Thursday, December 6, 2012

Evolutionist: There.Is.No.Debate.Over.Evolution

Repeat After Me

When you blackball anyone and everyone who so much as questions the mandate that the world must have spontaneously arisen, then David Hone is correct, there really is “no debate over evolution.”

168 comments:

  1. The issue is the word "evolution" can mean many things. And there isn't any debate over most of those different meanings. Changes in allele frequency, natural selection, genetic drift, descent with modification-> all evolution and even YECs are OK with the evidence supporting each of those.

    Biological Evolution: What Is Being Debated

    and

    equivocation and evolution

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius, can you please supply a list of the technical papers with positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creation that you and others at the DI have written which were rejected by mainstream science journals simply for not supporting ToE?

    I'm sure a top notch anti-evolution muckraker like you must have dozens of them alone, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can the equivocating dancing queen supply ONE technical paper with positive evidence for blind and undirected chemical processes actually producing a multi-protein configuration?

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joe G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!


      We know you're stupid enough to think that Chubs. No need to keep reminding us just how ignorant you really are.

      Delete
    3. dancing queen- I NEVER SAID EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE.

      So why do you always have to lie? Or are you just an ignorant little imp?

      Why do you insist on being an equivocating coward?

      Delete
  3. even YECs are OK with the evidence supporting each of those.

    Why do you bring this up? Are you a young earth creationist?

    Let's suppose you are right that YECs accept the reality of those processes. To be consistent with a universe that's only a few thousands years old, wouldn't they have to postulate mutation rates orders of magnitude larger than the observed mutation rates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. even YECs are OK with the evidence supporting each of those.

      equivocating coward:
      Why do you bring this up?

      Umm to expose the hypocrisy and cowardly equivocation of evos, like yourself.

      To be consistent with a universe that's only a few thousands years old,

      You're confused- young earth doesn't = young universe.

      wouldn't they have to postulate mutation rates orders of magnitude larger than the observed mutation rates?

      LoL! In a design scenario, yup, that could happen. It all depends on the external influences and the internal programming.

      Delete
    2. You're confused- young earth doesn't = young universe.

      Right. The earth could be young but the universe much older. Is that what you believe?

      LoL! In a design scenario, yup, that could happen. It all depends on the external influences and the internal programming.

      But the observed mutation rates are much lower than what would be consistent with a young earth scenario. Are you suggesting they are low now, but were much higher in the past (a few thousand years ago)?

      Delete
    3. troy:
      The earth could be young but the universe much older. Is that what you believe?

      That's what YECs say. I say it all depends on HOW the earth was formed as to its age.

      But the observed mutation rates are much lower than what would be consistent with a young earth scenario.

      Things have stabilized

      Are you suggesting they are low now, but were much higher in the past (a few thousand years ago)?

      This is too funny- you really have no idea what your opponents say- What is wrong with you?

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      This is too funny- you really have no idea what your opponents say- What is wrong with you?


      We know you're a YEC who's been caught lying numerous times about your beliefs. Just like now when you try to argue a YEC position but claim they're not your arguments, you're just repeating them for others.

      That you're stupid enough to think anyone would believe your lame excuses is quite the comment on your lack of self-awareness.

      Delete
    5. troy:
      The earth could be young but the universe much older. Is that what you believe?

      Joe: That's what YECs say. I say it all depends on HOW the earth was formed as to its age.


      Really? Is that what the YECs say? I thought they said everything was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

      How exactly is the formation process of the earth relevant to its estimated age? What do you think is the age of the earth?

      Delete
    6. If you really wanted to know what YECs say then you would go to their websites and read.

      How exactly is the formation process of the earth relevant to its estimated age?

      Because it is relevant ot everything's age. How something came to be directly impacts its age.

      Delete
    7. I give up. You're just too stupid.

      Delete
    8. LoL! You give up because you are nothing but an equivocation coward who couldn't support his position if your life depended on it. So you are forced to lash out at people who expose you for what you are and when that doesn't work, you give up.

      Delete
  4. thorton- everyone knows that you are a pathological liar. I am not arguing any position. I am just stating FACTS. But seeing that facts and you don't mesh you get your panties in a knot and spew your lies.

    You're a little cowardly freak, seek help

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chubby Joe G

      I am not arguing any position. I am just stating FACTS.


      So am I Chubs. It's a FACT you've been arguing for YEC ever since you began polluting science sites with your drivel years ago. It's a FACT you're still doing so. It's a FACT someone found that picture of your lardbottom on a YEC website you were helping with. It's a FACT you were caught lying and claiming to be a Muslim to hide your YEC affiliations.

      Keep lying Joe, just don't kid yourself into thinking anyone comes close to believing your lies.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Joe, everyone knows that you spend most of your day on the blogs trying to be important, as compensation for the fact that you're a loser in real life. Everybody knows this, except perhaps for some lunatic on a small Caribbean island.

      Delete
    3. yeah thorton and it's a fact that you are a child-molesting pedophile- sick with syphillis contracted by having sex with infected dogs.

      Delete
    4. Actually troy everyone knows that you too like little boys...

      Delete
    5. Hmmm, I wonder why Joe always brings up sex with little boys when he is losing an argument.

      Delete
    6. troy

      Hmmm, I wonder why Joe always brings up sex with little boys when he is losing an argument.


      He obviously spent too much time with his Catholic priest as a child.

      Delete
    7. Someone please let me know when I am losing an argument- and please present the evidence that demonstrates I am losing.

      Delete
    8. Yup, that is what I thought- all bluff, all the time...

      Delete
    9. You and the rest of the IDiots lost the argument 6 years ago at Dover fatboy.

      All the rest is just you bellyaching and flapping those flabby jowls.

      Delete
    10. LoL! Only a total freak would think that science is decided in a courtroom by a scientifically illiterate judge, and here you are. A Dover only pertains to that one little school district. It is meaningless outside of that little insignificant district.

      As I said at the next trial all the folly of Dover will be used against evos as the next trial will be about the cowardly equivocation and the strawman that judge jones was too ignorant to see.

      Delete
  5. ..aaaaaand here comes Chubby Joe Gallien's latest meltdown, right on schedule!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! You're already having your typical cowardly meltdown-

      Delete
  6. I cannot be a YEC because I do not accept the Bible as any kind of authority. To me it is just a collection of stories.

    thorton just gets upset because, unlike him, I am educated and actually understand what people say about science, biology and evolution. And because I am educated i correct all of his ignorant spewage and that gets him all upset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Breaking news: Joe is educated!

      Bwahaha

      Delete
    2. troy

      Breaking news: Joe is educated!


      I hear he can even say "double cheeseburger and extra large fries" is six different languages!

      Delete
    3. Not-so breaking news- Joe knows more than troy-boy and thorton and proves it every day

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Everyone seems to mistakenly believe that the reporter is only reporting and has no bias in covering the issue. This is completely wrong. The reporter in this case gives a completely one sided story with no chance for the public to respond. The reporter, and the paper, are both biased in favour of evolution. Most people would think that the scientists are most responsible for promoting evolution. They would be wrong again. Not many scientists would publish papers supporting evolution if they were going to be excoriated in the press. The press use evolution to promote their secular worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter

    Everyone seems to mistakenly believe that the reporter is only reporting and has no bias in covering the issue. This is completely wrong. The reporter in this case gives a completely one sided story with no chance for the public to respond.


    That's not a news report it's a science blog you nitwit. There's also a section that's wide open for public comments.

    The reporter, and the paper, are both biased in favour of evolution.

    They're also biased in favor of gravity, plate tectonics, and the germ theory of disease. Most people with an IQ over room temperature are biased in favor of reality.

    You Creationists just aren't very bright.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Germ theory of disease came from pasteur, a Creationist! Gravity- Newton another Creationist! And Snyder, a Creationist was the first to propose plate tectonics...

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joe G

      LoL! Germ theory of disease came from pasteur, a Creationist! Gravity- Newton another Creationist! And Snyder, a Creationist was the first to propose plate tectonics...


      However, unlike you and the rest of the lying Creationist IDiots, they were smart enough to keep their religious beliefs separate from their scientific work.

      Delete
    3. LoL! Another evoTARD meltdown.

      I can always tell when thorton's panties get in a knot- way to go spew-boy!

      Delete
    4. Tsk tsk tsk.

      Poor little attention whore Joe Gallien. The best and brightest ID Creationism has to offer.

      Delete
    5. LoL! Those panties are getting tighter, hey spew-boy

      Delete
    6. What's that? thorton wears a thong? Well ain't they technically panties?

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Let's suppose you are right that YECs accept the reality of those processes. To be consistent with a universe that's only a few thousands years old, wouldn't they have to postulate mutation rates orders of magnitude larger than the observed mutation rates?"

    Are you referring to this rate?

    "The researchers discovered that eighty-six percent of mutations that are anticipated to be damaging appeared in European-Americans in the last five thousand years."

    http://biology.about.com/b/2012/11/30/human-gene-mutations.htm

    ReplyDelete
  12. awstar

    Are you referring to this rate?

    "The researchers discovered that eighty-six percent of mutations that are anticipated to be damaging appeared in European-Americans in the last five thousand years."


    That quote-mined snippet doesn't say what you imply, and in fact has zero bearing whatsoever on the necessary 'hypermutations' that Biblical Creationist "Noah's Ark" fantasies require.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stress increases mutation rates. And under a design scenario and given the open niches, mutation rates could be increased even more.

      What thong-biy cannot grasp is under a design scenario the mutations are directed, IOW we don't have to wait for chance to have its say. With "built-in responses to environmental cues", given those open niches we would expect a rapid evolution until the niches are filled.

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joe G

      What thong-biy cannot grasp is under a design scenario the mutations are directed, IOW we don't have to wait for chance to have its say. With "built-in responses to environmental cues", given those open niches we would expect a rapid evolution until the niches are filled.


      How are they 'directed' Chubs? What is the mechanism, and who is doing the 'directing'? Where is the scientific evidence for your latest brain flatulence?

      BTW Chubs, your "built-in responses to environmental cues" stupidity has already been falsified by the Lenski E coli experiment. The 12 colonies used were all cloned from the same single organism so they all started with the identical genetic makeup. All were subjected to the identical environmental cues, but all 12 ended up demonstrably different genetically, one colony vastly different.

      How's that fat foot taste?

      Delete
    3. thing-boy:
      How are they 'directed'

      Via built-in responses to environmetal cues and/ or other genetic programming.

      What is the mechanism, and who is doing the 'directing'?

      Inside the organism and the programming is doing the directing, just as with computers.

      And seeing that you don't know anything about science nor evidence, why do you even ask? It is clear that you cannot provide any for your position- all you can do is bluff and equivocate like the thong-boy coward that you are.


      thong-boy spews:
      BTW Chubs, your "built-in responses to environmental cues" stupidity has already been falsified by the Lenski E coli experiment.

      Nope- those experiments confirm it.

      The 12 colonies used were all cloned from the same single organism so they all started with the identical genetic makeup.

      Yup, so what?

      All were subjected to the identical environmental cues, but all 12 ended up demonstrably different genetically, one colony vastly different.

      Again, so what? Do you really think that YOUR ignorance is a refutation? Really?

      1- There was more than ONE problem

      2- There was more than ONE solution

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      Via built-in responses to environmetal cues and/ or other genetic programming.


      That's not an explanation Chubs, that's just restating your stupid claim.

      Inside the organism and the programming is doing the directing, just as with computers.

      That's not a mechanism either Chubs. How are physical changes made based on external inputs? With computers I can show you the physical I/O device.

      C'mon fat boy, let's see some evidence of the details. Any fat moron can wave his pudgy hands.

      1- There was more than ONE problem

      2- There was more than ONE solution


      Idiot. If they were 'directed' by the identical program and were in the identical environment then they should all have the identical result. But they don't Chubs, not even close. Why did only 1 of the 12 develop the ability to use citrates as a nutrient?

      Your latest stupidity didn't even make it out of your kitchen before dying.

      Delete
    5. thong boy:
      How are physical changes made based on external inputs?

      Directed mutations- as opposed tp your position's untestable "muations just happen man".

      thong-boy:
      If they were 'directed' by the identical program and were in the identical environment then they should all have the identical result.

      Cuz you, the most ignorant tard on earth, sez so?

      Look Dawkin's weasel solves ONE problem and not every trial does it produce the same pathway to that solution.

      With Lenski citrate availability was not the only environmental pressure. Byt thanks for proving that you are just totally unable to think.

      Why did only 1 of the 12 develop the ability to use citrates as a nutrient?


      Man you are dense- that was NOT the only problem and how do you know how many ways there are to solve it?

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      Directed mutations- as opposed tp your position's untestable "muations just happen man".


      LOL! The fatboy just keeps dancing around, repeating the same evidence free claims.

      You're not going to convince anyone in the scientific community with that approach Chubs.

      Look Dawkin's weasel solves ONE problem and not every trial does it produce the same pathway to that solution.

      Dawkin's weasel has random variation as an integral part of its function. You are claiming there's NO random genetic variation in life, that all mutations are 'directed' somehow.

      Another nice own goal by Joebba the Hutt.

      With Lenski citrate availability was not the only environmental pressure.

      The environmental pressure was identical for the 12 genetically identical samples, yet they all developed quite differently. Why Chubs?

      You can't even think of a good lie to get out of that one.

      Delete
    7. thong-boy:
      Dawkin's weasel has random variation as an integral part of its function.

      DIRECTED TOWARDS A GOAL

      You are claiming there's NO random genetic variation in life, that all mutations are 'directed' somehow.

      Yup directed towards a goal

      With Lenski citrate availability was not the only environmental pressure.

      The environmental pressure was identical for the 12 genetically identical samples, yet they all developed quite differently. Why


      I told you why you ignorant sack. What is wrong with you?

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joe G

      Yup directed towards a goal


      HOW are mutations directed towards a goal? What is the physical mechanism that makes pre-specified changes to the nucleotide sequences instead of random ones?

      You have no answer fatboy. You're just running your mouth because that's all you can do.

      Delete
    9. thong boy-
      HOW are mutations directed towards a goal?

      Via built-in responses to environmental cues, ie PROGRAMMING. Just as the 1s and 0s of a computer buss are directed.

      What is the physical mechanism that makes pre-specified changes to the nucleotide sequences instead of random ones?

      Who said anything about pre-specified changes?

      Delete
  13. Thorton

    "That quote-mined snippet doesn't say what you imply, and in fact has zero bearing whatsoever on the necessary 'hypermutations' that Biblical Creationist "Noah's Ark" fantasies require."

    I'm ignorant of the necessary hypermutations that you say my fantasies require. Educate me. -- The quote came from a news story I remember seeing that seemed to confirm that which I already believe. That all the mutations scientists observe, damaging or otherwise, must have appeared within the past six thousand years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar

      I'm ignorant of the necessary hypermutations that you say my fantasies require. Educate me.


      According to the Noah's Ark story all life we see today, including humans, came from the pairs of animals on the Ark. At best that could represent a few hundred species, what Creationist call "kinds". Today, 4500 years later, there are estimated to be between 10 and 50 million different species alive, and 100x times that many which are known only from the fossil record. Going from tiny population sizes of Noah's Ark to the huge genetic diversity we see today would take hyper-mutation rates (and speciation rates) many orders of magnitude larger than ever seen or ever thought possible. Of course, there is not one speck of evidence such hyper-rates occurred in all animal species across the board.

      Here's a question for you - if all the animals we see today are direct descendants of those on the Ark, why don't we see signs of a tight genetic bottleneck in all of them?

      That all the mutations scientists observe, damaging or otherwise, must have appeared within the past six thousand years.

      That's not what the article said. Here's the actual quote

      "A study of the genetic code has led genetics experts to conclude that almost three-fourths of human gene mutations have occurred within the past five thousand to ten thousand years."

      Not all animals, just humans. Not all mutations, about 3/4 of them in the last 10K years. The biggest reason for that is the huge explosion in the human population, from under a million 10K years ago to over 7 billion today. We are by many orders of magnitude the most prolific large species on the planet. More total bodies = more total mutations to spread through the population.

      Delete
    2. thong-boy:
      According to the Noah's Ark story all life we see today, including humans, came from the pairs of animals on the Ark.

      Perhaps according to the cartoon version, but that ain't what the Bible guys say.

      Delete
    3. Really, what happened,in the realistic version of the Flood?

      Delete
    4. velikovskys

      Really, what happened,in the realistic version of the Flood?


      I too am quite interested in hearing Jumbo Joe's real version of Noah's Flood and the Ark, not the cartoon version that 99% of the world knows the story as.

      How about it Chubs? Ready to tell us what really happened to the animals on the Ark?

      Delete
    5. LoL! Just because thing-boy spews a strawman he thinks 99% believe the same strawman.

      Please present the evidence for that claim, thong-boy.

      And if you chumps REALLY wanted to know you would read the Bible or visist Answers in Genesis or some similar website.

      So have it or just admit that you are ignorant.

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      And if you chumps REALLY wanted to know you would read the Bible or visist Answers in Genesis or some similar website.


      I have Joe

      KJV: Genesis 6:17 - 6:99

      17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
      18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
      19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.


      Face it Chubs, you really eat it this time on this stupid claim of yours. Claiming the Biblical story of the Ark doesn involve saving just those pairs of animals on the Ark from the Flood while killing everything else.

      See Chubs, you're so stupid you automatically nay-say anything that a pro-science person writes without even thinking.

      You really look like a blithering idiot on this one!

      Delete
    7. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

      Whoever made up that story apparently didn't know that not all animals are dioecious, or even sexual.

      Inspired by an all-knowing God? Nah.

      Delete
    8. KJV? LoL! Why not the original Hebrew version?

      Answers in Genesis says land mammals, birds and land reptiles. And that is taken from the Hebrew version.

      So eat me thong-boy

      Delete
    9. There's a book titiled "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"- it explains what animals were on the Ark and it supports the claims with references.

      It also explains the rapid post-flood speciation and how, even given random mutations, it is possible- again wide open niches is the key.

      So again, your ignorance means what?

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joe G

      There's a book titiled "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"


      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!!

      Chubs gets his "ID science" from AIG and Jan "John Woodmorappe" Peczkis' big book of YEC stupidity!

      You're too funny Chubs, really!

      Delete
    11. Answers in Genesis says land mammals, birds and land reptiles. And that is taken from the Hebrew version.

      Makes sense,so only humans and land mammals,birds and reptiles are descended from the ark population. This was roughly less than 10,000 years ago. Insects too?

      Delete
    12. thong-boy, the book is referenced and contains more science than your position can muster.

      Delete
    13. velikovskys

      Answers in Genesis says land mammals, birds and land reptiles. And that is taken from the Hebrew version.

      Makes sense,so only humans and land mammals,birds and reptiles are descended from the ark population. This was roughly less than 10,000 years ago. Insects too?


      Answers In Genesis also says that dinosaurs were on the Ark. Also, the last time I checked there are plenty of aquatic mammals that breath air - whales, porpoises, walruses, seals, manatees, orcas, etc.

      Chubby Joe's problem (well, one of the many anyway) is that he makes it up as he goes along, too stupid to realize that he contradicts himself every other post.

      Delete
    14. Chubby Joe G

      thong-boy, the book is referenced and contains more science than your position can muster.


      "science" from Woody and AIG.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

      Delete
    15. Yup, more science tan your position has to offer. That much is obvious.

      BTW thong-boy whales, porpoises, walruses, seals, manatees, orcas, etc. are NOT land mammals you ignorant turd.

      Delete
    16. Chubby Joe G

      BTW thong-boy whales, porpoises, walruses, seals, manatees, orcas, etc. are NOT land mammals you ignorant turd.


      Do they breath air Chubs? The Bible says all thing that have the breath of life shall die.

      Do you believe AIG's claim that humans and dinos lived together? Ken Ham's Creation Museum even has an exhibit with Eve feeding carrots to a velociraptor.

      That sounds like exactly the kind of anti-science stupidity you believe in, pyramid-woo fatboy.

      Delete
    17. thong-boy:
      The Bible says all thing that have the breath of life shall die.

      The very fallible King James Version you impotent moron. Definitely NOT the Hebrew version. The Hebrew version is what actually counts.

      This is all referenced in the book.

      Delete
  14. So to recap:

    The issue is the word "evolution" can mean many things. And there isn't any debate over most of those different meanings. Changes in allele frequency, natural selection, genetic drift, descent with modification-> all evolution and even YECs are OK with the evidence supporting each of those.

    Please see:

    Equivocation and Evolution

    and

    Biological Evolution: What is being debated

    The next "ID trial" will be all about that as I will be getting a disclaimer placed in biology textbooks saying that ID is NOT anti-evolution and that Darwin argued against a strawman that is still alive and well today.

    Actually they may not be a trial because people in this school district aren't as ignorant as the people in Dover, PA's district.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trial will no doubt be in a parking lot...

      Delete
    2. And there will be a subpoena waiting for the ignorant and cowardly Richard T Hughes.

      That way the public will see what an evoTARD is and they won't want that for their kids.

      Delete
    3. You think Dembski will be able to contain his bowels and not run away and hide this time?

      Delete
    4. I'm sure Joe G will be more than willing to step up and take the stand if called upon. What was that comment Dr Dembski made about pips squeaking?

      Delete
    5. Umm if I get the disclaimer placed on the textbooks and someone tries to stop me, then yes, I will be testifying. And I will have many subpoenes waiting for all of my evoTARD pals, just in case they show up.

      Delete
    6. I would pay good money to see Joe on the stand. It would be hilarious.

      Delete
    7. Not as hilarious as olg pinhead on the stand...

      Delete
  15. One can only imagine the cross examination

    Q: Is your name Joe Gallien?

    J: Yes.

    Q: Is your father's name Joe Gallien?

    J: *RAGESPASM*

    60 minutes of questions about ticks, melons, dragonflies, Pyramids, war heroics, powerlifting, flying planes, GAs and encryption, not getting gravity, Baraminology, Being a YEC / Muslim / Agnostic threatening people with violence...

    I'm sure that will go real well. Subpoenas, eh? Nice to see you're as ignorant of the law as biology....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes subpoenas and your ignorance means nothing to me...

      Delete
    2. How do Subpoenas work, Joe? In your mind. Talk us through it.

      Delete
    3. How does evolution work, Richie? In your mind. Talk us through the evolution of upright bipeds from knuckle walkers/ quadrapeds via accumulations of random mutations.

      Please be sure to walk us through the last part- how it was determined that all mutations are random/ chance events.

      Delete
    4. Here ya go Richie- tell us why I couldn't subpoena you- subpoena

      Delete
    5. Feel free to try, Joe. It's your money to waste with legal council.

      Delete
    6. LoL! No need to try, Richie cupcake. If there is a trial and I am involved it will be done. And the opposition will be paying the bill so it won't be my money and it won't be wasted.

      Delete
    7. Given your track record with claims Joe, I doubt it. But I hope you try. I'll feel bad about taking food of your family's plates, but just remember, YOU did it ;-)

      Delete
    8. Given your track record of lies, false accusations and nonsense, well hey, that says it all

      Delete
    9. That's right Parking lot Joe / Jim / John Paul the Agnostic Muslic YEC who's a war hero powerlifting cripple. I'm sure your credability will be up there with pyramidology and baraminology. Unfortunatley as history has shown, you're all talk and no action, so we'll be spared those LOLs.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. LoL! Baraminology and pyramidology have more scientific support than your position. And your pathetic cowardly lies mean nothing.

      I would love to get you in Court spewing that nonsense. Unfortunately you will be a cowardly no-show.

      As history has shown you are a pathological liar, equivocator and spewer of false accusations. And you are an impotent moron.

      Life is good...

      Delete
    12. That's right Parking lot Joe / Jim / John Paul the Agnostic Muslic YEC who's a war hero powerlifting cripple. I'm sure your credability will be up there...

      Delete
    13. Whatever you say Richie tugjob.

      Keep up the pathological lies. They must make you feel really big.

      Delete
    14. Rich Hughes

      That's right Parking lot Joe / Jim / John Paul the Agnostic Muslic YEC who's a war hero powerlifting cripple. I'm sure your credability will be up there...


      Don't forget pyramid antenna and reincarnation expert too. Chubs is an expert in everything, just ask him.

      Delete
    15. It's all well documented, Dough-boy. And will be documeted again should you show face with mant chins in court.

      Speaking of really big: YOU.

      Delete
    16. Oh wow, another known pathological liar and anonymous coward, chimes in with more substance-free drivel.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    17. Hey tugjob- you and your ilk couldn't document a documentary- BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA

      Delete
    18. See "Joe's Tardgasm" and other threads, onlookers.

      Delete
    19. Yes, if you want to read more lies, more nonsense, more false accusations and more complete cowardly BS, do what tugjob sez.

      Delete
    20. tugjob Hughes- references himself and other proven liars in an attempt to support his lies.

      Typical but still pathetic....

      Delete
    21. I bet Dr. Hunter just loves having Joebba the Hutt Gallien with his expansive vocabulary representing the 'scientific" ID position.

      I know I sure do!

      Delete
    22. Enjoy:

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=50c40b6799966261;act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=0

      Its a great read. I'm enjoying Joe's blossoming bromance with Gordon E Mullings. He corrects errant Joe a lot - I thinl Gordon wears the pants in that relationship.

      Make sure you get all of this in your court case, Joe!

      Delete
    23. Yes Joe, they're all good reads. You trying to defend your posting of porn and your complete missuderstanding of gravity are especially good.

      Delete
    24. LoL! No Richie, it is YOUR complete misunderstanding of gravity, not mine. And I did not post any porn. Not according to te definitions of "porn" anyway.

      However if you want to include what I posted as porn then you HAVE to include what Lizzie posted- moron.

      Delete
    25. Link to your picture so reasonable minds can judge, Joe.

      Here's the statue of David, posted at TSZ.

      http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=932

      Joe, are you man enough to post your "tunie" picture.

      And here's Joe on Gravity:

      “For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
      Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask.”

      Insightfull 0_o

      Delete
    26. Richie,

      This thread is all I need to prove that you are a clueless loser.

      And yes Richie, if tehre isn't enough force to keep the universe expanding, then it would collapse back upon itself. Ask oleg.

      And in your imagined scenario of a universe with one star, one planet with one moon, well, that would be such a universe and it would collapse.

      The expansion is that external pull.

      Lesson over...

      Delete
    27. Oh that's priceless!

      "“For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place." = "if tehre isn't enough force to keep the universe expanding, then it would collapse back upon itself." in your tiny mind. Totally clueless. I see you're not brave enough to post that picture, Joe. A coward as always. I posted the TSZ one, You seem to find the equivolent.

      Delete
    28. LoL! Yes, priceless indeed.

      But nope, not in my mind. It is a fact of physics.

      And no, I will not stoop to your lowlife antics.

      Delete
    29. "And no, I will not stoop to your lowlife antics."

      Lowlife antics? Why won't you post a picture you've posted in public forums before? Then we'll all see who the lowlife is.

      Delete
    30. Yes, lowlife antics. And we don't need any more evidence that proves that you are a lowlife. We have more than enough. Thanks anyway.

      Delete
    31. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    32. And Joe Chickens out again. No one is surprised. But perhaps you've learned your lesson from last time and wont be posting links to porn any more. You lose again, fatty.

      Delete
    33. LoL! Umm just because a picture is digusting that does NOT make it porn.

      But thanks for your ignorance.

      Pathetic lowlife...

      Delete
    34. Why were you posting 'disgusting' pictures on a public forum, Joe? where did you get it?

      Isn't posting such pictures a mark of a "Pathetic lowlife"?

      Delete
    35. Why were you posting 'disgusting' pictures on a public forum, Joe?

      I was dealing with disgusting lowlifes. That is what I think of them.

      Delete
    36. You've shown your true colours, Joe. A cowardly lowlife.

      Delete
    37. I've shown my true colors because you are a belligerent and cowardly moron?

      How does that work, exactly?

      Delete
    38. BTW tugjob, TSZ is NOT a public forum. The public doesn't even know it exists. And if it wasn't for me- I got UD involved with TSZ- only its posters would read any of it trope. It would be another evoTARD ech-chamber/ stroking station.

      Delete
  16. Thorton said:

    "According to the Noah's Ark story all life we see today, including humans, came from the pairs of animals on the Ark. At best that could represent a few hundred species, what Creationist call "kinds". Today, 4500 years later, there are estimated to be between 10 and 50 million different species alive, and 100x times that many which are known only from the fossil record. Going from tiny population sizes of Noah's Ark to the huge genetic diversity we see today would take hyper-mutation rates (and speciation rates) many orders of magnitude larger than ever seen or ever thought possible. Of course, there is not one speck of evidence such hyper-rates occurred in all animal species across the board."

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. For us YEC's your last sentence is false. Of course there is evidence such speciation rates occurred in all animal species across the board. It must of happened because that's what we observe. Now the question is "how did it happen". I'm sure science will tell us, if we bother to look for that answer.

    Thorton also said: "Here's a question for you - if all the animals we see today are direct descendants of those on the Ark, why don't we see signs of a tight genetic bottleneck in all of them?"

    I'm ignorant on what a tight genetic bottleneck would look like. Can you explain further?

    ReplyDelete
  17. awstar

    It must of happened because that's what we observe.


    Actually no, that's not what is observed. What is observed is an unbroken history of life on Earth going back over 3 billion years, and a history of multi-cellular life going back over 600 million years. That's one of the YECs biggest problems.

    Now the question is "how did it happen". I'm sure science will tell us, if we bother to look for that answer.

    Science has been looking at the issue for 150 years now. There's absolutely zero evidence for a literal Noah's global flood or literal Noah's Ark, and tons of evidence that such an event didn't happen. Sorry.

    I'm ignorant on what a tight genetic bottleneck would look like. Can you explain further?

    When populations have been reduced down to a small number of breeding individuals sometime in their recent history there are distinct genetic signatures, the main being the lack of genetic diversity. We do see this signature in some species that have been near extinction (cheetahs for example). We don't see it in the huge majority of animal populations.

    Population bottleneck

    If a literal Noah's Ark event had happened we'd see such a bottleneck in every species. But we don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thong-boy:
      If a literal Noah's Ark event had happened we'd see such a bottleneck in every species.

      Hump that strawman.

      BTW science has been looking at the issue for 150 years now. There is absolutely zero evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic. And there is absolutely zero evidence for evolutionism.

      Delete
    2. "Hump that strawman."

      Naked assertion, fatty.

      Delete
    3. Whatever you say Richie tugjob, cupcake- hey kids that's not creme filling!

      Delete
    4. LOL! Fatboy Joe is having his nightly meltdown again!

      Delete
    5. Thorton:

      ""Now the question is "how did it happen". I'm sure science will tell us, if we bother to look for that answer.

      Science has been looking at the issue for 150 years now. There's absolutely zero evidence for a literal Noah's global flood or literal Noah's Ark, and tons of evidence that such an event didn't happen. Sorry.""

      I understand that there is lots of physical evidence of major catastrophic flooding from all around the world, from the Northeast, New York Harbor, the Black Sea, the Indian Ocean, etc. And hindreds of cultures from all around the world have legends hat closely parallel the Bible's narrative of Noah. Why doesn't this count as evidence?

      Delete
    6. natschuster the troll

      I understand that there is lots of physical evidence of major catastrophic flooding from all around the world, from the Northeast, New York Harbor, the Black Sea, the Indian Ocean, etc. And hindreds of cultures from all around the world have legends hat closely parallel the Bible's narrative of Noah. Why doesn't this count as evidence?


      Because the evidence shows localized flooding that didn't happen in all places, and where it did happen it didn't all happen at the same time.

      Ready for your next stupid troll?

      Delete
    7. Umm the evidence for a snowball earth is the same evidence for a global flood

      Delete
  18. Aren't there species that where reduced to very small populations in recent years, like the Bison and Prezwalski's horse? Did they experience a population bottleneck? I'm just curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above post was addressed to Thorton' comment above abou the Ark.

      Delete
    2. natschuster

      Aren't there species that where reduced to very small populations in recent years, like the Bison and Prezwalski's horse? Did they experience a population bottleneck? I'm just curious.


      Then why don't you do some research and let us know what you find?

      Delete
  19. Okay:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907163921.htm

    Prezwalskis horse seems to have genetic diverssity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor troll natschuster can't read.

      From your very own article:

      "Przewalski's horse -- a stocky, short-maned species named after a Russian explorer who first encountered the animal in the wild -- became endangered during the middle of the last century when the species experienced a population bottleneck -- an evolutionary event in which many or most members of a population or a species die. "Sadly, this bottleneck was the result of human activity," Makova explained. "Przewalski's horses were hunted down for food, and their natural habitat, the steppes, were converted into farm land so the horses basically had nowhere to live and breed. By the late 1950s, only 12 individual horses remained." Makova said that because conservationists have made noble efforts to rescue this dwindling population, the present-day population has grown to 2,000."

      Przewalski's horse has more genetic diversity than previously thought, but still nowhere near the genetic diversity of modern horses.

      With Creationists, stupidity never sleeps.

      Delete
  20. Thorton said: "When populations have been reduced down to a small number of breeding individuals sometime in their recent history there are distinct genetic signatures, the main being the lack of genetic diversity. We do see this signature in some species that have been near extinction (cheetahs for example). We don't see it in the huge majority of animal populations."

    So are you saying that we have no indication of a genetic bottleneck in the huge majority of animal populations but we see it in the human population?

    Wouldn't scientists just refer to this as human genetics be "conserved" and animal genetics not-so-much?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thorton:

    If the Prezwalski's has more genetic diverstiy than is expected after only a century or so, then may be other organism might have more genetic diversity after ~4000 years than previously thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong again troll. The evidence shows Przewalski's horse last shared a common ancestor with other modern horses approx. 160,000 years ago, then was bottle-necked down to 12 last century.

      How is that supposed to support all animals coming from a few pairs on the Ark only 4500 years ago?

      Delete
    2. I don't get the connection to the last common ancestor of prezwalski's horse and the domestic horse. There was a bottleneck recently, yet there is more diversty than expected. So maybe the predicted pattern doesn't hold. So maybe we really can't predict how much diversity we should see after ~4000 years.

      Delete
    3. natschuster

      I don't get the connection to the last common ancestor of prezwalski's horse and the domestic horse.


      Of course you don't. You're a willfully ignorant Creationist.

      There was a bottleneck recently, yet there is more diversty than expected. So maybe the predicted pattern doesn't hold. So maybe we really can't predict how much diversity we should see after ~4000 years

      Or maybe you're just a dishonest trolling Creationist dimbulb. That's what the evidence indicates.

      Delete
    4. LoL!

      Or maybe you're just a dishonest trolling evoTARD dimbulb. THAT's what the evidence indicates.

      How many forums have you been banned from?

      Delete
  22. awstar

    So are you saying that we have no indication of a genetic bottleneck in the huge majority of animal populations but we see it in the human population?


    No. We don't see evidence of a bottleneck down to 8 people only 4500 years ago in the human population, and we don't see one in the large majority of animal species.

    Besides the complete lack of physical geological evidence for a one-time global Flood, the genetic data alone kills the Noah's Ark story deader than dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thong-boy:
      We don't see evidence of a bottleneck down to 8 people only 4500 years ago in the human population, and we don't see one in the large majority of animal species.

      How would we know?

      Besides the complete lack of physical geological evidence for a one-time global Flood,

      Nope, we have evidence for a global flood. It's the same evidence for a snowball earth.

      As for genetic data, how do you know what we would expect to see?

      Delete
    2. Do you know what Baraminology is based on, Joe/ Do you know what a "genetic bottleneck" is, Joe?

      Delete
    3. tugjob:
      Do you know what Baraminology is based on, Joe

      Better than you ever will.

      Do you know what a "genetic bottleneck" is, Joe?

      Yes.

      If you have a point, make it. However we know you won't because you are a coward.

      And are you going to answer my questions?

      Delete
    4. Love it- Richies bluff is called and he runs away. Typical....

      Delete
  23. Blue whales also show suprising gnetic diversity after just a few decades.


    http://www.livescience.com/18910-antarctic-blue-whale-genetics.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence also shows they bottlenecked down to around 400 individuals, not a single breeding pair.

      Try more reading the article, less stupid trolling.

      Delete
    2. What single breeding pair?

      Does tardo thorton think that whales were on board the Ark?

      Delete
    3. Joe, try to think.

      Natschuster is trying to argue that bottlenecks do not preclude genetic diversity.

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      If the genetic diversity from 400 individuals after just a few decades in more than expected, then maybe the genetic diversity after 4000 years will be more than expected. Maybe the models that scientists are using to estimate the expected genetic diversity are flawed. Models often are flawed. That's all.

      Delete
    5. tugjob:
      Natschuster is trying to argue that bottlenecks do not preclude genetic diversity.

      Yes, we can get genetic diversity after a bottleneck. It all depends on the programming and number of generations.

      Delete
    6. natschuster

      If the genetic diversity from 400 individuals after just a few decades in more than expected, then maybe the genetic diversity after 4000 years will be more than expected. Maybe the models that scientists are using to estimate the expected genetic diversity are flawed. Models often are flawed. That's all.


      Maybe flying monkeys will crawl out of your butt while whistling La Marseillaise too.

      If you have any evidence that the models used by geneticists are wrong please present it here, or write it up and submit it to the appropriate scientific journals.

      Delete
    7. LoL! The models are based on unguided evolution. So wrt the Creation model, they would be very wrong.

      Delete
  24. Thorton:

    It seems clear from the Bible that God wanted normal life to resume as soon as possible. T This might be why the physical effect of the flood was minimal. Just a thought.

    And what about the fact that so many cultures have flood legends that closely parallel the Bible? That exactly what one woudl expect if a flood happened.

    ReplyDelete
  25. natschuster

    It seems clear from the Bible that God wanted normal life to resume as soon as possible. T This might be why the physical effect of the flood was minimal. Just a thought.


    Why don't you just claim God POOFED all the Flood evidence away, just like the Devil supposedly planted all that fossil evidence of 600 million years' of multi-cellular life? It's just as scientific.

    And what about the fact that so many cultures have flood legends that closely parallel the Bible? That exactly what one woudl expect if a flood happened.

    What of them? There are just as many cultures that don't have them. Most cultures that developed in areas prone to localized flooding have flood stories, and they all differ in the significant details.

    If all people are supposed to have come from the eight on the Ark only 4500 years ago, why don't all cultures everywhere have the same Flood story?

    ReplyDelete
  26. But so many of them have details that clsely parallel the Biblical narative, like a person favored of the gods escaping in a boat with his family, sending an animal out to check on conditions, etc.

    And I would imagine that in some cases, in societies without writing the story would have been forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thorton:

    "Why don't you just claim God POOFED all the Flood evidence away, just like the Devil supposedly planted all that fossil evidence of 600 million years' of multi-cellular life? It's just as scientific."

    I usually try to avoid making claims without there being some basis somewhere. Suggesting possibilities is a different story. The possibility I suggested is based on my understanding of the Bible's narrative. I don't know much about the Devil and fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I understand that there are some people who want to say that the Flood covered only the Middle
    East, the known world. In the original Hebrew, the Bible uses the term "Eretz" for land. Throughout the Bible, the term "Eretz" is used to refer to a specific land, not the whole Earth, so there may be some basis for this interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  29. i said: "So are you saying that we have no indication of a genetic bottleneck in the huge majority of animal populations but we see it in the human population?"

    Thorton said: "No. We don't see evidence of a bottleneck down to 8 people only 4500 years ago in the human population, and we don't see one in the large majority of animal species."

    So you seem to be saying we see hypermutations in both humans and all other animals that that could not possibly take place over the last 4500 year time period.

    I can see the explosion of a few hundred species to between 10 and 50 million different species to be an argument against a bottleneck of non-human animals 4500 years ago, but where are all the genetic variations of humans that you say also exist?

    ReplyDelete
  30. awstar

    So you seem to be saying we see hypermutations in both humans and all other animals that that could not possibly take place over the last 4500 year time period.


    NO. There are no known cases of hypermutations in ANY known species.

    Humans have a lot of genetic variation because there are 7 billion humans, NOT because the mutation rate went supersonic.

    I can see the explosion of a few hundred species to between 10 and 50 million different species to be an argument against a bottleneck of non-human animals 4500 years ago, but where are all the genetic variations of humans that you say also exist?

    Spread among those 7 billion and cataloged in the scientific literature. For example:

    Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia
    Majumder
    Science, 326 (2009). pp. 1541-1545

    Abstract: Asia harbors substantial cultural and linguistic diversity, but the geographic structure of genetic variation across the continent remains enigmatic. Here we report a large-scale survey of autosomal variation from a broad geographic sample of Asian human populations. Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography. Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations. More than 90% of East Asian (EA) haplotypes could be found in either Southeast Asian (SEA) or Central-South Asian (CSA) populations and show clinal structure with haplotype diversity decreasing from south to north. Furthermore, 50% of EA haplotypes were found in SEA only and 5% were found in CSA only, indicating that SEA was a major geographic source of EA populations

    There are lots of studies on human genetic diversity if you care to look.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Replies
    1. Large animal species you obese nitwit. The "kinds" that were supposedly carried on the Ark.

      Got any evidence of hypermutations that would cause orders of magnitude change in their overall genetic diversity?

      No?

      Then stick to stuffing your fat face.

      Delete
    2. Got any evidence of hypermutations that would cause orders of magnitude change in their overall genetic diversity?

      What would prevent what we observe in bacteria from occurring in metazoans? Please enlighten us.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Chubs, you need to show evidence of what did occur, not your Biblical fantasies about what might have occurred.

      Besides Chubs, we have sequenced DNA data from ancient mammals 10K-30K years old (mammoths and musk oxen found frozen in Siberia) and they don't show any huge genetic difference from elephants and oxen now. We even have DNA sequences from humans that lived 5500 years ago (Otzi the ice man) that don't show huge differences from humans today.

      So where's your evidence of the humongous mutation rate in all species?

      Delete
    4. LoL! Nice cowardly double-standard there thong-boy.

      But anyway:

      Environmental Stress and Its Effects on Mutation Rates in Drosophila Melanogaster:

      Not only is there plenty of evidence for it, your own high priests are writing about it and using it to support their claims.


      LoL!

      Delete
    5. thong-boy:
      Got any evidence of hypermutations that would cause orders of magnitude change in their overall genetic diversity?

      thong-boy:
      we have sequenced DNA data from ancient mammals 10K-30K years old (mammoths and musk oxen found frozen in Siberia) and they don't show any huge genetic difference from elephants and oxen now. We even have DNA sequences from humans that lived 5500 years ago (Otzi the ice man) that don't show huge differences from humans today.

      Which is it?

      Delete
  32. Chubs, do you ever bother to read what you blindly link to? The stress on flies temporarily increase the mutation rate by 2x to 4x. Your Noah's Ark scenario requires mutation rates that increase by 3-4 orders of magnitude.

    Where is your evidence that such huge rate increases actually took place in all animal species?

    If the mutation rate was screaming along back then don't we see huge differences in the DNA of neolithic animals / humans we've tested and present day animals and humans?

    Try again fatboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your Noah's Ark scenario requires mutation rates that increase by 3-4 orders of magnitude.

      Yet you just said it didn't:

      we have sequenced DNA data from ancient mammals 10K-30K years old (mammoths and musk oxen found frozen in Siberia) and they don't show any huge genetic difference from elephants and oxen now. We even have DNA sequences from humans that lived 5500 years ago (Otzi the ice man) that don't show huge differences from humans today.

      So what is the evidence for your claim of a required humongous mutation rate ?

      Delete
  33. Chubby Joe G

    Yet you just said it didn't:


    Put the jelly donut down and learn to read Chubs. I said the evidence shows there isn't a large difference between the DNA of neolithic animals and now. NO large mutation rate between then and now.

    Damn you're an idiot.

    Now where's your evidence of a huge mutation rate in all species?

    Where's your genetic and fossil evidence of separately created kinds?

    I bet the DI (ID isn't about religion, honest!) is just tickled pink to have an idiot like you arguing for a literal Noah's Ark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! You are just confused. If there isn't a large difference then why do we need a huge mutation rate?

      Answer the question.

      So what is the evidence for your claim of a required humongous mutation rate ?

      Answer the question or continue to prove that you are just a cowardly punk.

      Delete