Thursday, December 15, 2011

Extrachromosomal Transmission of Information: How Evolution Created Larmarckism

If you know nothing else about the theory of evolution you probably remember that it is supposed to be driven by natural selection acting on random biological change caused, for instance, by DNA mutations. But new research has found that parents can pass acquired traits to progeny without changing the DNA. Specifically, the research found that immune responses to viruses in worms can be inherited for many generations to come (they checked up to a hundred generations). As the researchers concluded:

These results provide evidence for the transgenerational inheritance of an acquired trait, induced by the exposure of animals to a specific, biologically relevant physiological challenge.

This is of course reminiscent of the pre Darwin theory proposed by Jean Baptiste Larmarck that evolution occurs via traits developing not via random change but in response to need, and then the passing of these traits to later generations. Evolutionists harshly criticized, ridiculed and blackballed Larmarckism in the last century but now even they are finding it difficult to deny the accumulation of evidence.

As usual, evolution will simply evolve to accommodate the contradictory findings. Before they said it was false, now they say evolution did it. Somehow, evolution created the molecular mechanisms not only to respond to viruses, resulting in new traits at the cellular level, but the ability to pass these new traits on to later generations. What was once denied by evolutionists is now yet another feature that evolution somehow created.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

129 comments:

  1. People weren't surprised when children born to Dutch mothers who had been malnourished during the war were smaller than normal. They were very surprised when those children's children were also smaller than normal even though their parents had been well nourished. Your "discovery" is not very new.

    Nor is Lamarckism incompatible with evolution. Darwin himself got more and more Lamarkist as different editions of "Origins" came out due to not understanding how genetics worked.

    Evolution had little trouble accomodating genetics, it will have little trouble accomodating acquired characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave Mullenix said...
    "Evolution had little trouble accomodating genetics, it will have little trouble accomodating acquired characteristics."

    Well, that is the point of CH, evolution accomodates everything...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dave Mullenix:

    Evolution had little trouble accomodating genetics, it will have little trouble accomodating acquired characteristics.

    I guess Darwinism is non-falsifiable. (You don't even pause to consider whether or not Darwinism is being mortally challenged; you just move forward with the attitude of "Darwinism uber alles". Is this over-confidence, or zealotry?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lino the poseur said...

    Dave Mullenix: "Evolution had little trouble accomodating genetics, it will have little trouble accomodating acquired characteristics."

    I guess Darwinism is non-falsifiable. (You don't even pause to consider whether or not Darwinism is being mortally challenged; you just move forward with the attitude of "Darwinism uber alles". Is this over-confidence, or zealotry?)


    Because you're so scientifically ignorant you guess wrong. That happen to you a lot it seems.

    ToE is quite falsifiable. You're already been given numerous examples, like finding a population of chimera animals such as centaurs. Discovering new mechanisms like phenotypic plasticity and viRNA that complement RM+NS don't damage ToE in the least.

    Just curious - how long do you plan to stay in this thread before your dumb claims get exposed and you bail out again?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thorton said...
    "ToE is quite falsifiable ... finding a population of chimera animals such as centaurs"

    Why a population of centaurs will falsify ToE?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lino, I think Darwinism has been falsified, but its supporters make it non-falsifiable. For them evolution is compared to "gravity", and no one denies gravity.

    Just as we see an apple fall from a tree (evidence for gravity), we see bird beaks change size (evidence for evolution). Who can deny bird beaks changing size? Therefore, who can legitimately deny evolution?

    Their view is:
    Bird beaks changing size = evolution

    And since evolution=universal common descent,

    Therefore, evolution is a fact like gravity.

    What they fail to see is that ALL their observed examples of evolution, are not really examples of evolution at all. Evolution needs to be defined more strictly as unbounded and directional change. They have no examples of this, only speculation.

    As I said previously, finch bird beaks changing size is due to regulation of an existing protein. Evolutionists respond that there is nothing to stop the bird beaks from unbounded directional change.

    But that's speculation, not observation.

    What we actually observe is cyclical variation. So they can't correctly use an observed example of bounded and cyclical change as evidence for unbounded and directional evolution. A good science student in Junior High School could see the error in that.

    What connects the supposed dots from empirical observation of cyclical variation to evolution? Metaphysical assumptions and rationalism that is convinced of the compelling logic of their own argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tedford the idiot said...

    What they fail to see is that ALL their observed examples of evolution, are not really examples of evolution at all. Evolution needs to be defined more strictly as unbounded and directional change. They have no examples of this, only speculation.

    What we actually observe is cyclical variation. So they can't correctly use an observed example of bounded and cyclical change as evidence for unbounded and directional evolution.


    Hey Tedford, even most Creationists agree that Chihuahuas and Mastiffs both evolved from wolves. Is that an example of cyclical variation?

    How about ring species? How about insular dwarfism? Are they examples of cyclical variation?

    A good science student in Junior High School could see the error in that.

    Maybe we could get a good science student in Junior High School to post here instead of the ignorant blithering of an idiot pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Blas,

    Why a population of centaurs will falsify ToE?

    There is no know mechanism that would permit the transmission of characters between apes and horses as seen in centaurs, so horizontal transmission is ruled out. It couldn't be realistically explained by convergence either, simply no one would accept that explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Richard Dawkins once offered to eat his hat if science had to return to lamarckism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Geoxus said...

    "There is no know mechanism that would permit the transmission of characters between apes and horses as seen in centaurs, so horizontal transmission is ruled out. It couldn't be realistically explained by convergence either, simply no one would accept that explanation."

    Why this convergence wouldn´t be accepted when the life is full of amazing convergences? Is horizontal transmission ruled out? At what complexity level ToE discard HGT?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius,

    If you know nothing else about the theory of evolution you probably remember that it is supposed to be driven by natural selection acting on random biological change caused, for instance, by DNA mutations. But new research has found that parents can pass acquired traits to progeny without changing the DNA.
    (emphasis added)

    Even your own writing shows no contradiction when traits are passed along without DNA changes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What Neal said above is right on.

    I often see arguments between creationists and evolutionists over whether or not macroevolution is true. The fact of the matter is that no evolution, micro or macro, has ever been observed or substantiated scientifically....all they have is circumstantial evidence that; the evidence that animals change....but if adaptive change does not come about by selected random mutations, then darwinism, and thus common descent, is out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You mean evolutionary scientists don't know it all? Who'd have thunk?



    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter Wadeck said...

    You mean evolutionary scientists don't know it all? Who'd have thunk?


    It's only the Fundy Creationists who claim to know it all without doing the work of research and study.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unknown, some change has been observed to occur via mutations in E-Coli to allow citrites to be transported through the membrane. It could already digest citrates (that wasn't the mutation) but wouldn't allow for it to be transport through the membrane. It is thought that the mutation somehow broke the switch that kept citrates from being transported. A small change occured by breaking an existing function, but nothing more has become of it, so the mutations are not unbounded. Like breaking the switch on your power windows so that you can't roll up your car window. Nothing fancy happened.

    Evolutionists protest that the change is not bounded, but that is speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Researcher: These results provide evidence for the transgenerational inheritance of an acquired trait, induced by the exposure of animals to a specific, biologically relevant physiological challenge.

    From the volume Transformations of Lamarckism...

    To Lamarck, organic fluid dynamics naturally gained strength within the parts more exposed to changing environmental circumstances, therefore contributing to their reinforcement and extreme rely gradual modification; equally, decreeing level of stimulation would decrease the flow of nutritional, nervous or other fluids to the relevant parts. Thus, it was not "characters" that were acquired during the lifetime of the organism, but only a higher level or lower degree of organic fluid flow or, in general, a small difference in fluid distribution patterns. The subtle fluid contained in the sperm of animals undergoing sexual reproduction - a fluid akin to electricity or caloric, a specification of the very active element "fire" - was equally effected and would organize the eggs of the next generation accordingly, thereby "transmitting" the slight modified pattern of fluid distribution.

    Here, we see the supposed mechanism Lamarck presented.

    Specifically, the only trait Lamarck though was transferred was some sort of organic fluid dynamic, which was "strengthened" when exposed to a changing environment. This fluid dynamic magnified an innate law of nature by which organisms became more complex.

    So, it's not that species inherited specific traits, but they inherited the same fluid dynamics that supposedly brought about those traits in their ancestor.

    This conflicts with the researcher's quote in that specific, individual traits were inherited.

    Furthermore, it doesn't explain where the knowledge of how to build more complex organs came from. As such, it's a form of spontaneous generation in that some law of nature "does it"

    What we observe isn't Lamarckism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quotes from Blas.

    Why this convergence wouldn´t be accepted when the life is full of amazing convergences?

    We're not talking about superficial similarities here. There's no comparable convergence in living organisms. Actually, a centaur is rather extreme. It would be enough for me to have something like a snake with mammary glands virtually indistinguishable from those of mammals at the tissular level.

    Is horizontal transmission ruled out?

    Known mechanisms can move around many genes, but a centaur would require big chunks of the functional genome of both animals. Not to mention the ridiculously spectacular developmental rearrangements that would be needed for a centaur.

    And if you want to bring hybridisation into this, I'm pretty sure there have been many instances of human-horse intercourse and we haven't heard of any credible hybrid so far. Although don't count on me for doing that research.

    At what complexity level ToE discard HGT?

    At level 17 :)

    This is not about "complexity levels" setting a acceptable global threshold. Let's leave that stuff to sophisticated mathematicians with double doctorates, who can crack secret codes in Moby Dick to find the great answers of the universe. We're talking about the biological plausibility of each particular case.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tedford the idiot said...

    Evolutionists protest that the change is not bounded, but that is speculation.


    We've only been asking you for years to identify these magical bounds you claim, and to describe the mechanism that would make them impossible to pass, but you never can.

    No one has even seen you walk the 400 miles across your state either. Does that mean it's impossible for you to do so, even given years of time?

    ReplyDelete
  19. In case it's not clear, Imaging some organic fluid dynamic strength with a range of 1-100,000.

    An organism is currently has a "strength" of level 3, but this increases to level 4 due to some environmental change that "strengthens" it. The level of the organism's complexity is a function of some natural law of nature modulated by that organism's organic fluid strength.

    We can think of this as each organism having some sort of lookup table where its complexity is on one axis and a specific fluid strength is in the other. The organism's complexity was is predefined at level 3, while additional complexity is pre-defined at level 4. in addition, the table occasional gets changed due to spontaneous generations of complexity.

    So, when the organism reproduces at a level 4, the only trait its offspring inherits is this same level 4 fluid strength. And when its offspring develops, this fluid strength eventually is also expressed as level four complexity. No other traits are inherited.

    More importantly, no new information is created. Nor does it provide an explanation as to how the knowledge used to build this each corresponding level of complexity was created.

    This knowledge "just was."

    Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it? I think this is why Cornelius and company find Lamarckism so appealing.

    However, this isn't what the researcher described.

    Furthermore, even if it were, the complexity of modern human beings could represent an "organic fluid dynamic" of level 50,0000, having gone though various species, starting from one of the rare spontaneous generations that did not immediately disappear. And we could have another 50,000 levels to go, which would result in transitioning through a great number of additional species.

    So, I fail to see how any of this actually means that "species are not becoming other species", or are bounded as Neal suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thorton....

    the point is your mechanism doesn't exist at all. You can't prove a million steps -- you can't prove one step. Dumb luck, as a producer of biological raw material, is a ridiculously-unproven concept.

    Selected luck has never proven to do anything constructive, much less add new, complex anatomical features. Both micro and macro evolution are thus both part of a giant evo fairy tale.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Unknown said...

    the point is your mechanism doesn't exist at all. You can't prove a million steps -- you can't prove one step.


    LOL! I'll be sure to alert all the major scientific publications that everything science knows about biology and genetics is wrong. It'll be front page news!

    Dumb luck, as a producer of biological raw material, is a ridiculously-unproven concept.

    Only clueless Creationsts think evolution is all 'dumb luck'.

    Selected luck has never proven to do anything constructive, much less add new, complex anatomical features.

    I'll be sure to let NASA and all the other companies that use genetic algorithms to successfully create new designs that their methods are totally wrong too. They'll be thrilled.

    Both micro and macro evolution are thus both part of a giant evo fairy tale.

    So now micro-evolution doesn't happen either? How did Noah manage to fit all of the world's 8-10 million extant species on that one wooden boat? They must have all been on there because species can't evolve, right?

    Did Cornelius send out a secret memo having a "dumbest Creationist claim of the week" contest?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Meanwhile, Thornton, you've managed to present nothing to disprove what I said. You are just another angry atheist who has nothing to believe in but a sorry, outdated, ridiculously-overhyped lie called darwinism. Wake me up when you've found a scientific validation for it in the form of controlled experiment on actual animals.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unknown: Selected luck has never proven to do anything constructive, much less add new, complex anatomical features. Both micro and macro evolution are thus both part of a giant evo fairy tale.

    The thing is, we've never observed beings without complex, material nervous systems having designed anything, let alone the biosphere, either.

    As such, you should also conclude all designers must have complex material brains. Right? Yet I'm guessing this isn't the case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unknown said...

    Meanwhile, Thornton, you've managed to present nothing to disprove what I said.


    Not my job to 'disprove' vacuous nonsense. You're the guy making the claims, onus is on you to supply the positive evidence to support them.

    You are just another angry atheist who has nothing to believe in but a sorry, outdated, ridiculously-overhyped lie called darwinism.

    Darn. Guess I should just throw myself under a bus then.

    Wake me up when you've found a scientific validation for it in the form of controlled experiment on actual animals.

    You're right. There's been no experimental research done on the mechanisms of evolution in the last 150 years. What was I thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  25. If some examples of evolution turn out to be the result of Lamarkian process, then maybe all examples of evolution are really Lamarkian. And if Lamarkian processes are the result of a pre-existing mechanism then that means that no evolution is really happening. There is nothing new. Maybe things like insular dwarfism are really the result of a Lamarkian, not Darwinian process. I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thornton.....show me a paper validating the darwinian mechanism of chance mutations and natural selection in animals using a controlled experiment. Until you do so, you've got nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Unknown said...

    Meanwhile, Thornton, you've managed to present nothing to disprove what I said. You are just another angry atheist who has nothing to believe in but a sorry, outdated, ridiculously-overhyped lie called darwinism. Wake me up when you've found a scientific validation for it in the form of controlled experiment on actual animals.

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

    I'm curious; what do you "believe in" in regard to the diversity of life on Earth (both past and present) and do you have "scientific validation for it in the form of controlled experiment on actual animals"?

    Ya know, I tend to agree with: "a sorry, outdated, ridiculously-overhyped lie called darwinism" but not in the way you likely think. Ya see, when you religious zealots call the ToE and the scientific pursuit of knowledge about nature "darwinism", it IS a sorry, outdated, ridiculously-overhyped lie.

    Darwin got some things right and some things wrong. It's almost 2012. Science and the ToE have moved on since Darwin. You IDiots REALLY need to stop obsessing about Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "a pre-existing mechanism"

    What, exactly, is a "pre-existing mechanism"? Is it a mechanism that a god designed, created, and installed in some or all individual organisms at the original time of creation of all "kinds", or at some other time? Is it a mechanism that came about via mutation(s), drift, selection, convergence, or...? Is a mechanism something that can be passed on/inherited by natural means or does a god have to create and install it in some or all newly born individual organism?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Typo correction: the last word, "organism", in my last post should be organisms.

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. Unknown said...

    Thornton.....show me a paper validating the darwinian mechanism of chance mutations and natural selection in animals using a controlled experiment. Until you do so, you've got nothing.


    Yawn.

    Isn't it time for your mommy to tuck you into bed?

    ReplyDelete
  32. natschuster said...

    If some examples of evolution turn out to be the result of Lamarkian process, then maybe all examples of evolution are really Lamarkian.


    Wow. Cornelius really did send out a secret memo having a "dumbest Creationist claim of the week" contest.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The whole truth,

    Nothing darwin stood for or wrote about has turned out to be correct....well, maybe sexual selection, but that's about it. Natural selection, on the other hand, is not a mechanism for origins, but instead it merely stabilizes populations. As such there is no known scientific mechanism of origins; all scientists can do is watch creatures somehow adapt to changing environmental conditions, call it "evolution" and hope there's enough ignorant people out there who fall for it, despite the fact that what is being called "evolution" is actually nothing more than individual animals interactively-changing with their local environments, which starts with a conscious awareness and perception of the world around them. You evos have tried to substitute unintelligently-changing genes for the intelligent, conscious living being, but it hasn't worked. The truth is that populations don't evolve; individuals do....Lamarck was right and all you darwinians can do is watch this pig die a slow, painful death.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Unknown said...

    The truth is that populations don't evolve; individuals do....


    Oh man, you went and did it now...

    Never go full retard!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Blas and Lino: Darwinian evolution is basically variation and natural selection. Acquired characteristics are variation so they work just fine with evolution.

    Whoever talked about Dawkins eating his hat: what Cornelius has given us is nowhere near Lamarckism: Something in the environment has affected something in the DNA or the chemicals that regulate DNA and this affects the offspring.

    Lamarckism is changes in the "soma" - such as a muscle getting larger with use - somehow getting into the genetic material and being passed on genetically.

    Big difference.

    Everybody: There's really no call for all the gratuitous insults. Yes, everybody knows that their opponants are rude and uncouth ignoramuses. But that's no reason to make yourselves one too.

    Keep your snark to yourself, reply with the facts and your opponants will demonstrate their ignorance without your having to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Unknown:

    Based on your comments you appear to be rather ignorant about evolution in general. I don't mean that as an insult, but as a simple observation. Ignorance is only a bad thing if you're taking actions based on it without at least attempting to ameliorate it.

    I recommend really looking into evolution in depth and trying to actually learn about it. At the very least it will make you a more effective debater on the subject. Not only will it help you avoid making such obviously flawed comments as you've made here, but just in general the better you understand your opponents position, the easier it is to show exactly why they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The whole truth, "pre-existing" is relative to where you begin your observations. So, pick any timeframe of real time observations that has ever been performed in the history of man and no empirical evidence for unbounded and directional change (evolution) has ever been recorded. The rest is all speculation, and that's where all so called evidence for genuine evolution sits.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Venture Free, what specifically is the biological process involved in the regulation of bird beak sizes that provides evidence that bacteria has evolved into man?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tedford the idiot said...

    Venture Free, what specifically is the biological process involved in the regulation of bird beak sizes that provides evidence that bacteria has evolved into man?


    The bird beak data is an empirical demonstration of the effects of natural selection on allele frequency and the resultant morphological changes in a population. It's one of the millions of pieces of consilient evidence for the process of evolution.

    Why do you idiots think every piece of evidence for evolution must be THE piece that shows the whole picture?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neal

    What specifically is the process involved in a feather falling to earth that provides evidence that systems (e.g. Solar) formed from clouds of gas and dust?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Venture Free,

    Bird beak size variation = evolution in progress

    Feather falling to earth = solar system formation in progress.

    Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Tedford the idiot said...

    Venture Free,

    Bird beak size variation = evolution in progress

    Feather falling to earth = solar system formation in progress.

    Got it.


    That's exactly the kind of comment that shows beyond all doubt you're an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Neal: The whole truth, "pre-existing" is relative to where you begin your observations. So, pick any timeframe of real time observations that has ever been performed in the history of man and no empirical evidence for unbounded and directional change (evolution) has ever been recorded. The rest is all speculation, and that's where all so called evidence for genuine evolution sits.

    Neal,

    You seem to be confused about the nature of empirical observations.

    We do not mechanically derive theories from observations. For this to occur, we'd need to be able to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Despite having asked you this direct question, multiple times, you have yet to have enlighten us as to how this is possible.

    Rather, all theories start out as conjecture. It's from there that we test theories for errors via empirical observations.

    In other words, empirical observations cannot positivity prove anything is true in the sense you're implying, let alone evolution. All observations are theory laden. At best, they can be used to show a conjectured theory is in error.

    As such, you're claim that a lack of "real-time observations" is some how a problem for evolutionary theory is hand waving.

    Note: finding an explanation in error doesn't mean that the possibility implied by that explanation is false, in reality, but we shouldn't justify a conclusion that this possibility *is* true based on that particular explanation.

    This is how science works.

    Of course, if this isn't how science works, then how do you explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Venture Free , Neal


    "What specifically is the process involved in a feather falling to earth that provides evidence that systems (e.g. Solar) formed from clouds of gas and dust?"

    Some genes are allowed to mutate and some are not.

    May I then say: if some feathers are falling to earth and some are always suspended in the air, can we use feather falling to explain Solar system formation?

    We have to find out what is preventing some feathers from falling.

    Puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Unknown said:

    "Nothing darwin stood for or wrote about has turned out to be correct....well, maybe sexual selection, but that's about it. Natural selection, on the other hand, is not a mechanism for origins, but instead it merely stabilizes populations. As such there is no known scientific mechanism of origins; all scientists can do is watch creatures somehow adapt to changing environmental conditions, call it "evolution" and hope there's enough ignorant people out there who fall for it, despite the fact that what is being called "evolution" is actually nothing more than individual animals interactively-changing with their local environments, which starts with a conscious awareness and perception of the world around them. You evos have tried to substitute unintelligently-changing genes for the intelligent, conscious living being, but it hasn't worked. The truth is that populations don't evolve; individuals do....Lamarck was right and all you darwinians can do is watch this pig die a slow, painful death."

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

    So, are you're saying that individual animals of the same species (for example) that are born with different abilities or dis-abilities used "a conscious awareness and perception of the world around them" to 'interactively-change with their local environments'?

    Are you saying that ALL 'changes' are due to "conscious awareness" and conscious adaptation by an organism, and/or its parents?

    And how can a population not evolve if the individuals within it do evolve?

    Define what you mean by "origins".

    Define what you mean by "interactively" and "changing".

    Explain how extinction and extirpation fits with your assertions.

    What are "darwinians"? Aren't they something that consciously adapts to reality, unlike god zombies?

    ReplyDelete
  46. tedford said:

    "...no empirical evidence for unbounded and directional change (evolution) has ever been recorded."

    Define what you mean by "unbounded". For instance, I don't think that any 'evolutionists' claim that horses can (or will) evolve and become pink unicorns.

    Seems to me that any change could be described as directional, even if the 'direction' turns out to be detrimental.

    Here's some food for thought:

    Four people are lost in the woods. They strike out in different directions to find civilization and/or help. Will they all be successful?

    Four Coyotes are together in the woods. They strike out in different directions to find food, mates, establish their own territories, and produce offspring. Will they all be successful?

    Four animals of the same species are born, each one having a different genetic mutation. Will all four animals live to reproduce, and will all four (or any) pass on the mutation to their offspring?

    ReplyDelete
  47. CH are you asleep at the wheel? The last post is exceptionally obscene, even for these commenters.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. We have to find out what is preventing some feathers from falling.

    Very good! You are absolutely right. Discovering why is the proper course of action. Declaring that a feather that doesn't fall proves that gravity can't create systems is not.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Peter: Thanks for the alert. I did see an inappropriate post (but I saw only one).

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thorton:

    This is why you're a blithering idiot.

    You're asked to give one documented example of Darwinian mechanism at work in natural populations, and this is what they end up saying in the abstract of the paper you then cite.

    No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. . . . and . . .
    We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations.

    This is proof that Darwinism CAN'T work! This is why any conversation with you is impossible. You should be running and hiding from this experimental result, and, instead, you trumpet it. Pathetic.

    Do a calculation. (Generations here do not apply since we're dealing with E. Coli that grows exponentially. So we need to use total number of cells that have been replicated)

    Let's apply this to humans. Let's generously assume 8 children per generation, or about one descendant every three years (25 yrs/gen./8 descendants/gen.) It would take 25 trillion years to produce enough human replicants equivalent to the 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells produced by the E. Coli.

    This is a total embarrassment for Darwinism. How can anyone take you seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lino the poseur said...

    You're asked to give one documented example of Darwinian mechanism at work in natural populations, and this is what they end up saying in the abstract of the paper you then cite.

    No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. . . . and . . .
    We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations.

    This is proof that Darwinism CAN'T work!


    Oh goody! Not only is Lino an ignorant poseur, he's your common garden variety Creationist liar and quote-miner too!

    Why didn't you post the whole abstract Lino?

    Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

    "Abstract: The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection."

    Oops! Lino the Creationist poseur got caught in a big fat lie, trying to misrepresent what a research paper actually says! Whoda thunk?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lino the lying poseur said...

    Do a calculation. (Generations here do not apply since we're dealing with E. Coli that grows exponentially. So we need to use total number of cells that have been replicated)

    Let's apply this to humans. Let's generously assume 8 children per generation, or about one descendant every three years (25 yrs/gen./8 descendants/gen.) It would take 25 trillion years to produce enough human replicants equivalent to the 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells produced by the E. Coli.


    No you moron. You stupidly overlooked the fact that every human has approx. 10^13 cells in their body, so you get actually that many cells with just one single human.

    Estimates are that every human born has about 175 mutations in their genome.

    Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

    "Abstract: Many previous estimates of the mutation rate in humans have relied on screens of visible mutants. We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide, (ii) assess heterogeneity of mutation rate at different sites and for different types of mutations, (iii) test the hypothesis that the X chromosome has a lower mutation rate than autosomes, and (iv) estimate the deleterious mutation rate. Eighteen processed pseudogenes were sequenced, including 12 on autosomes and 6 on the X chromosome. The average mutation rate was estimated to be ∼2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Rates of mutation for both transitions and transversions at CpG dinucleotides are one order of magnitude higher than mutation rates at other sites. Single nucleotide substitutions are 10 times more frequent than length mutations. Comparison of rates of evolution for X-linked and autosomal pseudogenes suggests that the male mutation rate is 4 times the female mutation rate, but provides no evidence for a reduction in mutation rate that is specific to the X chromosome. Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common."

    You're trying you best to be as clueless as idiot as Tedford, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thorton the Blithering Idiot:

    No you moron. You stupidly overlooked the fact that every human has approx. 10^13 cells in their body, so you get actually that many cells with just one single human.

    Dear Thorton:

    There is a difference between meiosis and mitosis. ONLY the germinal cell line is inherited. What happens in any human outside of its germinal cell line is completely immaterial to common descent.

    Now you know why I ignore you. You haven't a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lino the lying poseur said...

    There is a difference between meiosis and mitosis. ONLY the germinal cell line is inherited. What happens in any human outside of its germinal cell line is completely immaterial to common descent.


    Dear lying poseur. Humans have more than one germinal cell per individual per generation as you claimed in your dumb as spit calculations.

    Now you know why I make fun of you. You're an ignorant poseur and a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm going to start a Lino D'Ischia's Greatest Hits list, documenting the incredibly stupid Intelligent Design Creationism claims Lino has made in his short but hilarious time here as an IDC spokesperson:

    "Catastrophes like the Flood are a big problem for evolution"

    "The complexity of an animal can be determined by the number of chromosomes it has"

    "GAWD pre-programmed lizards to evolve on their own. In fruit flies and humans, GAWD directly intervenes to cause changes."

    "Evolution requires genetic changes happen serially, never in parallel."

    "Humans only have one germ line cell per individual per generation".

    Keep up the good work Lino. Keep that "Creation Science" list growing!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Oops, I forgot one of Lino's gems:

    "It takes 31.6 million years for ANY amino acid to have ANY two mutation change"

    I may have missed other steamers like that one. Have to go back and check.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thorton:

    Humans have more than one germinal cell per individual per generation as you claimed in your dumb as spit calculations.

    That's right. So what are the odds of any one of those having any particular mutations? It's a wash. But, of course, this is too deep for you.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thorton:

    "Catastrophes like the Flood are a big problem for evolution"

    "The complexity of an animal can be determined by the number of chromosomes it has"

    "GAWD pre-programmed lizards to evolve on their own. In fruit flies and humans, GAWD directly intervenes to cause changes."

    "Evolution requires genetic changes happen serially, never in parallel."

    "Humans only have one germ line cell per individual per generation".


    I've never made any of those comments. You're putting words into my mouth. You're putting quotation marks around what you THINK I said; not what I actually said.

    So, as is typical with liberals, they are guilty of projection. Whenever they attack their enemies, they simply are revealing who they really are. IOW, Thorton, you're a "lying poseur".

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thorton:

    Oops, I forgot one of Lino's gems:

    "It takes 31.6 million years for ANY amino acid to have ANY two mutation change"


    The number comes from a paper written by scientists fully sympathtetic to Darwinism. Are you quibbling with their result? Facts are facts. Except in the mind of liberals and fools. But I'm being redundant here.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Lino the lying poseur said...

    T: "Catastrophes like the Flood are a big problem for evolution"

    "The complexity of an animal can be determined by the number of chromosomes it has"

    "GAWD pre-programmed lizards to evolve on their own. In fruit flies and humans, GAWD directly intervenes to cause changes."

    "Evolution requires genetic changes happen serially, never in parallel."

    "Humans only have one germ line cell per individual per generation".

    I've never made any of those comments.


    Those aren't offered as verbatim quotes moron. Quotation marks can and are used as a form of emphasis. And yes Lino, you did indeed make those stupid arguments. They're all right here on this blog for all to see.

    T: "It takes 31.6 million years for ANY amino acid to have ANY two mutation change"

    The number comes from a paper written by scientists fully sympathtetic to Darwinism.


    The number comes from a demonstration of Behe's math screw-up, and the idiotic conclusion is all yours Lino.

    Why won't you take credit for such (giggle) outstanding scientific work?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Lino the lying poseur said...

    Thorton: "Humans have more than one germinal cell per individual per generation as you claimed in your dumb as spit calculations."

    That's right. So what are the odds of any one of those having any particular mutations? It's a wash.


    But you claimed it would take humans 25 trillion years to have ANY mutations, so therefore ToE is false.

    Why are you surprised when you get called on such obvious Creationist stupidity?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thorton:

    Those aren't offered as verbatim quotes moron. Quotation marks can and are used as a form of emphasis.

    This is idiotic on your part. Who are you trying to kid?

    The number comes from a demonstration of Behe's math screw-up, and the idiotic conclusion is all yours Lino.

    I didn't draw any conclusions. I simply reported findings. You're the one who has drawn the idiotic conclusions, along with the authors of that scientific article. But, you see, bias blinds our better judgment.

    That's why CH says: "Religion drives science; and it matters."

    Oh, BTW, this is actually a quote, not a made up one.

    You continue to be a liar, and an incompetent. You're a moron. There's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.

    But I certainly hope that anyone reading this blog will in no way be influenced by your nonsense. If I've helped in this way, then I'm pleased.

    I'll continue to post entries here as I wish. And I will make every effort to ignore your nonsensical attacks. (FYI, Thorton: people who have the truth on their side don't have to attack those who don't share their views. And, to anticipate your further nonsense, everyone has the right to self-defense.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lino the lying poseur said...

    Thorton: Those aren't offered as verbatim quotes moron. Quotation marks can and are used as a form of emphasis.

    This is idiotic on your part. Who are you trying to kid?


    OK, I'll have to post some of your verbatim quotes:

    Lino: "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation" here

    Lino: "An organism that replicates at a very high rate (The malarial parasite can replicate up to a trillion times in just one human) and is less complex (Drosophila has a very small number of chromosomes) has the ability of simply producing enough copies of itself" here

    You made all those stupid arguments I listed Lino. Why you feel compelled to lie about then is the mystery. I guess you're just embarrassed, as well you should be.

    T: "The number comes from a demonstration of Behe's math screw-up, and the idiotic conclusion is all yours Lino."

    I didn't draw any conclusions. I simply reported findings.


    No you didn't liar. You quote-mined the paper and added your own spin that was completely different from the authors' conclusion. Just like you quote-mined the Lenski E coli paper. Lino D'Ischia, liar and poseur for Jesus.

    I'll continue to post entries here as I wish.

    I'll continue to point out your dishonesty and add the stupid claims you make to the big list. Works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thorton:

    Lino: "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation"

    I've already explained that the comment about the Flood was included as a way of needling you. But since you're dishonest and malicious, this means nothing to you. Now, are you going to deny that our geologic past contains catastrophic events? So, then, what exactly is wrong with my statement. Is it because you don't understand that a theory that is completely built upon the notion of geologic gradualism as a paradigm is subject to falsification if catastrophic events are demonstrated to have occurred? You might not like it, but these are simple facts.

    Lino: "An organism that replicates at a very high rate (The malarial parasite can replicate up to a trillion times in just one human) and is less complex (Drosophila has a very small number of chromosomes) has the ability of simply producing enough copies of itself"

    The fact that the fly's genome is small means that the number of mutations it produces, at a given mutation rate, will be higher than that of an organism with a larger genome. Is this too hard for you to understand? I can make it more simple for you if you like.

    You quote-mined the paper and added your own spin that was completely different from the authors' conclusion.

    How did I quote mine? Is the number not there? Did they not say that by their calculation it would take human beings 31.5 million years to arrive at the needed two mutations per their model? Just because you don't like facts being pointed out to you doesn't give you the right to be rude and insolent, and the right to simply hand-wave it all away.


    As I've already said, people who have the truth on their side don't have to maliciously attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs. And, Thorton, let's face it, you're a true believer.

    Have a wonderful life. (Or as wonderful as a troll can have.)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Lino the PaV sock puppet said...

    Thorton:

    Lino: "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation"

    I've already explained that the comment about the Flood was included as a way of needling you.


    Interesting, since you made that Flood claim at December 6, 2011 2:15 PM , and my very first post to you was December 6, 2011 2:42 PM, 27 MINUTES AFTER you posted the Flood stupidity.

    Oh dear, Lino/PaV caught in another lie!

    Why do you IDiots think you can get away with the most blatant of lies?

    The fact that the fly's genome is small means that the number of mutations it produces, at a given mutation rate, will be higher than that of an organism with a larger genome.

    But that's not what you said with regard to complexity, remember?

    "Lino/PaV: "Complexity is an information measure, and is inversely related to the length of the genome." here

    Do keep lying and trying to spin things to hide your screw-up, it's hilarious!

    How did I quote mine? Is the number not there? Did they not say that by their calculation it would take human beings 31.5 million years to arrive at the needed two mutations per their model?

    No, they said that if Behe had used the correct formula for his made-up example he would have gotten 31.6 million years instead of the billion years he claimed. The authors said nothing even close to the ridiculous and dishonest misrepresentation you keep making.

    As I've already said, people who have the truth on their side don't have to maliciously attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.

    I'm not on your case over you questioning any beliefs. I'm on your case for your lies, your dishonest quote-mining, and your childish attempts to bluff your way through topics you don't understand.

    The funniest thing of all so far is that you got so flustered you posted under your UD handle "PaV" and forgot to use your "Lino" sockpuppet! That alone makes dealing with all your lies and stupidity worthwhile!

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

    ReplyDelete
  67. Wow Lino/PaV, I just had a look at some of your old threads at UncommonlyDense. I'd forgotten just how much of a dishonest sleazeball you really are. Like in this thread, where you made up a completely bogus non-scientific claim and attributed it to Dr. Elizabeth Liddle.

    Where Are the Neutral Genomes with these Mutations?

    You were corrected on your horribly bad misrepresentation of what she said by half a dozen people, including several pro-ID UD regulars. Instead of doing the right thing and apologizing, you spent a dozen more posts trying to weasel-word you way out of the mess you created. It's the same M.O. you've been using here too. Tell a lie, get caught in a lie, twist and squirm to try and rewrite history.

    Absolutely typical Creationist. Absolutely pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thorton:
    Oh dear, Lino/PaV caught in another lie!

    How is it that I explain to you why I included something, and then you say it's a lie? Do you have some special psychic power that allows you to determine this?

    The fact that the fly's genome is small means that the number of mutations it produces, at a given mutation rate, will be higher than that of an organism with a larger genome.

    T: But that's not what you said with regard to complexity, remember?

    "Lino: "Complexity is an information measure, and is inversely related to the length of the genome." here


    So if I say the fly genome is short in length, and then say that it is small, you see this as some kind of contradiction? In fact, Thorton, that's all you ever try to do. That's all you're capable of. However, you're not even capable of that.

    No, they said that if Behe had used the correct formula for his made-up example he would have gotten 31.6 million years instead of the billion years he claimed. The authors said nothing even close to the ridiculous and dishonest misrepresentation you keep making.

    Behe was talking about a two amino acid change in the malarial parasite. Behe said it would take billions of years. The authors said it would only take 31.5 million years. And you can't see the problem with all of this?

    First of all, their calculation depends on their "theorems"; well, who knows if their putative "theorems" are correct or not. They need to be tested first.

    But, let's concede that they are correct. Then the authors are admitting that even per their "theorems" a two amino acid change would take 31.5 million years. They might have just said: "The Darwinian theory of evolution that has been reformulated as the neo-Darwinism cannot possibly explain genetic evolution. Therefore Darwinism has been falsified." You fixate on how they 'proved Behe wrong', instead of how damning their numbers are for neo-Darwinism. Why don't you focus on that?

    That you can't see the problem here is absolutely astounding. As I've already said, you should be embarrassed by these results. It is these kinds of results that make Darwinian accounts (neo-Darwinian) unsupportable. This is why I oppose Darwinism: it's bad science.

    Ken Miller opposes ID. But Ken Miller is Catholic, like Behe, and believes in what you might call theistic evolution. So bringing in the religion angle ends up being bogus. This is about science. To make it anything else is simply to bring in a straw-man argument. Argue the merits.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Thorton:

    The funniest thing of all so far is that you got so flustered you posted under your UD handle "PaV" and forgot to use your "Lino" sockpuppet! That alone makes dealing with all your lies and stupidity worthwhile!

    So, Thorton, you're admitting that you enjoy getting people flustered. That's what you're all about, isn't it? Look up the definition of a "troll".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Lino/PaV the poseur said...

    Thorton: "Oh dear, Lino/PaV caught in another lie!"

    How is it that I explain to you why I included something, and then you say it's a lie?


    You said you were responding to me. The time tags show you posted that message 27 minutes before my first post to you. You lied, and you got caught.

    So if I say the fly genome is short in length, and then say that it is small, you see this as some kind of contradiction?

    You weren't arguing short=small. You were arguing complexity relative to genome size You said something really stupid and you got called on it. But it's the lies you are telling now to try and save face that are the most telling.

    Behe was talking about a two amino acid change in the malarial parasite. Behe said it would take billions of years. The authors said it would only take 31.5 million years. And you can't see the problem with all of this?

    The problem is that you keep lying about the 31.6 million number. It's from Behe's hypothetical example with mammals, not the malarial parasite. The authors showed that Behe screwed up the calculations in his hypothetical example. You've been corrected on this enough that you know you are lying when you keep making your claim. Lying doesn't seem to bother you though. What would Jesus say?

    Then the authors are admitting that even per their "theorems" a two amino acid change would take 31.5 million years.

    No they're not. They say if you're waiting for two pre-specified mutations it will take millions of years, not waiting for ANY two mutation set. You've been corrected on that dozens of times too but keep lying about what the paper showed.

    So, Thorton, you're admitting that you enjoy getting people flustered.

    No PaV, I enjoy pointing out the dishonesty and ignorance of Creationists like you who feel it's OK to lie for Jesus in order to push their religious agenda. It's your problem if getting caught in your dishonesty gets you flustered.

    ReplyDelete
  71. BTW PaV/Lino, your mistreatment of Dr. Liddle at UD and your continued blatant misrepresentation of her views after being corrected multiple times was one of the more despicable things I've seen from any IDCer, and that's saying something.

    To my knowledge you still haven't apologized to her and retracted your canards.

    That's one of the many reasons you IDCers get no respect from the scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thorton:

    No they're not. They say if you're waiting for two pre-specified mutations it will take millions of years, not waiting for ANY two mutation set. You've been corrected on that dozens of times too but keep lying about what the paper showed.

    This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what is being argued.

    I asked you before about the lottery. I said if only one person buys a lottery ticket, then what are the odds that someone will win the lottery. To this date, you still haven't answered that question. And it's because you have a stilted understanding of all of this.

    No PaV, I enjoy pointing out the dishonesty and ignorance of Creationists like you who feel it's OK to lie for Jesus in order to push their religious agenda. It's your problem if getting caught in your dishonesty gets you flustered.

    It's interesting---and telling---that in the very sentence in which you accuse me of dishonesty you are guilty of this very thing.

    You write I'm a Creationist. you capitalized it. Does that mean that I believe the world was created in six days? Well, I don't believe any such thing. But this is you, Thornton. In the words of Jack Nicholson: "You can't handle the truth."

    Lastly, you seem to have the self-appointed task of attacking that with which you disagree---instead of simply pointing out where, and how, you disagree. But, I guess, you don't mind being unpleasant, because, after all, you're on such an important mission.

    ReplyDelete
  73. PaV/Lino the poseur said...

    I asked you before about the lottery. I said if only one person buys a lottery ticket, then what are the odds that someone will win the lottery. To this date, you still haven't answered that question. And it's because you have a stilted understanding of all of this.


    No PaV, it's because that's a completely stupid and irrelevant analogy. In the real world all the reproducing animals in a population are "buying a ticket", not just one. I don't think you're too stupid to not get the difference, I think you're basically dishonest.

    You write I'm a Creationist. you capitalized it. Does that mean that I believe the world was created in six days?

    You've already stated that you believe your God created the world and all life in it. When did this Creation happen PaV, and what were the mechanisms?

    Lastly, you seem to have the self-appointed task of attacking that with which you disagree---instead of simply pointing out where, and how, you disagree.

    Another lie. I don't chastise you merely because we disagree. I chastise you for the slimy and dishonest way you go about pushing your religious position. But it's easier for you IDC clowns to play the martyr than it is to honestly address the scientific evidence.

    But, I guess, you don't mind being unpleasant, because, after all, you're on such an important mission.

    You get the treatment your despicable behavior earns you Pav. Nothing less, nothing more. If you don't like being called on your dishonesty and ignorance, stop posting ignorant and dishonest things.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Thorton:

    No PaV, it's because that's a completely stupid and irrelevant analogy. In the real world all the reproducing animals in a population are "buying a ticket", not just one. I don't think you're too stupid to not get the difference, I think you're basically dishonest.

    First, why are you telling me this now, and not when I originally asked you?

    Second, it is not meant to be an analogy to what happens in nature; rather it was meant to point out the silly refrain: "the odds of winning the lottery are exceedingly small, but SOMEONE always wins," is but a silly canard.

    Someone always wins because enough people buy tickets. Similarly, in nature, there has to be enough mutations generated for just the right one to occur in just the right place, and then spread through the population. The odds are staggeringly small. Therefore, a staggeringly large number of replications (tickets) are needed. You know, like 31.6 million years worth.

    But I'm afraid all of this is just lost on you.

    You've already stated that you believe your God created the world and all life in it. When did this Creation happen PaV, and what were the mechanisms?

    Ask Ken Miller if he believes God created life. I bet he would say "yes" too. Does that make him a Creationist too? But this doesn't slow down the venom machine you got running against people of faith. (Of course, to believe that Darwinian processes brought about life via chance mechanisms takes the greatest faith anyone could have. Or is it the greatest amount of "imagination" anyone could have? Darwin was very big on the role of the "imagination".)

    I chastise you for the slimy and dishonest way you go about pushing your religious position.

    In terms of "slime", you take the prize. As to being "dishonest", this, apparently, is determined by some kind of special metering device present within your brain---some specialized instrument of some sort, I would guess. But, then again, there's reality. Maybe you would like to join.

    If you don't like being called on your dishonesty and ignorance, stop posting ignorant and dishonest things.

    And, at last, your true motives once again come out. You want me to stop posting here so that you can have free reign to harangue, harass, and belittle anyone who dares to say that the "emperor has no clothes." If Darwinism is so correct, then why does it need people like you to browbeat its opponents?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Lino the PaV sockpuppet said...

    First, why are you telling me this now, and not when I originally asked you?


    I gave you a test to see if you'd recognize just how stupid and off base you analogy was. You failed.

    You know, like 31.6 million years worth.

    LOL! Still lying about what was in the Durrett and Schmidt paper. Oh well - once a Liar for Jesus, always a Liar for Jesus.

    But this doesn't slow down the venom machine you got running against people of faith.

    LOL! "I'm a martyr! A MARTYR I tell ya!"

    You've suffered such terrible persecutions maybe you should petition your church for sainthood. I'll vouch for you!

    In terms of "slime", you take the prize.

    But PaV, you're the guy who got caught quote-mining and misrepresenting technical papers. You're the guy who got caught lying about his Flood post when the time tags didn't agree. Maybe you've got a TARDIS machine? (insert joke about all IDCers here)

    You want me to stop posting here so that you can have free reign to harangue, harass, and belittle anyone who dares to say that the "emperor has no clothes."

    No, I just want you and the rest of the IDCers to start arguing your position honestly, without resorting to the constant stream of lies and misrepresentations. But I suppose if you had to make an IDC case on positive evidence you'd have nothing to say.

    If Darwinism is so correct, then why does it need people like you to browbeat its opponents?

    I don't browbeat opponents of ToE. I browbeat ignorant poseurs and lowlife liars. The "opponent of ToE" part is pretty irrelevant.

    If Intelligent Design Creationism is so correct, why can't anyone find any positive evidence for it that stands up to the slightest scientific scrutiny? Why do places like Uncommonly Dense censor and delete pro-science posts and ban virtually every pro-science poster?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thorton:

    Why do places like Uncommonly Dense censor and delete pro-science posts and ban virtually every pro-science poster?

    Because they have your morals.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Lino the PaV sockpuppet said...

    Thorton: "Why do places like Uncommonly Dense censor and delete pro-science posts and ban virtually every pro-science poster?"

    Because they have your morals.


    LOL! You mean UD has my morals? Or the hundreds of polite pro-science posters they've banned just for opposing ID have my morals?

    Neither sounds too good for your side PaV.

    It must be a terrible shock for you PaV, posting outside of the warm safe nest of UD. Being out here in the real world where you can't count on the Mods to ban those who point out your lies. The real world where you can't cry to the Mods to delete posts with the damning evidence of your pathetic scientific ignorance. Guess you'll have to evolve or perish.

    Why are you still using that dumb "Lino D'Ischia" sockpuppet? You screwed up and admitted who you really are - why keep pretending to be someone else now?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Lino the PaV sockpuppet said...

    Because they have your morals.


    PaV, speaking of morals, have you ever apologized to Dr. Liddle for that dishonest and despicable misrepresentation of science you ascribed to her?

    ReplyDelete
  79. pavlino said:

    "Ask Ken Miller if he believes God created life. I bet he would say "yes" too. Does that make him a Creationist too?"

    Yes, it does.

    ReplyDelete
  80. PaV, eh?

    And still no understanding of the 31.6 million year thingie.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hawks:

    You've come out of the woodworks. The trolls unite.

    And still no understanding of the 31.6 million year thingie.

    Please explain this to me. You seem to understand it so well.

    And if you don't, then I'll presume you don't understand it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  82. PaVLino said...

    Hawks: "And still no understanding of the 31.6 million year thingie.

    Please explain this to me. You seem to understand it so well.


    I'll explain it.

    An ignorant IDCer read about a science paper on UD. He didn't understand it, but decided to quote-mine a section and claim it meant something completely different from what the authors said. Every time this ignorant IDCer trots out his misrepresentation he gets corrected, but the clown keeps on with his dishonest charade anyway.

    This ignorant IDCer has been called on his dishonest quote-mining and misrepresentation a dozen times, but he's still too much of an egotistical jerk to change his tune. He clings to the "31.6 million years" figure like a baby clutching a security blanket, and cries like a baby too when reality takes his "binky" away.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hawks:

    As I thought; you haven't a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Thorton:

    You haven't a clue.


    I'll wait for Hawks' reply. (A thousand one, a thousand two, a thousand three . . . . .)

    ReplyDelete
  85. PaVLino said...

    I haven't a clue.


    PaV, why did you lie about that Flood post supposedly to me when the time tags clearly show you lied?

    PaV, when are you going to apologize to Dr. Liddle for the crappy way you deliberately misrepresented her views?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Thorton:


    When are you going to admit you know nothing at all?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thorton:

    Let's clear up this nonsense.

    Interesting, since you made that Flood claim at December 6, 2011 2:15 PM , and my very first post to you was December 6, 2011 2:42 PM, 27 MINUTES AFTER you posted the Flood stupidity.

    Oh dear, Lino/PaV caught in another lie!


    Only a person like you, who lurks blogs like a mad dog, could get so hung up about something like this.

    When I posted the comment, I knew that Darwinists would get all worked up about any mention of a "Flood". So I just couldn't resist throwing that in.

    So, if you weren't blogging yet (lurking in the shadows like all forms of low-life), then it was intended to you specifically; it was intended for you generically (as the Darwinist that you are).

    And for this, cries of "liar". Heavens. Get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  88. PaVLino said...

    When are you going to admit you know nothing at all?


    I know you've been caught in some pretty obvious lies.

    ReplyDelete
  89. PaVLino D'Ischia said...

    Let's clear up this nonsense.


    Telling a second lie to cover the first lie doesn't clear up anything PaV. All it does is make Baby Jesus cry.

    Only a person like you, who lurks blogs like a mad dog, could get so hung up about something like this.

    That and all the other lies you've told, and the papers you've quote-mined, and the people like Dr. Liddle you've insulted. It all adds up PaV.

    (lurking in the shadows like all forms of low-life)

    LOL! Says the guy who's posting under a sockpuppet name to hide his UD identity.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Lino, PaV,

    Please explain this to me. You seem to understand it so well.

    You've already had several replies from me on this topic. You know, when I explained the difference between likelihoods and probabilities or, if you prefer, Pr(O|H) and Pr(H|O). I know that you will never be able to understand these things, so there is no point in explaining it again.

    And if you don't, then I'll presume you don't understand it at all.

    You are probably better off presuming rather than trying to understand stuff. The latter requires you to actually think.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Thorton:

    Telling a second lie to cover the first lie doesn't clear up anything PaV. All it does is make Baby Jesus cry.


    This kind of language only demonstrates the kind of sick individual you are. Nothing more.

    LOL! Says the guy who's posting under a sockpuppet name to hide his UD identity.

    You were hoping to ensnare---just like the devil.

    There's a big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hawks:

    You know, when I explained the difference between likelihoods and probabilities or, if you prefer, Pr(O|H) and Pr(H|O). I know that you will never be able to understand these things, so there is no point in explaining it again.

    Are you trying to say that Bayesian probability theory is to always be preferred to Fisherian? The only thing you've said so far is this:

    " . . . Pr(O|H) and Pr(H|O) . . . "; as if in someway this is supposed to be profound.

    Why don't you say something profound? We await. I gave you a chance. But I think that the only thing you know is that opponents of ID use Bayesian probability as a way of criticizing it--and nothing more; yet, somehow, this seems enough for you.

    Fisherian statistical methods have been used for a very long time, and continue to be used. And Bayesian theory can't make improbabilities disappear. Or perhaps you would like to demonstrate just how this is so?

    ReplyDelete
  93. PaV Lino said...

    This kind of language only demonstrates the kind of sick individual you are. Nothing more.


    What does you getting caught constantly lying and quote mining demonstrate PaV?

    T: "LOL! Says the guy who's posting under a sockpuppet name to hide his UD identity."

    You were hoping to ensnare---just like the devil.


    LOL! Sure thing PaV. I drove to your house, held a gun to your head and made you post under a sockpuppet just so I could ensnare you. That may be the stupidest thing you've said to date, and there's a lot of competition.

    ReplyDelete
  94. PaV Lino said...

    And Bayesian theory can't make improbabilities disappear. Or perhaps you would like to demonstrate just how this is so?


    PaV's still too dense to understand that having one specific outcome be improbable doesn't mean that having any outcome is improbable.

    Why can't these IDiots understand the most basic aspects of the probability arguments they keep pushing?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thorton:

    PaV's still too dense to understand that having one specific outcome be improbable doesn't mean that having any outcome is improbable.

    This is thoroughly moronic. It's devoid of any meaning. Just meaningless drivel.

    You're whole purpose here is to harass. You have nothing of any value to add. But you take morose delectation in your ongoing harangue. You're a troll. And you should be ashamed. But, of course, lacking character, you aren't.

    And stop with the "lying" and "quote-mining" nonsense. This exists in your head, and your head alone (and, apparently, nothing else) Try being a human being. You might like it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dr. Hunter:

    Why do you allow people like Thorton, and Hawks and others to post here? Just ban them. They're but irritating gnats, with absolutely nothing to contribute.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Thorton:

    Here's what I said about the Flood:

    As to the Biblical Flood, I rather suspect that it had to do with a post-Ice-Age world in which rising ocean levels (brought about by true cataclysmic global warming) gouged out the Straits of Gibraltar, and with sea levels (in the Mediterranean area) rising 3 to 400 feet in perhaps days. Of course, there would be an oral tradition of such an event.

    Now, does that sound like I'm giving an account of what the Bible literally says about the Flood? No. Other ancient traditions also have accounts of a flood having taken place.

    I'm a Catholic. St. Augustine, back in the 5th century, cautioned everyone that the Book of Genesis is not to be taken as a strictly historical account, and that anyone dealing with what is found there, should proceed with caution.

    So stop the nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  98. PaV Lino said...

    Thorton: "PaV's still too dense to understand that having one specific outcome be improbable doesn't mean that having any outcome is improbable."

    This is thoroughly moronic. It's devoid of any meaning. Just meaningless drivel.


    Only to you PaV. To everyone else, pointing out your abject ignorance on the topic of probability is quite valuable.

    And stop with the "lying" and "quote-mining" nonsense.

    I'll stop exposing your dishonesty as soon as you stop lying and quote-mining like you did here. It's totally up to you and your "superior" Catholic conscience.

    Here's what I said about the Flood:

    No PaV, here's what you said about the Flood.

    Pav/Lino "We know that catastrophes (like the Flood) have occurred. This severely undermines Darwin's foundation"

    ...then when you got called on it, you did your normal tap-dance, hand-wave, try to rewrite history slime fest.

    Have you ever taken personal responsibility for your actions in anything in your entire life?

    ReplyDelete
  99. PaV Lino said...

    Dr. Hunter:

    Why do you allow people like Thorton, and Hawks and others to post here? Just ban them. They're but irritating gnats, with absolutely nothing to contribute.


    Sorry PaV, but I already told you this isn't Uncommonly Dense where your whining alone will get people banned. For all his foibles, Dr. Hunter is still honest enough to allow dissenting opinions. That means all the bellyaching in the world you do won't stop others from pointing out your ignorance and dishonesty.

    Go back to your little hidey-hole at UD with DeNews, and BA77 and Kariosflatus if you can't handle the real world. No one here will miss your sniveling even a little.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Lino D'Ischia:

    Dr. Hunter:

    Why do you allow people like Thorton, and Hawks and others to post here? Just ban them. They're but irritating gnats, with absolutely nothing to contribute.


    The only rule for commenting here is no foul language, or the like. As the good judge said, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Any foul language, abbreviations thereof, outright crudeness, etc, will be filtered.

    Otherwise, a main theme here is to explore evoltuionary thought, including its history and current state. Filtering out pro evolution comments would detract substantially from that theme.

    ReplyDelete
  101. pavlino said:

    "FYI, Thorton: people who have the truth on their side don't have to attack those who don't share their views. And, to anticipate your further nonsense, everyone has the right to self-defense."

    Then why have religious people been attacking Darwin, "Darwinists", evolution, evolutionary theory, evolutionists, etc., since the publication of 'On the Origin of Species'?

    Do you think that Darwin attacked religious beliefs by writing that book? Do you think it was a deliberate attack on religious beliefs? Do you think that attacking religious beliefs was Darwin's sole motivation for writing the book? Did Darwin say anywhere in that book that religious people should not be allowed to have their beliefs?

    Why have religious people been attacking atheists for thousands of years? Why have religious people been attacking other people who have different religious beliefs for thousands of years? Why do many religious people attack 'science'?

    Is it all "self-defense"?

    ReplyDelete
  102. PaVLino, whine #1

    "people who have the truth on their side don't have to attack those who don't share their views."

    PaVLino whine #2

    "Why do you allow people like Thorton, and Hawks and others to post here? Just ban them."

    PaV/Lino the IDiot sockpuppet, if your hypocrisy stunk any worse it would make the wallpaper peel.

    What's next PaV, now that your childish little temper tantrum didn't work? Gonna hold your breath until you turn blue?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Lino, PaV,

    Are you trying to say that Bayesian probability theory is to always be preferred to Fisherian?

    No. I'm trying to say that the 31.6 million year thingie was a likelihood.

    Fisherian statistical methods have been used for a very long time, and continue to be used. And Bayesian theory can't make improbabilities disappear.

    That's quite funny, coming from you. By not understanding the 31.6 million year thingie, you are trying to make an improbability appear.

    Dr. Hunter:

    Why do you allow people like Thorton, and Hawks and others to post here? Just ban them. They're but irritating gnats, with absolutely nothing to contribute.


    Perhaps Cornelius has some integrity. Perhaps he considers you an irritating gnat.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dr. Hunter:

    Otherwise, a main theme here is to explore evoltuionary thought, including its history and current state. Filtering out pro evolution comments would detract substantially from that theme.

    But these putative "commentators" have nothing of substance to add, and through their world-class incivility act as a deterrent to those who oppose Darwinian thought. They harass and harangue those they disagree with. How is that good?

    I've looked over the majority of Thorton's posts here, and none of them have any value. The one post containing some shred of science, turned out to be entirely misinterpreted by him.

    There should be some ground rules for civility here, or you'll run the certainty of reproducing the high decibel vitriol that was a hallmark of Pandas Thumb. What happens here is not conducive to dialogue, but harangue.

    You should reflect on this, and issue some guidelines that will then be imposed. Ban me if you have to, but stop the nonsense. It's not fair to others.

    ReplyDelete
  105. To all who are interested:

    Let's recap the exchange that's taken place between Thorton and myself on this post. It all begins when he says to Unknown:

    Unknown said...

    The truth is that populations don't evolve; individuals do....

    Thorton:
    Oh man, you went and did it now...


    Thorton then cites an article, to which I then respond:

    L: . . . this is what they end up saying in the
    abstract of the paper you then cite.

    No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. . . . and . . . We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations.

    This is proof that Darwinism CAN'T work! This is why any conversation with you is impossible. You should be running and hiding from this experimental result, and, instead, you trumpet it. Pathetic.


    To which Thorton then replies in his most engaging of styles:

    Oh goody! Not only is Lino an ignorant poseur, he's your common garden variety Creationist liar and quote-miner too!

    Why didn't you post the whole abstract Lino?


    He then goes on to quote the ENTIRE abstract, which changes nothing of substance (except, I suppose, in his mind somehow).

    Next, responding to another part of my earlier post, which is:

    Let's apply this to humans. Let's generously assume 8 children per generation, or about one descendant every three years (25 yrs/gen./8 descendants/gen.) It would take 25 trillion years to produce enough human
    replicants equivalent to the 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells produced by the E. Coli.


    Thorton responds thusly:

    No you moron. You stupidly overlooked the fact that every human has approx. 10^13 cells in their body, so you get actually that many cells with just one single human.

    Estimates are that every human born has about 175 mutations in their genome.


    But, of course, somatic cells are not inherited.

    And so Thorton made a big blunder. I naturally point this out to him:

    There is a difference between meiosis and mitosis. ONLY the germinal cell line is inherited. What happens in any human outside of its germinal cell line is completely immaterial to common descent.


    But before Thorton could reply, he had to, of course, resort to his style-ized form of insult.

    Oops, I forgot one of Lino's gems: "It takes 31.6 million years for ANY amino acid to have ANY two mutation change"

    Here's what I actually wrote (found on a previous thread):

    . . . it only will take 31.6 million years for
    the two amino acids to change.


    Should I call you a liar? Are you ready to apologize and correct your mistake?

    [As to quotes, Thorton, here's what an Purdue Online Writing Lab has to say:
    "Direct quotations involve incorporating another person's exact words into your own writing." Maybe you should learn something about writing style here . . . and ethics. Direct quotations aren't used for "emphasis".]

    Back to Thorton's attempt at a rebuttal:

    Thorton, how did you make such a mistake in the first place? Amino acids don't mutate---DNA mutates, and this causes changes in the a.a. sequence. How could you even compose what amounts to a senseless sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  106. To all who are interested--part two:


    As to Thorton's "quote mining" claim, here's the history.

    When I spoke of the Durnett and Schmidt paper, Thorton asked for a reference. (which I could not at first found, but that Thorton did find and linked to)

    Before having found the paper on my own, not realizing Thorton had already located it (he, of course, accused me of lying about this. One can only wonder what purpose I would have in lying about something like this), here's what I wrote:

    As to a reference, kindly look for it yourself. I've read portions of the paper, and their concluding section. And with a straight face they say they've refuted Behe's claims; it only will take 31.6 million years for the two amino acids to change.

    And the fun begins:

    Thorton provides the full quote:

    "Indeed Behe's error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 10^6 and μ1 = μ2 = 10^−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Formula having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600."

    But, of course, while casting specious allegations of "error" onto Behe, when everything they have to say depends on the trustworthiness (not yet established) of their theorems, they have nevertheless admitted that even given their new theorems, it would take 31.6 million generations to arrive at what Behe calls a CCC---which really amounts to two very specific amino acid changes.

    And I respond:

    Do you see the inanity here? "Oh Behe was wrong. It wouldn't take 200 million years, it would only take 31.6 million years." How blind can people be? Humans haven't even exited for 31.6 million years. Pure inanity.

    Thorton now has his turn:

    Of course neither the 200 million or the 31.6 million is the correct number for having any two-mutation binding site change.

    And then:

    That's for two prespecified changes. But the paper points out life doesn't need those prespecified changes, that there are many more that work just as well.

    But here's the title of the paper were talking about:

    "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution"

    Where does it say anything about "prespecified" mutations?

    If a human being, during reproduction, produces 175 mutations, then obviously it only takes ONE generation to come up with TWO mutations. So to talk about "mutations" in general, and not to restrict ourselves to "specific" mutations, is utterly vacuous---a complete non-starter.

    And you, Thorton, have, at every turn, failed to recognize this. These kinds of mistakes are elementary. And you continue to peddle them.

    [Final installment ensues]

    ReplyDelete
  107. To those who are interested--part three:

    Thorton then dutifully plows ahead:

    Thorton:

    "The second half of the paper is devoted to exposing Behe's boneheaded errors in both biology and math in getting his "Edge of Evolution" bogus numbers. The 31.6 million generations (not years Lino) is not their claim: it's what you get if you plug Behe's made up BS numbers into the proper formula:"


    He's misspoken. I point that out to him:

    Not only are you uncritical in your thinking, you're dishonest. They devote less than one-half of a page in an eight page paper discussing Behe's calculation.

    Thorton, completely unresponsive to the fact that he'd misspoken (should I say he lied? If the shoe were on the other foot, we know exactly what the big T would have said), he goes on the offensive :

    No Lino, the paper didn't say that at all. The 31.6 million was from Behe's hypothetical '5000 species with 1 generation per year' mammal example. It shows Behe screwed up his calculations. That's another reason I know you didn't read the paper.

    But poor Thorton doesn't realize that Behe was trying to put the best face on neo-Darwinian processes, and that if he hadn't included the 5,000 mammalian species, with only one year generation time (for elephants it's twenty five years, e.g.) the amount of time would have been even higher. So, all of this goes right over the head of Thorton once again.

    Thorton, you have not distinguished yourself well at all.

    You've misunderstood, misapplied, and distorted and were just plain wrong time and time again.

    You can apologize to me anytime you like.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Lino D'Ischia:

    But these putative "commentators" have nothing of substance to add, and through their world-class incivility act as a deterrent to those who oppose Darwinian thought. They harass and harangue those they disagree with. How is that good?

    Well it illustrates a tendency within evolutionary thought. But keep in mind, they really believe that evolution is a fact, and that any skepticism cannot come from rational thought, but must be driven by ulterior motives. Given that as the starting point / premise, it is understandable that they would be a bit upset.


    I've looked over the majority of Thorton's posts here, and none of them have any value. The one post containing some shred of science, turned out to be entirely misinterpreted by him.

    You’ll probably find that you have a good impedance match with some commentators but not others.


    There should be some ground rules for civility here, or you'll run the certainty of reproducing the high decibel vitriol that was a hallmark of Pandas Thumb. What happens here is not conducive to dialogue, but harangue.

    Outlawing foul language works wonders. Beyond that, the greatest risk to civility comes from naïve skepticism, not from the evolutionists directly. Naïve skepticism fuels harsh and sometimes uncivil response. Is there some uncivility even in the absence of naïve skepticism? Sure, but you don’t have to respond to every message. Furthermore, I don’t think there is a big risk of the “high decibel vitriol.” We didn’t just start here last week.


    You should reflect on this, and issue some guidelines that will then be imposed.

    I believe that would be a mistake. You have to let people have their say, so long as they can express it without foul language and the like.


    Ban me if you have to,

    Foul language is the criterion.


    but stop the nonsense. It's not fair to others.

    Again, you need not respond to every comment. Think of the comment section as having multiple threads.

    ReplyDelete
  109. pavlino,

    Is it "fair" for UD to severely restrict who posts there? Is it "fair" for UD to block and ban people just because they question or oppose ID or belief in the ID god?

    Is it "fair" for IDiots like you and the gang of hypocritical godbots at UD to attack people like Elizabeth Liddle and accuse her of lying and other rotten deeds even though she has always been decent, honest, and extremely tolerant, in addition to trying to give you IDiots free lessons in evolutionary theory and how science is done?

    And she's far from the only one you ungrateful, hypocritical, dishonest, arrogant, sanctimonious UD IDiots have attacked, accused, quote-mined, blocked, and/or banned for no good reason.

    If you're so concerned about what's "fair", tell the mods and the other IDiots (like yourself) at UD to live up to their claim of 'welcoming open and honest discussion'. And while you're at it, tell ENV and all other ID/religious sites to open up to honest discussion too.

    I disagree with much of what Cornelius says but at least he doesn't block or ban people for no good reason. The rest of you cowardly IDiots should follow in his footsteps and let the chips fall where they may, especially if you're so 'confident in your position'. What are you really afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
  110. PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...

    Waaaah! Waaaaah!

    Please please please won't somebody ban the evil Evo meanie! He's making me look terrible! Make the liberal God-hating Evo stop!!"


    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Thanks PaV! That was an absolute classic tard meltdown, one of the best I've ever seen!

    I bet it will take you weeks to clean up all the flying spittle stains from you screaming at your monitor and pounding your keyboard. Just count yourself lucky all those bodily fluids you sprayed didn't short them out.

    After you cool down and get someone to change your nappy, please get back to demonstrating your "Creation Science" knowledge. Like Archeopteryx is the oldest know example of feathers. Or that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation. That was a classic too!

    I keep telling you - this isn't UD. You can't get by with just quote-mining and bluster and girlish cries for censorship like you do over there. If you want to stop looking like an illiterate idiot you need to read and learn this evolutionary biology stuff.

    I bet you must be real proud, knowing that you're getting laughed at by scientists in at least eight different time zones.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Cornelius Hunter said...

    I believe that would be a mistake. You have to let people have their say, so long as they can express it without foul language and the like.


    Thank you Dr. Hunter. We don't see eye to eye on too many things, but with that simple act alone you have earned more respect that all the rest of the IDCers put together.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Lino

    Think of Thorton as natural selection. Weak arguments will not go past him, they will die, good ones will survive. In the long run it's healthy

    ReplyDelete
  113. Eugen said...

    Lino

    Think of Thorton as natural selection. Weak arguments will not go past him, they will die, good ones will survive. In the long run it's healthy


    Problem is that PaVLino doesn't believe in natural selection. In his view his God has to constantly intervene and make both individual animals and species be a success or failure.

    That's why he can't understand why his God won't intervene here and cause the banning of all those evil Evos. It must be God's will that so many people show up PaVLino to be an ignorant chump.

    Being on the heavily censored UD for so long PaVLino never learned how to think for himself, or how to properly respond to challenges to his IDC propaganda. The whole idea of a fair and open competition between ideas is both alien and frightening to him.

    ReplyDelete
  114. the whole truth:

    Is it "fair" for UD to severely restrict who posts there? Is it "fair" for UD to block and ban people just because they question or oppose ID or belief in the ID god?

    You contradict yourself in the very next sentence when you complain about Elizabeth Liddle. She has a Darwinian, non-ID view, for the most part. But she isn't banned because she's always gracious. And MathGrrl, an ardently anti-ID person, was even allowed to put up a post.

    You get banned at UD for being needlessly confrontational and rude.

    Give and take is one thing; but phrasing such as:
    "you ungrateful, hypocritical, dishonest, arrogant, sanctimonious UD IDiots . . . " well, this won't get you very far at UD.

    Why Dr. Hunter abides that here, that I don't get. But it's his blog, and his rules apply. I would certainly run things differently. But I suppose he has his own reasons.

    Common decency goes a long way. When someone gets insulting, I think most people feel that at that point they've probably lost their case.

    ReplyDelete
  115. PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...

    You get banned at UD for being needlessly confrontational and rude.


    Where "needlessly confrontational" is defined as any post that points out the huge scientific, mathematical, and logical errors in the IDC arguments. "Rude" is defined as pointing out the overtly dishonest quote-mining and outright lying of the IDC pushers.

    You UD clowns are always screaming about being EXPELLED!, but you guys ban more posters and and censor more posts that all other Creation/Evolution boards combined.

    Common decency goes a long way.

    Maybe you should try some for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  116. PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...

    You contradict yourself in the very next sentence when you complain about Elizabeth Liddle.


    PaV, speaking of common decency and Dr. Liddle, I still haven't seen you apologize to her for the dishonest and despicable way you misrepresented her position here.

    But then again you've shown repeatedly that you think any lie for Jesus is a good lie.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Thorton:

    I bet it will take you weeks to clean up all the flying spittle stains from you screaming at your monitor and pounding your keyboard. Just count yourself lucky all those bodily fluids you sprayed didn't short them out.

    You're just a very sick person. And very wrong about most everything.

    ReplyDelete
  118. PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...

    I'm just a very sick person. And very wrong about most everything.


    I knew you'd be too slimy to apologize to Dr. Liddle for dishonestly misrepresenting her views.

    ReplyDelete
  119. pavlino,

    I didn't say that they block and ban ALL people. They DO block and/or ban most people who disagree with them. They allow a FEW people to disagree just to make it LOOK like they "welcome open and honest discussion", and those who disagree have to be careful of what they say or they will be blocked and/or banned too.

    The few people who disagree, who are allowed to post there, are regularly insulted, and regularly accused of lying and other rotten deeds. Just take a look at the way joe g talks to people who disagree with him. And he's far from the only one who insults, name-calls, accuses, and just plain attacks people who question or oppose him and/or the ID party line.

    UD is nothing more than an attack site. It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", atheists, naturalists, evolutionary materialists, science, scientists, science supporters, evolutionary theory, agnostics, theistic evolutionists, evolutionists, certain speakers and journalists, and anyone else who isn't a member of the UD/ID cult.

    Show me an article by "News" (o'leary) that isn't a snide, insulting attack. That's ALL she does. Show me an article by kairosfocus that isn't a snide, insulting attack. That's ALL he does. And many more of you IDiots do the same thing, including comparing non-IDiots to Hitler, Marx, Pol Pot, and other tyrannical monsters. UD is absolutely overflowing with vicious attacks on anyone who doesn't kiss your sanctimonious asses and worship your imaginary god.

    Elizabeth Liddle, Mathgrrl, DrRec, and many others have been treated like s**t at UD and NO ONE there ever apologizes or stands up for common decency. You UD IDiots EXPECT and DEMAND that you be treated like royalty but you act like the lowest lowlifes imaginable. Your hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and malignant narcissism gushes out of you, and you're sniveling COWARDS too.

    To give credit where it is due though, at least Cornelius is willing to allow open debate. That's more than can be said about UD and many (or most?) other ID sites.

    You godbots (especially at UD) are the ones who go on and on about how you're the only ones with 'morals' but you sure don't live up to your claims. You set as poor an example of christianity as could be demonstrated.

    I'd tell you what I really think of you but it wouldn't pass the rules here.

    Do you really believe that UD is accomplishing anything productive? How often do you see new ID supporting people posting there? How often do new people stick around? It's almost always just the same old pack of attack IDiots spewing the same old projectile vomit about 'evil Darwinists/evolutionists'.

    And what exactly has UD accomplished in regard to getting science to throw out naturalistic evolutionary theory and any other naturalistic theories, and to accept ID and your non-scientific, non-evidential, fairy tale religious beliefs in their place?

    You said:

    "When someone gets insulting, I think most people feel that at that point they've probably lost their case."

    If that's true, then you IDiots, and especially those of you at UD, lost your case long ago. When are you ever going to make a POSITIVE case for ID instead of just attacking the strawman "Darwinism"? Scientists work hard every day to find, study, verify, and explain POSITIVE evidence of how nature works. What have you IDiots ever POSITIVELY contributed to science? ALL you IDiots ever do is denigrate and attack science and the people who do it. Yeah, they're not perfect and haven't figured everything out but they're accomplishing a helluva lot more POSITIVE things than you ever will.

    You religious zombies should be a lot more "gracious" to the intelligent, scientifically minded people who have made your lives a LOT more healthy, comfortable, enjoyable, and informed.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Thorton (gorn):

    Like Archeopteryx is the oldest know example of feathers. Or that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation. That was a classic too!

    The oldest example of "flight feathers". You just love to misquote and misrepresent, don't you?

    And where did I say that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation?

    Can't you even tell the truth? Is this the way you think arguments ought to be won?

    You still haven't responded the my rather extended post demonstrating how you made error after error in thinking. Are you going to get around to that, or are you just hoping people will forget? I haven't forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  121. PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...

    I can't even tell the truth! Lying for Jesus is the way I think arguments ought to be won!


    Give it up PaV. No one is paying the slightest bit of attention to your infantile whining.

    You made yourself look foolish with your blustering ignorance, and your bawling for others to be banned just highlighted your immaturity.

    Now go on, post some more quote-mined Creationist stupidity so I can embarrass you further.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Thorton:

    I knew you'd be too slimy to apologize to Dr. Liddle for dishonestly misrepresenting her views.

    After the comments you've made here, how can you even begin to accuse someone else of being "slimy"? You've cornered the market on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  123. the whole truth:

    Elizabeth Liddle, Mathgrrl, DrRec, and many others have been treated like s**t at UD and NO ONE there ever apologizes or stands up for common decency. You UD IDiots EXPECT and DEMAND that you be treated like royalty but you act like the lowest lowlifes imaginable. Your hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and malignant narcissism gushes out of you, and you're sniveling COWARDS too.

    Show me one place on all of UD where anyone made a comment to someone like you just made to me. Show me.

    And, if you can't, then maybe you should be judiciously silent on that point.

    I just googled some of your phraseology and "uncommondescent". Guess what I got? Two links.

    Both to the "theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot" Is reality that difficult for you? Oh, I forgot, you're after the "the whole truth". It appears you haven't made it there yet.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Thorton:

    Give it up PaV. No one is paying the slightest bit of attention to your infantile whining.

    Where's the quote Thorton? Either come up with the quote, or admit that you're either ignorant or lying. No quote. No credibility. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Thorton:

    Now go on, post some more quote-mined Creationist stupidity so I can embarrass you further.

    The best I can see, "quote-mining" was invented by Darwinist to smear those who disagree with them when they use quotes that---given the literal meaning---contradicts what Darwinism holds.

    Now, again, either demonstrate what you mean by "quote-mining", or shut-up about it. Demonstrate exactly how I have interpreted something wrongly. Point it out. If you can't, then quit the whining and the sniveling.

    Poor old Dursten and Schmidt (and Thorton, too), one of those nasty IDers "quote-mined" them again! Oh, whatever shall we do! Put up, or shut-up.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Thorton:

    Shall I point out how you said (and the quote is right here on this blog) that Dursten and Schmidt spent the "second half" of their article pointing out how wrong Behe was? Remember I pointed out that in an eight page paper, they spent less than one page on Behe. Shall I go get the quote?

    ReplyDelete
  127. LOL!

    Keep yapping PaV. You make yourself look more childish with every post.

    I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up. Whatever will the Liar for Jesus do?

    Go ahead and post a few more lies and quote-mined snippets PaV. Show us again what a dishonest moron you are.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Thorton:

    I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up.

    Thank you for your self-description. Won't don't you back up this list of posts to where I take you to task for a number of whoppers on your part? And, if you're so interested in "technical details", then all you have to do is to specifically point out where I am guilty of "quote-mining". Just point it out. Let's have a discussion about it.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Pav Lino the sockpuppet said...

    Thorton: "I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up."

    Thank you for your self-description. Won't don't you back up this list of posts to where I take you to task for a number of whoppers on your part?


    All the lies you've been caught in are well documented in this and other threads PaV.

    And, if you're so interested in "technical details", then all you have to do is to specifically point out where I am guilty of "quote-mining". Just point it out. Let's have a discussion about it.

    Already been done multiple times. All that's left is your gasbag ego that's keeping you running your mouth.

    ReplyDelete