see how unguided processes =did it because no one can model it! No one can say how to test it! No one can say what it predicts!
We don't even ask about the designer until AFTER design has been detected. You must be one willfully ignorant ass, Jerad
At 1:58 AM,
JV said…
Something better? Better than what? Your untestable bullshit and bullshit lies are still NOTHING.
It's true. The ID community has a dependable4, objective, empirical design detection criterium. On the other hand our opponents can only lie.
From what I hear you say you can rule out unguided processes based on some highly contested probabilistic arguments and also highly contested notions like irreducible complexity. There is certainly no robust, tested, published and peer-reviewed design detection procedure.
Why is there NORTHINBG in peer-review supporting unguided evolution? What are the testable hypotheses?
Since no one can point to a guiding process or mechanism then all the published research is in support of unguided evolution. You want to test it? Go find a fossil that is clearly 'out of place'. Find a biological structure that is really irreducibly complex. Establish beyond all question that a evolutionary transition required intelligent intervention. No one has done any of those things yet.
We can' see how unguided processes =did it because no one can model it! No one can say how to test it! No one can say what it predicts!
It's being tested all the time! Everytime someone digs up a fossil that's a test. We know that we expect to see life forms that sit between known forms and that is what we find.
We don't even ask about the designer until AFTER design has been detected. You must be one willfully ignorant ass, Jerad
You assume one exists, why would you look for design if you didn't make that assumption? In other words, before you look for design you have it in your mind that there is a designer. And, surprise surprise, you find design.
The modern intelligent design movement was started by folks with religious motivations; they already believed in a designer. Newton believed in a designer but his scientific work does not rely on its existence. He KNEW he had to find real evidence first, not just make an assertion. In all his accepted scientific principles there is NO need to assume the presence of a designer. Many currently working scientists believe in a god of some form but they do not bring it into their scientific work because they know what they have is a belief, not a fact.
At 10:06 AM,
Joe G said…
From what I hear you say you can rule out unguided processes based on some highly contested probabilistic arguments and also highly contested notions like irreducible complexity.
LoL! Look, dumbass, the ONLY reason probability arguments exist is because you don't have anything.
There is certainly no robust, tested, published and peer-reviewed design detection procedure.
You don't have anything, asshole. Focus on that.
Since no one can point to a guiding process or mechanism then all the published research is in support of unguided evolution.
Only an ignorant coward would say such a thing.
You want to test it? Go find a fossil that is clearly 'out of place'.
Only an ignorant coward would think that is a test for unguided evolution. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized, so you LOSE.
Find a biological structure that is really irreducibly complex.
We have found many.
Establish beyond all question that a evolutionary transition required intelligent intervention.
ID is NOT anti-evolution, you ignorant ass.
We can' see how unguided processes =did it because no one can model it! No one can say how to test it! No one can say what it predicts!
It's being tested all the time!
LIAR!
Everytime someone digs up a fossil that's a test
Not of unguided evolution, you ignorant ass.
We don't even ask about the designer until AFTER design has been detected. You must be one willfully ignorant ass, Jerad
You assume one exists,
Wrong again, dumbass. The EVIDENCE says at least ONE existed.
Newton believed in a designer but his scientific work does not rely on its existence.
Read Principia, you ignorant ass:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
You must be one ignorant ass, Jerad. You don't know anything about science and you are ignorant of history, too.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Unguided evolution cannot be tested. It cannot be modeled. It doesn't make any predictions. It doesn't even muster any testable hypotheses.
At 4:35 PM,
JV said…
LoL! Look, dumbass, the ONLY reason probability arguments exist is because you don't have anything.
The fact is that the ID probability arguments are highly contested.
There is certainly no robust, tested, published and peer-reviewed design detection procedure.
You don't have anything, asshole. Focus on that.
Not answering the challenge to your supposed design detection process.
Since no one can point to a guiding process or mechanism then all the published research is in support of unguided evolution.
Only an ignorant coward would say such a thing.
No, that is the case. You cannot demonstrate a guiding mechanism or process.
You want to test it? Go find a fossil that is clearly 'out of place'.
Only an ignorant coward would think that is a test for unguided evolution. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized, so you LOSE.
That is clearly a test of the basic precepts of unguided evolution. And that has been stated and admitted over and over and over again and yet no one can find such a fossil.
Find a biological structure that is really irreducibly complex.
We have found many.
Apparently not since only a very few people believe that to be the case.
ID is NOT anti-evolution, you ignorant ass.
ID is anti-unguided evolution, clearly. And that is what a vast, vast majority of scientists mean when the use the term evolution.
LIAR!
Provide clear and unambiguous physical evidence of a guiding mechanism or process.
Not of unguided evolution, you ignorant ass.
Provide clear and unambiguous physical evidence of a guiding mechanism or process.
Wrong again, dumbass. The EVIDENCE says at least ONE existed.
No, it does not. The ID movement wants to interpret situations for which there is no clear unguided explanation as indication of a designer. And that's because the ID community has a pre-loaded assumption that a designer exists. Why not just say: we don't know?
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Okay, but a disgner does not appear in any of Newton's formulas or explanations.
Unguided evolution cannot be tested. It cannot be modeled. It doesn't make any predictions. It doesn't even muster any testable hypotheses.
Look. you proposed that some biological structures are designed but you cannot even begin to suggest how that was done. You cannot point to a physical mechanism or process that could possbily influence mutations. Clearly the default option is: unguided. Especially when there is no evidence of guidance. It's up to you to establish guidance.
At 6:10 PM,
Joe G said…
The fact is that the ID probability arguments are highly contested.
So you are retarded. Got it.
Look, dumbass, the ONLY reason probability arguments exist is because you don't have anything.
You cannot demonstrate a guiding mechanism or process.
We have. The case is that you don't have anything
That is clearly a test of the basic precepts of unguided evolution.
Nope, not even close.
Apparently not since only a very few people believe that to be the case.
The people who disagree still don't have anything. So we don't care.
ID is anti-unguided evolution, clearly.
You are an ignorant fuck, Jerad. Willfully so, too.
Provide clear and unambiguous physical evidence of a guiding mechanism or process.
What we have presented by far exceeds what your position has. So, fuck off.
The EVIDENCE says at least ONE existed.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does. All you have are lies and denial.
The ID movement wants to interpret situations for which there is no clear unguided explanation as indication of a designer.
Wrong again
you proposed that some biological structures are designed but you cannot even begin to suggest how that was done.
Right. We don't have to know that BEFORE determining design exists.
You cannot point to a physical mechanism or process that could possbily influence mutations.
We have.
And it's up to YOU to establish something beyond your belligerence.
At 2:23 AM,
JV said…
You cannot demonstrate a guiding mechanism or process.
We have. The case is that you don't have anything
Where is it then? How is it stored in cells? How does it affect mutations?
Provide clear and unambiguous physical evidence of a guiding mechanism or process.
What we have presented by far exceeds what your position has. So, fuck off.
You have not demonstrated a mechanism or process that can be tested or even found.
You cannot point to a physical mechanism or process that could possbily influence mutations.
We have.
Where is it then? How does it work? How is triggered? What does it do that influences mutations?
You can claim and assert and be abusive but until you show where your mutation influencing mechanism is and how it works you only have wishful thinking.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Look, asshole, you have nothing but your ignorance and denial. You don't have anything scientific to challenge ID so you get all belligerent as if that is going to help you.
ID has the testable methodology. Your side has whining.
ID has the testable hypotheses. Your side has lying cowards.
You can claim and assert and be belligerent and willfully ignorant but until you come up with something beyond that, you will never have any science and you will only have wishful thinking.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing a living organism. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing proof-reading and error correction. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing editing and splicing. The list goes on and on.
You are a pathetic little imp. Deal with it.
At 11:50 AM,
JV said…
Again, unless you can show a physical mechanism in cells that influences mutations than everything we have observed in the fossil record and the genomic record and the bio-geometric record and the morphological record came about via unguided processes.
Your opinions about established and accepted and tested unguided evolutionary precepts mean nothing if you cannot show how mutations are influenced and guided. And you can't seem to do that.
I don't have to challenge ID, it hasn't established its own claims. Design requires a designer and some method of influencing unguided processes. Until you can explain how that was done it's unguided all the way.
At 11:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, unless you can show a physical mechanism in cells that influences mutations than everything we have observed in the fossil record and the genomic record and the bio-geometric record and the morphological record came about via unguided processes.
Only a scientifically illiterate asshole would say that.
Again, until YOU can come up with a way to test unguided evolution you are promoting pseudo-science and bullshit.
Your opinions about established and accepted and tested unguided evolutionary precepts
You are a lying bitch. There aren't any "established and accepted and tested unguided evolutionary precepts"
I don't have to challenge ID, it hasn't established its own claims.
Yes, it has. And your side still has nothing but bluffing liars, like you.
At 11:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Look, asshole, you have nothing but your ignorance and denial. You don't have anything scientific to challenge ID so you get all belligerent as if that is going to help you.
ID has the testable methodology. Your side has whining.
ID has the testable hypotheses. Your side has lying cowards.
You can claim and assert and be belligerent and willfully ignorant but until you come up with something beyond that, you will never have any science and you will only have wishful thinking.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing a living organism. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing proof-reading and error correction. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing editing and splicing. The list goes on and on.
You are a pathetic little imp. Deal with it.
At 2:02 AM,
JV said…
Again, until YOU can come up with a way to test unguided evolution you are promoting pseudo-science and bullshit.
Find a mechanism or process that influences mutations. If no such mechanism or process exists then mutations are unguided. The fact that no one has been able to find such a thing or knows where one would be is part of the evidence that evolution is unguided.
All your assertions and abuse mean nothing if you can't establish your claims, which you cannot do. Clearly.
At 1:36 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! What an ignorant asshole you are. You can't establish anything beyond your ignorance.
At 1:26 AM,
JV said…
You can't establish anything beyond your ignorance.
You claim mutations are guided or influenced. Demonstrate how that is done or stop making the claim.
At 4:28 PM,
JV said…
Oh, by the way, since you are clearly pouting:
Scientists Created Bacteria With a Synthetic Genome.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/science/synthetic-genome-bacteria.html
Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1192-5
Meanwhile, in the ID camp . . . what is being published? What is being researched? What questions is anyone asking? Anyone? Anyone at all?? All you people who claim to understand science better than everyone else, why aren't you producing any research?
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, we now have evidence that an intelligent designer, and NOT blind and mindless processes, can produce a genome from scratch.
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
You claim all mutations are unguided. Demonstrate such a thing or shut up about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home