-
RichTard Hughes is at it again-> equivocation and supporting baraminology. Geez RichTard you are one clueless evotard.
Lenski has been monitoring E. coli (bacteria) for thousands of generations. The only things observed are slight changes as the E. coli are still E. coli.
True, some "evolved" the ability to get citrate through their membrane so that already existing protein machinery can break it down for food for the cell.
Ho hum-> this has been observed before:
Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273.
Pos, K.M., Dimroth, P., and Bott, M. 1998. The Escherichia coli citrate carrier CitT: a member of a novel eubacterial transporter family related to the 2-oxoglutarate/malate translocator from spinach chloroplasts. J. Bacteriol. 180:4160-4165
IOW nothing new and definitely nothing that would suggest the evolutionary processes observed in these experiments are enough to account for the diversity of living organisms starting with a population of prokaryotic-like organisms. However I am sure that cowards such as RichTard Hughes will keep trotting it out as if it is such evidence. That is because evotards are clueless intellectual cowards.
Nothing new - evolution as been observed multiple times, including in controlled, lab conditions. Slam-dunk, evolution.
ReplyDeleteThen, the creationist, "I don't understand evolution" giveaway - "The only things observed are slight changes as the E. coli are still E. coli."
E Coli didn't become pigeons in a lab experiment. Given the population sizes and timescales involved, did anyone (other than Joe / Jim / John the Muslim creationist who lives in a parking lot) expect anything different?
Nothing new- more equivocation.
ReplyDeleteThen, the evotard, false accusation de jour.
Timescales? You moron its GENERATIONS that matter.
50,000+ generations basically nothing new.
Take a sexually reproducing population, in which the chances of even the most beneficial mutation being passed on to the next generation are small, and it is easy to see the proposed evolutionary mechanisms are not up to the task.
Not only that it has yet to be determined that the proposed evolutionary mechanisms are stochastic. IOW all you really have is the evotard mind-fuck as supporting evidence.
But anyway you are stuck with your head up your ass thinking your constant equivocating means something.
Did anyone expect anything different?
And seeing that ID is not anti-evolution even RichTard's equivocation doesn't do it any good.
ReplyDelete"And seeing that ID is not anti-evolution even RichTard's equivocation doesn't do it any good."
ReplyDeleteLOL@JOEFAIL
Do you follow ID at all?
I await your angry emails to those IDists at EVOLUTION IS DEAD . COM
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteDo you follow ID at all?
Yes, I do and I have quoted the ID leadership saying ID does not argue against evolution. ID argues only against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution- you ignorant fuck. That is what Dr Behe testified under oath.
As for the website, well they say the same thing I do as they just disagree with darwinism and neo-darwinism.
It figures that your head is too far up your ass for you to even realize that.
"have quoted the ID leadership"\
ReplyDeletePlease define the ID leadership before we continue.
What part of "evolution is dead" do you have trouble parsing, exactly?
ID leadership would include Wm Dembski, Wells, Meyer and Behe.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of:
EID was started as a direct assault on Naturalism which is the reigning philosophy of modern science and discriminates against any and all non-naturalistic thought by labeling it 'Religious'. do YOU have trouble parsing, exactly?
"ID leadership would include Wm Dembski, Wells, Meyer and Behe."
ReplyDeleteAnyone else? Are you on there?
Oh I understand "EID was started as a direct assault on Naturalism which is the reigning philosophy of modern science and discriminates against any and all non-naturalistic thought by labeling it 'Religious'." - and also understand that "evolution is dead" means "evolution is dead" - something you can't grasp, apparently.
Obviously you are too stupid to grasp that the site argues against naturalism's evolution and is OK with Intelligent Design Evolution and baraminology, which is OK with a change in allele frequency over time- ie evolution.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is I bet you cannot produce a valid and accepted definition of "evolution" that shows ID is anti-evolution.
IOW you are a fucking pussy and a coward.
Naturalism's evolution is dead- long live intelligent design evolution...
ReplyDelete"IOW you are a fucking pussy and a coward."
ReplyDeleteLOL - Should I meet one of your made up personas in the parking lot, then? DONT MENTION MY DAD SPASM!
"Naturalism's evolution is dead- long live intelligent design evolution..."
Courts, Schools and Labs think otherwise. Good luck with those experiments, though!
Neither Courts, schools nor labs can muster any evidence for the grand claims of evolutionism.
ReplyDeleteAnd to date all experiments support baraminology. Strange, that...
BTW it is very noticeable taht once again you have failed to support anything you have claimed-> fucking pussy and coward, indeed...
JoeG:
ReplyDelete"BTW it is very noticeable taht once again you have failed to support anything you have claimed-> fucking pussy and coward, indeed..."
====
Of course i don't recommend getting down on their sewer level with gutter language, I do however understand your frustration.
Here's a piece today on cornelius' blog from user - 'Jquip' conversing with 'Hawks'
---
JQUIP said:
"
There's this fellow, Richard Hughes, that made an Appeal to Authority in argument and claimed that this Authority proved his point. Nothing wrong with that so long as everyone agrees on the Authority and what the Authority said. However, what his Authority stated was directly the opposite of what Hughes claimed of him. When confronted on this? He denied it. When provided with the quotes from his authority? He claimed he read it in the original German.
But his favorite manner of acknowledging defeat was to claim that he suffered Sudden Onset English Incomprehension and then throwing word soups and salads everywhere.
To your credit you didn't claim you read it in the original French."
LOL, that was the funniest post of the day.
Perhaps it would help to clearly define the difference? The problem isn't "evolution", we see evolution everywhere. Consider for example the evolution of the car or the evolution of the computer? If anything Intelligent design expects that there would be evidence of evolution. Evolution isn't the defining difference.
ReplyDeleteThe defining difference is what is causing this evolution.
Intelligent design claims that based on the evidence before us natural causes (chance and necessity) alone can not explain the origin and the evolution of life. In fact, Intelligent Design claims that life as we know it is not natural at all but actually artificial.
Abiogenesis and natural evolution claim that assuming that life is a natural phenomenon, then based on available evidence, one might reasonably think that some lucky natural cause could have caused the origin and the evolution of life. Can't say how exactly, that still has to be discovered. Might never be discovered.
Note that evidence of evolution does not support natural evolution and does not disprove intelligent design. One needs evidence of natural evolution to disprove intelligent design.
These are two fundamentally different ways of viewing the same evidence but trough radically different paradigmas which can't be bridged by reasoning or logic. The difference is not the evidence but the way this evidence is interpreted.
Personally I think that ID requires less assumptions then natural evolution. ID is a closer match to the available evidence and does not require elusive future evidence. The evidence in favor of NE (natural evolutie) is much less clear and often deferred into expectations of future research results.
Hi Gideon- Thanks for your input- it appears we have a common understanding
ReplyDelete