A List of Things for which Blind and Mindless Processes have been Determined
-
Over on TSZ the willfully ignorant moron omagain has a post titled A list of things for which CSI has been determined. Never mind that we have provided exactly that many times over. But that is moot. If omagain or any other evo actually had something to support the claims of their position they wouldn't need to attack ID with their belligerent ignorance. They would just present the science and evidence. So it is VERY telling that they cannot do that.
There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce ONE functional protein. There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce replicating RNA's. The entire RNA World is built around a need and has nothing to do with actual science.
Even given starting populations of bacteria, blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing eukaryotes. And that makes evolution by means of blind and mindless processes a non-starter and total nonsense.
omagain wants to know the CSI of a bacterial flagellum. Except that isn't how it works. Once we reach the 500 but threshold that is all we need to do to show that there isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to produce it. And all one needs to do to show that any and all bacterial flagella reach that threshold is a simple count of the number of components required- which reach into the thousands. True, there may be only 30-50 different proteins but those are expressed in different numbers.
So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.
If you want to break a bacterial flagellum then blind and mindless processes are your mechanism. If you want to make one then you clearly need some intelligently designed mechanism.
Evos are such a bunch of willfully ignorant cowards. They are a pathetic lot who can only get all belligerent when they are exposed as the liars and losers they are.
Over on TSZ the willfully ignorant moron omagain has a post titled A list of things for which CSI has been determined. Never mind that we have provided exactly that many times over. But that is moot. If omagain or any other evo actually had something to support the claims of their position they wouldn't need to attack ID with their belligerent ignorance. They would just present the science and evidence. So it is VERY telling that they cannot do that.
There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce ONE functional protein. There isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce replicating RNA's. The entire RNA World is built around a need and has nothing to do with actual science.
Even given starting populations of bacteria, blind and mindless processes are incapable of producing eukaryotes. And that makes evolution by means of blind and mindless processes a non-starter and total nonsense.
omagain wants to know the CSI of a bacterial flagellum. Except that isn't how it works. Once we reach the 500 but threshold that is all we need to do to show that there isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to produce it. And all one needs to do to show that any and all bacterial flagella reach that threshold is a simple count of the number of components required- which reach into the thousands. True, there may be only 30-50 different proteins but those are expressed in different numbers.
So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.
If you want to break a bacterial flagellum then blind and mindless processes are your mechanism. If you want to make one then you clearly need some intelligently designed mechanism.
Evos are such a bunch of willfully ignorant cowards. They are a pathetic lot who can only get all belligerent when they are exposed as the liars and losers they are.
posted by Joe G @ 6:54 AM
29 Comments:
At 5:04 PM,
JV said…
omagain wants to know the CSI of a bacterial flagellum. Except that isn't how it works. Once we reach the 500 b[i]t threshold that is all we need to do to show that there isn't enough time in the universe for blind and mindless processes to produce it.
So, you never actually calculate the CSI? And you assume that the 'bits' are somehow generated sequentially? That is, they are all worked on at the same time?
And all one needs to do to show that any and all bacterial flagella reach that threshold is a simple count of the number of components required- which reach into the thousands.
What components are you counting? DNA base pairs?
True, there may be only 30-50 different proteins but those are expressed in different numbers.
What do you mean, those are expressed in different numbers?
Again, just to be clear on what you're saying: any biological system with more than 500 'bits' of 'information' has to be designed? What about lifeforms that share over 90% of their DNA with another species? Are they both independently designed or just their common ancestor? And if that common ancestor shared 90% of it's DNA with another species?
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
So, you never actually calculate the CSI?
You could.
What components are you counting?
The proteins.
What do you mean, those are expressed in different numbers?
There are different quantities of residues. Get an education and you wouldn't be asking that question. The whip-like propeller is made up of thousands of residues.
Again, just to be clear on what you're saying: any biological system with more than 500 'bits' of 'information' has to be designed?
Specified information
What about lifeforms that share over 90% of their DNA with another species?
What about them? You don't have a mechanism capable of producing them. Focus on that.
At 1:35 AM,
JV said…
So, you never actually calculate the CSI?
You could.
But you don't actually calculate it?
What components are you counting?
The proteins.
And you count an appearance of a protein only once even if it appears multiple times? Since 'residue' refers to each appearance. The order the proteins appears is not an issue?
Again, just to be clear on what you're saying: any biological system with more than 500 'bits' of 'information' has to be designed?
Specified information
Again, just to be sure: what criteria is used to measure or flag 'specified' information?
What about lifeforms that share over 90% of their DNA with another species?
What about them? You don't have a mechanism capable of producing them. Focus on that.
I'm asking you about your criteria! If two species share over 90% of the DNA would you consider both species separate design events or not?
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't need to calculate the CSI of any bacterial flagellum to know it was intelligently designed.
And you count an appearance of a protein only once even if it appears multiple times?
No.
The order the proteins appears is not an issue?
It is for you and yours.
Again, just to be sure: what criteria is used to measure or flag 'specified' information?
Again, read the literature. This is a BLOG that discusses it.
If two species share over 90% of the DNA would you consider both species separate design events or not?
DNA isn't everything. Extant organisms were NOT the originally designed organisms. And, thanks to you and yours, no one knows what makes an organism what it is.
But I digress. This is all off-topic for this thread. Either start posting the science and evidence that supports your asinine position or fuck off.
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.
At 5:42 PM,
JV said…
I don't need to calculate the CSI of any bacterial flagellum to know it was intelligently designed.
I was just asking if you actually calculate CSI and it appears you don't.
And you count an appearance of a protein only once even if it appears multiple times?
No.
So you count every single occurrence? So if two proteins appeared 250 times each that would trip your 500 threshold?
The order the proteins appears is not an issue?
It is for you and yours.
So if two different organisms had the same count of proteins but they occurred in different orders that wouldn't change the CSI?
Again, just to be sure: what criteria is used to measure or flag 'specified' information?
Again, read the literature. This is a BLOG that discusses it.
I have read Dr Dembski's paper but since no one ever calculates CSI it's kind of hard to get a handle on the amount of it.
If two species share over 90% of the DNA would you consider both species separate design events or not?
DNA isn't everything. Extant organisms were NOT the originally designed organisms. And, thanks to you and yours, no one knows what makes an organism what it is.
Again, would you consider them both designed or not? I can see where you might say the common ancestor was specifically designed but the descendents were not but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
But I digress. This is all off-topic for this thread. Either start posting the science and evidence that supports your asinine position or fuck off.
I thought it was fair to be sure what your position actually is instead of guessing.
So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.
Has anyone discovered a physical way that design was implemented or a physical mechanism that influences mutations? If the answers to both or those questions are 'no' then it makes sense to continue with the paradigm of non-design.
Non-design requires fewer assumptions of causes that have not been shown to exist. According to Newton's principles that makes non-design a more parsimonious paradigm, the null hypothesis. That makes design the alternative hypothesis which then must be established. And if just arguing that some things appear designed doesn't win the argument then, like all good scientists, it is upon the ID proponents to look for more evidence, i.e. evidence of how design is implemented whether through intervention by some being or a physical mechanism in cells.
At 10:28 PM,
Joe G said…
I was just asking if you actually calculate CSI and it appears you don't.
I have. It's on my blog.
Do you count every single occurrence? So if two proteins appeared 250 times each that would trip your 500 threshold?
It is all case by case. And it would be in the context of the structure. The truth is that just ONE protein is most likely above the 500 but threshold.
So if two different organisms had the same count of proteins but they occurred in different orders that wouldn't change the CSI?
It all depends on who cares and why. The only purpose of CSI is to determine if intelligent design is present. And seeing that the minimal requirements for a minimal bacteria far exceed that the only scientific inference is that life was the result of intelligent design.
Once that is admitted then we have that immaterial information to consider.
I have read Dr Dembski's paper but since no one ever calculates CSI it's kind of hard to get a handle on the amount of it.
LoL! His paper on SPECIFICATION did not tell you how to calculate CSI. Why would it?
It's on my blog. Durston et al call if functional sequence complexity.
Again, would you consider them both designed or not?
DNA is NOT everything. DNA does NOT determine what type of organism will develop. So I would NEVER base anything on DNA alone. Only someone who is ignorant of biology would ask the question.
I thought it was fair to be sure what your position actually is instead of guessing.
Then read the literature. This is a blog.
So the question still remains- How can anyone test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? And the answer still remains that no one has any idea how to test that claim.
Has anyone discovered a physical way that design was implemented or a physical mechanism that influences mutations?
Not required. Clearly you are a scientifically illiterate ass. YOUR side is the mechanistic position, Jerad. YOU need to demonstrate that there are blind and mindless processes that are capable.
Again, clearly you are just a coward
Non-design requires fewer assumptions of causes that have not been shown to exist.
LoL! You don't have a mechanism.
Abd your side's minds from the mindless via blind and mindless processes is so absurd and so desperate that the onus is clearly on YOU and all you can do is balk.
You are spineless, Jerad
At 2:15 AM,
JV said…
I was just asking if you actually calculate CSI and it appears you don't.
I have. It's on my blog.
Which post?
It is all case by case. And it would be in the context of the structure. The truth is that just ONE protein is most likely above the 500 but threshold.
Do you mean even one protein is probably enough to conclude CSI?
It all depends on who cares and why. The only purpose of CSI is to determine if intelligent design is present. And seeing that the minimal requirements for a minimal bacteria far exceed that the only scientific inference is that life was the result of intelligent design.
I don't see how it matter who cares and why, it should be an objective measure surely. Which is why I was wondering how you calculate CSI but it sounds like you don't.
LoL! His paper on SPECIFICATION did not tell you how to calculate CSI. Why would it? It's on my blog. Durston et al call if functional sequence complexity.
Well, what did Dr Dembski's paper propose as a measure then? Since it's hard to search your blog for topics could you point out the particular post?
DNA is NOT everything. DNA does NOT determine what type of organism will develop. So I would NEVER base anything on DNA alone. Only someone who is ignorant of biology would ask the question.
What does determine what type of organism will develop then?
Has anyone discovered a physical way that design was implemented or a physical mechanism that influences mutations?
Not required. Clearly you are a scientifically illiterate ass. YOUR side is the mechanistic position, Jerad. YOU need to demonstrate that there are blind and mindless processes that are capable.
IF something is designed then the design had to be implemented which requires some kind of physical process since the designed object has a physical existence. It sounds like you're just dodging an important question.
Abd your side's minds from the mindless via blind and mindless processes is so absurd and so desperate that the onus is clearly on YOU and all you can do is balk.
I'm trying to figure out what your views are! You believe that CSI indicates design but you don't actually measure it. That seems a bit weird to me.
At 2:32 AM,
JV said…
Okay, clearly you are referring to this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2217542/
Since the paper does not address design please explain how your cutoff matches with their measure. Are you equating Fits with bits? Many of the proteins analysed had Fits less than 500.
Also, how does the following affect CSI?
"In principle, some proteins may change from a non-functional state to a functional state gradually as their sequences change. Furthermore, iso-enzymes in some cases may catalyze the same reaction, but have different sequences. Also, certain enzymes may demonstrate variations in both their sequence and their function. Finally, a single mutation in a functional sequence can sometimes render the sequence non-functional relative to the original function. An example of this effect has been observed in experiments with the ultrabiothorax (Ubx) protein [17,33]."
Can you show where an ID proponent has used this method to infer design?
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Look, Jerad, stop thinking about ID and TRY to support your position with actual science.
Your side doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing what we observe.
Your side isn't doing any research to find a mechanism capable.
Your side doesn't have a methodology to test its claims.
What does determine what type of organism will develop then?
No one knows.
IF something is designed then the design had to be implemented which requires some kind of physical process since the designed object has a physical existence.
Very good. But we do NOT have to know what that is BEFORE we can determine intelligent design exists. It's as if you have never conducted any investigations in your life and you think your ignorance means something.
You believe that CSI indicates design but you don't actually measure it.
If that is what you think then you are just a willfully ignorant troll.
And again- Durston's FSC is CSI. Your ignorance is not my problem.
This thread is about your position. Stop being a coward and address it or fuck off. Last warning.
At 4:19 PM,
JV said…
Look, Jerad, stop thinking about ID and TRY to support your position with actual science.
I just wanted to understand what your position actually is instead of assuming something you didn't mean.
What does determine what type of organism will develop then?
No one knows.
Either it's some physically determined process or . . .
IF something is designed then the design had to be implemented which requires some kind of physical process since the designed object has a physical existence.
Very good. But we do NOT have to know what that is BEFORE we can determine intelligent design exists. It's as if you have never conducted any investigations in your life and you think your ignorance means something.
Implemented design still requires some kind of physical process; that's not ignorance that's just reality.
You believe that CSI indicates design but you don't actually measure it.
If that is what you think then you are just a willfully ignorant troll.
Well, I don't see you or any other ID proponent comparing amounts of CSI in organisms or biological systems.
And again- Durston's FSC is CSI. Your ignorance is not my problem.
You seem very reluctant to discuss some aspects of your position, why is that?
This thread is about your position. Stop being a coward and address it or fuck off. Last warning.
My first comment was a direct response to several points you made in the original post.
At 4:27 PM,
Joe G said…
If you want to learn about ID then read the pro-ID literature. It's that simple. And no one knows what determines what type of organism will develop. That is just a fact of science. And that is why Dr. Denton wrote "Nature's Destiny" and Dr. Sermonti wrote "Why is a fly not a horse?"
Implemented design still requires some kind of physical process; that's not ignorance that's just reality.
It's ignorance to think that we have to know what that is BEFORE determining if design exists or not.
Well, I don't see you or any other ID proponent comparing amounts of CSI in organisms or biological systems.
Only morons ask for such a thing.
You seem very reluctant to discuss some aspects of your position, why is that?
You are clearly willfully ignorant. This blog is full of ID's concepts.
My first comment was a direct response to several points you made in the original post.
Your comments prove that you are a coward
At 1:50 AM,
JV said…
If you want to learn about ID then read the pro-ID literature. It's that simple. And no one knows what determines what type of organism will develop. That is just a fact of science. And that is why Dr. Denton wrote "Nature's Destiny" and Dr. Sermonti wrote "Why is a fly not a horse?"
I have read some of the ID literature and asked a lot of questions of ID proponents and yet there are still a lot of questions that no one will or can answer.
Anyway it's clear no ID proponent is actually computing the amount of CSI.
Implemented design still requires some kind of physical process; that's not ignorance that's just reality.
It's ignorance to think that we have to know what that is BEFORE determining if design exists or not.
But you keep telling me (and have done for years and years) that design has been detected. And yet no one in the ID community is moving beyond that.
Well, I don't see you or any other ID proponent comparing amounts of CSI in organisms or biological systems.
Only morons ask for such a thing.
The paper you referred to had a table listing differing values of FSC for different proteins. Why do you think they did that?
You seem very reluctant to discuss some aspects of your position, why is that?
You are clearly willfully ignorant. This blog is full of ID's concepts.
But you clearly avoid addressing other issues.
My first comment was a direct response to several points you made in the original post.
Your comments prove that you are a coward
But it still was a direct response to several points you made in the original post as can be clearly seen.
At 8:18 AM,
Joe G said…
I have read some of the ID literature and asked a lot of questions of ID proponents and yet there are still a lot of questions that no one will or can answer.
You are a LIAR. You haven't read anything but one of Dembski's papers. Your questions prove that you are ignorant of ID.
Anyway it's clear no ID proponent is actually computing the amount of CSI.
That isn't even a thing, asshole.
But you keep telling me (and have done for years and years) that design has been detected.
And I keep telling you that the job is not finished. Why do you ignore that? Is it because you are an asshole?
The paper you referred to had a table listing differing values of FSC for different proteins.
LoL! Proteins, yes. Organisms, no. If proteins show CSI then of course an organism would, duh
But you clearly avoid addressing other issues.
That is your uneducated opinion. And you say that while you avoid everything.
But it still was a direct response to several points you made in the original post as can be clearly seen.
What can be easily seen is you avoided the OP and decided to respond to minutia. You are a coward and a scientifically illiterate troll.
At 8:19 AM,
Joe G said…
So what we can take from Jerad's responses is there aren't any biological structures that were produced via blind and mindless processes.
At 12:39 PM,
JV said…
You are a LIAR. You haven't read anything but one of Dembski's papers. Your questions prove that you are ignorant of ID.
The ID community is still not answering some questions about what ID entails.
Anyway it's clear no ID proponent is actually computing the amount of CSI.
That isn't even a thing, asshole.
If no one is computing the amounts of CSI (if it's equivalent to FSC then the amounts differ from protein to protein) then how do you decide when a structure has enough to be considered design? If you're just counting bits (which is NOT what was done in the Durston paper) then CSI is NOT the same as FSC.
And I keep telling you that the job is not finished. Why do you ignore that? Is it because you are an asshole?
You keep telling me design has been detected. So why hasn't anyone done any work since then? After you've detected design isn't it time to get on to some other issues?
LoL! Proteins, yes. Organisms, no. If proteins show CSI then of course an organism would, duh
The proteins show different amounts of FSC (the authors do not define or refer to CSI). Could that mean that some are designed and some are not?
What can be easily seen is you avoided the OP and decided to respond to minutia. You are a coward and a scientifically illiterate troll.
My original post was responding to specific statements you made in the original post.
So what we can take from Jerad's responses is there aren't any biological structures that were produced via blind and mindless processes.
Since no guiding mechanism or physical evidence of design implementation has been found then all biological structures arose via unguided processes.
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
The ID community is still not answering some questions about what ID entails.
Bullshit
If no one is computing the amounts of CSI (if it's equivalent to FSC then the amounts differ from protein to protein) then how do you decide when a structure has enough to be considered design?
You are retarded. Clearly people are computing CSI- see the Durston paper. And your side doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing any proteins.
You keep telling me design has been detected.
And I keep telling you the job is not finished. So clearly you are just an asshole.
My original post was responding to specific statements you made in the original post.
Your posts prove that you are a coward
Since no guiding mechanism or physical evidence of design implementation has been found then all biological structures arose via unguided processes.
That doesn't follow and exposes you as an ignorant ass. You don't have a positive case. You don't have a mechanism capable. And you don't have a way to test the claim.
You lose
At 9:56 AM,
JV said…
The ID community is still not answering some questions about what ID entails.
Bullshit
That's quite true: no one will say when design was implemented, no one will say how design was implemented, no one can say why no one is actually measuring CSI (whatever that is, it's clearly not FSC), no one can provide a research agenda (which is essential if you want funding), no one is publishing ID research about what they can glean from the designs that have been claimed to have been detected.
You are retarded. Clearly people are computing CSI- see the Durston paper. And your side doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing any proteins.
I did look at the paper. CSI was not mentioned. AND different proteins had widely different amounts of FSC AND, it was noted, the amount of FSC can change for a protein.
IF you think FSC is the same as CSI then show me which ID proponents say that and show me how they are using Durston's definitions to identify designed structures.
You keep telling me design has been detected.
And I keep telling you the job is not finished. So clearly you are just an asshole.
What's there left to do? You found design now get on with it!
My original post was responding to specific statements you made in the original post.
Your posts prove that you are a coward
Nonetheless my initial response (I should have said) was in response to specific statements you made in your original post.
Since no guiding mechanism or physical evidence of design implementation has been found then all biological structures arose via unguided processes.
That doesn't follow and exposes you as an ignorant ass. You don't have a positive case. You don't have a mechanism capable. And you don't have a way to test the claim.
It does follow (no guidance therefore it's unguided). The positive case includes the establishment that mutations are random with regard to fitness. The mechanism is various kinds of selection and other factors acting on universal common descent with variation. You can easily test the claim by finding a irreducibly complex biological structure (which you claim to have done and therefore refuted unguided evolution which means you already admit that unguided processes are testable), finding a biological structure that could not possibly have arisen from its known antecedents (a rabbit in the Cambrian layers for example), etc.
But, as I just mentioned, you already think unguided evolutionary theory can be tested since you think you've used one of Darwin's own criteria to test it!! If unguided evolutionary theory cannot be tested then why are you so enthusiastic to mention you think an irreducibly complex biological structure has been found? It's because you think it's disproves the unguided hypothesis. It tests it and finds it lacking. So why do you keep asking for ways to test unguided evolutionary theory when you think you've already tested it?
At 10:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, your questions have nothing to do with ID. Clearly you are just an asshole.
CSI and FSC refer to the same thing. You have to be ignorant not to know that.
AND different proteins had widely different amounts of FSC AND, it was noted, the amount of FSC can change for a protein.
So what? You still don't have anything capable of producing any proteins.
IF you think FSC is the same as CSI then show me which ID proponents say that and show me how they are using Durston's definitions to identify designed structures.
Oh my. CSI pertains to functional information. It pertains to the sequence specificity required to bring about the function. The two are the same thing. Grow up and try to think.
What's there left to do?
Plenty. We have not determined everything that was intelligently designed.
It does follow (no guidance therefore it's unguided).
It is based on your ignorance.
The positive case includes the establishment that mutations are random with regard to fitness.
That doesn't do anything.
The mechanism is various kinds of selection and other factors acting on universal common descent with variation
Variation to what, exactly?
You can easily test the claim by finding a irreducibly complex biological structure
Been there done that.
Look, asshole, you don't have a mechanism capable of producing rabbits. So shut the fuck up. All you are doing is proving that you are an imbecile and a coward.
But, as I just mentioned, you already think unguided evolutionary theory can be tested since you think you've used one of Darwin's own criteria to test it!!
Wrong again.
If unguided evolutionary theory cannot be tested then why are you so enthusiastic to mention you think an irreducibly complex biological structure has been found?
Look, dumbass. Falsifying a claim is not the same as testing it to see if it is true.
Darwin said how to falsify his claims but he never said how to test them to see if they have any merit.
But you, being an ignorant ass, won't be able to understand that
At 3:25 PM,
JV said…
CSI and FSC refer to the same thing. You have to be ignorant not to know that.
Why are there two different 'names' then?
AND different proteins had widely different amounts of FSC AND, it was noted, the amount of FSC can change for a protein.
So what? You still don't have anything capable of producing any proteins.
If sometimes a protein has below your arbitrary design threshold and sometimes it has above how can you say for sure it was designed?
Oh my. CSI pertains to functional information. It pertains to the sequence specificity required to bring about the function. The two are the same thing. Grow up and try to think.
Why didn't Dr Durston call it CSI then?
Plenty. We have not determined everything that was intelligently designed.
So, you're not going to try and get to any how and when questions until you've looked at everything to try and decide if it's designed? What does that mean? Don't you already thing that DNA was designed? Doesn't that imply that all life forms were at least partially designed?
AND how are you testing things like inanimate objects? Are you computing CSI/FSC? You couldn't be since FSC is only good for certain kinds of biological structures (which is why CSI is NOT the same as FSC by the way).
The positive case includes the establishment that mutations are random with regard to fitness.
That doesn't do anything.
It means that mutations don't necessarily arise to benefit the life form's fitness. Which would be true if mutations are unguided.
The mechanism is various kinds of selection and other factors acting on universal common descent with variation
Variation to what, exactly?
Variation FROM the parent generation.
If unguided evolutionary theory cannot be tested then why are you so enthusiastic to mention you think an irreducibly complex biological structure has been found?
Look, dumbass. Falsifying a claim is not the same as testing it to see if it is true.
Evolutionary theory predicts that you will NOT find an irreducibly complex biological structure. You can test that by examining biological structures and if you find one that IS irreducibly complex then evolutionary theory has failed that test.
Evolutionary theory predicts that you will NOT find a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian strata. You can test that by looking for a rabbit in Cambrian layers and if you find one then evolutionary theory has failed that test.
Evolutionary theory predicts that you should find transitional species like Tiktaalik in certain strata. You can check those strata and if you find a predicted transitional species then evolutionary theory has passed that test.
Evolutionary theory predicts ring species. We've found many examples so, again, evolutionary theory has passed that test.
At 9:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Look, dumbass. YOUR side is all about the how and yet you have NOTHING.
It means that mutations don't necessarily arise to benefit the life form's fitness.
Again, that does not mean unguided evolution.
Variation to what, exactly?
Variation FROM the parent generation.
Variation to WHAT, exactly?
Evolutionary theory predicts that you will NOT find an irreducibly complex biological structure.
How can the claim that bacterial flagella arose via unguided evolution?
Evolutionary theory predicts that you will NOT find a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian strata.
What page is that on? How can we test the claim that unguided evolution can produce rabbits?
Evolutionary theory predicts that you should find transitional species like Tiktaalik in certain strata.
What strata? And how can we test the claim that unguided evolution produced Tiktaalik?
Evolutionary theory predicts ring species.
What page is that on? And how can we test the claim that unguided evolution can produce ring species?
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
CSI pertains to functional information. It pertains to the sequence specificity required to bring about the function. The two are the same thing. Grow up and try to think.
It's very telling the Jerad is too fucking stupid to understand that.
CSI pertains to functional information. FSC pertains to functional information.
CSI pertains to sequence specificity. FSC pertains to sequence specificity.
CSI pertains to complex sequences. FSC pertains to complex sequences.
So please tell me again why you are too stupid to see they are referring to the same thing.
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.
At 12:07 PM,
JV said…
It means that mutations don't necessarily arise to benefit the life form's fitness.
Again, that does not mean unguided evolution.
It means your 'design' is not responding to environmental conditions.
Variation FROM the parent generation.
Variation to WHAT, exactly?
Each offspring generation will embody some variation from the parent generation. Some of that variation will enable the offspring to better exploit the local environmental conditions or make them more enticing to members of the opposite sex. Some of the variation with prove to be deadly and will likely not be passed on. Some variation will be neutral or mildly deleterious and might get passed on. Some variation will be highly beneficial and will have a greater chance of being passed on.
How can the claim that bacterial flagella arose via unguided evolution?
Read the literature, there are hypotheses.
What page is that on? How can we test the claim that unguided evolution can produce rabbits?
It's in several of the books you said you read.
What strata? And how can we test the claim that unguided evolution produced Tiktaalik?
Easily tracked down if you try.
What page is that on? And how can we test the claim that unguided evolution can produce ring species?
Check the books you said you read.
CSI pertains to functional information. It pertains to the sequence specificity required to bring about the function. The two are the same thing. Grow up and try to think.
Explain why Dr Durston, et al, used the term FSC instead of CSI? Explain how you can use CSI to determine design IF it's the same as FSC and FSC changes.
So please tell me again why you are too stupid to see they are referring to the same thing.
Then I guess you're okay with CSI changing and not being a fixed amount. Which means, according to your standards, that sometimes things will be flagged as designed and sometimes they won't. Which means that the design inference is not stable.
So, if you check a protein for FSC and it looks like it's below the threshold how can you be sure you got it right?
If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.
Disputed by a vast majority of working biologists.
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
It means your 'design' is not responding to environmental conditions.
That isn't a requirement.
Each offspring generation will embody some variation from the parent generation
What gets varied?
Read the literature, there are hypotheses.
I have. You are a bluffing coward.
It's in several of the books you said you read.
LIAR
Easily tracked down if you try.
LIAR
Check the books you said you read.
LIAR
Explain why Dr Durston, et al, used the term FSC instead of CSI?
SPECIFIC USE, duh.
If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.
Disputed by a vast majority of working biologists.
Dispute away. Until they have something besides their personal bias people may listen. Until then they and you are cowards and liars.
At 1:49 PM,
JV said…
It means your 'design' is not responding to environmental conditions.
That isn't a requirement.
Well what does your 'built-in' design functionality do then?
What gets varied?
You said you've read a lot of books about evolution so you should know. Physiology and genomes.
LIAR
LIAR
LIAR
Wow, what an amazing scientific take down.
SPECIFIC USE, duh.
So, FSC is NOT the same as CSI? Make up your mind.
Dispute away. Until they have something besides their personal bias people may listen. Until then they and you are cowards and liars.
At least you've admitted that a vast majority of biologists disagree with you. Tick.
At 6:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Well what does your 'built-in' design functionality do then?
Tat is not the only telic mechanism
You said you've read a lot of books about evolution so you should know. Physiology and genomes.
Physiology? Really? Altering the genomes is supposed to alter the physiology. You clearly have no clue.
And no one knows if any amount of genome alteration can produce the changes required.
Wow, what an amazing scientific take down.
Umm, there wasn't any science presented. Your bluffing proves that you are just an ignorant troll.
So, FSC is NOT the same as CSI?
I explained how CSI and FSC are the same. Grow up, asshole.
And again, I do NOT care who disagrees with me or how many disagree with me. Only ignorant cowards think that means something.
All I care about is who can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. To date no one has been able to. And I am more than OK with that
At 2:16 AM,
JV said…
Well what does your 'built-in' design functionality do then?
Tat is not the only telic mechanism
Oh. Well, what else is there?
You said you've read a lot of books about evolution so you should know. Physiology and genomes.
Physiology? Really? Altering the genomes is supposed to alter the physiology. You clearly have no clue.
Altering the genome can alter the physiology, clearly. It depends on what is altered.
I explained how CSI and FSC are the same. Grow up, asshole.
So, you're okay with CSI changing which means sometimes proteins appear to be designed and sometimes not. Which means sometimes you get potentially false measures. But it doesn't really matter because no one is measuring CSI for the purposes of design detection. No one is really working on design detection either come to think of it. Except for fluff pieces trying to keep the troops rallied the ID community isn't really turning out any scientific work at all. Did you hear about Dr Meyer's new book promoting the God hypothesis? At least he's finally admitting it's not about data; it's about some undetected, undefined, transcendental being that cannot be tested so it can do anything and anything can be ascribed to it. Wow, some kind of science eh? It's cheap anyway, you don't need labs or equipment or grants or anything like that. But you gotta have faith! With faith all things are possible.
When its major benefactors are gone the Discovery Institute will pass on. And when Drs Behe, Meyer, et al stop publishing ID is going to fade away because no one is doing anything new. It's all just rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. You don't want to follow anyone else's agenda but you haven't got one of your own. You can't win by standing in one place, stamping your feet and whining that no one is taking you seriously. Even if you're good at it. Dr Dembski has given up arguing ID's case, I think he realises it's a lost cause. Especially when it's really all about faith.
All I care about is who can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. To date no one has been able to. And I am more than OK with that
As always, a vast majority of working biologists disagree with you.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
As always, Jerad the buffing liar has nothing but raw spewage.
ID will always be going strong because no one can come up with a scientifically viable alternative.
The DESIGNER has been detected, asshole. The DESIGN is said detection.
Jerad really thinks its ignorance is an argument. And that is just stupid.
Post a Comment
<< Home