Monday, September 12, 2011

The Amylome: More Constraints on Protein Design and Evolution

According to evolutionists scientific problems don’t count for much. They believe evolution is a fact that science will confirm. Scientific problems with evolution, therefore, are more indicative of gaps in our knowledge rather than any fault of their convictions. Hence they view scientific critiques as based on gaps or ignorance, rather than any direct evidence against evolution. This is a good example of how the religion that drives evolutionary thought harms science. In this case evolutionists make science vulnerable to just-so stories. If scientific problems don’t matter then anything goes. In fact, there are substantial empirical problems with evolution. Not only have most of evolution’s fundamental predictions failed, the science shows the idea to be highly unlikely. Consider, for example, the area of protein evolution where recent findings make the theory even more unlikely.

Review: Not enough evolutionary experiments possible


Unlike most of the evolution narrative which appeals to speculative hypotheses about the distant past that cannot be tested, protein evolution is more amenable to scientific experimentation. For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve a protein is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it).

Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. So the number of evolutionary experiments required is 27 orders of magnitude greater than the number of evolutionary experiments possible.

Furthermore, both these estimates are optimistic. The number of evolutionary experiments required was estimated using only part of a protein and only part of its function was considered.

And the number of evolutionary experiments possible was estimated assuming a four billion year time frame and assuming the preexistence of an earth full of bacteria. The time frame is two to three orders of magnitude too large (proteins come early, not late in the history of life). And bacteria need thousands of, yes, proteins. You can’t use bacteria to explain how proteins first evolved when the bacteria themselves require an army of proteins.

The evolutionists did provide a more conservative estimate of the number of evolutionary experiments possible, reducing the number from 10^43 to 10^21. This increases the evolutionary shortfall from 27 orders of magnitude to 49 orders of magnitude. But even in this more conservative estimate the evolutionists continued to use the four billion year time frame and the pre existence of bacteria (with their many thousands of pre existing proteins).

Evolution, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. The theory fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 to 49 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative. The problem is too complicated for precise estimates, but the evolutionary shortfall is probably in the hundreds of orders of magnitude.

Another problem: Protein aggregation

Even if evolution could somehow create proteins, another problem that awaits is the propensity of proteins to stick to each other and form fibrils. As one researcher explained, “The amyloid state is more like the default state of a protein, and in the absence of specific protective mechanisms, many of our proteins could fall into it.”

The problem is that short protein segments of say half a dozen amino acids can be self-complementary and sticky. If these sticky patches are on the exterior of a protein, then multiple copies of the protein can attach and form a growing and dangerous amyloid fibril.

Not surprisingly the cell has several mechanisms to protect against protein fibrillation. The sticky patches may be particularly exposed when proteins are initially synthesized and folding. So other molecules, such as the so-called chaperone proteins, help to ensure proteins fold correctly and avoid the amyloid state. Other cellular mechanisms recognize and destroy amyloids that do form, and proteins that are particularly susceptible may be sequestered in their own compartments. In all there are hundreds of genes that help to protect against the amyloid threat.

Beyond these protective mechanisms, the proteins themselves tend to have their sticky patches safely hidden away in the protein interior. As one evolutionist hypothesized, “Most proteins have evolved to fold in a way that effectively conceals their amyloid-prone segments.”

If that is true, then it is yet another hurdle for evolution. Not only is there the conservative estimate of a 27 to 49 orders of magnitude shortfall just for evolution to create a protein, but now we have the problem of avoiding the amyloid threat. It is not good enough for the protein merely to fold and function. Its sticky patches need to be buried in the interior. And then the cell needs those hundreds of genes for all the additional protective mechanisms.

The scientific problems with evolution do count for those not committed a priori. But religion drives science, and it matters.

130 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter, 2011, paraphrased (blogpost): "It is too easy for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."

    Michael Behe, 2007, paraphrased (Edge of Evolution): "It is too hard for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."

    ReplyDelete
  2. NickM:

    Cornelius Hunter, 2011, paraphrased (blogpost): "It is too easy for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."

    Michael Behe, 2007, paraphrased (Edge of Evolution): "It is too hard for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."


    So evolution is doubly-wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As best I can tell, nobody has any ideas - let alone good ideas - about how proteins were generated in the beginning. The kinds of numbers games that Dr Hunter likes to play may be amusing to some, but they are futile at our current state of ignorance.

    Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. It is concerned with genealogies that change with time after life has become established.

    To disparage evolution for not being able to offer an explanation for every event in the history of life is a cheap shot, much favored by creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter said...

    NickM:

    Cornelius Hunter, 2011, paraphrased (blogpost): "It is too easy for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."

    Michael Behe, 2007, paraphrased (Edge of Evolution): "It is too hard for proteins to evolve to bind to each other. Therefore, evolution is impossible."

    So evolution is doubly-wrong.


    Or the Intelligent Design Creationism "scientists" are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that what Behe was saying is that it is very unlikely for proteins to evolve to bind to each other in way that is beneficial to the organism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pedant: To disparage evolution for not being able to offer an explanation for every event in the history of life is a cheap shot, much favored by creationists.

    But it's far worse in that it makes specific assumptions about how knowledge is created, or the lack there of. Specifically, some "intelligent designer" "just was" including the knowledge of how to create proteins already present.

    You can't perform a magic trick without first knowing how. As such, the origin of the trick is the origin of the knowledge of how the trick is performed was created. We can say the same about knowledge of how to build a protein as found in the genome.

    In the absence of such an explanation, it's just magic. From the perspective of an explanation, one could just as simply state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to create proteins already present.

    ID simply pushes the problem of knowledge creation into some unexplainable realm, then claims it's solved it. This is like pushing food around on your plate and claiming you've eaten it - but it's still there staring you in the face.

    Science asks questions, which lead to answers, which lead to better questions, which leads to better answers, etc. Exactly how the knowledge in the genome used to create proteins was created is one of these better questions. This is how science works.

    It's unclear why Cornelius would expect knowledge to be created any other way…. Except, again, should he hold the presupposition that knowledge isn't created in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    ...the science shows the idea to be highly unlikely.

    I'll say it again (and I'll probably have to do it again and again and again...):

    Saying that something is unlikely really doesn't mean anything on it's own. A hypothesis can be extremely unlikely and still be correct. This is a point that Cornelius simply refuses to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hawks,

    You said: "A hypothesis can be extremely unlikely and still be correct."

    Yes, but it is still "extremely unlikely". I'm glad you realize that your faith in protein evolution is based on something that is extremely unlikely. I personally think the odds are on the ID side here.

    At least it seems clear that evolution requires us to believe in the "extremely unlikely". So you can't criticize people for not having faith to believe in something that type of thing.

    Is it OK to be a skeptic only when it comes to ID? Why is skepticism of Darwinism not allowed? Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott: “Science asks questions, which lead to answers, which lead to better questions, which leads to better answers, etc.”

    Sometimes it works that way, but sometimes it doesn’t. I think it might be more accurate to say it this way:

    Science asks questions, but only answers that agree with the evolutionary paradigm are permitted.

    In this case, the evidence we have right now makes it not only extremely unlikely, but basically impossible for proteins to have evolved on their own. But this answer does not fit with evolutionary dogma so the evolutionists are stuck trying to ask the next question: “How did the proteins overcome the extreme, actually near impossible odds to form on their own?”

    Now, if a scientist still has enough faith to believe in the impossible, then fine. Let him see if he can find a way to explain it. But an equally permissible response is to modify the theory. The problem could lie in the theory itself. It seems that the chances are extremely high that proteins did not form on their own. Entertaining this possibility seems the natural thing to do. In fact, in light of the evidence, it seems the obvious thing to do.

    Oh yes, I forgot. That is not allowed because as Richard Lewontin reminds us: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

    Perhaps, in light of the evidence in this article, it would be more accurate to say that “Anyone who can believe in evolution, can believe in anything.”(ie protein evolution.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pedant, are you open to theistic evolution?

    Are you open to the possibility that God created the first life?

    If not, then the origin of life is of huge importance to your argument.

    Claiming that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life is just a word game. Evolution cannot happen unless life evolves in the first place. If you are not open to God creating or helping to create the first life, then this is an issue you cannot sidestep.

    Protein evolution is one issue that obviously has the atheists in a conumdrum, because it makes their faith seem silly. So you try and brush off the problem by claiming no one really knows anything about protein evolution so numbers games are meaningless.

    I don't think that is true. This article made it plain that what we do know makes it extremely unlikely for proteins to have evolved on their own. Why do you reject this science? Because it doesn't fit your worldview?

    At least we have a clear confession here that this is still an unsolved problem.

    As you said "No one has any idea of how the first proteins were generated."

    Do the text books make this admission?

    Do biologists make this admission?

    Do the teachers admit this?

    We may not know exactly how the first proteins were generated, but given what we do know now(Darwin thought the cell was so simple. We know better now.), the evolution of life by natural means seems nearly impossible.

    With that said, it would seem a bit premature to say that evolution is a fact. Without protein evolution, we would have no life. And that is not the only problem for Origin of Life researchers.

    And, if intelligence was needed for the evolution of life, or if that is at least a possibility that cannot be ruled out, wouldn't it also be a possibility that this same intelligence could have been involved in the evolution of life from a single cell on to humans? I mean, how could you rule that out? What scientific evidence would you use to rule that out?

    It comes down to worldview and what interpretations/hypotheses you will allow. Currently, certain interpretations and hypotheses, no matter how plausible they may seem in light of the evidence, are simply disallowed to protect the theory. No skepticism is allowed because the theory has become dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  11. tjguy,

    Crow et al (The Future of Forensic DNA Testing, 2000) mention how certain loci can be used to determine whether or not two people are related. The likelihood that two siblings share said loci was 7.7*10-32 (that is a low likelihood, btw). According to Cornelius and tjguy, we should reject the hypothesis that two people with such a match are related. However, the likelihood that two unrelated people shared the same loci was 6.5*10-38. According to Cornelius and tjguy, we should also reject the hypothesis that these two people are unrelated.

    What Crow et al instead did, was to compare the two likelihoods above. When one does, one finds that it is 1,000,000 times more likely that two people are related when they share these loci.

    I.e. the actual likelihood tells you very little. When it comes to likelihoods, you have to compare them to other likelihoods - a point Cornelius fails to grasp. And when such comparisons are made, he complains that "evolutionists" never compare them to all other likelihoods (such as for example, a pink unicorn intervened in the DNA typing process so that two people's loci end up matching).

    ReplyDelete
  12. tjguy, thanks for your post. You asked:

    Pedant, are you open to theistic evolution?
    Are you open to the possibility that God created the first life?


    Those questions presuppose the existence of an invisible being called “God.” I see no evidence for such a being, least of all the sectarian incarnation you have in mind, so I consider such questions irrelevant to me personally. They are certainly not relevant to science.

    If not, then the origin of life is of huge importance to your argument.

    Claiming that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life is just a word game. Evolution cannot happen unless life evolves in the first place.


    Yes, I am aware that evolution of life requires life. But as I said above, how life came to be is a question as yet unanswered, although people are working on it. I personally don’t know whether that question can in the course of time be answered with a plausible chemical scenario, but, considering the pace of scientific discovery, I wouldn’t bet against it. In the meantime, there's plenty of work to be done in evolutionary science.

    If you are not open to God creating or helping to create the first life, then this is an issue you cannot sidestep.

    I make no claim of omniscience. I suspect that there will always be unanswered scientific questions.

    Protein evolution is one issue that obviously has the atheists in a conumdrum, because it makes their faith seem silly.

    Fantasize much?

    This article made it plain that what we do know makes it extremely unlikely for proteins to have evolved on their own.

    The article made frivolous claims. Is your faith so weak that you must bolster it with such slender creationist apologetics?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pedant said, "Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. It is concerned with genealogies that change with time after life has become established.

    To disparage evolution for not being able to offer an explanation for every event in the history of life is a cheap shot, much favored by creationists."

    --

    Wow, falling back to the last place of evolutionary rhetorical defense so early in the discussion? CH must have hit a home run here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pedant said, "I see no evidence for such a being, least of all the sectarian incarnation you have in mind"

    --

    What, in your mind, would qualify as evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I give you credit, Tedford, for being honest about your creationism.

    How many years ago did God create the planet earth?

    What, in your mind, would qualify as evidence?

    Give it your best shot and I'll tell you if it qualifies. (Hint: I'll be using materialistic criteria.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, Pedant, basically you place your faith in natural processes. You say the question of life doesn't bother you and your belief/hope is that sometime science may be able to explain that. But even if it can't, you can live with that. You are willing to place your faith in the natural processes even if it can't all be explained.

    Fair enough. You are being honest here with your faith and commitment to your materialistic worldview.

    I tend to think that the existence of an intelligent designer makes far better sense of what we see in nature and it certainly makes it easier to solve the protein problem. It is the simpler, the better, more logical inference from what we see, but that is just me.

    Obviously with protein evolution, you have a huge time problem. There is not enough time in the history of the universe for even one measly protein to have evolved by chance processes according to the study these evolutionists did! Brushing that problem off because you have no answer for it is convenient, but the evidence is still there whether or not you want to accept it or not.

    And, right now, almost all the evidence we have, almost everything we know about proteins points to intelligence rather than random natural processes because we know of no possible way for something like that to form on it's own.

    Now, you can claim that we still have a lot to learn - kind of like Darwin hoping the fossil record would eventually support his theory. Certainly we still do have much to learn and that is one good reason why we need to reserve our final verdict until we learn it, but you have already decided it happened.

    Yes, we are learning more and more about proteins every week. And yes, there is more to learn, but if history is any indication of what will happen, what we learn about proteins will not help the evolutionary story, but make the process of protein evolution by purely natural means more difficult to explain. That is what has been happening in origin of life research for sure. New levels of complexity keep appearing and Mt. Improbable keeps on growing taller and more formidable. I think it should be named Mt. Impossible, but whatever, it keeps demanding more and more faith for it's would-be climbers.

    Just curious, but what was it about the evolutionists research that was reported on in this paper that made you think it was nothing but "frivolous claims."? Why was their research frivolous? Because you didn't like their interpretation of the data they found? Just curious.

    tj

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. tjguy said...

    Obviously with protein evolution, you have a huge time problem. There is not enough time in the history of the universe for even one measly protein to have evolved by chance processes according to the study these evolutionists did! Brushing that problem off because you have no answer for it is convenient, but the evidence is still there whether or not you want to accept it or not.


    See tjguy, that's why so many of us have problems with CH's lack of honesty. The paper CH continually cites shows nothing of the sort. It says the protein couldn't evolve in that time frame by adaptive walking only. But then the paper goes on to add that adaptive walking isn't the only mechanism at work, that there are other known mechanisms such as homologous recombination that greatly shorten the timeline. So there's no huge time problem.

    CH loves to quote-mine the first part of the summary but always forgets to include the later explanation.

    The day you IDC supporters start addressing the evidence honestly and in its entirety is the day you start earning some respect from the scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pedant,

    Well, I asked the question first, but you're turning it around.

    You asked, "How many years ago did God create the planet earth?"

    Why is this so important to start the questioning with? Why is this even an issue about evidence for God?

    Is evidence for God tied to a date in your mind? I see the date of creation as a side issue and don't really hold to any particular date. It's an interesting question, but not critical to evidence for a creator. For the evolutionist, 10 billion years is not enough time.

    As far as evidence, where to start? An outline of some categories of evidence would look like this:

    1. Cosmological
    2. Physics
    3. Biochemistry
    4. Biological Information Systems
    5. Consciousness
    6. Witness of people receiving the Holy Spirit

    So, as I asked before, what in your mind would qualify for evidence of a creator?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just curious, but what was it about the evolutionists research that was reported on in this paper that made you think it was nothing but "frivolous claims."?

    Sorry, tjguy, when you asked about the "article," I thought you meant Dr Hunter's OP. The frivolity is in his probability calculations. Such calculations depend on such questionable assumptions that they are scientifically useless - though they seem to be useful to anti-evolution apologists.

    I have no quarrel with the paper by Goldschmidt et al. on the "amylome." It's an informative analysis of what keeps proteins out of trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tedford:

    My apologies, I confused you by asking my question about the age of the earth. That was a question I asked you some threads ago, and I was amused that you hadn't answered it. And I'm still amused that you, a person who wants to argue about reality, takes no position on a scientific question.

    So, as I asked before, what in your mind would qualify for evidence of a creator?

    I honestly can't think of anything. I've seen the kinds of arguments theists make among the various categories of evidence that you listed, and have so far found none persuasive - and I've lived a long time. So you have your work cut out for you.

    But you're the apologist here. As I suggested before, give it your best shot and I'll work with it. But one shot is all you get, since my time on this planet is limited. Fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pedant said, "So, as I asked before, what in your mind would qualify for evidence of a creator?

    I honestly can't think of anything."

    --

    Not sure if you understood the question. Let me clarify. Given that you are unpersuaded by "kinds of arguments theists make", what would persuade you? What is the standard, at least in your mind, would be persuasive evidence hypothetically speaking? What specifically are you looking for that you have failed to see?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scott: “Science asks questions, which lead to answers, which lead to better questions, which leads to better answers, etc.”

    tiguy: Sometimes it works that way, but sometimes it doesn’t.

    Is that so? Then you should have no trouble providing and example of when it doesn't. Please be specific.

    tiguy: I think it might be more accurate to say it this way: Science asks questions, but only answers that agree with the evolutionary paradigm are permitted.

    Tiguy, the subject was whether not knowing exactly how proteins evolved is really a problem for evolution, or some sort of exception to how knowledge is created. You seem to be attempting to diverge from the issue at hand.

    However, to address your comment, you seem to have overlooked where I said "better questions, which leads to better answers" The current crop of ID doesn't propose better answers and disingenuously suggests no better questions are possible because of their conclusions.

    To quote from my comment….

    Scott: In the absence of such an explanation [of the creation of knowledge by ID proponents], it's just magic. From the perspective of an explanation, one could just as simply state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to create proteins already present.

    ID simply pushes the problem of knowledge creation into some unexplainable realm, then claims it's solved it. This is like pushing food around on your plate and claiming you've eaten it - but it's still there staring you in the face.


    ID doesn't provide a better answer. Nor does it lead to better questions. So, it seems that ID proponents such as yourself actively attempting to ensure and mandate that ..

    Sometimes [science] it works that way, but sometimes it doesn’t.

    It's a self fulfilling claim.

    tiguy: In this case, the evidence we have right now makes it not only extremely unlikely, but basically impossible for proteins to have evolved on their own. […] Now, if a scientist still has enough faith to believe in the impossible, then fine.

    The problem with this sort of statistical evaluation is that it depends on better answers which we have yet create. Furthermore, any such evaluation on merely observations alone would be based on induction, which is inadequate to justify such a conclusion.

    tiguy: The problem could lie in the theory itself. It seems that the chances are extremely high that proteins did not form on their own. Entertaining this possibility seems the natural thing to do. In fact, in light of the evidence, it seems the obvious thing to do.

    But, as I've pointed out, what you're appealing to here is a mere possibility, not an explanation and science discards a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field. For example, it's unlikely that anyone is researching if standing on one's head could cure cancer. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Why then is this unlikely? It would be because we had no explanation as to how standing on one's head could cure cancer.

    That some unexplainable mind existing in some unexplainable realm designed proteins via some unexplainable means does not explain how the necessary knowledge to do so was actually created in the first place. It's no different than the possibility that eating a cubic yard of grass would eventually cure a cold. An explanation of how the grass cures the cold is completely absence. As such, we discard it.

    tiguy: Perhaps, in light of the evidence in this article…

    I'll stop you right there. Observations are not what's in question here. Rather, it's how they are interpreted, how theories are evaluated, etc. Until this is resolved, it would seem your conclusion is premature.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Neal: Given that you are unpersuaded by "kinds of arguments theists make", what would persuade you? What is the standard, at least in your mind, would be persuasive evidence hypothetically speaking? What specifically are you looking for that you have failed to see?

    Pardon my interruption…. but I would be persuaded by explanations which theists claim are impossible. Specifically, most creation narratives depict the creator as inadvertently creating false knowledge that significantly undermines our ability to correct errors.

    In over words, the creator just happens to create things in a way that makes it appear as if knowledge he ended up creating in the process was true, but was actually false, in reality.

    As such, creationism suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws of physics that makes correcting errors impossible. This would be no different than saying atoms are created in such a way that makes atomic theory impossible or that photons are created in such a way that makes the theory of optics impossible, etc.

    This is undermines realism as is a variant of solipsism.

    Furtermore, I'm a realist for reasons I've outlined earlier. specifically, I'm not a solipsist merely because it conflicts with my intuition. Rather i'm realist because solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of realism. It fails to explain why object-like facts of my internal self would follow laws of physics-like facts of my internal self. It's a bad explanation for what we observe.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scott said, "The current crop of ID doesn't propose better answers and disingenuously suggests no better questions are possible because of their conclusions."

    --

    I think it does, but whatever their answers are, it does should not immunize evolutionary theory from criticism or falsification.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott, not sure if you answered, but do you still equate gravity with evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott: "The current crop of ID doesn't propose better answers …."

    Neal: I think it does.

    To what question, Neal? If the question you're asking is how to reconcile how your preferred theological view of God fits with what we observe then, yes. However, this is theodicy.

    Rather the question Neo-Dariwnim addresses is how the knowledge of how to build each species as found in the genome was created. This is a questions of knowledge creation.

    So, I'm suggesting that your objection is an unfortunate consequences of the intersection of these two questions. It's a sort of category error.

    Neal: but whatever their answers are, it does should not immunize evolutionary theory from criticism or falsification.

    Just because it hasn't been falsified yet, or you don't underhand how theories are evaluated, doesn't mean it's immune from falsification. Furthermore, it's withstood over 150 years of criticism. That's how science works.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neal: Scott, not sure if you answered, but do you still equate gravity with evolution?

    Did you forget already? I answered your question here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The "amyloid threat" that you mention poses a challenge to science only if you assume that the functional state of a protein must be its most thermodynamically stable state. But this is not a valid assumption since evolution does not aim for the all-time best possible protein structure in terms of stability but one that is stable enough to perform the intended function. We need to remember that evolution has to work quickly and mix and match available solutions to produce the best possible result under the given circumstances, not the best possible result in the space of all possible results. The error in your thinking is a common one, that of assuming that evolution must somehow aim toward an ideal situation (in this case thermodynamically most stable structure). The reality is that evolution can only work on what already exists, which often is far from being the best possible set of solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott, evolution HAS been falsified. It survives because the fact of evolution is protected regardless of which way the wind blows the supporting theories. As CH says, problems don't account for much. The non-scientific support undergirding evolution is amazing.

    Scott said, "Rather the question Neo-Dariwnim addresses is how the knowledge of how to build each species as found in the genome was created."

    Scientists still haven't even got their heads around how the genome functions and you're presuming to answer how it was created and calling it a fact? These are the same evolutionists who dismissed 95% of the genome as Junk and want to presume that they know how all of life was created?

    Evolutionists are like kids boasting that they are almost done putting together a 1000 piece puzzle by smashing a dozen of the wrong pieces together.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I wrote: The problem with this sort of statistical evaluation is that it depends on better answers which we have yet create.

    What do I mean by this?

    To give an example, in 1968 Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife wrote a book called "The Population Bomb" which warned of a mass starvation of humans in the 70's and 80's due to overpopulation, as well as significant upheavals in society, etc. More relevant to the claim that..

    the evidence we have right now makes it not only extremely unlikely, but basically impossible for proteins to have evolved on their own.

    ...the Ehrlich's did not see any means of avoiding the disaster entirely, only that some mitigation was possible by means such as starving entire countries that refused to implement population control.

    However, the Ehrlich's prediction did not come to pass. Where did they go wrong?

    The flaw in the Ehrlich's theory is that they assumed our ability to mass produce food would remain at its current rate as the population grew. In other words, before the Ehrlich's could create a false prediction of mass starvation and social upheaval, they had to first put observations of the current population growth in an explanatory theory framework that assumed our ability to produce food would maintain its current growth.

    A frequent criticism of the book is that it was thin on substance and heavy on emotional appeal, which caused it to attract a large audience at the time.

    Thankfully, this wasn't the case as our ability to mass produce food increased dramatically to meet demands. While famine is has not be eliminated, it remains due to political instability, not a global food shortage.

    Again, this yet another illustration of the problem of induction, in that one cannot induce the truth merely from past observations alone.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wavefunction said, "But this is not a valid assumption since evolution does not aim for the all-time best possible protein structure in terms of stability but one that is stable enough-"

    Interesting... Evolution does not "aim" for anything. But, I do understand the constant use of goal directed and design terms. So not only does life "look" designed, but its origin is described using terms of design even by evolutionists attempting to excuse (I mean explain) their theory.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Scott, increasing efficiency in food production is part of the historical record of mankind. Rolling out more efficient practices from the lab to the farmer has been practiced since at least the time of modern farming. Just like your example of gravity, evidence for evolution is just not in the same league. While I understand what you are saying about induction, trying to put evolution at the same level as these is like putting a t-ball team against the Detroit Tigers. It wouldn't even work well in fantasy baseball.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Scott said "Specifically, most creation narratives depict the creator as inadvertently creating false knowledge that significantly undermines our ability to correct errors."
    May I suggest you are no more an expert on creation narratives than you are on how proteins came to be.
    Only the critics of the Creation narrative claim the creation of "false knowledge". It's a bogus charge. For example, maybe we think we understand the physics of light speed. So, the light from distant stars means the light had to start out 14 billion years ago, right? But, maybe we don't fully understand the physics. And if we say we do, aren't we saying that we already know everything?
    We've already had the "highly unlikely" debate above. Your side claims that highly unlikely doesn't mean impossible. So, maybe light traveled (past tense) at different speeds in different regions of the big bang inflation depending on the origin of the light in relation to an expanding or contracting event horizon. Who knows?
    Creationists do not cede "false knowledge", but limited knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  35. PS, this (the admission of limited knowledge) is exactly the admission Dr. Hunter requests evolutionists should also be making.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, that is correct, evolution does not aim for anything at all and makes do with what's available. You are right that the use of goal-directed terms in describing evolution is not only fallacious but meaningless. By the way you may also want to look up Chris Dobson's papers where he demonstrates amyloid to be particularly thermodynamically stable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neal Tedford:

    Scott, evolution HAS been falsified.

    I wish you would make up your mind on whether evolution is unfalsifiable or has been falsified already. It can't be both.

    I'd also like to remind you of a question I asked the other day. Why should anyone trust the opinions of a pastor such as you on scientific subjects? I asked you if you had ever read a textbook on evolutionary biology, and if so which one. But you didn't answer. Please do so at your earliest convenience.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Neal: Scott, evolution HAS been falsified.

    Is that so? Then why do we keep pointing out flaws in Cornelius' arguments? Why is it that when we dig into details of the papers he references we find they don't support his claims or that he's misrepresented the theory itself to make it appear as if they do? Why does his fail to address these issues over and over again?

    Furthermore, whether evolution has been falsified or not depends on the details of how theories are created, how they are evaluated, if it's even possible to extrapolate observations without putting them into an explanatory framework, etc.

    Yet you seem to think all of this is irrelevant to the question at hand. By all means, please enlighten us as to how they're irrelevant. For example, why don't you start out with how you manage to extrapolate observations with out first putting them into an explanatory framework?

    It wouldn't have anything to do with, say, divine revelation, would it?

    Heck, I'd be amazed if you could us some indication that you actually have a reasonable grasp of the problem in the first place.

    Neal: It survives because the fact of evolution is protected regardless of which way the wind blows the supporting theories.

    Until you have a coherent and comprehensive criteria for this objection, this is merely more handwaving.

    Neal: Scientists still haven't even got their heads around how the genome functions and you're presuming to answer how it was created and calling it a fact? These are the same evolutionists who dismissed 95% of the genome as Junk and want to presume that they know how all of life was created?

    I've already address this here. Apparently you've forgotten that as well?

    Furthermore, if discovered some completely transparent, super thin calculator, does that mean it we wouldn't be justified in concluding it was performing addition unless we could "get our heads around how it functioned"? Should we assume some supernatural agent was merely lighting up segments of the display *as if* the device was performing addition because we do not know how it works? Of course not.

    The principle of adding numbers is fundamentally the same regardless if you're doing it in your head, with a pencil and paper or in some highly advanced device that operates in a way we do not fully understand.

    In the same way, Neo-Darwnism is an explanation of how the knowledge in the genome was *created*, not merely where it was located before it was placed there. This is a variant of our explanation of how people create knowledge using conjectures and refutations.

    Of course, I'm open to any other explanations you might have for how the knowledge in the genome was created. Here's a hint, saying this knowledge was previously located in some unexplainable mind that exists in some unexplainable realm and was put there by some unexplainable means isn't an explanation of how knowledge was *created*.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Way back up yonder, Neal Tedford persisted in asking what in my mind would qualify as evidence of a creator. I told him I couldn't think of anything. But that wasn't enough for him. Now he asks:

    What specifically are you looking for that you have failed to see?

    I am not now and have not for nigh on to half a century been looking for anything along those lines. Is that a problem for you?

    You're the one that thinks you have evidence for a creator and wants to impress us all with it. So let's have it. Surprise me. (Only your best shot, though. We don't have forever and I don't have the patience of Job.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Tedford the idiot said...

    Scott, evolution HAS been falsified. It survives because the fact of evolution is protected regardless of which way the wind blows the supporting theories. As CH says, problems don't account for much. The non-scientific support undergirding evolution is amazing.


    LOL! And you still wonder why I refer to you as an idiot.

    If ToE has been falsified, don't you think you IDiots should tell the scientific and business communities? After all, there are still thousands of colleges and universities, medical research facilities, genetics labs, etc. all over the world who still successfully use it every day. Imagine their surprise when they find an IDiot like you telling them everything they've based their work on is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Red: May I suggest you are no more an expert on creation narratives than you are on how proteins came to be. Only the critics of the Creation narrative claim the creation of "false knowledge". It's a bogus charge.

    Is that so?

    If God created the entire universe last Thursday, wouldn't he have created the knowledge of where you thought you were last Wednesday, how many birthdays you had, where you went to school, the theory of evolution itself, etc.? The answer is clearly "Yes." Would this merely represent limited knowledge, rather than "false knowledge." Of course not. You weren't really where you though you were last Wednesday. And if the theory of evolution is false, as you claim, God created the majority of scientists thinking it's true would clearly represent creating false knowledge.

    Should the narratives of YECs and even OECs actually be true, in reality, they would also have similar consequences. You probably simply do not realize this is the case.

    For example, as an OEC, William Dembinky's narrative in his book "The end of Christianity" requires reinterpreting Genesis 1-3 as God lifting Adam out of a world of pre-existing natural evil, planting him in the pristine Garden of Eden, giving him false memories to replace those of having lived though the very evil brought about by the sin he had yet to commit, etc. Here, God is clearly creating false knowledge. This includes creating a pristine garden in which it appears that life had not created with natural evil from the beginning, that he himself had just been created, rather being previously born into natural evil like all other life, etc. This is clearly false information.

    Not to mention the sort of 'backwards causation' he's appealing to would make creating knowledge impossible. How could we know if anything caused anything else?

    Narratives of YECs have similar implications. Was God blindsided at how the biosphere build with the supposedly intentional and specific knowledge he created in the genome merely appeared *as if* it had been created via RM and NS, common ancestry, etc., but it was false, in reality?

    Again, given how you define God, it's unclear how you can explain this other than him having intentionally created false knowledge in the genome.

    Or, perhaps the designer was somehow limited in that he had no choice but to creating things in the specific way that we observe and the conclusion was simply unavoidable?

    Perhaps were all under the influence of "evil forces"? While God won't allow these same forces to destroy us completely, apparently he will allow them to blind us to the truth that your particular creation narrative is true.

    Red: For example, maybe we think we understand the physics of light speed. So, the light from distant stars means the light had to start out 14 billion years ago, right? But, maybe we don't fully understand the physics. And if we say we do, aren't we saying that we already know everything?

    Just so I'm clear, it sounds as if you're suggesting the laws of physics work one way inside our our solar system, but work in a significantly different way in other parts of the universe. if so, is God is somehow flabbergasted over the fact that we've supposedly reached the wrong conclusion?

    It would seem that God would have realized via his foreknowledge that this would occur, yet intentionally decided to create things the same way regardless - that is unless he simply had no choice in the matter.

    What if God created everything like this? How could we possibly know that he didn't?

    Again, Cornelius' objections are the equivalent of claiming atoms are created in such a way that makes atomic theory impossible or that photons are created in such a way that makes the theory of optics impossible, etc. It a denial of realism and represents a variant of sophism.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Neal: While I understand what you are saying about induction, trying to put evolution at the same level as these is like putting a t-ball team against the Detroit Tigers. It wouldn't even work well in fantasy baseball.

    Actually, your response indicates you do not understand, as you're focusing on the wrong part of the illustration. I'm not suggesting evolution is "at the same level" of food production (at least I don't think so, as I'm not even sure what that means) Rather, i'm pointing out the particular way in which the Ehrlich's extrapolated observations and the effect it had on their conclusion.

    Again, from my comment…

    In other words, before the Ehrlich's could create a false prediction of mass starvation and social upheaval, they had to first put observations of the current population growth in an explanatory theory framework that assumed our ability to produce food would maintain its current growth.

    Any claim that extrapolated observations to conclude that it's "basically impossible for proteins to have evolved on their own." would had to necessarily first put these observations in theoretical explanatory framework as well. Both claims, if purely statistical in nature, would be subject to this same problem. Mere objections of the sort that "increasing food production is the same as evolution" doesn't magically make the problem go away.

    Cornelius simply refuses to acknowledge or disclose this is an issue. Furthermore, we keep pointing out how his posts make the same sort of mistake time and time again.

    The fact that we currently do not have all the details of exactly how proteins evolved does not justify a conclusion that they did not actually evolve, in reality. There might be some other future observations that *would* justify this conclusion, however we shouldn't assume this is true today merely based on probability arguments alone. This is naive empiricism. After all, one could just as well conclude that it's statistically unlikely that gravity is a natural uniform force, etc.

    Of course, I invite you to show how it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework in the first place. Should you do this, it would be a huge accomplishment as this is a well known problem.

    Then again, I'd be pleasantly surprised if you could give us some indication that you actually have a reasonable grasp of the problem in the first place, let alone provide a way to solve it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Scott said, "The fact that we currently do not have all the details of exactly how proteins evolved does not justify a conclusion that they did not actually evolve, in reality"

    ---

    The fact is that we currently do not actually have any solid details as to how proteins supposedly evolved. What you have is some general ideas about how it might have happened and hand waving about the immense problems associated with it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Neal Tedford said...

    Scott said, "The current crop of ID doesn't propose better answers and disingenuously suggests no better questions are possible because of their conclusions."

    --

    I think it does, but whatever their answers are, it does should not immunize evolutionary theory from criticism or falsification.

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

    Neal, what you "think" doesn't matter to science, and evolutionary theory isn't immune to criticism or falsification. Reasonable criticism based on realistic, scientific evidence is just fine, but appeals to magic sky fairies (gods) are not.

    You say that "evolution" has been falsified. Well, neither evolution nor evolutionary theory have been falsified. You think they have been simply because they don't support your religious beliefs.

    Your religious beliefs are based on the egotistical belief that you were created by a special, supernatural entity (god) and that you can't possibly be the product of evolution from 'animals'.

    During the vast majority of the Earth's history there were no humans, and the Earth got along just fine without them. When humans are extinct the Earth will get along just fine then too. We're not as special as you think. In fact, it could easily be said that humans are the worst thing that has ever happened to the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tedford the idiot said...

    Scott: "The fact that we currently do not have all the details of exactly how proteins evolved does not justify a conclusion that they did not actually evolve, in reality"

    The fact is that we currently do not actually have any solid details as to how proteins supposedly evolved. What you have is some general ideas about how it might have happened and hand waving about the immense problems associated with it.


    Actually Tedford, science knows quite a bit about protein evolution. There are even whole books on the subject

    Protein Evolution
    László Patthy 2008

    ... to go with hundreds of published scientific papers.

    Why don't you give us some of the details about how the Intelligent Designer designed and manufactured proteins?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The Cut-N-Paste Queen:

    Actually Tedford, science knows quite a bit about protein evolution. There are even whole books on the subject

    Protein Evolution
    László Patthy 2008

    ... to go with hundreds of published scientific papers."

    '''''''''''

    Pedant:

    "As best I can tell, nobody has any ideas - let alone good ideas - about how proteins were generated in the beginning."
    ======

    LOL
    ------

    Pedant:

    "Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. It is concerned with genealogies that change with time after life has become established."
    =======

    This is one of the greatest "Default Button" lies employed by Evolutionists who when backed into a corner on the unpurposed unintelligent origins of those sophisticated informational storage systems which drive complex nano machinery with it's error correction mechanisms, repair systems, self-destruct kill switches which rid the system of actual mutations, etc, etc, etc will always insist evolution comes AFTER - ABIOGENESIS which is NOT EVOLUTION.

    Yet if anyone reads the research on Abiogenesis experiments or any other RNA-World fantasy, we actually find the actual word evolution used repeatedly. In actual fact the term is applied to molecules themselves evolving. Such terminologies as "evolution of molecules" - "evolving molecules" etc, etc, etc. In fact anyone can google the Professor Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D of Scripts Research Institute which is right there in the heart of Craig Venter country in La Jolla, California and read about those amazing evolving molecules for which those infamous expressions and terms regards evolution are used to explain evolution of nonliving matter.

    This reminds me of that Ben Stein interview with Michael Ruse who insisted life evolved from the backs of crytals because crystals are imperfect, hence early prebiotic matter learned it's own imperfect ability to spit out copying errors from those first crystals.

    Here are some of my favourite quotes from Gerald Joyce's work.

    "In the process, the molecules evolved different evolutionary approaches to achieving their ends. One became super efficient at gobbling up its food, doing so at a rate that was about a hundred times faster than the other. The other was slower at acquiring food, but produced about three times more progeny per generation. These are both examples of classic evolutionary strategies for survival", says Joyce.

    and

    "This is evolution at the level of molecules as a fact, not a theory," says the study's senior investigator, Gerald Joyce, Scripps Research professor in the Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology. "This is what it looks like when a computer controls conditions that push molecules to adapt in order to thrive--survival of the fittest on the smallest scale possible."

    As with most OOL experimenters whose goal is to achieved proof of "No Intelligence Allowed", the use of cheating, manipulation, rigging and forcing the conditions to obtain a goal directed purpose are always employed. Then lying about the experiment with words such as these:

    "No one has been able to observe what the process looks like until now," the study's first author, Brian Paegel says. "It's like before you could only see little bits of a fine painting. Now, we can step back and watch a complete picture of evolution happening at its most fundamental level, on a molecular scale."

    Really, evolution happening at it's most fundamental level ??? But I thought evolution was ONLY about the magical changes that factually take place once life is here ???

    Oh that's right, they lied again.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton:

    "Why don't you give us some of the details about how the Intelligent Designer designed and manufactured proteins?"
    =====

    Ordinarily, this would be yet another cowardly act of "Burden Shift" which would gladly be pointed out. But under this subject's circumstances it is most welcome, much to the embarassment and anger of the above ideological Pimp here about to be set off with all manner of diatribe spasms.

    Look up all the INTELLIGENT DESIGN REQUIRED

    Take one example of the requirement of Intelligent Designers needed to manipulate through use of computers to create the biased environment and force intelligent goal directed outcomes purposed by the intelligence/s running the experiment.
    -----

    NEWS and VIEWS
    online weekly of Scripts Research Institute

    "Scientists Automate Molecular Evolution"

    By Renee Twombly

    "Under the control of a computer at The Scripps Research Institute, a population of billions of genes morphed through 500 cycles of forced adaptation to emerge as molecules that could grow faster and faster on a continually dwindling source of chemical fuel—a feat that researchers describe as an example of "Darwinian evolution on a chip."

    The super molecules that resulted, a species of RNA enzyme, were produced in about 70 hours using an automated tool that is about the size of a compact disc, according to the study published in the April issue of PLoS Biology. The Scripps Research investigators who designed the device note that the findings provide an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work, seen in real time. "
    ----

    And there are inumerable others.

    You might want to check the bottoms of your 15" sneakers.

    *smirk*

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocenette said...

    Thorton: "Actually Tedford, science knows quite a bit about protein evolution. There are even whole books on the subject

    Protein Evolution
    László Patthy 2008

    ... to go with hundreds of published scientific papers."

    Pedant: "As best I can tell, nobody has any ideas - let alone good ideas - about how proteins were generated in the beginning."

    LOL


    Hey closet queen - there's quite a big difference between 'generated in the beginning' and 'evolved over time'. Skip your next pedicure and try reading a science book instead.

    Take one example of the requirement of Intelligent Designers needed to manipulate through use of computers to create the biased environment and force intelligent goal directed outcomes purposed by the intelligence/s running the experiment.

    So you're now claiming the Scripps Institute is the Intelligent Designer responsible for all naturally found proteins today??!?! Wow. You're entering Tedford level stupidity here bud. Better back up those size 15 strapless pumps a few steps.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Whole Truth,

    CH has a link here to his article on Survey of Failed Evolutionary Predictions. The Falsification are based strictly from biology. Have you read it? Where does he say that such and such a prediction is falsified because of a religious belief?

    You give evolutionary theory too much credit... it doesn't even rise high enough to be a good scientific theory. One of the tricks of Darwin was to change the debate away from science to a debate between science and religion.

    You said, "During the vast majority of the Earth's history there were no humans, and the Earth got along just fine without them. When humans are extinct the Earth will get along just fine then too. We're not as special as you think. In fact, it could easily be said that humans are the worst thing that has ever happened to the Earth."

    ---

    Certainly man has failed many times to be a good steward of earth's resources. Were you aware that in the Old Testament the Israelites were instructed to give their land rest from farming every seven years and to practice crop rotation? One of the reasons God was angry with them was because they failed to do this? Everyone can do their part to work as good stewards of the earth and a lot of good has been done and needs to be encouraged using good judgment and good science.

    But, I emphasize the word "steward". The earth is not my god. It is not an end in itself. The earth was created to be filled with life and that includes humans. Life is elegantly created and it is very special.

    Evolutionists carry this burden of having to dumb down life and throw their minds into a dark pit of purposelessness as a consequence of their theory. It breeds a mentality of hopelessness and leds some to take this road to consider extinction as a solution. Then they get to thinking about it and decide that it's really just their neighbor that needs to be eliminated, or the Jews, or the Christians, or the handicapped, or "DENIERS". Some even feel that DENIERS of global warming should be killed. If the earth is their god, then it's justified in the name of their earth based religion. Like the Discovery Channel terrorist.

    This contrived battle between bad science and religion is very sad. May open minds and open hearts prevail to see the beauty of life, how we can live our lives better, and have the peace and hope of God in our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Tedford the idiot said...

    CH has a link here to his article on Survey of Failed Evolutionary Predictions. The Falsification are based strictly from biology. Have you read it? Where does he say that such and such a prediction is falsified because of a religious belief?


    Psst..hey idiot...having a prediction about some small detail be falsified doesn't falsify the entire overarching theory. How many times do you need that explained to you?

    You give evolutionary theory too much credit... it doesn't even rise high enough to be a good scientific theory. One of the tricks of Darwin was to change the debate away from science to a debate between science and religion

    Making this a debate over science vs. your particular religion is all clowns like you have been doing since day one. You IDiots don't have any ID supporting science to discuss. Every last piece you present is "ToE can't explain this to my satisfaction, therefore Jeebus!"

    That's why ID as currently presented will never be science.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "CH has a link here to his article on Survey of Failed Evolutionary Predictions. The Falsification are based strictly from biology. Have you read it?"

    I have. And they are all 'predictions' seen as through the massively distorted glasses of Cornelius Hunter. Each is basically one of Cornelius' blog posts - just without the comments telling him exactly where and how he is going wrong.

    Please don't be fooled by Cornelius' manipulative propaganda. ToE has not been falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eocene -

    From the passage you yourself quoted:

    "The Scripps Research investigators who designed the device note that the findings provide an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work,"

    And that last bit again:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    Once more:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    What exactly do you think this study explains the mechanisms of ID?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ritchie:

    "Eocene -

    From the passage you yourself quoted:

    "The Scripps Research investigators who designed the device note that the findings provide an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work,"

    And that last bit again:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    Once more:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    "What exactly do you think this study explains the mechanisms of ID?"
    ====

    This is perfect and as predicted typical and expected. Ritchie, what exactly do you expect them to say ??? Of course I saw their comments, but what exactly did they do ??? Gerald Joyce and gang believe that if they could just get these molecules to pull their pants up and zip their zipper, then Uncle Charlie and the Magic Fairy's Wand(N.S.) will just take over from there.

    And how did they accomplish whatever it was they thought happened ??? Though they have no clue as to what a primitive ecosystem would have been like, they never the less imagined one up according to their own biased presuppositions of what they believe might work. So they used their own intelligence and manufactured an artificial ecosystem in a test tube. They rigged their experiment with a computer programed system[as they admit] and forced events and circumstances to happen as they saw fit[and they admit]. These molecules would never have done by themselves what Gerald Joyce and company made[or in their very own words - forced] them to do. All these papers demonstrate is the power of intelligent design to make things happen according to a predetermined biased set of goals. Any other inference of Darwinism winning again is wishful thinking or in the case of this over bloated statement:

    "This is evolution at the level of molecules as a fact, not a theory," says the study's senior investigator, Gerald Joyce of the Scripts Research Institute.

    And that was a flat out "LIE". Evolution[especially in it's infancy] has nothing to do with direction, guidance, intelligence, goals, intent or purpose or any other attribute we would normally assign to Intelligent Designer. Yet they hijacked all of those componants and lie about it when they called it an evolutionary fact and no longer a Theory and the faithful refused to even take notice.


    Then there is the article "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme" where they again used their intelligently designed RNA in the experiment which offered nothing in the way of better understanding of OOL other than their own biased ideas of what a primitive environment would look like. This so called self-replicating RNA is useless and fragile without being intelligently-guided within that artificial testube environment, and not once did it show any ability as having a potential role in a complex system like a real living cell.
    These molecules performed no function. But yet they boldly claim these things evolved and out competed each other with some of them[and they actually have the balls to call them species] winning out over others. Wow, I think I must have missed something there Ritchie. The molecules are battling it out for the scarce the resources and they actually used the expression "Survival of the Fittest". Again I'm confused, because I don't see where or when it was that these molecules became conscious and then suddenly self-awareness snuck in somewhere ???

    Do you have any problem here with the massive amounts of LYING being done here at Scripts Ritchie.

    Incredibly that long list of articles on the Scripts Research Institute website just go on and on like that. But of course this lying doesn't matter as long as it's done for the correct worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ritchie:

    "Eocene -

    From the passage you yourself quoted:

    "The Scripps Research investigators who designed the device note that the findings provide an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work,"

    And that last bit again:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    Once more:

    "... an example of the Darwinian principle of selective pressure at work..."

    "What exactly do you think this study explains the mechanisms of ID?"
    ====

    This is perfect and as predicted typical and expected. Ritchie, what exactly do you expect them to say ??? Of course I saw their comments, but what exactly did they do ??? Gerald Joyce and gang believe that if they could just get these molecules to pull their pants up and zip their zipper, then Uncle Charlie and the Magic Fairy's Wand(N.S.) will just take over from there.

    And how did they accomplish whatever it was they thought happened ??? Though they have no clue as to what a primitive ecosystem would have been like, they never the less imagined one up according to their own biased presuppositions of what they believe might work. So they used their own intelligence and manufactured an artificial ecosystem in a test tube. They rigged their experiment with a computer programed system[as they admit] and forced events and circumstances to happen as they saw fit[and they admit]. These molecules would never have done by themselves what Gerald Joyce and company made[or in their very own words - forced] them to do. All these papers demonstrate is the power of intelligent design to make things happen according to a predetermined biased set of goals. Any other inference of Darwinism winning again is wishful thinking or in the case of this over bloated statement:

    "This is evolution at the level of molecules as a fact, not a theory," says the study's senior investigator, Gerald Joyce of the Scripts Research Institute.

    And that was a flat out "LIE". Evolution[especially in it's infancy] has nothing to do with direction, guidance, intelligence, goals, intent or purpose or any other attribute we would normally assign to Intelligent Designer. Yet they hijacked all of those componants and lie about it when they called it an evolutionary fact and no longer a Theory and the faithful refused to even take notice.


    Then there is the article "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme" where they again used their intelligently designed RNA in the experiment which offered nothing in the way of better understanding of OOL other than their own biased ideas of what a primitive environment would look like. This so called self-replicating RNA is useless and fragile without being intelligently-guided within that artificial testube environment, and not once did it show any ability as having a potential role in a complex system like a real living cell.
    These molecules performed no function. But yet they boldly claim these things evolved and out competed each other with some of them[and they actually have the balls to call them species] winning out over others. Wow, I think I must have missed something there Ritchie. The molecules are battling it out for the scarce the resources and they actually used the expression "Survival of the Fittest". Again I'm confused, because I don't see where or when it was that these molecules became conscious and then suddenly self-awareness snuck in somewhere ???

    Do you have any problem here at all with the massive amounts of LYING that was done here at Scripts Reseach Institute Ritchie ???

    Incredibly that long list of articles on the Scripts Research Institute website just go on and on like that. But of course I guess this lying doesn't matter as long as it's done for the correct worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Richie:
    What exactly do you think this study explains the mechanisms of ID?

    First ,there are no" mechanisms of ID" , it doesn't matter how. It only matters that it was a who not a what. That might be Eocene's point. Evolutionary mechanisms are not by definition ineffective, but there has to be an intelligence and goal( man ) . Else, "Evolutionists carry this burden of having to dumb down life and throw their minds into a dark pit of purposelessness as a consequence of their theory." That is why some science is good and some bad. If through science you directly challenge man "special purpose" it cannot be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  57. velikovskys said, "First ,there are no" mechanisms of ID" , it doesn't matter how."

    According to ID theorists, "...the biological design that's detected normally involves features that (1) go well beyond the capacities of natural causes, and (2) exhibit telltale signs of intelligent agency (such as being the product of foresight."

    Evolutionists, however, are exempt by default from allowing anything but "natural" causes. The result is that they attribute to nature, powers that it does not possess. That's superstition.

    ID theorists say the stuff that goes beyond nature's capacity is attributed to a designer. Evolutionists just pretend that their mechanisms are sufficient and hope that enough time and chance do the trick. In other words, they have "mechanisms", but they don't actually explain much. It does more damage than acknowledging ignorance since it really is deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Neal:
    It breeds a mentality of hopelessness and leds some to take this road to consider extinction as a solution. Then they get to thinking about it and decide that it's really just their neighbor that needs to be eliminated, or the Jews, or the Christians, or the handicapped, or "DENIERS".

    Not a pretty picture, so evolutionary theory must be like original sin.Retroactively causing evil before Darwin was even born. Because pre- Darwin the handicapped lived like kings,and the Jews were loved by all,and witches were burned at the stake.

    So paint me a picture how the world would look like if you were king if you would? Convince me your world with climate science and evolutionary theory would be superior? Or is it Atheists that are the real threat? Then they get to thinking about it and decide that it's really just their neighbor who doesn't go to church that needs to be eliminated, or the Jews, or the gays or the Muslims or deniers of the one true loving god.
    If I had to choose between being ruled by evolutionary scientists or religious zealots, I would prefer the former.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Durn, that is a world without climate science

    ReplyDelete
  60. Tedford the idiot said...

    According to ID theorists, "...the biological design that's detected normally involves features that (1) go well beyond the capacities of natural causes,


    Tell us Tedford, how did you determine the limits for the capacities of natural causes? "We haven't seen it in real time" isn't a limit there idiot. Just because no one's seen you waddle further than 2 blocks to the local Burger King doesn't mean you couldn't make it across town given enough time.

    and (2) exhibit telltale signs of intelligent agency (such as being the product of foresight."

    Tell us Tedford, where in biological life do you have evidence for the product of intelligent foresight?

    Evolutionists, however, are exempt by default from allowing anything but "natural" causes. The result is that they attribute to nature, powers that it does not possess. That's superstition.

    ALL science is exempt from allowing anything but natural causes you idiot. That's why it's science and not voodoo.

    ID theorists say the stuff that goes beyond nature's capacity is attributed to a designer.

    ID theorist say lots of stupid things they can't support.

    Evolutionists just pretend that their mechanisms are sufficient and hope that enough time and chance do the trick. In other words, they have "mechanisms", but they don't actually explain much.

    They actually explain quite a bit, but even explaining 'not much' would still be more than you IDiots have. You clowns don't have any mechanisms at all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Eocenette said...

    Do you have any problem here at all with the massive amounts of LYING that was done here at Scripts Reseach Institute Ritchie ???

    Incredibly that long list of articles on the Scripts Research Institute website just go on and on like that. But of course I guess this lying doesn't matter as long as it's done for the correct worldview.


    LOL! That's the same list of articles you provided when asked for mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. You were too lazy to actually read them, and now when it turns out the research supports evolution suddenly the articles are all lies.

    Another own goal for Eocenette.

    I hope you get your operation soon. Your estrogen induced mood swings are getting out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  62. velikovskys said, "Not a pretty picture, so evolutionary theory must be like original sin".

    Actually there are some pretty good parallels, but no, Satan did not tempt Eve with evolutionary theory. That's unfortunate, since she probably would have told him to get lost. It takes centuries of cultural and intellectual decline to believe something like evolutionary theory... but there are parallels in its appeal to human pride and arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Tedford the idiot said...

    It takes centuries of cultural and intellectual decline to believe something like evolutionary theory... but there are parallels in its appeal to human pride and arrogance.


    No Tedford, what really stands out as a monument to human pride and arrogance is having a scientifically illiterate idiot like you trying to hand-wave away what is arguably the most well supported scientific theory in history just because you think it threatens your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Eocene -

    I appreciate you are probably unfamiliar with the process, but what Gerald Joyce et al. did was set up an EXPERIMENT. Scientists do that quite often. And yes, that may involve recreating a 'choatic' environment. But that does not mean that all chaotic environments NEED to be set up, does it?

    The purpose of these experiments is to discover whether these molecules will, under certain circumstances, behave in ways which validate certain hypotheses.

    But though the environments are artificially created, that does not mean it is the result of intelligent design.

    Let's try an analogy. I believe apples fall to the ground as a result of an entirely natural force. But someone else named Meocene disagrees. He doesn't believe it's an entirely natural force. He believes the Magic Man in the Sky intervenes to make apples fall, though exactly how is a topic he avoids like the plague.

    So, being a good little scientist, I set up an experiment. I take some apples into a lab. I set up a robot arm to drop apples from a certain height. I set up cameras to record and track the movement of the apples, their speed, etc. I drop the same apple several times to measure whether it always falls at the same speed every time, I test to see if big apples fall faster than small ones, whether red ones fall faster than green ones, and all sorts of other variables, to find out as much as I can about this force which pulls dropped apples to the ground.

    Now silly Meocene complains and says that since I have set up this 'falling apple' experiment in a lab - an artificial setting - this proves that this force which pulls apples down is the result of conscious outside interference after all. And my results, in which I claim to lay out some rather specific properties of this force, are all DAMNED HEATHEN LIES!!!!

    It's one thing to not understand how scientific experiments work. That I can forgive. We all have areas where our understanding is poor. But to claim, through that ignorance, to understand experiments better than the people who DO them, and to call their very results LIES is arrogance on a truly phenomenal scale. Jaw-dropping, traffic-stopping, alarm-sound arrogance. Arrogance enough to make the most conceited of Roman emperors blush.

    To be this self-certain about a topic on which you are this ignorant truly takes a religious mind - a mind which is simply incapable of entertaining the idea of being wrong because 'I have God on my side so I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with BURN IN HELL!!!'

    ReplyDelete
  65. Neal
    ID "involves features that (1) go well beyond the capacities of natural causes, and (2) exhibit telltale signs of intelligent agency (such as being the product of foresigh"
    Not being a scientitist, neither of those are " how it came to be" answers,.It seems more like a description on how to tell intelligently designed things from unintelligent ones. The answer seems to be is the intelligently designed ones were designed by an intelligence. Duh
    A couple of questions,please? How far is " well beyond" ? How exactly do you really know what nature is capable of? Are you putting limits on what god can do with his creations? God couldn't create a system,ruled by natural causes,(after all he creates natural causes to do whatever he wishes) to produce whatever he wanted, indiscernible from a freely acting system without a goal? Isn't that using the forbidden" god wouldn't have done it this way" argument?
    And if you would, tell me about signs of foresight? What are they? Can they only be a product of foresight?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thorton, commenting on the scientific achievements of Intelligent Creation Science:

    You clowns don't have any mechanisms at all.

    How can you say that? Isn't "It couldn't have happened by evolution" a mechanism?

    Or, how about "The Creator did it. If you want to know how, ask Him."

    ReplyDelete
  67. velikovskys,

    Science is a pursuit of knowledge and this pursuit should remain open and honest to let the evidence lead where it may. I'm not advocating that God is forced to create one way or another. I do not see it as either God created everything from scratch OR God was entirely absent and relied on secondary causes.

    Origin of first life is a great place to start with an answer to your question about something that is "well beyond" the capability of unguided chemicals to create. This is an area where evolutionists should get real and at a minimum admit that they don't have a clue. Admit the immense problems rather than sugar coat them and make up these half-baked intelligently driven lab experiments and exaggerate them.

    ID theorists do advocate general parameters of what design predicts but it's not as narrow as what evolutionists would say God would/wouldn't do. ID theorists do not jump to silly conclusions like evolutionists about God not creating viruses or the appendix, etc. They leave all the options open, including secondary causes.

    From a creationists standpoint, my perspective, God should not be limited to either primary causes or secondary causes. I question the whole idea of natural vs. supernatural. Is airplane flight, "natural"? Of course. Is not one law superceeding another law of nature to make airplane flight possible? God holds the reins to the fundamental fabric of the cosmos and reality and is not limited to everyday forces of nature that we are aware of, but may choose to do so.

    From my experience God prefers great variety in his methods while ruling according to unchanging principles.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton,
    There is no reason to insult all transgender people by including Eocene in their number,I doubt they would wish to claim him.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Science is a pursuit of knowledge and this pursuit should remain open and honest to let the evidence lead where it may.

    Sorry, Tedford, you don't get to define science. We got together around 1650 AD and decided that only measurable items qualify as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Tedford the idiot said...

    Origin of first life is a great place to start with an answer to your question about something that is "well beyond" the capability of unguided chemicals to create. This is an area where evolutionists should get real and at a minimum admit that they don't have a clue. Admit the immense problems rather than sugar coat them and make up these half-baked intelligently driven lab experiments and exaggerate them


    No one in science claims the origin of life problem is easy or has been solved. Where is your evidence that it's "well beyond" the capability of unguided chemicals to create? The Scripps experiments you are criticizing but obviously don't understand demonstrated evolution after the first life was started, not abiogenesis. You can't get anything right, can you?

    ID theorists do not jump to silly conclusions like evolutionists about God not creating viruses or the appendix, etc.

    Science doesn't say "God didn't create viruses or the appendix." Science says that relying on creation by a supernatural entity is unnecessary because we have empirically observed processes that explain the phenomena.

    They leave all the options open, including secondary causes.

    Good job idiot, you just totally undercut ID's only argument: The natural process of evolution can't explain all of life it so ID wins by default. If you're open to secondary causes, that means another currently unknown natural cause besides evolution could be responsible, and ID doesn't become the default position.

    Looks like you're still on the hook for that positive evidence for ID. Pity you haven't got any.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Tedford said...

    ID theorists do advocate general parameters of what design predicts


    What are the general parameters of what design predicts? Please list them. Where can I read about how they were determined?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ritchie:

    "Eocene -

    I appreciate you are probably unfamiliar with the process, but what Gerald Joyce et al. did was set up an EXPERIMENT. Scientists do that quite often. And yes, that may involve recreating a 'choatic' environment. But that does not mean that all chaotic environments NEED to be set up, does it?"
    ===

    Let's be honest Ritchie. Gerald Joyce rigged up an imaginary RNA World fantasy according to Gerald Joyce.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "The purpose of these experiments is to discover whether these molecules will, under certain circumstances, behave in ways which validate certain hypotheses."
    ===

    The purpose of the experiment was to lie cheat and steal and then say they didn't do any such thing ???
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "But though the environments are artificially created, that does not mean it is the result of intelligent design."
    ===

    Ritchie, they had their lying cheating and fraudulant Intelligent Designing fingerprints all over the thing. What part of lying don't you get ???
    ===

    Scott(sorry I meant Ritchie):

    Let's try an analogy. I believe apples fall to the ground as a result of an entirely natural force. But someone else named Meocene disagrees. He doesn't believe it's an entirely natural force. He believes the Magic Man in the Sky intervenes to make apples fall, though exactly how is a topic he avoids like the plague.

    So, being a good little scientist, I set up an experiment. I take some apples into a lab. I set up a robot arm to drop apples from a certain height. I set up cameras to record and track the movement of the apples, their speed, etc. I drop the same apple several times to measure whether it always falls at the same speed every time, I test to see if big apples fall faster than small ones, whether red ones fall faster than green ones, and all sorts of other variables, to find out as much as I can about this force which pulls dropped apples to the ground.

    Now silly Meocene complains and says that since I have set up this 'falling apple' experiment in a lab - an artificial setting - this proves that this force which pulls apples down is the result of conscious outside interference after all. And my results, in which I claim to lay out some rather specific properties of this force, are all DAMNED HEATHEN LIES!!!!
    ===

    Perfect, then all of the board gamers here are in unified agreement that lying, cheating, stealing and then denying that you did any of that is perfectly acceptable if it's for promoting the correct Worldview ??? Got it!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pedant:

    "Sorry, Tedford, you don't get to define science. We got together around 1650 AD and decided that only measurable items qualify as evidence."
    ===

    Really, 1650 AD ??? Everyone always knew you were an angry bitter old crank. Now would you like to address your other "LIE" about mud-to-man / goo-to-you evolution without the definition shell gaming ???

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ritchie:

    "To be this self-certain about a topic on which you are this ignorant truly takes a religious mind - a mind which is simply incapable of entertaining the idea of being wrong because 'I have God on my side so I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with BURN IN HELL!!!'
    ====

    Perfect example of justification of the lying, cheating and stealing of intelligent designing concepts, then calling it evolutionary proof. Then when this is pointed out, accuse and blame the opponant for merely pointing it out. Didn't Cornelius have a thread down below on just this very cowardly tactic.

    Let's see if I've got this correct. Gerald Joyce and company cheated, by using their collective biased purpose and goal directed intelligences to rigged and force an experiment, then lied about it and said Evolution has now been proven a FACT and no longer a theory, but it's actually my fault that they did this ???

    Then when you have nothing in your corner as an intelligent possitive reply, fall back on some other myth of Hellfire and Damnation to draw the attention away from your own IDiocy ???

    Nice!

    ReplyDelete
  75. "It takes centuries of cultural and intellectual decline to believe something like evolutionary theory... but there are parallels in its appeal to human pride and arrogance."

    It always amazes me when someone religious says something like that. Religion is absolutely overflowing with human pride and arrogance. Without human pride and arrogance there would be no such thing as religion.

    The belief that humans are superior to every other life form (and everything else) and that humans are the pinnacle of a god's creative powers is the ultimate in pride and arrogance, and that kind of thinking is the basis for most or all religious beliefs. The whole god created man in his own image thing is nothing but human pride and arrogance. The human ego is extreme.

    Wouldn't it be interesting if a space ship from another planet landed on the Earth tomorrow and some aliens came out that look like Godzilla and were vastly superior to humans in every way, and either had beliefs in different gods than any ever thought up on the Earth or had no beliefs in any sort of gods?

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Eocene -

    "Let's be honest Ritchie. Gerald Joyce rigged up an imaginary RNA World fantasy according to Gerald Joyce."

    No, they really didn't. You are simply incapable of seeing it as anything else.

    "The purpose of the experiment was to lie cheat and steal and then say they didn't do any such thing ???"

    The arrogance is actually PAINFUL to wade through. Their purpose was to perform science. Which they did. You just don't like their conclusions, so you brand them liars. Ignorant, arrogant and just plain low.

    "Ritchie, they had their lying cheating and fraudulant Intelligent Designing fingerprints all over the thing. What part of lying don't you get ???"

    The point where they said something that they knew wasn't true. That would be a lie. Can't see that anywhere.

    "Perfect, then all of the board gamers here are in unified agreement that lying, cheating, stealing and then denying that you did any of that is perfectly acceptable if it's for promoting the correct Worldview?"

    No, no-one's agreed that. I'm saying they didn't DO that. Please, log off and lie down before you hurt yourself.

    "Perfect example of justification of the lying, cheating and stealing of intelligent designing concepts, then calling it evolutionary proof. Then when this is pointed out, accuse and blame the opponant for merely pointing it out."

    This isn't what's happening. What's happening is that you don't like the results of a scientific experiment, so you are claiming it's all HEATHEN LIES, and then playing the victim when people are pointing out you are being totally irrational.

    "Let's see if I've got this correct. Gerald Joyce and company cheated..."

    Nope.

    "...by using their collective biased purpose and goal directed intelligences to rigged and force an experiment..."

    Nope.

    "...then lied about it..."

    Nope.

    "...and said Evolution has now been proven a FACT and no longer a theory..."

    Nope.

    "...but it's actually my fault that they did this ???"

    It's not your fault they did anything. But you don't understand what they did. And whose fault could that possibly be but yours?

    So all in all, no, you're pretty much as far from correct as you could be. I imagine it's a familiar feeling.

    Oh, and by the way, Thornton is quite right that YOU brought up this experiment AS EVIDENCE FOR ID!!! And now you're back-tracking, calling it lies because you realise it doesn't support ID after all. So where IS your supporting evidence for ID? We'd dearly love to know.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ritchie:

    "No, they really didn't. You are simply incapable of seeing it as anything else."
    ===

    Correct, I apparently DO NOT have your eye of faith on the matter. Or unknown to me, they evidently had a time machine in their posession to go back to the beginning and factually document with empirical evidence just what an early Earth environment minus life would be like. Shame on me again for being skeptical and not believing.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "The arrogance is actually PAINFUL to wade through. Their purpose was to perform science. Which they did. You just don't like their conclusions, so you brand them liars. Ignorant, arrogant and just plain low."
    ===

    Now who is lying Ritchie ??? What I don't like is the hijacking of intelligent designing conditions and then lying and telling everyone they have just proved blind chanced purposeless unguided stuff just happened evolution and labling it a fact and no longer a theory.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "The point where they said something that they knew wasn't true. That would be a lie. Can't see that anywhere."
    ===

    Now you know why it's called "Blind Faith".
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "This isn't what's happening. What's happening is that you don't like the results of a scientific experiment, so you are claiming it's all HEATHEN LIES, and then playing the victim when people are pointing out you are being totally irrational."
    ====

    No you are DEAD WRONG. I don't have a problem with any results if that is indeed what they are, but that wasn't what happened here in these instances. The only irrational one is a desparate ideologuing worldview pimping FOOL who can't empirically prove using the "Scientific Method" just how blind purposeless unguided and undirected hands off forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals accomplish even something remotely simple.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "nope" - "nope" - "nope" - "nope"
    ---

    Denial and Delusional.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "It's not your fault they did anything. But you don't understand what they did. And whose fault could that possibly be but yours?

    So all in all, no, you're pretty much as far from correct as you could be. I imagine it's a familiar feeling."
    ===

    Thank you Reverend!
    ---

    Thorton:

    "Oh, and by the way, Thornton is quite right that YOU brought up this experiment AS EVIDENCE FOR ID!!! And now you're back-tracking, calling it lies because you realise it doesn't support ID after all. So where IS your supporting evidence for ID? We'd dearly love to know."
    ====

    This is lame. Thorton is an IDiot. Joyce is an IDiot. Both believe in using Intelligent Design experiments for goal directed biased worldview motivated outcomes. Your girlfriend asked :

    "Why don't you give us some of the details about how the Intelligent Designer designed and manufactured proteins?"

    All that is necessay is point to any disingenuous evolutionists and their intelligent design cheating experiments and as George Gilder put it, they ultimately " . . prove what they aim to refute: the need for intelligence and teleology (targets) in any creative process." Even at this Joyce came clean in admitting unlike you and Thort.

    In trying to prove blind undirected purposeless evolutionary processes minus any goal or intent from an intelligence, they nevertheless proved to their own embarassment that they LIED. Especially so when to then proceded to tell the all the world that evolution was now a proven fact and not just a theory anymore.

    What part of the word and definition of 'LIAR' don't you understand Ritchie ???

    ReplyDelete
  79. Eocene -

    The experiment is not an example of intelligent design! Why are you incapable of grasping this fact. It's not difficult. It's really very simple.

    Joyce et al may have recreated the conditions, but they did not guide the actual evolution of the bacteria, did they? All they did way simply set up an experiment, just as Lenski did with his bacteria - TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BACTERIA UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES!! This is not ID.

    So Joyce et al have not lied. You just don't understand what they did! Why don't you try taking a deep breath and practicing a little humility rather than letting your mouth run ahead of your brain?

    "...and labling it a fact and no longer a theory."

    They did not make this claim, you foolish person!

    The line I imagine you are misinterpreting is: "This is evolution at the level of molecules as a fact, not a theory." But the point which is sailing merrily over your head is that they are not mutually exclusive. Theories never get 'up-graded' to facts. Never. Facts and theories are different things. Evolution, as it happens is both. The line is saying this experiment demonstrates evolution as fact (which it is) rather than as a theory (which it ALSO is). Capiche?

    "The only irrational one is a desparate ideologuing worldview pimping FOOL who can't empirically prove using the "Scientific Method" just how blind purposeless unguided and undirected hands off forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals accomplish even something remotely simple."

    That's exactly what they HAVE demonstrated! Read their experiment!

    "Your girlfriend asked"

    Grow up... How old are you?

    "All that is necessay is point to any disingenuous evolutionists and their intelligent design cheating experiments"

    This experiment does not demonstrate ID.

    "Even at this Joyce came clean in admitting unlike you and Thort."

    He doesn't 'admit' to anything of the sort. There is no admission to make. You are only hearing what you want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ritchie:

    "The experiment is not an example of intelligent design! Why are you incapable of grasping this fact. It's not difficult. It's really very simple."
    ===

    I see you are incapable of admitting intelligent designing concepts of an actual goal directing, outcome forcing intelligence hovering over an experiment, one who made and patented a device as they themselves admitted used to accomplish this Intelligences own biased purposed task. This in fact are their very own words. The fact that they later lied and gave credit to some rotten moldly bones of an ancient Bearded Buddha was nothing more than emperor worship by offering a pinch of incense to be burned before the alter of this long since dead entity.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Joyce et al may have recreated the conditions, but they did not guide the actual evolution of the bacteria, did they? All they did way simply set up an experiment, just as Lenski did with his bacteria - TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BACTERIA UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES!!"
    ===

    What on Earth are you talking about Ritchie ??? You didn't actually read those papaers did you ??? The weren't a bunch of living bacteria, THEY WERE MOLECULES. THERE WAS NO LIFE.

    The ONLY life was story invention of these MOLECULES swimming and eating, outcompeting, some having more babies than others, etc, etc, etc and all the time there was never self-awareness of any type of life with the except of the damn fraudulant imagination of the cheating researchers.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "So Joyce et al have not lied. You just don't understand what they did! Why don't you try taking a deep breath and practicing a little humility rather than letting your mouth run ahead of your brain?"
    ====

    Try taking your own MEDS/ROIDS Ritchie. You couldn't admit the truth if your life depended on it. Oh wait a minute? It Does!!!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "...and labling it a fact and no longer a theory."

    They did not make this claim, you foolish person!
    ====

    Hmmmm, this is sad, the blind scribe leading the blind.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "This experiment does not demonstrate ID."
    ====

    That's exactly what it demonstrates. It amazes me how someone who clearly has the ability to read that same bogus evolutionary biased paper as anyone else and read where it's from the researchers their own mouths who make admissions of purposed outcomes and goal directing, computer guided programs and an actual device created by their own intelligent minds, not to mention their own intelligently created artificial enzyme/s molecules and describe the experiment using terms or expressions such as "evolving molecules" or "evolution of molecules", etc.

    This was the whole point of bringing this up in the first place. Because up above, some cantankerous bitter angry old man got offended and lied about the definition of evolution by saying it has nothing to do with origins, which as we see in those papers is a total lie. The actual word/term 'Evolution' is always used with reference to Origins research experiments in that they actually speak of evolving simple lifeless molecules and then this RNA World Fantasy pimping ideologue of a researcher takes further liberties well beyond what actually took place with regards the experiment to diliberately fabricate an imagined scenario of life evolving before his very own eyes. Then saying EVOLUTION at the molecular level was now a proven FACT, and not just a theory, which according to all the Dogma pimping shills above, the word Evolution has nothing to do with, because evolution is only about life once it gets here. This proves that definition to be a total LIE!!! Not only is it truthfully a part of origins to begin with(mud to man), but this same infectious virus of a dogma has indeed infected all other sciences by what we read today.

    Clearly lying and fraud work for you. Ans if you don't like the truth, then find a new faith and Church Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ritchie:

    "The experiment is not an example of intelligent design! Why are you incapable of grasping this fact. It's not difficult. It's really very simple."
    ===

    I see you are incapable of admitting intelligent designing concepts of an actual goal directing, outcome forcing intelligence hovering over an experiment, one who made and patented a device as they themselves admitted used to accomplish this Intelligences own biased purposed task. This in fact are their very own words. The fact that they later lied and gave credit to some rotten moldly bones of an ancient Bearded Buddha was nothing more than emperor worship by offering a pinch of incense to be burned before the alter of this long since dead entity.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Joyce et al may have recreated the conditions, but they did not guide the actual evolution of the bacteria, did they? All they did way simply set up an experiment, just as Lenski did with his bacteria - TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BACTERIA UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES!!"
    ===

    What on Earth are you talking about Ritchie ??? You didn't actually read those papaers did you ??? The weren't a bunch of living bacteria, THEY WERE MOLECULES. THERE WAS NO LIFE.

    The ONLY life was story invention of these MOLECULES swimming and eating, outcompeting, some having more babies than others, etc, etc, etc and all the time there was never self-awareness of any type of life with the except of the damn fraudulant imagination of the cheating researchers.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "So Joyce et al have not lied. You just don't understand what they did! Why don't you try taking a deep breath and practicing a little humility rather than letting your mouth run ahead of your brain?"
    ====

    Try taking your own MEDS/ROIDS Ritchie. You couldn't admit the truth if your life depended on it. Oh wait a minute? It Does!!!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "...and labling it a fact and no longer a theory."

    They did not make this claim, you foolish person!
    ====

    Hmmmm, this is sad, the blind scribe leading the blind.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "This experiment does not demonstrate ID."
    ====

    That's exactly what it demonstrates. It amazes me how someone who clearly has the ability to read that same bogus evolutionary biased paper as anyone else and read where it's from the researchers their own mouths who make admissions of purposed outcomes and goal directing, computer guided programs and an actual device created by their own intelligent minds, not to mention their own intelligently created artificial enzyme/s molecules and describe the experiment using terms or expressions such as "evolving molecules" or "evolution of molecules", etc.

    This was the whole point of bringing this up in the first place. Because up above, some cantankerous bitter angry old man got offended and lied about the definition of evolution by saying it has nothing to do with origins, which as we see in those papers is a total lie. The actual word/term 'Evolution' is always used with reference to Origins research experiments in that they actually speak of evolving simple lifeless molecules and then this RNA World Fantasy pimping ideologue of a researcher takes further liberties well beyond what actually took place with regards the experiment to diliberately fabricate an imagined scenario of life evolving before his very own eyes. Then saying EVOLUTION at the molecular level was now a proven FACT, and not just a theory, which according to all the Dogma pimping shills above, the word Evolution has nothing to do with, because evolution is only about life once it gets here. This proves that definition to be a total LIE!!! Not only is it truthfully a part of origins to begin with(mud to man), but this same infectious virus of a dogma has indeed infected all other sciences by what we read today.

    Clearly lying and fraud work for you. Ans if you don't like the truth, then find a new faith and Church Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  82. eocene, why does science, evolution, and the theory of evolution bother you so much? Exactly what is it inside you that makes you so angry toward them?

    What is your opinion/belief on how the universe, the Earth, life, and humans came to be?

    ReplyDelete
  83. eocene, a couple more questions:

    What original scientific research and experiments, in the field or a lab, have you done or are you doing to find and verify evidence of ID?

    You said:

    "Or unknown to me, they evidently had a time machine in their posession to go back to the beginning and factually document with empirical evidence just what an early Earth environment minus life would be like. Shame on me again for being skeptical and not believing."

    Do you have a time machine? Have you gone back to the beginning and factually documented with empirical evidence just what an early Earth environment minus life (or with life) was like?

    ReplyDelete
  84. And one more question, for now, eocene:

    Do you believe that humans are the pinnacle of creation, by your chosen god?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Not Even Close:

    "eocene, why does science, evolution, and the theory of evolution bother you so much? Exactly what is it inside you that makes you so angry toward them?
    ===

    You'd love to believe that science bothers me wouldn't you ??? Science has NOTHING to do with this. It's actually those involved within science and in powerful control positions to bastardize the truth of any matters of importance that bother me. Lying, fudging the truth, ambellishing, manipulating what is truth of any matter are what bother me. I would be equally apalled and critical if some creationist movement were in control of science.

    This is the point of Cornelius blog. The misuse and abuse of science especially within the framework of Naturalistic Definitons/Explanations ONLY rules.
    ----

    "What is your opinion/belief on how the universe, the Earth, life, and humans came to be?"
    ====

    But you already understand and know the answer to this question, why would you ask it again ???
    ----

    "What original scientific research and experiments, in the field or a lab, have you done or are you doing to find and verify evidence of ID?"
    ----

    I'm not an IDer or Creationist. Those are both political pressure groups which will go nowhere. Though they may believe in a Creator, they are incapable[just as any evolutionist] of actually explaining by ONLY naturalistic consequences just how and what step by step processes everything took place[be it ID/Creator/Evolution]. Assuming they believe their own Holy Bible[and let's be honest, this is the subject target], the Bible itself makes the same bold statement of the impossibility of obtaining absolute knowledge of this, but humankind does have eternity to figure it out if they wish.
    ----

    "Do you have a time machine?"
    ====

    I hate to disappoint, but there is no such thing.
    ----

    "Have you gone back to the beginning and factually documented with empirical evidence just what an early Earth environment minus life (or with life) was like?"
    ====

    Of course not, but neither have you or they. I can admit I have no clue as to what a primitive, no life on Earth environmental conditions would look or be like. This is not the case with the other side. Hence the myth manufacturing and hijacking of intelligent designing concepts to prove it's nothing of the sort.
    ----

    "Do you believe that humans are the pinnacle of creation, by your chosen god?"
    ====

    Spirit realm or physical realm ???

    BTW, I didn't choose any God, but you have done that. Romans 1:25

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Spirit realm..."? Aren't you a little too old to believe in fairy tales?

    No, I didn't choose any god, and I couldn't care less what your bible reference says.

    Do you believe in all the gods that have been conjured up by people? If not, and you do believe in one, you do choose that god.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Not Even Close:

    "Spirit realm..."? Aren't you a little too old to believe in fairy tales?
    ===

    "Pot-Kettle-Black"
    ---

    Not Even Close:

    "No, I didn't choose any god[sure you have, your just too proud to admit it],
    and I couldn't care less what your bible reference says."
    ====

    Yes I believe the Bible also does mention this.
    ----

    Not Even close:

    "Do you believe in all the gods that have been conjured up by people?"
    ====

    Even the Bible acknowledges there being perhaps millions of gods invented by people, and not all of them necesarily as intelligent entities.
    ----

    Not to tightly wrapped:

    "If not, and you do believe in one, you do choose that god."
    ====

    Here maybe this will halp. Do you choose the natural world over the Biblical Creator ???

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Eocene -

    I could, theoretically, rig up a lab experiment to study the effects of gravity on an apple falling to the ground. I could get a robotic arm to release the apple. I could get sophisticated detection equipment to time the apple's fall and measure whether it falls at a constant, increasing or decreasing speed. I could use several apples of varing size, density, shape, colour, etc. I could even use fake, plastic apples instead of real ones. All to study the how the apple falls and what variables affect it.

    Does any of this mean that the force of gravity itself is anything other than an entirely natural force? Do I, by setting up this experiment, have any active conscious CONTROL over gravity itself? Have I, by consciously setting up an experiment, shown that gravity is a force requiring the intervention of conscious outside intelligence?

    Also, I just couldn't let this little nugget of gold slip by:

    "The misuse and abuse of science especially within the framework of Naturalistic Definitons/Explanations ONLY rules."

    Science DOES stipulate Naturalistic Definitions/Explanations ONLY. This is not an abuse/misuse of science, that IS science.

    It may differ from what YOU THINK science is, or what it should be, but the error is in your preconceptions. If you think science can/does/should allow for non-naturalistic definitions/explanations then you are quite simply wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  90. It's real simple Ritchie

    "THEY LIED CHEATED and FUDGED the truth all in the name of their god the bearded Buddha.

    Not once were there any proves of blind purposeless forces of physics manipulating chemicals to accomplish no apparent goal which just got innovatively lucky. Those are YOUR core beliefs, not mine.

    Only an intensive and heartfelt indoctrination experience would not allow one to see the fraud oozing all over the floor on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Eocene -

    You dodged my questions. Please address them, not avoid them. Here they are again:

    "Does any of this mean that the force of gravity itself is anything other than an entirely natural force? Do I, by setting up this experiment, have any active conscious CONTROL over gravity itself? Have I, by consciously setting up an experiment, shown that gravity is a force requiring the intervention of conscious outside intelligence?"

    ALSO:

    "Not once were there any proves of blind purposeless forces..."

    See, that's where you slip up. They don't need to prove these forces were blind and purposeless - it is assumed unless shown otherwise. That is the rational and scientific position to take.

    To instead assume (on no evidence, I might add) that these forces are guided and consciously-driven is a religious assumption.

    Even to assume these forces MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE EITHER BUT WE DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY is unscientific.

    We NEED to assume methodological naturalism for science to perform science. This is not religion - this is pure practicality.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Scott:

    "You dodged my questions. Please address them, not avoid them. Here they are again:"
    ===

    I didn't dodge anything Ritchie, you tripped off into Scottville on a topic NOT even related to the cheating going on here about origins which is loaded with ideological worldview pimping. Only an Evolutionary Priest would blindly see past the flagrant biased goal directing intelligence used to manipulate an outcome and then lie about it later and tell us evolution is now a FACT NOT A THEORY. If you are comfortable with that type FAITH Ritchie, then stay there. But don't repeatedly prosyletize it as a fact and expect me to have a religious experience over it.
    ====

    Ritchie:

    "They don't need to prove these forces were blind and purposeless - it is assumed unless shown otherwise. That is the rational and scientific position to take."
    ====

    How perfectly convenient. Lying is justified because these Priests have Phds and they say it is so and that's good enough for you. We're all happy for you then Ritchie.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "To instead assume (on no evidence, I might add) that these forces are guided and consciously-driven is a religious assumption."
    ====

    Perfect, then we are to assume that Gerald Joyce's intelligence along with that of his staff with all their biased goals/purposes, their artifically created enzyme molecule[not a friggen live bacteria), the guiding and forcing of the molecules thru a computer programming the artificial environment for which these things would do nothing in the wild, all of this is merely an illustration of how blind purposeless undirected forces and luck of physics and chemicals made it all happen. Then when telling a mythical tale of newer species of molecules being created, competion for food sources, some win some lose (survival of fittest) and one molecule having more offspring than others are acceptable explanations to a scientific mind.

    Got it! Your ASSUMPTION translates as Fact.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Eocene -

    "I didn't dodge anything Ritchie, you tripped off into Scottville on a topic NOT even related..."

    It was absolutely related. I would have thought the analogy was pretty clear. But if not, I will elaborate. But first, again I ask, just answer the questions please. If you don't see their relevance, I will show you once you have answered them.

    "How perfectly convenient. Lying is justified because these Priests have Phds and they say it is so and that's good enough for you."

    It is neither lying nor convenient. It is simply how science is. Science must assume methodological naturalism. That's the way it is. You can screw up your eyes and block your ears all you like - doesn't stop it being true.

    "Perfect, then we are to assume that Gerald Joyce's intelligence along with that of his... all of this is merely an illustration of how blind purposeless undirected forces and luck of physics and chemicals made it all happen."

    Yes. And if you don't see how then allow me to show you. First, please answer my questions, as I have already requested.

    "Got it! Your ASSUMPTION translates as Fact."

    Oh please stop being so contrary. You are deliberately trying NOT to understand. It's childish and stubborn. Just pay attention and you might just learn a thing or two.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ritchie:

    "Yes. And if you don't see how then allow me to show you. First, please answer my questions, as I have already requested."
    =====

    There's nothing to see here if I do not have your particular eye of faith. These boards are loaded with all manner of Thortonian biligerence and insults against Intelligent Designing concepts and tools. Yet the Evolutionary Scientists will go ahead anyway and use these tools and intelligence(something against their core religious beliefs) under lack of real world circumstances and real time observation of what actually takes place in the real world of life, then they deny that they did any of this and blame others for not understanding. Is there any wonder why the world of humankind is presently in the Crapper ???
    ====

    Ritchie:

    "Oh please stop being so contrary. You are deliberately trying NOT to understand. It's childish and stubborn. Just pay attention and you might just learn a thing or two."
    ====

    Diliberately not trying to understand ??? No, I refuse to be played as a fool. I don't live in a New Age netherworld of definition shell gaming to personally fit my feel good lifestyle into an acceptable package that works for me. Your okay, I'm okay, everybody's okay. The 60s are dead and I refuse to move into the commune and Veg my life away Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Eocene -

    "Diliberately not trying to understand ??? No, I refuse to be played as a fool."

    Not true! You refuse to answer simple, straight-forward questions. Probably because, somewhere under all your bluster and belligerence, you can sense where I am going with this. You can tell I've got a point and are squirming because you don't want to be nailed down into admitting it.

    Clearly my experiments with the apples would not imply gravity was a consciously-driven force.

    Equally clearly, and for the same reasons, Joyce's experiments do not imply evolution is a consciously-driven force.

    You just don't WANT to see this.

    Because you think it undercuts your RELIGIOUS FAITH!!

    And you're having a go at other about not being honest. Shesh, hypocrit much?

    Back later.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ritchie:

    "You refuse to answer simple, straight-forward questions. Probably because, somewhere under all your bluster and belligerence, you can sense where I am going with this. You can tell I've got a point and are squirming because you don't want to be nailed down into admitting it.

    Clearly my experiments with the apples would not imply gravity was a consciously-driven force."
    ====

    Of course no one would ever conclude it was conscious driven. Somewhere you've tripped off on some side road drug induced alternate reality where what you equate as science is nothing more than your own personal psychosis. Joyce admitted they used all the intelligent designing tools along with their intelligence, personal goals motivated of course by their own religious bias. The lie comes in with explaining the damn experiment as proof of evolution when it's nothing of the sort. Why your own THICK SKULL is incapable of grasping what a mere child would get is beyond me.

    This isn't about science and your constant deflection with definition shell gaming is proof. This is as it always is, about muderous hatred of some imagined accountabilty and resentment of morality. It always has been and always will be. Personally, I don't care what your or anyone else's personal alternative life choice is. It's none of my business. But using science as a smoke screen justification ???
    ====

    Ritchie:

    "Equally clearly, and for the same reasons, Joyce's experiments do not imply evolution is a consciously-driven force"
    ====

    You are on drugs. That's what I've been saying. But demonizing ID, then hijacking ID methods and later denying it , yet calling proof of evolution which mandates "No Intelligence Allowed" is not only fraud, but such an individual needs therapy.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "You just don't WANT to see this.

    Because you think it undercuts your RELIGIOUS FAITH!!

    And you're having a go at other about not being honest. Shesh, hypocrit much?"
    ====

    Incredible. The usual Atheistic Double Standard tactic. And massive amounts of Pot Calling Kettle Black. For the record, you have far more blind faith and religiosity than I could ever hope to obtain.

    I have the world of reality and you have Scott's famous MAYA(Illusion). May you be equally happy in your world as you see it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. eocene, you believe in spirit worlds and a fairy tale god and yet you claim to have "the world of reality". That's funny. Your responses to me and others are evasive gibberish and hypocritical nonsense. It's obvious that you are a religious crackpot who will never accept anything that contradicts your religious fantasies.

    You asked:

    "Do you choose the natural world over the Biblical Creator ???"

    I don't choose the natural world "over" the biblical creator. To me, the biblical creator isn't even a rational or credible 'choice'. It's a delusion.

    It's like asking me if I choose the natural world over leprechauns. Neither leprechauns nor the biblical creator are worth any consideration as a rational or credible 'choice'.

    By the way, don't you believe that you chosen god created the "natural world"? Wouldn't your question have been better worded by using the term 'natural processes'? Either way, my answer would be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Eocene: … the Bible itself makes the same bold statement of the impossibility of obtaining absolute knowledge of this, but humankind does have eternity to figure it out if they wish.

    Eocene, need you say more?

    First, your objection to evolution, and apparently ID, is that it's been divinely revealed in your favorite holy book that we cannot obtain absolute knowledge as to the origin of difference between species. This is like saying the Bible states that atoms were made in a way that makes the atomic theory impossible, or that photons were made in a way that makes the theory of optics impossible.

    Clearly, this is religious in nature.

    Second, this appears to be based on a misconception of science in the first place, as science is not prophecy. Nor need science be based on justificationism, naive empiricism, etc. We do not claim to have absolute knowledge of anything, let along absolute knowledge of exactly which mutations occured at which time. This doesn't mean that we know nothing.

    Just because you think some being has absolute knowledge, which only he could obtain, does't meant that I think absolute knowledge is even possible or that science is claiming to have obtained it when it says something is scientifically true.

    This appease to be some sort of misrepresentation that you've dreamed up in your head based on some sort of theological dualism - if you're not with God then you're against God… Or there is a cosmic battle of good and evil in which supposedly everyone takes sides, even if they do not realize it or not.

    To put it bluntly, do you deny that if you're not "with God" then you're against God? Do you deny apocalyptic theodicy?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Eocene -

    "Of course no one would ever conclude it was conscious driven."

    Exactly. As with gravity, so with evolution!

    "Joyce admitted they used all the intelligent designing tools along with their intelligence, personal goals motivated of course by their own religious bias."

    Go back to my apple-dropping experiment. If someone asked me straight-forwardly, if I had consciously gathered equipment for the express purpose of measuring the apple's fall, whether I had put the apple in an artificial environment, I would 'admit' that I had. But this is not an 'admission' of controlling gravity, is it? Exactly the same with Joyce.

    "The lie comes in with explaining the damn experiment as proof of evolution when it's nothing of the sort."

    It is exactly that. You are just too blinded by your religious preconceptions to see it.

    "This isn't about science and your constant deflection with definition shell gaming is proof."

    Wrong - this is entirely about science. You just don't understand it, which speak volumes about your scientific literacy.

    "This is as it always is, about muderous hatred of some imagined accountabilty and resentment of morality."

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

    No, no it really isn't, you silly child. It is about science. You just don't understand science. At all. In the slightest.

    No please shush. The adults are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Ritchie:

    "Exactly. As with gravity, so with evolution!"
    ===

    What is it with Athiests and that same lame tired old Gravity drop back 10 and punt ploy ???
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Go back to my apple-dropping experiment. If someone asked me straight-forwardly, if I had consciously gathered equipment for the express purpose of measuring the apple's fall, whether I had put the apple in an artificial environment, I would 'admit' that I had. But this is not an 'admission' of controlling gravity, is it? Exactly the same with Joyce."
    ===

    Something about your mental state is giving me some cold shivers down my spine about you Ritchie.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "You are just too blinded by your religious preconceptions to see it."
    ===

    I continue to be amazed, though after all this time not surprised by the constant Double Standard and Black Calling Kettle Black.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Wrong - this is entirely about science. You just don't understand it, which speak volumes about your scientific literacy."
    ====

    No this has NOTHING to do with science. This is nothing more than blind faith and a religious loon such as yourself desparately and dogmatically defending a failed worldview.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

    No, no it really isn't, you silly child. It is about science. You just don't understand science. At all. In the slightest.

    No please shush. The adults are talking."
    ===

    Wow, from the last 9 or 10 posts with this creepy over exagerated emotionism display and response, I've come to the conclusion you're either a woman[you sound like my mother or grand mother in the old days] or you are gay. I'm banking on gay as modern women don't even display such creepy Effeminate behavioral traits anymore. Maybe you a Joyce could head on up north to the Tenderloin District instead and discuss multiple theories of gravity together.

    ReplyDelete
  101. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Eocene -

    "What is it with Athiests and that same lame tired old Gravity drop back 10 and punt ploy ???"

    It is a neat metaphor of the relevant points of this discussion. You obviously get that, deep down, but don't want to admit it because you keep ignoring my questions and heading straight for the rhetorical dismissals and personal remarks.

    Engineering an experiment to study the effects of gravity does not mean you have direct control over gravity. That is what I am trying to make clear.

    Engineering an experiment to study the effects of evolution does not mean you have direct control over evolution. That should be a rather simple comparison.

    So no, the experiment does not demonstrate intelligent design, any more than my dropping apples experiment proves angels push invisible apples to the ground.

    "I continue to be amazed, though after all this time not surprised by the constant Double Standard and Black Calling Kettle Black."

    You think I have religious preconceptions? And exactly what do you think those might be?

    Science says nothing about the existence of supernatural agents/forces. They might exist, they might not. But since we have no way of verifying or falsifying them, we have to assume, when performing science, that supernatural forces do not exist. This is not to say they definitely don't, but we have to assume it. Otherwise any observed occurence or the result of any experiment could actually be the result of these forces, and science grinds to a halt. That is all. And it is perfectly rational.

    "No this has NOTHING to do with science."

    This simply proves you have no idea whatsoever what science is.

    "Wow, from the last 9 or 10 posts with this creepy over exagerated emotionism display and response, I've come to the conclusion you're either a woman[you sound like my mother or grand mother in the old days] or you are gay. I'm banking on gay as modern women don't even display such creepy Effeminate behavioral traits anymore."

    Gosh, how mature. Am I supposed to be offended or something?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ritchie:

    "Gosh, how mature. Am I supposed to be offended or something?"
    ====

    Not at all. But it does however underscore your motivational hatred of anything other than the religion you follow, as accountability and resentment of definitions of morality are what are actually behind this screwball take on Gerald Joyce's ability to hijack Intelligent Design and spin it as evolution. The biggest problem is no one forces evolutionists into a legitimate explanation of just how blind undirected forces have accomplished anything in the first place and they therefore take generous liberties of stealing intelligent mechanisms and labling them as their own.

    BTW, the video "The Disappearing Male" and research website "Our Stolen Future" (which should take you a good 6 months to digest) should be very helpful in diagnosing your condition, and perhaps subsequent therapy should you choose to go that route.

    Good Luck!!!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Eocene -

    "Not at all. But it does however underscore your motivational hatred of anything other than the religion you follow..."

    I don't follow any religion.

    "...as accountability and resentment of definitions of morality are what are actually behind this..."

    I resent morality because I am a woman/gay?

    "...this screwball take on Gerald Joyce's ability to hijack Intelligent Design and spin it as evolution."

    Joyce did no such thing.

    "The biggest problem is no one forces evolutionists into a legitimate explanation of just how blind undirected forces have accomplished anything in the first place..."

    I assume you mean 'No-one forces evolutionists into proving MN'. But why should they have to? All scientists assume it. Why are you singling out 'evolutionists'? It is standard scientific practice. And it is not religious, it is entirely practical.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Ritchie:

    "I don't follow any religion."
    ====

    This is a flat out lie. You continually spit out faith statements and dogmatically defend other faith statements which delve into unreality. The stupid idiotic dead end evolving molecules fable is just one of many.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "I resent morality because I am a woman/gay?#
    ====

    You're the one with the issues, you tell us!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Joyce did no such thing."
    ====

    Joyce lied and you dogmatically defended the lie.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "But why should they have to? All scientists assume it. Why are you singling out 'evolutionists'? It is standard scientific practice. And it is not religious, it is entirely practical."
    ====

    Evolutionist's assertions, assumptions speculations and opinions DO NOT translate as facts. The Joyce paper was a prime example of stealing Intelligent Designing concepts, creating a mythological world which mirrors zero in reality world, then trying to con the public that this is exactly how it happened millions of years ago. Every time this clown has performed these types of make believe scenarios(and they are many), he has failed miserably to prove any such blind forces and chemcials accomplishing anything without using his guiding cheating fingerprints, with the exception of reassuring his own faith and that of other believers like himself.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Eocene -

    "This is a flat out lie. You continually spit out faith statements and dogmatically defend other faith statements which delve into unreality. The stupid idiotic dead end evolving molecules fable is just one of many."

    Not every faith statement is a religion. I have faith that my dinnerplates are china despite not really knowing how to identify them as such. That isn't a religion. I have faith that when I turn my lightswitch, my lamp will come on and off. That isn't a religion. I have faith that the food I bought this afternoon HASN'T morphed into hardware tools in the cupboard. That isn't a religion.

    "You're the one with the issues, you tell us!"

    Maybe it's just that I'm English. Goodness knows anyone who isn't a white, male, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian American are all cursing the world 24/7 out of jealousy because those are the only people who REALLY matter in the world, aren't they?

    By the way, thankyou for being gracious enough to lower yourself to speak women, gays, foreigners, atheists and black people who are all be so far beneath you...

    "Joyce lied and you dogmatically defended the lie."

    No he didn't and no I didn't.

    "The Joyce paper was a prime example of stealing Intelligent Designing concepts, creating a mythological world which mirrors zero in reality world, then trying to con the public that this is exactly how it happened millions of years ago."

    Lord, I thought I'd explained this in the other thread. They performed an EXPERIMENT. Just because you set up an experiment, doesn't mean you are controlling the force you are studying. It would only have been ID if Joyce can personally introduced genetic variation to the enzymes himself, or selection the enzymes deliberately rather than blindly. Did he? No. This wasn't ID.

    I know you might have a pathological incapability to consider you are wrong on anything - even on topics of which you are totally ignorant, apparently), but as a general rule, when you are raging that the experts are wrong, that they are lying, deluded, et cetera, and that YOU are in right instead, this is generally a clue to tell you that YOU are actually the one in the wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ritchie:

    "Lord, I thought I'd explained this in the other thread. They performed an EXPERIMENT. Just because you set up an experiment, doesn't mean you are controlling the force you are studying. It would only have been ID if Joyce can personally introduced genetic variation to the enzymes himself, or selection the enzymes deliberately rather than blindly. Did he? No. This wasn't ID.
    ====

    What part of story invention is it that doesn't penetrate that thick skull of yours Ritchie. The man told a fable of RNA Kook-World at it's best. He never once proved with real world methods just how things actually worked. The man is a liar and comfortable with it as long as there are stupid poor saps to swallow his tripe.
    Keep pimping and prosyletizing Ritchie. Lots of awards, fame, glitter and glory within and among your inner circles. Maybe you'll aquire disciples after yourself to drink the same Kool-Aid of a worldview of Scottonian unreality.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "I know you might have a pathological incapability to consider you are wrong on anything - even on topics of which you are totally ignorant, apparently), but as a general rule, when you are raging that the experts are wrong, that they are lying, deluded, et cetera, and that YOU are in right instead, this is generally a clue to tell you that YOU are actually the one in the wrong."
    =====

    Wow massive amounts of arrogant double standards again along with generous portions of "Pot Calling Kettle Black". The only thing pathological is your passion for lying for Lord Darwin at any and all costs. Your a closet IDiot Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Eocene -

    "What part of story invention is it that doesn't penetrate that thick skull of yours Ritchie."

    The part where ID came into play, apparently. Manipulating the genes of enzymes to CREATE random mutations would be ID. Joyce didn't do that. Consciously selecting individual enzymes with certain copying habits to go on to the next 'generation' each time would be ID. Joyce didn't do that either. Snapping his omnipotent fingers and magicking up a new form of enzyme would be ID. Joyce didn't do that either.

    Leaving enzymes in a dish to do their own thing, taking a random sample and repeating is NOT ID. And this is, in fact, what Joyce did.

    "Wow massive amounts of arrogant double standards again along with generous portions of "Pot Calling Kettle Black"."

    The SCIENTISTS who carried out this experiment called it an example of evolution. And I am agreeing with them. How am I placing my own judgement above theirs? Honestly, if your watch was five minutes slow, you'd insist yours was right and every other timepiece in the world was five minutes fast, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ritchie:

    "The SCIENTISTS who carried out this experiment called it an example of evolution."
    ====

    Why would this not be a surprize ??? They'll spin it anyway they see fit no matter how much cheating and lying are necessary.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "And I am agreeing with them."
    ====

    This is even less of a surprize given you are the one and only "Kool-Aid Boy"
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "How am I placing my own judgement above theirs?"
    ====

    How is sucking up to the religious orthodoxy rising above them ???
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Honestly, if your watch was five minutes slow, you'd insist yours was right and every other timepiece in the world was five minutes fast, wouldn't you?"
    ====

    No, but there's another old saying, Don't urinate on my back and tell me it's raining.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Why would this not be a surprize ??? They'll spin it anyway they see fit no matter how much cheating and lying are necessary."

    Scientists can't just make stuff up. There's a little process called peer review to guard against that. It's an integral part of the scientific process.

    "This is even less of a surprize given you are the one and only "Kool-Aid Boy""

    Back to chest-thumping.

    "How is sucking up to the religious orthodoxy rising above them ???"

    I'm not trying to rise above them. I'm just not placing my own opinions and beliefs over that of the experts - people whose entire livelihoods are spent understanding and working through the rigourous and critical process of science. You, by contrast, are.

    I don't claim to know more about art than an artist. I don't claim to know more about electronics than an electrician. I don't claim to know more about biology than a biologist. You, however, do.

    "No, but there's another old saying, Don't urinate on my back and tell me it's raining."

    What does that even mean?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ritchie:

    "Scientists can't just make stuff up."
    ====

    Ritchie that is exactly 2/3 of what Science does.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "There's a little process called peer review to guard against that. It's an integral part of the scientific process."
    ====

    The Panel of Peers are only as good or bad as the imperfect error prone, greed and selfish driven men and women who've been appointed as what should be termed the "Peer Approved". If it fits and satifies the religious evolutionary dogma, then all the have to do is set LYING on autopilot.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Back to chest-thumping."
    ====

    Nice one Ethel!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "I don't claim to know more about art than an artist. I don't claim to know more about electronics than an electrician. I don't claim to know more about biology than a biologist."
    ====

    No, but if I'm reading your literary ability correctly, you apparently have the uncanny abilities of a Wiccan to read tea leaves, livers and tell fortunes in stars.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Eocene -

    "£Ritchie that is exactly 2/3 of what Science does."

    Of course it doesn't. If a scientist released a shoddy scientific paper, it would get torn to shreds in the peer review process.

    "The Panel of Peers are only as good or bad as the imperfect error prone, greed and selfish driven men and women who've been appointed as what should be termed the "Peer Approved". If it fits and satifies the religious evolutionary dogma, then all the have to do is set LYING on autopilot."

    This is textbook conspiracy theory mentality. If we were both scientists and I had written a scientific paper which you were then peer reviewing, it would be IN YOUR INTEREST to rip it to shreds. The whole idea is that you do your very best to prove me wrong. Because if anyone else later picks up on a mistake which I've made and you haven't spotted, then it looks bad on me, but terrible on you. It is absolutely not in your interest to give me an easy ride.

    "Nice one Ethel!"

    Seriously, how old are you?

    "No, but if I'm reading your literary ability correctly, you apparently have the uncanny abilities of a Wiccan to read tea leaves, livers and tell fortunes in stars."

    More chest-thumping rhetoric. Why can't you ever stick to an actual POINT without running off into personal remarks and mud-slinging rhetoric. It makes you look incredibly childish.

    You are claiming to know better than the experts. That is an extraordinarily arrogant claim. The fact that you think it is reasonable is quite shocking. The sheer gall to say you are right and the experts are lying, wrong or mad is quite incredible. When the experts say one thing and you think another, it's generally the case that you're the one missing something. Your best plan is to practice a little humility and at least try to work out what that might be.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Dorothy:

    "More chest-thumping rhetoric. Why can't you ever stick to an actual POINT without running off into personal remarks and mud-slinging rhetoric. It makes you look incredibly childish."
    =====

    More Default answer button pushing.
    ----

    Richael:

    "You are claiming to know better than the experts."
    ====

    Not at all. It's called I refuse to be played for a Sap in a rigged Ponzi Scheme con game.
    ----

    I'm telling Mummie!

    "That is an extraordinarily arrogant claim. The fact that you think it is reasonable is quite shocking. The sheer gall to say you are right and the experts are lying, wrong or mad is quite incredible. When the experts say one thing and you think another, it's generally the case that you're the one missing something. Your best plan is to practice a little humility and at least try to work out what that might be."
    ====

    More lying and delusional emotion(on autopilot) from a tribesman who believes anything the Shamman Soothsayers story tell around the campfire.

    Keep hitting those mindless default answer buttons Ritchie. But a mere child understands the clear lying going on here when it comes to Fable Fabrication.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Eocene -

    So you don't actually want to answer the POINTS in my last post then? About peer review? You don't want to discuss how peer review is an integral part of the scientific process, which guarantees every scientific paper has been put through rigorous, critical review? You don't want to address how it is in the PERSONAL INTEREST of each reviewer to be as harsh and critical as possible, which undermines your image of scientific academia as an old boys' club giving each other free passes?

    No, you don't want to discuss any actual coherent arguments. You just want to go right back to the chest-thumping and name-calling.

    Seriously, how old are you? This isn't a rhetorical question - I genuinely want to know...

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dorothy:

    "No, you don't want to discuss any actual coherent arguments."
    =====

    But you haven't ONCE put up any type of coherent argument. When backed into a corner on this, you quickly tore out a page from the atheistic script of delving into the world of Scottsville with your IDiocy of common atheist definition shell gaming. Furthermore, this discussion hasn't been serious since you refused to answer my pertinent logical questionings on the manipulative cheating of scientist forcing an experiment to meet their own planned and purposed goals loaded with tons of bias and then at the conclusion of the experiments proceeded to fabricate a fable by lying about what the results proved. Now you demand me answer your incoherent unrealism questions ??? You turned this into nothing more than a game when you started using that eccentric fruitcake sissy card in your retorts, which ultimately illustrated truthfully that this is nothing more than justifying a lifestyle. Personally I couldn't careless about your lifestyle. Pursue what you wish, but don't junk up the Scientific Method in the process and call it fact to ease your own conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Eocene -

    "Dorothy:"

    Seriously, I honestly want to know. How old...?

    There was a time when we were discussing Joyce's experiment. But you've turned this into nothing more than name-calling.

    "this discussion hasn't been serious since you refused to answer my pertinent logical questionings..."

    What questions have I refused to answer?

    "You turned this into nothing more than a game when you started using that eccentric fruitcake sissy card in your retorts, which ultimately illustrated truthfully that this is nothing more than justifying a lifestyle. Personally I couldn't careless about your lifestyle."

    My lifestyle? I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about anymore.

    "Pursue what you wish, but don't junk up the Scientific Method in the process and call it fact to ease your own conscience."

    ID IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Ritchie:

    "There was a time when we were discussing Joyce's experiment. But you've turned this into nothing more than name-calling."
    ====

    You are the one who stopped discussing it when you lied about their not using intelligent design and labled it blind chanced evolution, just as those clowns did.
    ----

    "What questions have I refused to answer?"
    ====

    Why they cheated using intelligent designing manipulative mind of the collective scientists and claimed they proved evolution of warm little pond an evolutionary fact not theory. Evolution is about no intelligent fingerprints of any sort, they failed and then later lied about it and you supported and further embellished on the lie.
    ----

    "ID IS NOT SCIENCE!!!"
    ====

    Then why did Joyce and others use it and lie and say it proved blind undirected forces of evolution is now a fact when they did nothing but provide a fraud ???
    ----

    "My lifestyle? I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about anymore."
    ====

    Sure you do Ritchie!!! But hey, denial and lying have already "been well established" here(to use an oldie but goodie Zachrielian snippet)

    ReplyDelete
  118. Eocene -

    "You are the one who stopped discussing it when you lied about their not using intelligent design and labled it blind chanced evolution, just as those clowns did."

    I didn't lie. They didn't use ID. If you want to challenge this then SHOW ME HOW what they did was ID.

    ME: What questions have I refused to answer?

    YOU: "Why they cheated..."

    That's a loaded question.

    They didn't cheat. That is an honest answer. Not that you'll accept it as such, of course.

    "Then why did Joyce and others use it and lie"

    They didn't use it and they didn't lie! Their experiment had nothing to do with ID!

    "Sure you do Ritchie!!! But hey, denial and lying have already "been well established" here(to use an oldie but goodie Zachrielian snippet)"

    No, I honestly don't.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ritchie:

    "I didn't lie. They didn't use ID. If you want to challenge this then SHOW ME HOW what they did was ID."
    ====

    Already have done that and you boldly, blantantly and proudly publically LIED through your buck teeth because you're incapable of admitting the truth even if it bit you on your backside. Even then you'd only find that experience as some sort of perverted erotic encounter.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "They didn't cheat. That is an honest answer. Not that you'll accept it as such, of course."
    ====

    I, like most observers here, are quite capable of understanding the difference between lying, cheating, fraud and the TRUTH.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "They didn't use it and they didn't lie! Their experiment had nothing to do with ID!"
    =====

    More convenient lying and denying. Your faith remains intact, even if only in your own mind.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "No, I honestly don't."
    =====

    That's the problem with lying, you need more lies to back up that original lie.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Eocene -

    "Already have done..."

    No, you really haven't. You have merely STATED over and over and over again that what Joyce did was ID. What yopu have not doen at all is SHOW or EXPLAIN HOW what Joyce did was ID.

    To do that you would need to identify mechanisms or processes which are unique to ID and then explain exactly how Joyce used those methods.

    "I, like most observers here, are quite capable of understanding the difference between lying, cheating, fraud and the TRUTH."

    You say so, but your actions say otherwise.

    "More convenient lying and denying. Your faith remains intact, even if only in your own mind."

    Seriously, leaving self-replicating organisms in a dish and waiting as some outcompete others is not ID. It is natural selection. It's what Lenski did, it's what Joyce did.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ritchie:

    "No, you really haven't. You have merely STATED over and over and over again that what Joyce did was ID. What yopu have not doen at all is SHOW or EXPLAIN HOW what Joyce did was ID."
    ====

    He explained and admitted what he did in his own numerous papers on the subject and I have repeated them here. But your religious blind faith Cultish Zealotry won't allow this info to penetrate that dense thick skull of yours.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "To do that you would need to identify mechanisms or processes which are unique to ID and then explain exactly how Joyce used those methods."
    ====

    This ideologically driven clown already did that by identifying such in his papers you IDiot.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Seriously, leaving self-replicating organisms in a dish and waiting as some outcompete others is not ID. It is natural selection. It's what Lenski did, it's what Joyce did.
    ====

    You are an absolute kool-aid sucking buffoon Ritchie. As true to your spin here, you fabricated yet another LIE!

    There were no self-replicating organisms. They weren't "ORGANISMS" you cheating IDiot. They weren't alive and did not become self-aware. Joyce(the hijacking cheating IDiot) used his intelligent mind to patent and create artificial molecules designed specifically for Joyce's own biased goals with large amounts of purpose and intent. These lifeless sterile molecules replicated according to a added or withheld chemical catalyst monitored by a computer program which itself was invented by an intelligent mind to intelligently control the release of more or less catalyst to see what reactions would take place.

    Joyce then proceeds to spin the bogus story calling this catalyst a food, which in fact it is NOT. Food is ONLY considered food by a conscious hungry living entity for it's needed survival. Molecules have no conciousness and could care less about survival. NOTHING in that biased manipulated cheat poor excuse of an evolutionary experiment proved Gerald Joyce's wet dream fantasy of some mythical RNA-World forund only in animated computer simulations also developed by intelligent minds.

    CATALYST(Joyce's magical food definition shell game):
    1: a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible

    2: an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action

    Here's the real problem, you do get this and so does everyone else onlooking here. But to admit defeat is not an option when going back to the neanderthal forums with your tail between your legs. So you have to embellish, deflect and out right lie before going back there, especially if you know what's healthy for you, and you do.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Eocene -

    "He explained and admitted what he did in his own numerous papers on the subject and I have repeated them here."

    Show me exactly where Joyce said 'This is an example of Intellignet Design' and I will cheefully eat my words!

    What he 'admitted to' (strange choice of words) was setting up an experiment. Which is not, in and of itself, Intelligent Deisn.

    "This ideologically driven clown already did that by identifying such in his papers you IDiot."

    Nowhere did Joyce explicitly identify mechanisms or processes of ID.

    "Joyce... used his intelligent mind to patent and create artificial molecules..."

    Correct.

    "These lifeless sterile molecules replicated according to a added or withheld chemical catalyst monitored by a computer program which itself was invented by an intelligent mind to intelligently control the release of more or less catalyst to see what reactions would take place."

    Also correct.

    "Joyce then proceeds to spin the bogus story calling this catalyst a food, which in fact it is NOT."

    It is correct that the microfluid being 'fed' to the molecules is not a food. It simply contains the necessary materials for the enzymes to self-replicate. However, where exactly did Joyce lie and create the false impression that this was FOOD?

    "Here's the real problem, you do get this and so does everyone else onlooking here"

    You are right on the above points. But this is not ID!

    Joyce built a number of molecules to self-replicate. He then put them in a specially-created environment, with a programmed computer to control the introduction of the microfluid necessary for the enzymes to replicate.

    What we have here is a set-up environment. Like setting up an experiment.

    Then the experiment begins. The microfluid is added, the molecules start to self-replicate. The question now is which molecules will come to dominate? What molecules will Joyce end up with?

    What happened in the dish was that some molecules out-replicated others. Thus, some molecules came to dominate and others disappeared. This is, effectively, natural selection. A demonstration of one of the cornerstone forces on ToE.

    The fact that all the apparatus for this experiment was dsesigned, created and set up, no more means this was an example of ID than setting up my apples experiment means that gravity is 'intelligently guided/controlled'.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Ritchie on PMS:

    "Show me exactly where Joyce said 'This is an example of Intellignet Design' and I will cheefully eat my words!"
    "Nowhere did Joyce explicitly identify mechanisms or processes of ID."
    =====

    No one said Joyce said. Are you that dense. The clown is an evolutionist, why would he shout I proved Intelligent Design ??? He simply used intelligent designing concepts and labled it evolution you IDiot.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    " . . . . . . . . "
    ======

    The rest of your effeminate nonsense is not even worth addressing your obsessiveness with lying and ballerina spinning for Darwin.

    Stephen Meyers has a good explanation for which I'm sure your effeminate eccentricities will have a further field day at hand waving attention grabbing.

    Stephen Meyer Responds to Stephen Fletcher's Attack Letter in the Times Literary Supplement

    ReplyDelete
  124. Eocene -

    "He explained and admitted what he did..."

    AND

    "No one said Joyce said"

    First you said Joyce 'admitted' what he did was Intelligent Design, then you say he didn't.

    Can't have it both ways.

    "The rest of your effeminate nonsense is not even worth addressing"

    Translation: I can't address the points, so I'll just dismiss you and call you names! That makes me look like a mature, intelligent grown-up.

    "Stephen Meyers has a good explanation..."

    And yet Stephen Meyer doesn't explain how what Joyce did was Intelligent Design either.

    ReplyDelete
  125. eocene said:

    "I, like most observers here, are quite capable of understanding the difference between lying, cheating, fraud and the TRUTH."

    The only "observers" here who understand "the difference between lying, cheating, fraud and the TRUTH", at least when it comes to religion and science, are the ones who aren't religious. Your entire belief system is based on falsehoods.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ritchie:

    "First you said Joyce 'admitted' what he did was Intelligent Design, then you say he didn't."
    =====

    Astonishing. Well let's recap and number the collection of LIES you've purposely floated to deflect off topic. These lies actually prove you never read the papers cited from the Script Research Institute's own website linked above. In otherwords, you have no clue as to what the experiment actually was about other than the erotic evolutionary fable fabricated by the journalist animating and giving life to Gerald's wet dream RNA-World mythology.
    -----

    LIE #1:
    "Joyce et al may have recreated the conditions, but they did not guide the actual evolution of the bacteria, did they? All they did way simply set up an experiment, just as Lenski did with his bacteria - TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BACTERIA UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES!!"
    ====

    THERE NEVER WERE ANY LIVE BACTERIA ANYWHERE. THERE'S NO COMPARISON TO LENSKI'S EXPERIMENT.

    LIE #2:
    "Seriously, leaving self-replicating organisms in a dish and waiting as some outcompete others is not ID."
    ====

    THERE WERE NO SELF-REPLICATING ORGANISMS. THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS SELF-AWARENESS of LIFE HERE.

    LIE #3:
    "Leaving enzymes in a dish to do their own thing, taking a random sample and repeating is NOT ID. And this is, in fact, what Joyce did."

    THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR OWN THING AS GERALD JOYCE and GANG MANIPLUATED AND FORCED THESE LIFELESS MOLECULES TO DO AS JOYCE PLEASED; NOT THE LIFELESS MOLECULES.

    Here's what they actually did, right from they own fudging the truth mouths:

    "The improved enzyme(the one that was laboriously engineered in a Lab) fulfilled the 'PRIMARY GOAL' of being able to undergo perpetual ..."

    "The 'ULTIMATE GOAL' was to take one of the RNA enzymes already 'DEVELOPED IN THE LAB' that could perform the basic chemistry of replication . . "

    And rather than an intelligently designed experiment set up to let lifeless molecules do their thing without interference from an intelligence, here are Gerald Joyce's own words of what took place with the "500 cycles of forced adaptation" -

    "This is what it looks like when a computer controls conditions that push molecules to adapt in order to thrive--survival of the fittest on the smallest scale possible."

    and

    "The scientists provided progressively lower concentrations of the fuel at set intervals, as a way 'DIRECT' the evolution of the RNA enzymes."

    and

    "Each time the size of the population of molecules reached a 'PREDETERMINED LEVEL', the COMPUTER(created by an intelligence) ISOLATED 1/10 th of the population--which now contained higher numbers of successfully adapted RNA enzymes—and mixed it with a new supply of chemical fuel."

    and

    "We starved these enzymes, pushing(forcing) them to become better and faster at forming a bond so they could reproduce themselves," Joyce says
    =====

    The biggest problem here is that your defense of Gerald Joyce is not in the actual intelligently manipulating every single move of the experiment to fit Gerald Joyce's GOAL-PURPOSE&INTENT driven experiment which was forced all along arrive at Gerald Joyce's needs, but you actually defend the storyline scenario which has nothing to do with handsoff observational reality.

    This isn't an example of Crick's & Watson's researching the brilliant observable efficient running mechanisms of DNA and inventing a 'MODEL' (Double Helix) to illustrate a reality to the Public. This is the world of science fiction fabricated by Gerald Joyce being debated where nothing was observed doing it's own thing as you dogmatically lied about.

    Gerald Joyce and Gang were hardly innocent bystanders or casual observers, they were actually high level managers right to the very end.

    ReplyDelete
  127. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Eocene -

    "LIE #1
    THERE NEVER WERE ANY LIVE BACTERIA ANYWHERE. THERE'S NO COMPARISON TO LENSKI'S EXPERIMENT."

    It is true Joyce used lifeless and created enzymes. I typed 'bacteria' and that was a mistake. If that's want to want to hear so you can beat off to it then be my guest.

    But you are being incredibly belligerent to call this a 'lie'. It was not a deliberate act of deception. I have planily stated they were lifeless, created enzymes many, many times. This is the equivalent of a spelling mistake. It doesn't change my point at all. Both Joyce's enzymes and Lenski's bacteria just sat it a dish being 'fed' (don't take that literally in Jocye's case!!) and replicating.

    My point was that putting SELF-REPLICATORS in a dish and seeing what they will do is not intelligent design. And this is true.

    Spinning this off on a tangent that I'm an evil, demonic LIAR smacks rather of desperately clutching at straws.

    "LIE #2:
    THERE WERE NO SELF-REPLICATING ORGANISMS. THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS SELF-AWARENESS of LIFE HERE."

    See above. Not the point. Just replace 'self-replicating organisms' with 'self-replicators'.

    "LIE #3
    THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR OWN THING AS GERALD JOYCE and GANG MANIPLUATED AND FORCED THESE LIFELESS MOLECULES TO DO AS JOYCE PLEASED; NOT THE LIFELESS MOLECULES."

    Joyce et al. did not personally manipulate each enzyme's every replication like some marionette puppeteer.

    Yes, Joyce programmed them from the start, but that does not mean that when placed within an environment, some won't out-reproduce others. Each enzyme did not have their every individual action, their every individual experience, programmed into it in advance from the start. They were programmed to reproduce, but they needed to compete for resources to do this. This is where environmental factors come into play.

    "This is what it looks like when a computer controls conditions that push molecules to adapt in order to thrive--survival of the fittest on the smallest scale possible."

    Yup. The computer controlled the environment which the enzymes were in. So what? That's not ID. That's evolution within a controlled environment.

    "The scientists provided progressively lower concentrations of the fuel at set intervals, as a way 'DIRECT' the evolution of the RNA enzymes."

    Again, yes. And again, so what? It's still not ID. This is just introducing a selection pressure. Nothing ID about that.

    "Each time the size of the population of molecules reached a 'PREDETERMINED LEVEL', the COMPUTER(created by an intelligence) ISOLATED 1/10 th of the population--which now contained higher numbers of successfully adapted RNA enzymes—and mixed it with a new supply of chemical fuel."

    Once again, yes. And once again, so what? This still isn't ID.

    The point of taking a random 10th sample from which to breed a new 'generation' is that the dominant (ie, more numerous) enzymes will have the advantage of numbers. Less dominant enzymes might not be represented in the sample at all. This is the winnowing of the least fit. Still no ID here.

    "We starved these enzymes, pushing(forcing) them to become better and faster at forming a bond so they could reproduce themselves," Joyce says.

    Yup. See 'selection pressure'.

    ReplyDelete
  129. TRANSLATION of this religious persons FAITH:

    "It still seems to me I am right"
    =====

    No argument on that!!!

    ReplyDelete