Thursday, July 26, 2012

Whole-Cell Computer Modeling: How Evolution Fits In


The Markus Covert group’s Cell paper from last week represents a tremendous achievement toward a more systematic understanding of how biological cells work. For decades much of molecular and cellular biology has focused on single genes and single pathways. This was partly out of necessity given the cell’s astronomical complexity. And it was also due to evolutionary dogma which viewed the biological world as so many organic contraptions strapped together one way or another. The result was a rather limited perspective of cellular biology. As Bruce Alberts explained in 1998:

We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered.

Covert’s work is another step on the way toward not underestimating cells. Science, rather than dogma, has a way of doing that. As Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic put it, “the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law.”

From the 128 computers running in parallel to the 500 megabytes of state data generated for a single cell cycle, Covert’s simulation of Mycoplasma genitalium—the smallest known free-living organism of a mere 525 genes—is immensely complex.

But nonetheless the simulation is not particularly detailed. It is a so-called mesoscale simulation, meaning it takes a grander view at the cost of omitting the fine-grain details. Consider a mesoscale simulation of an automobile, for instance.

It might model the engine by accounting for the rate at which fuel is burned and the level of torque that is produced. That would omit the stresses and strains of the engine block, the temperature of the metal, the action of the valves allowing oxygen to enter the cylinder, the electrical signal that ignites the spark plug, and a million other details.

The high-level engine model, accounting only for the fuel burn and torque, would be worthless to anyone interested in designing engines. But it is appropriate for, say, the problem of modeling the economics of surface transportation.

So it is with Covert’s simulation. A tremendous wealth of data are omitted, mostly out of necessity. The data are either unavailable, would drive the simulation compute resources through the roof to include, or is beyond current modeling and simulation technology.

And while omitting these data is appropriate for mesoscale cell simulations, there is a large gray area. Exactly which details are needed and which can safely be ignored in a mesoscale cell simulation?

The automobile simulation could ignore the details of the engine operation because there is a decoupling between phenomena at different time scales. Sub millisecond dynamics, for example, wash out and are irrelevant when studying annual trends.

This decoupling is well understood in machines that we build. It is less well understood in biology. In fact the lack of such decoupling can be important in molecular simulations, where phenomena on different time scales can interact.

Exploring such issues will be one of many scientific uses of whole-cell simulations. But don’t expect results too soon. It is a big problem and even simulating the standard E. coli bacteria, with 10 times more genes, is far beyond today’s state of the art.

This is to say nothing of populations of unicellular organisms, or the more complex multicellular organisms. If Covert’s simulation needs half a gigabyte of data for a single cycle of M. genitalium then imagine where the compute requirements go with, for instance, structures with millions of the vastly more complex mammalian cells.

Of course the high-and-going-higher compute requirements imply something about the ever-increasing evolutionary requirements as well.

Both the simulation state data and perhaps more importantly the models that input and output those data, all must have been created by random mutations and the like. Unlikely events must have conspired to design and assemble everything represented in Covert’s simulation, and much more. Care to explore the simulation’s Kolmogorov complexity (the code is available here)?

The more we learn, the more unlikely the “fact” of evolution becomes.

165 comments:

  1. As to the 'astronomical complexity' revealed of of the 'simple' Mycoplasma genitalium when working from a bottom up molecular level:

    First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

    Meet Mycoplasma, a parasitic bare-bones bacterium, with 484 genes - schematic representation of integrated enzyme cycles
    http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/526262_214092155366456_182588468516825_354683_222332123_n.jpg

    There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism - November 2009
    Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes."
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?"
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is also interesting to point out the main reason why researchers kept underestimating the minimal genome size required for 'simple' life:

      Minimal genome should be twice the size - 2006
      Excerpt: “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. “When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. “But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. “Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.
      http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/30/16976.aspx

      of related note:

      Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009
      Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks,, are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm

      Delete
  2. In the Physorg write up of this study they stated:

    Researchers produce first complete computer model of an organism - July 20, 2012
    Excerpt: Most biological experiments, however, still take a reductionist approach to this vast array of data: knocking out a single gene and seeing what happens. "Many of the issues we're interested in aren't single-gene problems," said Covert. "They're the complex result of hundreds or thousands of genes interacting.",,,
    To integrate these disparate data points into a unified machine, the researchers modeled individual biological processes as 28 separate "modules," each governed by its own algorithm. These modules then communicated to each other after every time step, making for a unified whole that closely matched M. genitalium's real-world behavior.,,,
    Consulting the model, the researchers hypothesized that the overall cell cycle's lack of variation was the result of a built-in negative feedback mechanism.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-researchers-produce-first-complete-computer.html

    And indeed the 'negative feedback' of their 28 separate "modules," each governed by its own algorithm. computer model of the Mycoplasma is due to what can be termed ' the poly-constraint of poly-fuctionality' they are dealing with in their model of Mycoplasma:

    The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism is this:
    To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible for finding a single gene, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle:
    Instead of searching for a single gene/protein, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Which is translated ;
    THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.
    This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation.
    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. Thus that is why there is a inherent 'negative feedback' in Mycoplasma as well as, by default, in their model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of related interest, although I consider this particular computer simulation to be far more accurate reflection of reality than Dawkin's weasel program (and other such Evolutionary Algorithms) Gil Dodgen, who works building accurate computer models/simulations for a living, recently posted on the inherent limits, and reliability, of computer simulations:

      All Claims Made as the Result of a Computer Simulation Should be Considered BS, Until Proven Otherwise - July 20, 2012 - GilDodgen
      Excerpt from comment section: I’ve written software of all kinds for almost 40 years, I’ve taught a range of undergraduate CS and CIS courses, and consulted in many areas including software quality assurance. No non-trivial program is bug-free; no, not one. Two things cause people to earnestly believe that their simulations are reliable – hubris and agreeable results.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/all-claims-made-as-the-result-of-a-computer-simulation-should-be-considered-bs-until-proven-otherwise/#comment-428243

      Delete
  3. Dr Hunter-

    Scientists, especially evolutionary scientists, HAVE to underestimate cells. That is the only way their jedi hand-wave works to fool the general public-> cells are so simple it is easy for them to evolve into something else.

    And that way they can say that some simple self-replicator can easily become a cell.

    Pathetic little imps those evos...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simply is the right word. Cells were once thought to be simple blobs of protoplasm, easily produced by mother nature. The jedi hand-wave worked well back then...

      Delete
    2. Joe, you remind me of me. Give'm hell, dude. :-D

      Delete
  4. Dear evolutionary colleagues,

    May I suggest keeping this thread pristine? Let's see what sort of discussions will ensue among our creationist counterparts. Let them have at it.

    Cordially,

    OT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. If involves ticks, watermelons, or extra cheesy pizza you can bet basement scientist Chubby G will be on the case!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      It has worked spectacularly well so far. Let's keep watching.

      Delete
    5. oleg-

      Buy a vowel- you are the joke and a dishonest one at that.

      Delete
    6. oleg: I wouldn't say anything either.

      Delete
    7. Cornelius Hunter

      oleg: I wouldn't say anything either.


      After tossing your usual OP stinkbombs, you almost never do.

      Delete
  5. 'The Atlantic' article that Dr. Hunter referenced is very interesting to read:

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 23
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    "Right now, running a simulation for a single cell to divide only one time takes around 10 hours and generates half a gigabyte of data," lead scientist Covert told the New York Times. "I find this fact completely fascinating, because I don't know that anyone has ever asked how much data a living thing truly holds."
    One cell. One division. Half a gig of data. Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total. That'd take a lot of computers to model, eh? If it were possible, that is.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. "Mycoplasma genitalium—the smallest known free-living organism of a mere 525 genes—is immensely complex."

    "ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 1999) — CHAPEL HILL - The minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350, according to new research directed by a top University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill scientist. " -

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

    How do you get from 0 to 265 genes before the survival and reproduction of the cell is possible? How do you even get one gene? The article talks about "the CREATION of new free-living organisms". Aside from the ethical concerns, note that its all about intentional design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal as to the discrepancy between the 525 and 265 number, It is interesting to point out the main reason why researchers kept underestimating the minimal genome size required for 'simple' life:

      Minimal genome should be twice the size - 2006
      Excerpt: “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. “When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. “But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. “Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.
      http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/30/16976.aspx

      of related note:

      Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009
      Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks,, are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm

      Delete
    2. Imagination- that is how materialists "explain" everything. And a "plausible pathway" is a pathway that some evo can imagine.

      Who needs science when we have imgination? Not evos....

      Delete
    3. Imagination is great. Then you have to test your models against data. This is what scientists do.

      Delete
    4. Your entire position rests solely on imagination and lies. It cannot be tested in real life.

      Delete
    5. Well, Joe, you are simply wrong. The scientific literature is stuffed full of tests of evolutionary hypothesis.

      And if there is the occasional dishonest scientist, it's generally other scientists who detect the dishonesty.

      Delete
    6. I am sick of your continued equivocations too.

      Please reference ONE testable hypothesis pertaining to accumulations of random mutations.

      Delete
    7. Exactly what I expected- no answer from Lizzie.

      Geez Liz don't you get tired of lying and equivocating?

      (obvioulsy not)

      Delete
    8. Joe G: Please reference ONE testable hypothesis pertaining to accumulations of random mutations.

      Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.

      Delete
    9. Please provide the reference that says the mutations were random- oh you forgot to produce the testable hypothesis- why is that? Are you are coward, still?

      Do you really think your bald assertions mean something? Really?

      Delete
    10. Joe G: Please provide the reference that says the mutations were random- oh you forgot to produce the testable hypothesis- why is that?

      Apparently, you didn't bother to read the paper. The hypothesis is stated in the abstract. The results are stated in the discussion, "neither the adaptive change nor its inheritance depends upon a specific environment".

      Delete
    11. Please state the testable hypothesis and tell us how it pertains to an accumulation of random mutations.

      Or admit that you are a deceitful coward.

      Delete
    12. Joe G: Please state the testable hypothesis and tell us how it pertains to an accumulation of random mutations.

      Seriously, Joe G? Why don't you simply read the paper and respond. It's available here:
      http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/BBABFJ.pdf

      Delete
    13. Zachriel,

      You know full well that there is no point in asking Joe to read any paper. He can read, but he lacks comprehension.

      The nested-hierarchy fiasco is still ongoing, despite your best efforts for years!

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. Exactly why would we do such a thing, Joe?

      Specifically, it's not just random mutations accumulated in just any way. That is the strawman everyone keeps asking us to test for.

      Again, evolutionary processes create the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations though an error correcting process of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      However, your particular conception of human knowledge is authoritative. In particular, you think knowledge can only be justified by an authoritative source: God. Nor can you recognize this as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      As such, you keep presenting the same parodical straw man that evolution is merely random. Surely, it must be random since you think it's obvious that only authoritative sources can justify knowledge. And since evolutionary processes are not authorities, the only possible outcome they could produce would be randomness.

      Would this be an accurate assessment of your conception of human knowledge? If not, then please point out where I'm mistaken and how your view differers, in detail.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    18. So Zachriel lied when it said there was a testable hypothesis pertaining to accumulations of random mutations.

      No surprise there...

      Delete
  7. BA77, thanks for the info. It seems like the redundancy would work against large scale changes in the genome. Perhaps the highest control layers of information protocol in the cell actually prohibit it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CH: all must have been created by random mutations and the like

    Cornelius, you forgot natural selection again.

    Why do you always forget natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he used the word 'created'. Natural selection does not create. It selects. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

      Delete
    2. Natural selection doesn't even select. It is a result. It doesn't do anything.

      Delete
    3. It is the name of a process that does something, Joe. As has been pointed out to you on a great many occasions.

      Delete
    4. You're right. Natural selection is not a physical thing that can do anything.

      Delete
    5. Liz-

      I am sick of your lies.

      “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

      “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley


      The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

      Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200).

      Your lies have been pointed out to you on many occasions yet you still spew them.

      Delete
    6. Well, I'm not going to respond to this, Joe, as I am getting very sick of being falsely accused of lying.

      As I've said, I'm as capable as anyone of being wrong, but I do not tell intentional untruths, nor do I intentionally mislead.

      Clearly you think I am wrong. Clearly, I think you are.

      That means that at least one of us is wrong. It does not mean that either of us is lying.

      Delete
    7. Liz-

      You have nothing to say, ie no evidence to contradict anything I have said, that is why you are not going to respond to that.

      Ya see, deary, I had a post on YOUR blog that went over this and not one evo stepped forward to demonstrate natural selection doing something.

      So stuff a sock in it. I know your game and it is over.

      Delete
    8. @Liz

      As someone who's technically on Joe G's side, he's completely out of line here.

      1. The issue of whether selection is part of the process or if mutation is separate is only a matter of semantics; we're all in agreement on how these work, barring the typical questions such as "is there enough time?" and "are there steps that are small enough"
      2. Accusing you of deliberately lying is baseless and rude.

      Delete
    9. LoL! I am not out of line because Liz has been spewing the same nonsense and flat-out refuses to support anything she says.

      Also, as I stated, I had a thread ON HER BLOG about natural selection and not one evo stepped up to demonstrate it could do something.

      As for rude- evos are rude- I just return the favor.

      So please buy a feaking vowel.

      Delete
    10. Chubby G

      Also, as I stated, I had a thread ON HER BLOG about natural selection and not one evo stepped up to demonstrate it could do something.


      Where you had the majority of your posts sent to the Guano Pit for obscenities. Then you got suspended for posting a porn link, and finally outright banned for telling Dr. Liddle to **** herself when she asked for your promise that you wouldn't do it anymore.

      You don't care a bit about any scientific discussions. You're just a psychotic who gets off on trashing everything he touches, just like you're trying to do here.

      Delete
    11. JoeCoder, if you'd like to discuss your ID ideas in a reasonable adult manner I'd invite you to join TalkRational.org. Once you join you can start a thread on any ID topic in the Life Sciences Discussions section. We have quite a number of scientists there, many published PhDs including some world recognized experts in their fields.

      There's no censorship or banning like at UD. Also, you won't be hooted at or insulted like our YEC pal here likes to do. Be aware that you will be challenged to support what you say with evidence from the primary literature.

      It's worth checking out.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    13. Joe G: The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine: Natural selection does nothing…

      Hmm, ellipses. In the next paragraph, Provine continues, saying "Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."

      As Elizabeth Liddle points out, natural selection is a process, a result of more fundamental forces. Provine is complaining that biologists don't always quantify those forces. Since Provine wrote that—more the four decades ago—, many direct observations of natural selection have been made, filling in many of details of the process as it occurs in nature.

      Delete
    14. Chubby G

      YOU are nothing but a pathological liar and a momma's boy. Does it make you feel big to lie about other people?


      Here's a link to the Guano section of Dr. Liddle's blog. Over 80% of the 600+ posts moved there are from Joe G.

      Joe G's Guano output

      Here's a link to the Moderation section where you are first warned about posting porn, then banned.

      Joe G banned

      So who's the liar Chubs?

      Delete
    15. Imbecile- I said natural selection exists. What YOU cannot do is demonstrate that it does something- like be a designer mimic.

      And by your logic the solution to an equation is also an equation, the answer is also a question.

      Buy a vowel as you are totally clueless.

      Delete
    16. cry-baby- YOU are the liar. No one cares that a dried-up old hag can moderate me nor ban me. That has nothing to do with being a liar you moron.

      Why are you such a freaking coward?

      Delete
    17. Chubby G

      No one cares that a dried-up old hag can moderate me nor ban me.


      But it does clearly show you were lying, and demonstrates nicely the pattern to your vulgar psychotic behavior.

      You'll never learn...

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    19. What was I lying about? Or are you lying again, as usual?

      Delete
    20. Joe: Imbecile- I said natural selection exists. What YOU cannot do is demonstrate that it does something- like be a designer mimic.

      We cannot?

      Why don't you start out by explaining how designers create knowledge, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      I predict your "explanation" will either be supernatural, illogical or completely absent in that you'll refuse to actually answer the question in any sort of detail.

      Delete
    21. No, you cannot. And why the equivocation? The debate is NOT about "evolutionary" processes- it is about blind and undirected processes vs design.

      So please, pull your head out and buy a vowel

      Delete
    22. BTW designers create knowledge by making observations and figuring things out.

      Blind and undirected processes can't do that.

      Delete
  9. You know what, Cornelius - I work on brains.

    Brains are really really complicated. They are way more complicated than cells - because they are made of cells.

    If all you need to falsify evolution is something really really complicated that is supposed to have evolved - why not just pick the brain? Or, even better - a human being?

    Then ask yourself - don't you think that "evolutionists" have noticed that brains/human beings are really really complicated?

    And given that we probably have, why do you think that pointing out the complexities of a cell is going to give us pause? The whole point is that we think that evolution is capable of producing really really complicated things.

    Just pointing out that it needs to explain really really complicated things doesn't really cut much mustard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elizabeth, nothing will give evolutionists "pause"... because everything evolved by default. You have no metric to determine otherwise. Even when Darwinian mechanisms are not even working, evolution did it!

      You don't even have biological evolution kicking in until you have immensely "complicated things" called a living and reproducing cell. Yet, you say, "we think that evolution is capable of producing really really complicated things. Well, the smallest reproducing cell is a really really complicated thing and it had nothing to do with Darwinian mechanisms!

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your response Neal. But let me question you on it in detail:

      You say: Elizabeth, nothing will give evolutionists "pause"... because everything evolved by default.

      What do you mean by "evolved" in this context? In other words, what do you imagine the "evolutionists" who, according to you, say that "everything evolved by default" mean by "evolved"?

      Because I think there is a very important issue buried here!

      You have no metric to determine otherwise.

      Could you explain what you mean by "metric" - what is it you think we need to measure, and which, according to you, we can't?

      Even when Darwinian mechanisms are not even working, evolution did it!

      Again, could you explain what you mean? Clearly you are attributing ideas to "evolutionists" - I'd like to know exactly what you think those ideas are.

      smallest reproducing cell is a really really complicated thing and it had nothing to do with Darwinian mechanisms!

      The smallest reproducing cell today is certainly a really really complicated thing - but are you and Cornelius making the assumption that the earliest cell must have been as complicated as the smallest modern cell?

      Because I don't :) And nor do any "evolutionists" that I know of.

      Delete
    3. "ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 1999) — CHAPEL HILL - The minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350, according to new research directed by a top University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill scientist. " -

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

      Let's go with the bottom figure of 265 even though the actual number is probably quite a bit higher (see BA77's earlier comment). Even at 265 genes you've got a really really complicated thing and Darwinism had absolutely nothing to do with its origin.

      Delete
    4. Baghdad Bob Tedford

      Let's go with the bottom figure of 265 even though the actual number is probably quite a bit higher (see BA77's earlier comment). Even at 265 genes you've got a really really complicated thing and Darwinism had absolutely nothing to do with its origin.


      Clueless Tedford gets it wrong again. Sorry Bob, but that experiment shows the minimum number of current, DNA based proteins that are required for a single celled organism. It says nothing about the required number or complexity of simpler, earlier precursor life forms that may have existed in something like an RNA world.

      Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

      "abstract: An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system."

      You can't cure willful ignorance.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. Nothing new evolved. And nothing that demonstrates blind and undirected processes could do it.

      Delete
    7. As to the Joyce's RNA paper that Thorton cited:

      Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle - Doug Axe -
      Excerpt: "So, advertising this as “self-replication” is a bit like advertising something as “free” when the actual deal is 1 free for every 1,600 purchased. It’s even worse, though, because you need lots of the pre-made precursors in cozy proximity to a finished RNA in order to kick the process off. That makes the real deal more like n free for every 1,600 n purchased, with the caveats that n must be a very large number and that full payment must be made in advance."
      http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19309047110/biologic-institute-announces-first-self-replicating

      Biological Information: The Puzzle of Life that Darwinism Hasn’t Solved - Stephen C. Meyer
      Thus, as my book Signature in the Cell shows, Joyce’s experiments not only demonstrate that self-replication itself depends upon information-rich molecules, but they also confirm that intelligent design is the only known means by which information arises.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org//2009/06/biological_information_the_puz.html

      Notes on 'free-living' cells vs. self replication:

      It is interesting to point out that Mycoplasma is not a 'free living' cell but is 'degenerate' parasitic bacteria, with a stripped down genome, which is dependent on its host for a number of essential functions, and is thus not really a fair representation of the minimal complexity needed to sustain a 'free-living' cell such as e-coli which has about 10 times as many genes as Mycoplasma:

      Meet Mycoplasma, a parasitic bare-bones bacterium, with 484 genes - schematic representation of integrated enzyme cycles
      http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/526262_214092155366456_182588468516825_354683_222332123_n.jpg

      Mycoplasma Genitalium - The "Simplest" Life On Earth - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012738

      This following link has a nice overview of the classic self-replicating experiment in 1967 by Spiegelman in which the self-replicating molecule got simpler and simpler in a artificial environment,(i.e. Spiegelman's monster), instead of evolving any new self sustaining complexity;

      Origins of Life – Freeman Dyson – page 75
      http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ75QhwpXoEC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Spiegelman+in+1967++origin+of+life&source=bl&ots=oJx64fYN4P&sig=xycZD-Xff6D-UkO4ZhzFWxfMFNA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jFZFT4WnKqmfsQKg79nCDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Spiegelman%20in%201967%20%20origin%20of%20life&f=false

      This overwhelming 'tendency towards simplicity' witnessed repeatidly of neo-Darwinian processes, of course, begs this question:

      Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video
      Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?"
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

      Delete
    8. Neal, could you answer my questions?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    9. Of related interest, it is also interesting to note that scientists have actually used a mechanism of 'excessive mutations' to help humans in their fight against pathogenic viruses, to eradicate them, as the following articles clearly point out:

      GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown
      Excerpt: Error catastrophe occurs when high mutation rates give rise to so many deleterious mutations that they make the population go extinct. For example, foot and mouth disease virus treated with mutagens (base analogues fluorouracil and azacytidine) eventually become extinct [1]. Polio virus treated with the mutagenic drug ribavirin similarly went extinct [2].
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php

      Quasispecies Theory and the Behavior of RNA Viruses - July 2010
      Excerpt: Many predictions of quasispecies theory run counter to traditional views of microbial behavior and evolution and have profound implications for our understanding of viral disease. ,,, it has been termed “mutational meltdown.” It is now clear that many RNA viruses replicate near the error threshold. Early studies with VSV showed that chemical mutagens generally reduced viral infectivity, and studies with poliovirus clearly demonstrated that mutagenic nucleoside analogs push viral populations to extinction [40]–[43]. The effect is dramatic—a 4-fold increase in mutation rate resulted in a 95% reduction in viral titer.,,, While mutation-independent activities have also been identified, it is clear that APOBEC-mediated lethal mutagenesis is a critical cellular defense against RNA viruses. The fact that these pathogens replicate close to the error threshold makes them particularly sensitive to slight increases in mutational load.,,,
      http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001005#ppat-1001005-g003

      Delete
    10. note:

      Mycoplasma
      Excerpt: There are no free-living Mycoplasma, they are strictly parasites. They parasitize a wide range of organism including humans, plants, animals, and insects. Mycoplasma grow very slowly, even under perfect conditions, with a generation time ranging up to nine hours in some species. They also have a very long lag phase, so it may take an entire week before colonies become visible on agar plates. Due to their degraded genome, and inability to perform basic functions, Mycoplasma rely on their host for much of their nutrition.
      http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Mycoplasma#Ecology

      Delete
    11. Thorton

      "Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme"

      As in the paper there are not detailed materials and methods, I tracked back in to the references. They did this assays in a medium of 2mM of each of the four NTPs.
      Do you understand what that means?
      1 gr per liter of each nucleoside tri fosfate.
      Very special water pond should be the one where RNA repliators started life!

      Delete
  10. So how do you go from 0 to three to five hundred genes in order to begin to have a viable and reproducing cell? Whenever I make comparisons between the complexity of human designed systems and living organisms I always get push back from evolutionists that designed systems do not reproduce and undergo natural selection, but living cells do. That's what they say is the difference.

    So we need a few hundred genes in order for evolution to begin. No reproduction. No natural selection, and you have a highly complex cell with the minimum number of genes before any kind of Darwinian mechanism kicks in.

    The design argument is especially compelling in this case because we have the arrival of immense celluar complexity without any evolutionary mechanism involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question, Neal, but you make an assumption that most "evolutionists" don't, which is that:

      ...we need a few hundred genes in order for evolution to begin

      No, we probably don't. You probably don't need a "gene" at all - what you do need, however, is some kind of self-replicating polymer, possibly enclosed within some kind of self-replicating vesicle.

      This is what OOL research is all about - trying to find the simplest self-replicating unit that is capable of Darwinian evolution, i.e. of self-replication with variation, where that variation affects reproductive success.

      Clearly, if the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator turns out to be too complex to have arisen by non-Darwinian mechanisms, then we would have to look again for the origin of that self-replicator.

      But current research is looking promising.

      Delete
    2. Baghdad Bob Tedford

      So we need a few hundred genes in order for evolution to begin. No reproduction. No natural selection, and you have a highly complex cell with the minimum number of genes before any kind of Darwinian mechanism kicks in.


      Wrong again Bob. All you need for evolution to happen is imperfect self-replication with inheritance, and a competition for resources. This can be seen in even simple 2-D examples like John Conway's Game Of Life.

      Here is a Java applet that lets you play with the parameters and watch the digital "creatures" evolve right before your eyes

      Game of Life applet

      It's a classic and easy to see example of how a few simple rules applied iteratively can produce great complexity.

      Delete
    3. Refutation Of Evolutionary Algorithms

      "Darwin or Design" with Dr. Tom Woodward with guest Dr. Robert J. Marks II - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoj9xo0YsOQ

      LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13
      Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.
      http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/

      Climbing the Steiner Tree--Sources of Active Information in a Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem - 2012 - Winston Ewert, William A Dembski, Robert J Marks II
      http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/50

      Applied Darwinism: A New Paper from Bob Marks and His Team, in BIO-Complexity - Doug Axe 2012
      Excerpt: Furthermore, if you dig a bit beyond these papers and look at what kinds of problems this technique (Steiner Tree) is being used for in the engineering world, you quickly find that it is of extremely limited applicability. It works for tasks that are easily accomplished in a huge number of specific ways, but where someone would have to do a lot of mindless fiddling to decide which of these ways is best.,, That's helpful in the sense that we commonly find computers helpful -- they do what we tell them to do very efficiently, without complaining. But in biology we see something altogether different. We see elegant solutions to millions of engineering problems that human ingenuity cannot even begin to solve.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/applied_darwini058591.html

      From David Tyler: How do computer simulations of evolution relate to the real world? - October 2011
      Excerpt: These programs ONLY work the way they want because as they admit, it only works because it has pre-designed goals and fitness functions which were breathed into the program by intelligent designers. The only thing truly going on is the misuse and abuse of intelligence itself.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/from-david-tyler-how-do-computer-simulations-of-evolution-relate-to-the-real-world/comment-page-1/#comment-401493

      There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these (evolutionary) algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed to do that. What would be surprising is if the program didn't converge on the solution. That would reflect badly on the skill of the programmer. Everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill-the information input. There are no mysterious outputs.
      Software Engineer - quoted to Stephen Meyer

      Estimating Active Information in Adaptive Mutagenesis
      http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0005/EstimatingActiveInformationPoster_final.pdf

      Delete
    4. Lizzie, ""ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 1999) — CHAPEL HILL - The minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350, according to new research directed by a top University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill scientist. "

      Why do you discount this and imagine that your vaporware cell is grounded in anything but your imagination or cartoon animation?

      "Self-replicating polymer, possibly enclosed within some kind of self-replicating vesicle" is not what a living cell is, nor is your pathway to a true cell even conceivable from that starting point. Cell division is not like Mr. Bubble bath dividing in the tub nor is it remotely close.

      Delete
    5. Why do you discount this

      Because it is not the answer to the question we need to ask. We don't want to know "The minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory" - what we want to know is the minimum configuration of molecules that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution in early earth.

      and imagine that your vaporware cell is grounded in anything but your imagination or cartoon animation?

      Using pejoratives like "vaporware" doesn't make your argument, unless "Big Bang" is also "vaporware". Big Bang is a model. So are Szostak's putative early proto-cells - and they are models that are actually tested, in actual test-tubes in actual labs.

      "Self-replicating polymer, possibly enclosed within some kind of self-replicating vesicle" is not what a living cell is,

      It's not what we call a living cell today, certainly. That doesn't mean that such a thing was not ancestral to todays living cells.

      nor is your pathway to a true cell even conceivable from that starting point.

      Just because you can't conceive it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

      Cell division is not like Mr. Bubble bath dividing in the tub nor is it remotely close.

      It's remotely close. Do read Szostak's work.

      Delete
    6. what we want to know is the minimum configuration of molecules that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution in early earth.

      But even something like that doesn't mean it can eventually produce a cell. If Szostak's work says anything it says your position is in deep trouble.

      Nothing new evolved, it took TWO to get started, two and a bunch of designed RNAs- all the TWO did was catalyze ONE stinking bond. You need much, much more than that deary.

      Delete
    7. But even something like that doesn't mean it can eventually produce a cell.

      Absolutely right. But nor does it say it can't. It's a promising lead, no more. We do not yet have a well-supported OOL theory.

      Delete
    8. It's only a "promising lead" to those who before had absolutely nothing. To many others it is just another nail in the coffin for blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism.

      Delete
  11. Liddle:
    You know what, Cornelius - I work on brains.

    But obvioulsy you don't have one.

    And given that we probably have, why do you think that pointing out the complexities of a cell is going to give us pause?

    Nothing gives you pause because your imagination can splain any and every thing.

    The whole point is that we think that evolution is capable of producing really really complicated things.


    Yes that is what you think but uunfortunately you still don't have any evidence for.

    BTW Liz- natural selection is a result and doesn't do anything. So no one is forgetting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW Liz- natural selection is a result and doesn't do anything. So no one is forgetting it.

      It is the word we use for a process, Joe, and that process does a heck of a lot.

      Delete
    2. It's a result Liz and it doesn't do anything.

      Natural selection is the result of differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. That's it.

      We have evidence that it exists but no evidence it does something and definitely no evidence it is a designer mimic.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Cornelius just feels sorry for a retarded obese old man like Joe and cuts him some slack. It's understandable.

      Delete
    3. Maybe evos are just the cowardly losers thorton's post makes them out to be

      Delete
    4. Hey Joe, don't go on a cruise near Japan - the Japanese whaling ships might harpoon you by accident. On second thought, Japanese whaling is scientific research, so this might be your only chance to contribute to science, Joe!

      Delete
    5. Nope they couldn't hit something as nimble and quick as I am.

      BTW cowards like you can't insult me. You can try, but that is about it.

      And you don't even know what science is...

      Delete
    6. Thorn is such a cry baby. He can dish it out but he can't take it.

      Delete
    7. The sad part is that Dr Hunter is removing my responses to its insults but leaving the stick-poking insults alone.

      What's up with that?

      Delete
  13. Elizabeth Liddle said:

    "You know what, Cornelius - I work on brains."

    In other words:

    I know a bit about how x works, therefore x is not special anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe , first,you don't really know the amount she knows. Second when I want an opinion on how my car works,I go to a mechanic not a philosopher.

      How about you?

      Delete
    2. I know how a car works - I don't need to ask anyone.

      Delete
    3. computerist29:

      You seem to have missed my point.

      I'm not saying that "x isn't special any more".

      I'm saying that brains are orders of magnitude more complex than their constituent cells, and so there isn't a lot of point in pointing at a cell and saying: "hey, evolutionist, how do you explain that?" when we are already well aware that we have to explain something orders of magnitude more complex!

      Delete
    4. Wow. A scientist would attempt to explain the least complex phenomena first. Ya see the key to the more complex stuff could be in that research.

      Delete
  14. Thorton,you need to relax a bit. Better too little supervision than too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton's comment is well taken. Removed due to quotes therein, but well taken.

      Delete
    2. thorton is OK as long as it is the one berating and insulting people. However its true baby-blue colors show through when its tactics are reversed.

      That is how it goes for all cowards- OK when they are doing it- not OK when someone pays them back.

      Notice how I don't run to Dr Hunter when it insults me...

      Delete
    3. Thorton is as irrelevant as he is entertaining and obnoxious.

      Delete
    4. Joe G

      thorton is OK as long as it is the one berating and insulting people. However its true baby-blue colors show through when its tactics are reversed


      Joe, we all take shots at the other side by referring to them as ignorant, dummies, blowhards, etc. That's par for the course, and you need to have a thick skin like most of us do. But there is a line of disgusting vulgarity that nobody crosses except you, and you do it repeatedly. It's gotten you banned on countless discussion boards as well it should.

      You won't learn from the bannings though, you never do.

      Delete
    5. LoL! YOU are nothing but a loser cry-baby. And only a wussy would think what I say is vulgar.

      As for bannings- yours outnumbers mine that is why you need multiple sock puppets.

      Delete
    6. Thorn:

      But there is a line of disgusting vulgarity that nobody crosses except you, and you do it repeatedly.

      It's too bad Hunter does not accept them on his blog (his prerogative) but that is all most of you deserve. Swines do not deserve to trample on other people's pearls. Especially gutless swines.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And it all has to happen simultaneously. Which make random chance a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're confused Peter.

      Evolution posits a slow accumulation of function via iterative feedback processes.

      Intelligent Design Creationism is the idea that everything was *POOFED* into existence all at once.

      Please learn the difference.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Thorton:

      Doesn't the Big Bang theory hold that the Universe was poofed into existence all at once? And abiogenesis states that life was poofed into existence from non-life.

      Delete
    4. natschuster

      Doesn't the Big Bang theory hold that the Universe was poofed into existence all at once? And abiogenesis states that life was poofed into existence from non-life.


      No to both.

      Delete
  17. Mayor,

    Going to miss your well reasoned arguments, but I need a new suspension on my 2002 Toyota Tacoma,what do your suggest? Are Bilstein worth it?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do believe Joe G is attempting "death by moderator" - ratcheting up the over-the-top vulgarities until boards have no choice but to ban him. It's a great cover for his scientific ignorance, plus he can crow about being an EXPELLED martyr. He's done it many other places.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. In the parking lot where Joe lives.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  18. Which corner of the parking lot? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I need the exact directions, Joe. Which corner of the parking lot?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  19. :)
    We are like dysfunctional family on Jerry Springer show.

    (bleep)yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps Mayor suffers from a combination of Tourettes and Lyme disease ,sacrificing his well being for the sake of science

    ReplyDelete
  21. Strange- the blog admin seems to have a limbric issue...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chubby G

      Strange- the blog admin seems to have a limbric issue...


      As opposed to Chubs, who has a limbic issue. :D

      You're a hoot!

      Delete
    2. YOU are a coward, a loser and a LIAR

      Delete
    3. Chubs

      YOU are a coward, a loser and a LIAR


      At least I know how to spell the words I use. :D :D :D

      Delete
    4. I would rather have typos than be a cowardly liar. And you definitely don't understand most of the words you use.

      Delete
    5. thorton can spell- well because it uses spellchecker- but it sure as shit can't do any math nor science...

      Delete
    6. Do some math for us Chubs. Calculate the CSI of a Snickers Bar. Don't forget to show your work.

      Delete
    7. LoL! spellchecker coward can't even phrase the question properly because it is ignorant of the concept.

      Not only that CSI is NOT the tool I would use for an object, as I have said many times already.

      IOW spellchecker coward is totally lost, as usual, and having its usual meltdown...

      Delete
    8. Oops! Looks like Chubs ate the Snickers before he could do his calculation!

      This should stop him:

      Hey Chubs, calculate the CSI of a raw carrot.

      Delete
    9. spellchecker coward-

      do you really think your ignorance means something? Just because you are a cowardly imp that does not refute ID.

      Just sayin'...

      Delete
  22. Dr Hunter-

    If you really want to get into it with me, I am game. Do you really want to go there because I do not. But I will not tolerate your uneven moderation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you gonna do, Joe? Stomp your feet and leave?

      Delete
    2. Chubby G

      If you really want to get into it with me, I am game. Do you really want to go there because I do not. But I will not tolerate your uneven moderation.


      LOL! Oh man, this is ripe. :D :D :D

      What are you going to do Chubs? Offer to meet Dr. Hunter in person to "teach him a lesson" like you did everyone else? Sit on him and squish him? Or cut and run like you always do when your bluff is called?

      Delete
    3. coward:
      What are you gonna do, Joe? Stomp your feet and leave?

      Nope- only someone like you would do that

      Delete
    4. cowardly liar thorton-

      Go find some little boys to molest

      Strange that the evidence shows it is YOU who always runs away, cowardly liar

      Delete
    5. Then what do you mean by saying "I will not tolerate your uneven moderation?" What will be the consequences if the moderation continues? :)

      Delete
    6. Meet me and I will tell you you cowardly little girl

      Delete
    7. That's too long! We want to know what you're gonna do to the blog administrator! Issue more empty threats?

      Delete
    8. It's too long for a coward. I haven't issued any empty threats- ever- you are just a cowardly liar who needs directions to find its balls...

      Delete
    9. Only in your little bitty mind...

      Delete
    10. It's not in mt imagination, Joe. You wrote, addressing Cornelius: "I will not tolerate your uneven moderation." That's a threat, and an empty one at that because you can't do much about the moderation—other than adjusting your behavior.

      Delete
    11. Really? Interesting that your little bitty mind can only think of one thing

      Delete
  23. oleg and thorton still searching for their balls.

    Just look on each other's chins...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Best Friday meltdown by Chubby Joe in months!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That you think so just proves it isn't.

      Delete
    2. Chubs, I bet all that spittle flying off your jowls makes you look like a lawn sprinkler.

      Delete
    3. I bet all those little boys you molest make you look like a little girl

      Delete
    4. Yep, just like a lawn sprinkler!

      spoosh! spoosh! spoosh! spoosh!

      tic-tic-tic-tic-tic-tic-tic

      spoosh! spoosh! spoosh! spoosh!

      Delete
    5. Funny how Joe's meltdowns always end up in Joe accusing others of being homosexual. I wonder why. Could it be that Joe is so angry because he wants to come out desperately?

      Delete
    6. No, what is funny is your ignorance and cowardice...

      Delete
  25. Aside to Dr. Hunter:

    Apologies for causing you extra work to clean up this mess, but getting Volcano Joe to explode is one of the funniest things on the web!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And exposing thorton as the cowardly liar it is is just a job someone has to do. and here I am.

      Delete
  26. So now we know-> exposing evos cowardice, ignorance and lies is equal, in their minds anyway, to having a meltdown.

    Strange...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. spoosh! spoosh! spoosh! spoosh!

      tic-tic-tic-tic-tic-tic-tic

      spoosh! spoosh! spoosh! spoosh!

      Delete
  27. Hey trolleg- I found them, they were on thorton's chins...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ignore them,Mayor, they are just jealous of your intellect.By the way,ever done any science on pickles? I've got a few questions.

      Delete
  28. Joe G:

    Sorry, comments are tricky and implementing a comment policy is even trickier. Most straightforward policies are all and none (i.e., allow all comments or allow no comments). We'll probably have to turn them off for awhile.

    ReplyDelete