Seeing that evotards are so dishonest and obtuse they keep parroting the same ole refuted nonsense it is time to revisit this post:
Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
Evolution has several meanings*:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.
For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.
It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.
* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
cont-
In October 2007 I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.
This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.
1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.
2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance
And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.
Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.
Let the evotard flailing begin...
" As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated."
ReplyDeleteWell that doesn't support BARAMINOLOGY, Joe / Jim / John creationist Muslim..
Bathroom Stall Richtard-
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
I told you to get that syphilis treated, now look at yourself. What is that dripping from your lower lip?
For a guy who's not deabting evolution, you often cite baraminology:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Baraminology has a young earth, and not enough time for evolution as evidenced by the fossil record.
Are you still in the parking lot? Don't you live by the lake now?
Baraminology is not anti-evolution you dipshit.
ReplyDeleteI take it you still have difficulty reading and understanding OPs.
And don't blame me because the evidence supports baraminology.
"Baraminology is not anti-evolution you dipshit."
ReplyDeletehttp://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-baraminology.html
"The goal of Baraminology is to develop a Creationist model of biology, based on the Bible and Biblical principles. Note that this means, since baraminologists are using the Bible as a starting assumption, baraminology cannot, even in principle, be used to argue for Creationism. "
Hmm - It presuposes creationism.
You have to be the biggest moron on the intertubes.
ReplyDeleteBaraminology is OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie EVOLUTION.
The first 4 definitions fit baraminology.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhat would disprove Baraminology?
What test?
OM:
ReplyDeleteWhat would disprove Baraminology?
Positive evidence for the theory of evolution's grand claims. Not circumstantial shit- a start would be demonstrating what makes an organism what it is. It doesn't appear that an organism is the sum of its genes/ genome.
There you have it- the test is your position and baraminology is passing the test.
Joe,
ReplyDeletePositive evidence for the theory of evolution's grand claims.
That would neither prove nor disprove anything to do with BARAMINOLOGY Joe. Only evolution.
There you have it- the test is your position and baraminology is passing the test.
What test is that exactly? As baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible, I don't see the relationship to Evolution.
If we had a video recording of the origin of life and it's subsequent evolution that would not impact Baraminology in any way.
Positive evidence for the theory of evolution's grand claims.
ReplyDeleteOM:
That would neither prove nor disprove anything to do with BARAMINOLOGY Joe. Only evolution.
Again you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
Listen you fucking little minded fool- baraminology argues against the current theory of evolution. Therefor positive evidence for its grand claims would refute baraminology.
What test is that exactly?
I told you you freak:
a start would be demonstrating what makes an organism what it is. It doesn't appear that an organism is the sum of its genes/ genome.
IOW you need positive evience to support the ToE's claims that an accumulation of genetic accidents can produce the transformations required.
If we had a video recording of the origin of life and it's subsequent evolution that would not impact Baraminology in any way.
That would depend on what is in said video, dipshit.
Ya see moron baraminology states there are limits to evolutionary processes- ie barriers that limit phenotypic change.
IOW asshole you are an ignorant fuck.
Baraminology claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.
ReplyDeleteBaraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.
Therefore baraminology does not argue against the current theory of evolution as it rejects it entirely.
Even if the evidence for evolution was a million times stronger then it already is baraminologists would still reject it. As they reject it now. It's not the strength of the evidence for evolition that allows baraminology to persist, it's the outright rejection of that evidence.
And that evidence would be rejected no matter what.
Ya see moron baraminology states there are limits to evolutionary processes- ie barriers that limit phenotypic change.
That's right. As I said, they reject the evidence that those limits are artificial.
Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.
What is a "kind" to you Joseph and how does that differ, if at all, from a "species"?
OM:
ReplyDeleteBaraminology claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.
That is not all it claims.
Baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.
Wrong- they just reject UCD- nothing about the emergence of new families as that is a manmade construct.
Therefore baraminology does not argue against the current theory of evolution as it rejects it entirely.
It doesn't reject it entirely. It rejects UCD and the blind watchmaker thesis only.
Even if the evidence for evolution was a million times stronger then it already is baraminologists would still reject it. As they reject it now. It's not the strength of the evidence for evolition that allows baraminology to persist, it's the outright rejection of that evidence.
You don't have any evidence. It's all circumstantial.
You can't even demonstrate that a multi-part useful, functioning system can "evolve" by proposed evolutionary mechanisms.
And that evidence would be rejected no matter what.
Liar.
Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.
Reference please.
What is a "kind" to you Joseph and how does that differ, if at all, from a "species"?
What is a "species"?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThat is not all it claims.
What else is relevant here?
It doesn't reject it entirely. It rejects UCD and the blind watchmaker thesis only.
What is left then?
Reference please.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
The middle link is a book which you can "look inside" in Amazon. It exposes the fact that baraminology can't even agree on it's basic claims.
The other two links are exactly what you asked for.
Joe
ReplyDeleteWrong- they just reject UCD- nothing about the emergence of new families as that is a manmade construct.
Except nested hierarchies are observable and in fact a prediction of UCD. Hardly a manmade construct, as we observe them not create them.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIt exposes the fact that baraminology can't even agree on it's basic claims.
LoL!!! I take it you don't follow your own position. Evos can't even agree on the basic claims of their theory.
What's left? Variation, ie evolution- a change in allele fequency over time- as I said the first 4 definitions of evolution I provided.
But anyway what creationsts have said the kind = species?
OM:
ReplyDeleteExcept nested hierarchies are observable and in fact a prediction of UCD.
Liar- UCD does not predict a nested hierarcy. And as a matter of fact we don't observe a nested hierarchy with the bulk of the biomass- ie single-celled organisms.
Hardly a manmade construct, as we observe them not create them.
Nested hierarchies are manmade constructs.
Also the father of taxonomy (Linneaus) was a Creationist searching for the created kind!
So why is it that evotards cannot stay on-topic?
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
But anyway what creationsts have said the kind = species?
Why don't you ask your friends at church?
Joe
ReplyDeleteVariation, ie evolution- a change in allele fequency over time-
So evolution cannot, for example, create totally new genes?
Is that your position?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI provided the references you asked for. No comment?
OM:
ReplyDeleteI provided the references you asked for.
No, you just posted some bald links.
Variation, ie evolution- a change in allele fequency over time-as I said the first 4 definitions of evolution I provided.
ReplyDeleteSo evolution cannot, for example, create totally new genes?
What the fuck does that even mean? Evolution is a result.
OM:
ReplyDeleteOM:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
Talkorigins is a bullshit lying website. It figures you would reference that instead of actually addressing the facts.
But anyway what creationsts have said the kind = species?
Why don't you ask your friends at church?
What church? Thanks for continuing to prove that you are a fucking loser.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteNo, you just posted some bald links.
They contain the evidence you asked for.
What the fuck does that even mean? Evolution is a result.
Then I'll ask again. Can genes be created by non-telic processes?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteTalkorigins is a bullshit lying website.
What is the first factual error on Talkorigins?
OM:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the first factual error on Talkorigins?
Well that article you linked to. And then just about everything they say about ID and Creation.
And they overstate the evidence for their position.
No, you just posted some bald links.
ReplyDeleteThey contain the evidence you asked for.
One didn't work.
So who are these Creationists who equate species with kind?
Linneaus, who started this, put the created kind at least to the level of genus- meaning creationists accept speciation.
Then I'll ask again. Can genes be created by non-telic processes?
Not from scratch- as in the origin of living organisms.
If you are going to start with that which needs explaining in the fist place then you are cheating.
But anyways, what evidence do you have? And what is the evidence they are non-telic processes?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteNot from scratch- as in the origin of living organisms.
So you don't deny evolution can create new genes?
Interesting.
And what is the evidence they are non-telic processes?
What evidence do you have that they are?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWell that article you linked to.
Saying the entire article is wrong is just as informative as saying that the origin life is "it was designed".
What specific claim on the page is wrong and why?
Saying something is wrong just because you disagree with it simply shows your agenda.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIf genes can be created by intelligent design and if genes can be created by evolution, is it possible to tell the difference between the two?
I.E Can you somehow tell which genes evolution created and tell which ones were designed?
OM:
ReplyDeleteSo you don't deny evolution can create new genes?
Evolution is a result. It doesn't create anything.
And what is the evidence they are non-telic processes?
What evidence do you have that they are?
Are what? Answer my question.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf genes can be created by intelligent design and if genes can be created by evolution, is it possible to tell the difference between the two?
Evolution is a result and cannot create anything.
There isn't any evidence that non-telic processes can produce a gene from scratch.
OM:
ReplyDeleteSaying the entire article is wrong is just as informative as saying that the origin life is "it was designed".
1- There isn't a universal genetic code and the ToE dos not predict one
2- The ToE does not predict a nested hierarchy
that is quite a bad start.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any evidence that non-telic processes can produce a gene from scratch.
That's not what I asked. So you admit that there is evidence that non-telic processes can produce new genes from existing genes, right?
Yes or no?
OM:
ReplyDeleteSo you admit that there is evidence that non-telic processes can produce new genes from existing genes, right?
I have never seen such evidence. So until I do I would have to say no.
Joe
ReplyDeleteI have never seen such evidence. So until I do I would have to say no.
What about the fact that such new genes have been observed in populations of fruit flies?
Genes that were not present in one generation but present in a later generation.
This is well documented, the evidence is strong (i.e. genome mapping).
I can provide references but the work is well referenced.
So, given that these genes were not present at one time and they were present at a later time they must be "new" genes.
So the question is where did they come from?
OM:
ReplyDeleteWhat about the fact that such new genes have been observed in populations of fruit flies?
That is not evidence for non-telic processes.
When you have the methodology used for determining that please present it.
Also ain't it interesting that even though with all these new genes fruit flies are still fruit flies, just as baraminology predicts.
Thanks dude...
Joe
ReplyDeleteWhen you have the methodology used for determining that please present it.
Determining what? That some factor was not involved in some process?
How can I prove a negative?
Can you suggest some ways I could go about proving that these new genes were not the result of intelligent design?
Given that there is no evidence for any telic involvement in the appearance of new genes in fruit flies why would you even suspect there would be in the first place?
What clued you in Joe?
Telic involvement is not required. It's not observed. New genes are observed. Statistical regularities are observed. If these are in fact the result of direction then it's direction that's doing a bang up job of looking like we'd expect if there was no direction at all.
Yet somehow to you that proves ID.
Sheesh.
OM:
ReplyDeleteDetermining what? That some factor was not involved in some process?
Determining the processes were blind and undirected.
You just don't get to declare it.
Can you suggest some ways I could go about proving that these new genes were not the result of intelligent design?
You are a moron.
You have to provide the methodology that demonstrates the processes are blind and undirected.
Obviously you have nothing.
Given that there is no evidence for any telic involvement in the appearance of new genes in fruit flies why would you even suspect there would be in the first place?
There is such evidence. There isn't any evidence that fruit flies are the result of blind, undirected chemical processes.
There isn't even any way to test the claim.
Telic involvement is not required.
The evidence says otherwise. Ask Anthony Flew and all the others who have defected.
Yet no one has defected from ID to the blind watchmaker.
It's not observed.
So you say, which means nothing.
New genes are observed.
Not by blind watchmaker processes. nd obviously new genes are not enough to change a fruit fly into something else.
If these are in fact the result of direction then it's direction that's doing a bang up job of looking like we'd expect if there was no direction at all.
Blah, blah, blah
Yet somehow to you that proves ID
Not even.
The fact that all you can do is spew nonsense tells me I am on to something.
And thanks for providing support for baraminology.
OM: "Telic involvement is not required."
ReplyDeleteJoe: "The evidence says otherwise. Ask Anthony Flew and all the others who have defected."
What evidence? Show the evidence Joe. And why does it matter what Anthony Flew thinks? Who gives a shit? Evidence is all that matters Joe, not name dropping or appeals to popularity or authority.
Joe: "Evolution is a result and cannot create anything."
Prove it.
Joe: "There isn't any evidence that non-telic processes can produce a gene from scratch."
That's debatable, but even if it's true right now, what if such evidence is discovered and verified?
Where's your evidence that new genes are produced by telic processes?
Joe: "You have to provide the methodology that demonstrates the processes are blind and undirected."
You have to provide the methodology that demonstrates the processes are not blind and undirected.
Why don't you post my other comments Joe? Do they make too much sense for you? Are you afraid of me Joe? Where's your courage Joe-boi?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteDetermining the processes were blind and undirected.
You just don't get to declare it.
There is no evidence that these processes are anything except blind and undirected.
For example, Lenski's study. DNA was sequenced from each generation of bacterial. Changes in DNA were noted.
Is it your claim that such changes, for want of a better word, microevoltion, are directed?
Even if those changes are simply "breaking" existing functionality? Those changes are deliberate conscious actions?
You just don't get to declare it.
But that's exactly what you are doing.
You have to provide the methodology that demonstrates the processes are blind and undirected.
The methodology is that the changes we observe are random and fit statistical models which we would expect if they were to be random.
What is your evidence otherwise?
I know that equivocation is the only way you can feel you've won a point but try to concentrate.
I'm not claiming that frutflies are result of blind, undirected chemical processes.
I'm claiming that from one generation to the next we can observe (i.e. sequence the genome) new genes appearing.
I'm asking where those new genes are coming from.
Not by blind watchmaker processes. nd obviously new genes are not enough to change a fruit fly into something else.
I'm not taking about changing a fruit fly into something else.
More equivocation.
And thanks for providing support for baraminology.
Does baraminology explain where the new genes observed come from?
Neo-Darwinism has an explanation. Does ID?
There isn't even any way to test the claim
How do I test your claim?
The point is that my claim has been tested. New genes come into existence because of well understood processes. There literally is no requirement for intelligent involvement.
Some time ago I suggested that you claim that the designer tweaks each and every DNA molecule and you rejected that. Yet that appears to be exactly what you are saying now.
The evidence says otherwise. Ask Anthony Flew and all the others who have defected.
What, ask them if intelligent design is required for new genes to come into existence despite the fact that we can observe it happening in the lab and have a good explanation as to how that is happening?
What evidence says otherwise?
I'm making a single point about new fruitfly genes appearing, not where fruitflies came from, not about the origin of life, not about Flew.
And from what you are saying it appears you believe that the designer is holding all DNA in it's hands and adjusting it in real-time across the entire world.
OM:
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence that these processes are anything except blind and undirected.
Liar. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.
For example, Lenski's study. DNA was sequenced from each generation of bacterial. Changes in DNA were noted.
Lenski provided more evidence for baraminology.
Thanks.
And way to move the goalposts.
Is it your claim that such changes, for want of a better word, microevoltion, are directed?You just don't get to declare it.
But that's exactly what you are doing.
Nope, I have supported my position, as have others- see "Not By Chance" by Dr Spetner.
You have to provide the methodology that demonstrates the processes are blind and undirected.
The methodology is that the changes we observe are random and fit statistical models which we would expect if they were to be random.
We didn't observe the changes you fuck.
We observed well after the changes took place.
I'm not claiming that frutflies are result of blind, undirected chemical processes.
Then you cannot say that any subsequent fruit fly change is the result of blind, undirected process you moron. The two go together.
I'm claiming that from one generation to the next we can observe (i.e. sequence the genome) new genes appearing.
One generation to the next?
I'm not taking about changing a fruit fly into something else.
You can't talk about that because it will never happen.
And thanks for providing support for baraminology.
Does baraminology explain where the new genes observed come from?
Absolutely.
Neo-Darwinism has an explanation. Does ID?
NDE has a just-so story, no more than that.
The point is that my claim has been tested.
Liar.
New genes come into existence because of well understood processes.
My computer, cars and TV came into existence because of well understood processes also.
Some time ago I suggested that you claim that the designer tweaks each and every DNA molecule and you rejected that. Yet that appears to be exactly what you are saying now.
Only to a fucking piece of shit imbecile.
And from what you are saying it appears you believe that the designer is holding all DNA in it's hands and adjusting it in real-time across the entire world.
Not even close.
Look I explained how the design does it. Obviously you are too fucking stupid to understand it.
the whole tad,
ReplyDeleteThe point about Anthony Flew et al., is that tehy changed positions because of the evidence you stupid fucking moron.
Why don't I post all of your comments?
Because you are an ignorant and belligerent piece of shit and an intellectual coward.
Joe
ReplyDeleteThen you cannot say that any subsequent fruit fly change is the result of blind, undirected process you moron.
Understood.
HIV was therefore deliberately designed.
Cancer is intentional.
Your designer is a cunt. And so are you.
See you on UD Joe, you've so far not managed to guess who I am. But you'll find out, you'll find out.
OM:
ReplyDeleteHIV was therefore deliberately designed.
Non-sequitur.
Geez OM you are nothing but a little fucking cry-baby.
Nice...