Tuesday, December 4, 2012

“The More We Find Out, The More Complicated Things Get”



As the truth becomes ever more clear, so too the mythology must become ever more powerful. As we learn more, we must deny more. They once said biology was made of simple building blocks, but as this BBC video shows in pixel-level detail, that was just another myth. So now we need a new one. I don’t know what the twenty first century’s origins theory will be, but it will be called evolution.

 Hook me up a new evolution. Cause this one is a lie.

112 comments:

  1. related note: Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012
    Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,,
    This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,,
    A major challenge was Britten and Kohne's1968 discovery of massive amounts of repetitive DNA in certain genomes. Today, we know our DNA contains over 30 times as many base-pairs in repeats as it does in protein coding sequences. By the conventional view, if genes are the only important actors, then these surprisingly abundant "intergenic" repeats must constitute "junk DNA" and be "ultimate parasites" in the genome.
    As readers of this and other science blogs know well, the junk DNA idea has been challenged by the large-scale ENCODE project, designed to produce the "Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements" independently of theoretical prejudices. In its first few years, ENCODE has documented cell type-specific biochemical activity in over 80 percent of this repetitive DNA and known functions in 20 percent.
    The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term.
    The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,,
    Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BA77, thank you for the link. The systems approach to understanding the cell is not something that evolutionists expected or predicted. They expected the cell to be cobbled together and simple.

      In the comment section of your link, Shapiro says, "By itself, DNA does nothing. It is the cell that uses DNA as a RW memory device. To think biologically about agency, we have to focus at the cell level. All vital activities occur in this context. "

      Delete
  2. Just watched the documentary. The difference between the facts and the way they were spun into the current evolutionary story was very noticeable. There is basically a staggeringly complex system being described according to a particular metaphysical framework, but which could just as easily be described according to a whole host of other frameworks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The cells are complex TODAY but that doesn't mean they always were that complex. The comlexity we observe today evolved from much, much simpler presursors.

    Ya see if you take something simple and continually add parts to it, over billions of years it will become complex.

    The standard theory of evolution is thusly saved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any evidence of this much simpler precursors?

      Delete
    2. Yes, the evidence for such simpler precursors is that the theory requires it and the alternatives are pseudo-science.

      Hey being an evolutionist is easy. Perhaps I should switch back....

      Delete
  4. "It's soooooooo complex, waaaaaay too complex for me to understand, therefore GAWDDIDIT!! Not just any old Gawd either. MY PERSONAL GAWD!!"

    Intelligent Design Creation "theory" in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes thorton, most everything is way too complex for you to understand. But that ain't our fault so perhaps you should stop blaming us.

      Just sayin'...

      Delete
  5. Cue the fatboy screaming "YOUR SIDE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!!!"

    4...

    3...

    2...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope- what is the evidence that unguided evolution didit?

      Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for teh claim...

      Delete
    2. Prediction-

      thorton will yell, scream, bluff, lie and equivocate. But he will not provide a testable hypothesis nor will he provide any supporting evidence...

      Delete
    3. ...and the fatboy responds with his expected content-free one liners.

      What a surprise.

      Delete
    4. And another prediction fulfilled

      Delete
    5. What a fascinating, testable hypothesis you've proffered for Joe's consideration, Thorton.

      Now, that's real science, Joe! Not the corporate hireling twaddle of you, 'it gives every evidence of having been designed, therefore it seems more than a little probable it was' crowd!

      Interesting to compare the respective degrees of probability of everything appearing to have been designed, as stated by Dawkins, actually having been designed, and nothing turning itself into everything. But I think you'd need to be a highly-qualified actuary to work that one out.

      Delete
    6. Not so much a reply as an after-thought, but regarding Dawkins' admission that everything in the natural world appears to have been designed, isn't 'appearance', cognition of a subject via the senses, what empiricism is supposed to be about?

      And here we have the wall-to-wall appearance of designs in Nature of an intricacy and scales beyond our capacity to grasp, yet that empirical evidence of design counts for nought, against the theory of a process which, in very principle, no-one has managed to explain; indeed, we are assured that nothing turning itself into everything.... is empirical science? Well colour me horn-swoggled.

      Even in their language, that is Alice-in- Wonderland counter-intuitive. To the rest of the world, you don't even need to have had a formal education to understand that that is the summit of irrationality, never mind counter-intuitiveness.

      Delete
    7. Paul

      Not so much a reply as an after-thought, but regarding Dawkins' admission that everything in the natural world appears to have been designed, isn't 'appearance', cognition of a subject via the senses, what empiricism is supposed to be about?


      Er...no. Go visit the dictionary. "Appearance" has to do with external and/or superficial indications or impressions. As in the expression "appearances can be deceiving". One of the main jobs of science is to look beyond superficial appearances and investigate the actual underlying causes. This is exactly what has been done with the history of biological life. To date there is zero positive evidence of anything being consciously designed, and tons of positive evidence that naturally occurring processes are capable of producing both the variation and complexity we see.

      And here we have the wall-to-wall appearance of designs in Nature of an intricacy and scales beyond our capacity to grasp, yet that empirical evidence of design counts for nought, against the theory of a process which, in very principle, no-one has managed to explain; indeed, we are assured that nothing turning itself into everything.... is empirical science? Well colour me horn-swoggled.

      Nah, we'll just color you another victim of ignorance based personal incredulity. Don't feel alone, pretty much everyone in the IDC camp suffers the same delusions.

      Even in their language, that is Alice-in- Wonderland counter-intuitive. To the rest of the world, you don't even need to have had a formal education to understand that that is the summit of irrationality, never mind counter-intuitiveness.

      That's another job of science that you seem to be ignorant of - replacing very fallible human intuition with solid scientific evidence. IDCers would get much farther if they tried the second approach instead of relying 100% on the first.

      Delete
    8. thorton:
      To date there is zero positive evidence of anything being consciously designed, and tons of positive evidence that naturally occurring processes are capable of producing both the variation and complexity we see.

      Then it is strange that you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for such a thing- ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!!!

      Why do "they" keep this alleged tons of positive evidence locked up where no one can take a look at it?

      You are pathetic, thorton, even for a pathological liar.

      Delete
    9. Starting on your next meltdown so soon Chubs?

      Delete
    10. How does that work? Your sad lies get exposed and you accuse the person who exposed you as a liar of having a meltdown?

      Really?

      Delete
    11. Chubby Joe G

      Why do "they" keep this alleged tons of positive evidence locked up where no one can take a look at it?


      Sure thing Chubs. Science doesn't want anyone to see the evidence for evolution. That's why they put it in books available in public libraries, offer college and university degrees in it, display it in natural history museums, use it every day in thousands of research labs, publish it in hundreds of weekly professional scientific journals, post it on science sites all over the web.

      Your problem is you can't see any of it from where you keep your head firmly lodged.

      Delete
    12. LoL! As I predicted, cowardly equivocation and bluffing, with some yelling, screaming and lies thrown in-

      thorton will yell, scream, bluff, lie and equivocate. But he will not provide a testable hypothesis nor will he provide any supporting evidence...

      Delete
    13. OK, Joe, let's assume that 99.9% of all professional biologists are totally wrong about evolution. Instead, you, the eminent design theorist Joe G, is given the honor to write the next introductory textbook on evolution for all undergraduate biology students. What would the table of contents look like? Just a rough draft will do for now.

      Delete
    14. Chubby Joe G

      But he will not provide a testable hypothesis nor will he provide any supporting evidence...


      Here ya go Chubs.

      Fitchburg State U. is less than 10 miles from you. They offer a freshman Biology course "Introduction to Life Sciences 1"

      Registration for the spring semester starts Dec 27. Waddle your fat carcass over there and learn about the evidence.

      Of course they may make you pass a high school equivalency test first before they let you in. You're on your own for that one fatboy.

      Delete
    15. Yes thorton, your bluffing and equivocation have already been duly noted. Unfortunately for you there isn't anything at any university, journal or college that supports unguided evolution actually constructing something.

      As you have proven there isn't even a testable hypothesis for it.

      Delete
    16. troy:
      OK, Joe, let's assume that 99.9% of all professional biologists are totally wrong about evolution.

      Let's say that you stop jerking us around and provide a testable hypothesis along with positive evidence for unguided evolution.

      As far as I can tell those biologists aren't even wrong wrt evolution.

      Do you guys really think your continued bluffing and equivocating mean something? Really?

      Pathetic, even for evos...

      Delete
    17. Perhaps providing a testable hypothesis yourself would be the best way to silence your critics. Organisms exist, how did that come to be? Why so shy?

      Delete
    18. Chubby Joe G

      Yes thorton, your bluffing and equivocation have already been duly noted. Unfortunately for you there isn't anything at any university, journal or college that supports unguided evolution actually constructing something.


      How would you know Chubs? You've never taken any relevant biology or genetics courses. You've never had any formal training in any area of the evolutionary sciences at all.

      Getting your YEC "science" from AIG and ICR isn't a scientific education Chubs.

      Delete
    19. Here's another source where you can review science books and journals for information Chubs, the Ashburnham Public Library

      Even though you spend all your money on double cheese pizza and donuts you can still borrow books for free. Just waddle on down and apply for a library card.

      That you're too fat and lazy and won't bother to read the information out there is your problem Chubs, not science's.

      Delete
    20. dancing queen:
      You've never taken any relevant biology or genetics courses.

      Yes, I have taken relevant biology and genetics courses.

      You've never had any formal training in any area of the evolutionary sciences at all.


      Yes, I have had formal training in evolutionary sciences.

      OTOH YOU have nothing but bluffing equivocation.

      Delete
    21. vel:
      Perhaps providing a testable hypothesis yourself would be the best way to silence your critics.

      LoL! Not until I see what those "critics" will accept. It's no use discussing hypotheses, science nor evidence until you cowards actually ante up.

      Ya see if you cowards don't ante up then there isn't anything preventing you from saying "No that ain't no testable hypothesis and evidence!"

      So you need to put up or shut up. And obvioulsy you cowards won't do either...

      Delete
    22. That's mainly because we discuss evolutionism. And evolutionism isn't scientific.

      thorton
      You're right. "Evolutionism" isn't scientific.

      Thank you for admitting that the theory of evolution, ie evolutionism, is not scientific.

      So it is strange that thorton says the ToE isn't scientific, yet I should find scientific evidence for it at universities, colleges and libraries...

      Delete
  6. FYI, I am receiving a "this video contains contents from Discovery Communications, who has blocked it in your country".

    In in the UK...

    ReplyDelete
  7. OT: Hey Thorton, Maybe if the breathtaking complexity of the cell does not inspire awe in your heart perhaps this music will:

    O Come, Emmanuel - (Piano/Cello) - ThePianoGuys
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7ySn-Swwc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well chosen, bornagain! Something nice and rousing. I can imagine them holding heir hands to their ears in pent-up fury!

      Delete
  8. Make your own documentary then. IDC docc'ies are always good for a laff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above is in reply to Luther Flint.

      Delete
  9. The battle is waged at the molecular level. If you have inadequate knowledge of biochemical reactions and probabilities regarding interreactions in relationships to structures comprising the systems in living organisms, you have no business promoting your conjecture in a scientific forum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Get profit on your investment, Just invest and Rest. Earn Money without any work
    www.profitclicking.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Er...no. Go visit the dictionary. "Appearance" has to do with external and/or superficial indications or impressions. As in the expression "appearances can be deceiving". One of the main jobs of science is to look beyond superficial appearances and investigate the actual underlying causes. This is exactly what has been done with the history of biological life. To date there is zero positive evidence of anything being consciously designed, and tons of positive evidence that naturally occurring processes are capable of producing both the variation and complexity we see.'

    Thorton, so the methodology of quantum physics, the most successful paradigm in science is wrong. I see...

    And, unlike you, thortnot, I don't need to 'visit' a dictionary. You see (evidently unlikely, alas) the verb, 'appear' is simply the passive voice of the verbs as, 'show', 'demonstrate', 'exhibit', 'disclose'.

    Of course, in a colloquial context, by the inflection of one's voice, one might imply that an appearance is deceptive, but we are not talking about colloquial speech, but pedantic, old EMPIRICAL science.

    Reading posts, such as yours, it's very clear why science students should study units in the liberals Arts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      Reading posts, such as yours, it's very clear why science students should study units in the liberals Arts.


      Reading posts such as yours it's very clear why willfully ignorant Creationists should study units in the biological sciences.

      Delete
  12. I should have said, 'passive expression', rather than 'passive voice'.

    thorton, tell you what. Why don't you or one of your confreres indicate how a person might prove that, say, a flagellum, had been intelligently designed.... just supposing, for fun, that it had been.

    The onus entirely on you to disprove Intelligent Design. All the greatest men of science of the twentieth century and before, by whose paradigms today's scientists earn their daily bread, believed in Intelligent Design, and no-one since has ever managed to produce one shred of evidence to the contrary.

    And here you are, a bunch of assorted, bitter atheists and corporate hirelings, lording it over society as the Great I Ams of scientific knowledge. You've got some nerve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,

      If you haven't noticed thorton is a lowlife loser, bluffing and equivocating coward.

      Delete
    2. Joe, I always set my expectations low with atheists, on rare occasions, mistakenly, but very occasionally one comes along who misses the mark by so far, he's 'meat and drink' to us: An opportunity to inform and have a whale of a time while we're about it.

      For a moment I'd thought my writing 'thortnot' was a typo. But it has a certain verisimilitudinous elegance about it, doesn't it? I think Albert E of this parish would have been proud of it.

      Delete
    3. Paul

      thorton, tell you what. Why don't you or one of your confreres indicate how a person might prove that, say, a flagellum, had been intelligently designed.... just supposing, for fun, that it had been.


      1. Identify the designer.
      2. Determine the manufacturer if it was not the designer.
      3. Determine the mechanisms used for manufacture - what tools were used, what forces were applied.
      4. Determine what raw materials were used in the production and where they came from, how they were gathered and stored.
      5. Determine a timeline for the design and manufacture.
      6. Determine a place of manufacture, and a method of transportation if the products were built elsewhere.

      You Creationists think you can manage any of that?

      Delete
    4. 1. Identify the designer.

      Not required to reach a design inference

      2. Determine the manufacturer if it was not the designer.

      Not required to reach a design inference

      3. Determine the mechanisms used for manufacture - what tools were used, what forces were applied.

      Not required to reach a design inference

      4. Determine what raw materials were used in the production and where they came from, how they were gathered and stored.

      All of that is not required to reach a design inference

      5. Determine a timeline for the design and manufacture.

      Not required to reach a design inference

      6. Determine a place of manufacture, and a method of transportation if the products were built elsewhere.

      Again not required to reach a design inference

      Raelity dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only way to make any scientific determination about the designers, the processes, the timeline, etc., is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

      For example Stonehenge was determined to be designed before any of those other questions were answered.








      Delete
    5. So the answer from Chubby Joe is

      No, we IDiots can't manage any of that.

      That's why you're just bumbling sideshow clowns to the scientific community.

      Delete
    6. Six utter irrelevancies. Seven signifies completion, so you're deliberately holding one back, Thorty, aren't you?

      Come on now, there's a good chap. Plumb the full depths of your potential for irrelevant ramblings on this subject.

      Remember Niels Bohr said we cannot know reality: 'There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...;'

      ... and Max Planck:

      'As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.'

      They had both forgotten more about reality 80 years ago, than you atheist head-bangers ever learnt or, seemingly, ever will.

      Delete
    7. First Jeff, now Paul.

      What is with this sudden influx of scientifically illiterate and woefully ignorant Creationist philosophy students trying to hand wave away 150+ years of positive scientific evidence?

      Is this another extra-credit assignment from head IDiot Bill Dembski's theology class?

      Delete
    8. Paul,
      thorton, tell you what. Why don't you or one of your confreres indicate how a person might prove that, say, a flagellum, had been intelligently designed

      Six utter irrelevancies. Seven signifies completion, so you're deliberately holding one back, Thorty, aren't you

      Just for fun,why don't you answer your own question.

      Delete
    9. Joe,
      For example Stonehenge was determined to be designed before any of those other questions were answered.

      Do tell, how was it determined? Or is that another question which is only answered by insult.

      Delete
    10. Paul.


      and Max Planck:(as one example of " All the greatest men of science of the twentieth century and before,..., believed in Intelligent Design)

      'As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much.....


      Of course on the other hand

      Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."

      Oops, so those questions Thorton raised would be relevant to Planck,else all you are positing is a designer without any substance, a miracle in common parlance

      Planck declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."

      Delete
    11. "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." Max Planck

      Delete
    12. Who for Planck worked thru nature"The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."

      Without any answers or at least theories to Thorton's proofs then you are left with miracles,

      Delete
    13. LoL! Design is not a miracle. But yes, Intelligent Design says nature was designed

      Delete
    14. If the laws of nature are incapable of creating life, and if life exists , life had to be caused by a force outside the laws of nature, a miracle.


      I got no problem with the laws of nature being designed

      Delete
    15. LoL! The laws of nature are incapable of creating themselves, a miracle. Nature cannot account for nature, another miracle.

      Geez I am sure Amazon tribes that see planes flying overhead think it's a miracle too!

      Delete
    16. Joe,
      LoL! The laws of nature are incapable of creating themselves, a miracle. Nature cannot account for nature, another miracle.

      Glad to entertain,sounds like the same thing basically. So you now agree with me that ID is based on a miracle happening at some point. That is why none of those questions need be addressed. Miracles are beyond proof.

      Geez I am sure Amazon tribes that see planes flying overhead think it's a miracle too

      One might say the same about the flagella

      Delete
    17. vel:
      So you now agree with me that ID is based on a miracle happening at some point.

      Only in your little bitty mind. I am sure that you also think cars required a miracle too.

      And evolutionism is beyond proof- so by your "logic" it is a miracle.

      And no one knows how nor if blind and undirected chemical processes can produce any flagella.

      Delete
    18. Joe,
      Only in your little bitty mind. I am sure that you also think cars required a miracle too

      No Joe ,I don't. But if the laws of nature are insufficient to create life then ID does,or if the laws of nature must be designed by a being outside of nature ,as you do,it is a miracle.

      And evolutionism is beyond proof- so by your "logic" it is a miracle.

      No Joe , the TOE does not invoke a supernatural agent, and unless you are omniscient, obviously not, that is just an assertion.

      And no one knows how nor if blind and undirected chemical processes can produce any flagella

      Some people have a better idea than others

      Delete
    19. LoL! The ToE posits magical mystery mutations.

      BTW ID doesn't invoke a supernatural agent...

      Delete
    20. Really,what or who designed the laws of nature,?

      Delete
  13. It's very interesting that thorton makes these false accusations and bogus claims and runs away every time he gets called on them.

    And it is very telling that thorton continually fulfills my prediction:

    Prediction-

    thorton will yell, scream, bluff, lie and equivocate. But he will not provide a testable hypothesis nor will he provide any supporting evidence...


    So the testable hypothesis would be:

    If the theory of evolution is totally useless and untestable, evolutionists will not be able to provided testable hypotheses nor positive evidence for its claims.

    And to date that has held true 100% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why would all the different, highly-sophisticated functions in a cell be so purposeful, indeed, dedicated, to form such a purposeful entity as that cell, indeed, to form part of a purposeful organism, have come together by random chance?

    Why aren't at least one or two kind of randomy and 'not' remotely 'fit for purpose'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      Why would all the different, highly-sophisticated functions in a cell be so purposeful, indeed, dedicated, to form such a purposeful entity as that cell, indeed, to form part of a purposeful organism, have come together by random chance?


      They didn't just by random chance. More ignorance-based personal incredulity. Do any of you clowns ever try to learn about the topic before blithering?

      Delete
    2. There isn't anything else but random chance. Only an imbecile would think there is and here is thorton, right on cue...

      Delete
  15. Paul

    “Well chosen, bornagain! Something nice and rousing.”

    We can do better than that Paul.

    It has become a tradition here to wish our atheist friends Merry Festivus around this time of the year.

    Also lets remind them to buy a Festivus pole, the Christmas Tree is our tradition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,

      Could I ask you a favor? Could you visit my blog, and post my responses to Ogre on his?

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

      Delete
    3. Eugen,

      The Geminiads are the 14th no moon ,could be a good year if it isn't too burrr cold

      Delete
    4. Joe G

      Eugen, Could I ask you a favor? Could you visit my blog, and post my responses to Ogre on his?


      You could post them yourself if you hadn't gotten yourself banned for obscenities, making threats, and mindlessly repeating the same IDiot catch-phrases you post all over the web.

      But by all means Eugen, go visit Chubby's blog.

      The one where he screams vile obscenities every other post

      The one he heavily censors, keeping all posts hidden in moderation and only letting through the ones he can bluff an answer to

      The one where he changes people's words in their posts without attribution.

      The one where he repeatedly makes physical threats, then gives out a phony address when people want to call his bluff and meet him.

      Joe Gallien, the archetypal Creationist IDiot.

      Delete
    5. And more lies from the cowardly pathological liar and hypocrite.

      Delete
    6. You find you way to the Ashburnham library yet Chubs? Or are you still too busy stuffing your fat face with double cheeseburgers and extra-large fries.

      Delete
    7. Yup, I have been there. And there isn't any evidence taht supports evolutionism, ie the theory of evolution. Not even one testable hypothesis.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    8. Hey velikovsky

      I will endure the cold if it's going to be clear. Unfortunately it's often cloudy here. Hope you have a good luck with it.

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joe G

      Yup, I have been there. And there isn't any evidence taht supports evolutionism, ie the theory of evolution. Not even one testable hypothesis.


      The pancake breakfast fundraiser doesn't count Chubs. What books on evolutionary theory did you read from there?

      Delete
    10. "Your Inner Fish"; "Ancetor's tale"; "Endless Forms..."; "Making of the Fittest"; "Origin of Species"; "Darwin's Ghost"; "Blind Watchmaker"; "River Out of Eden"; to name a few

      Delete
    11. Chubby Joe G

      "Your Inner Fish"; "Ancetor's tale"; "Endless Forms..."; "Making of the Fittest"; "Origin of Species"; "Darwin's Ghost"; "Blind Watchmaker"; "River Out of Eden"; to name a few


      So according to you none of those cover any evidence for evolution. Right.

      Funny, I know for a fact that Carroll's "Endless Forms most Beautiful" does a pretty good job explaining how HOX genes function as an evolutionary tool kit.

      Your lies are getting so over the top as to be ridiculous Chubs. Stick to lying about being a war hero, and a pilot, and an Olympic caliber athlete, and a top secret crypto programmer, and a GA designer, and an antenna expert.

      Delete
    12. queenie:
      So according to you none of those cover any evidence for evolution.

      LoL! Why are you such loser? Do you enjoy it?

      None of those have any evidence taht blind and undirected chemical processes can produce anything. And Carroll has no idea how blind and undirected processes produced HOX genes. And blind and undirected processes can't account for any toolkit.

      IOW, just as I have been saying, you are a bluffing equivicator.

      Delete
    13. I like, 'HOLY day', Eugen! 'Have a lovely HOLY, prayerful day'. And a thoroughly Christian New Year!

      PS
      Sorry about the mix-up, Eugen.

      Delete
  16. Isn't that kind of careless of random chance to have all these parts looking so purposefully designed? Perhaps careless to the point of recklessness. And not just once, but throughout nature...

    You people need to get a grip of random chance. It sounds like a 'West World' dummy gone rogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      Isn't that kind of careless of random chance to have all these parts looking so purposefully designed? Perhaps careless to the point of recklessness. And not just once, but throughout nature...

      You people need to get a grip of random chance. It sounds like a 'West World' dummy gone rogue.


      Random chance by itself didn't produce them. That's exactly why you scientifically illiterate IDiots need to take a basic Biology class before popping off.

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joe G

      Natural selection is "non-random" only in the sense that if you have differential reproduction due to heritable random variation, then you have natural selection.


      So according to Chubs

      1. We have random (WRT reproductive fitness) genetic variations
      2. We have natural selection weeding out the harmful variations and keeping the neutral and beneficial ones.
      3. We have a mechanism for carrying forward HERITABLE TRAITS so the neutral and beneficial variations accumulate.

      That's evolution.

      Congratulation on the own goal Chubs.

      Delete
    3. Nope

      1- We have random , as in chance/ happenstance, geneic variations (per Ernst Mayr)

      2- Natural selection is just a result, it doesn't do anything

      3- I agree

      And yes, neither YEC's baraminology, nor Intelligent Design are anti-evolution in that sense.

      Congrats queenie, you've exposed your ignorance, again.

      Delete
  17. Another day, another three dozen posts by ignorant creationist Chubby Joe Gallien screaming "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!'

    Ho hum. Let us know when you IDiots have something new to offer, OK Chubs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did nothing turn itself into everything? Just askin...

      The reply should be a gem!

      Delete
    2. Paul

      How did nothing turn itself into everything?


      Where did you ever get such a stupid idea? Not from any scientific source. Did they teach you that in vacation Bible school?

      Delete
  18. Chubby Joe G

    Evolution is the thing- ie change in allele frequency over time, natural selection, descent with modification, and the theory of evolution, ie evolutionism, attempts to explain how evolution occurs and what it did and can do.


    You now agree evolution is a fact. Got it.

    You better have a talk with Cornelius then, get your Creationist story straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, isn't a fact.

      Dr Hunter just calls that variation. When Dr Hunter says "evolution" he is always referring to "evolutionism"- always.

      Delete
    2. You Creationist IDiots can't get your story straight to save your life. That's what you get when you each come up with your own lies.

      Delete
    3. So because you are too stupid to follow along means we can't get our stories straight?

      So because thorton has a little penis, is spineless and brain-dead, evolutionism is right and we can't get our stories straight, even though I explained it to him.

      Sweet....

      Delete
  19. If you argue with an idiot, Joe, it just makes two
    idiots. The thread will go nowhere if we take thorton's posts seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone needs to point out his lies, nonsense, bluffing and equivocations...

      Delete
    2. Hey Paul, Joe likes to meat, er, meet men in empty parking lots. He'll give you the address if you ask. I'm sure you'd both enjoy it.

      Delete
    3. Hey queenie- we get it, you are just upset because your lies and ignorance have been exposed, again

      Delete
    4. Wow, thorton, this is really sounding like a deviant's party!

      Delete
    5. Hold me back, someone! Hold me back!

      Delete
  20. What I mean, Joe, is, arguing with someone who bases their arguments on non-viable hypotheses is doomed a priori. It's just arguing past each other.

    There is something quite mad about arguing with atheist loony-toons on these blogs, but our world itself is so mad that someone has to tell the truth about the way things are, however obvious that might have been, were it not for the utterly mendacious bullsh*t put out all the time by our all-powerful western media, and their all-powerful political oligarchs, who own them.

    And I don't, of course, mean the politicians, whom they bought and paid for so long ago, now, that the corruption of what Mussolini called 'corporatism' is now systemic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't argue with him. I just correct him. That is a full-time job.

      Delete
    2. Paul

      What I mean, Joe, is, arguing with someone who bases their arguments on non-viable hypotheses is doomed a priori. It's just arguing past each other.


      The big point you Creationists don't seem to understand is that I'm not the one you need to convince. You need to sell your Creationist swill to the entire worldwide scientific community. All the colleges and universities, all the research labs, all the professional scientific journals, all the natural history museums, all the privately owned companies that use the evolutionary paradigm to produce their products and be profitable.

      Right now you're just another ignorant Creationist drunkard screaming philosophical jibber-jabber at the corner streetlight. Mildly amusing but mostly pathetic.

      Delete
    3. And you are just another bluffing, ignorant equivocator.

      Ya see queenie, YOU need to show what that data has to do with blind and undirected chemical processes. You don't get to just baldly assert it...

      Why is it that the " entire worldwide scientific community. All the colleges and universities, all the research labs, all the professional scientific journals, all the natural history museums, all the privately owned companies that use the evolutionary paradigm to produce their products and be profitable" can't tell us how many mutations it takes to get a vertebrate starting with an invertebrate?

      Why is it they can't tell us anything beyond "something happened sometime in the past, things kept happening through eons of time and here we are"?

      Why are all these scientists so damn ignorant?

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      Why are all these scientists so damn ignorant?


      They're not Chubs. You are.

      Delete
    5. Then why can't any of them answer the questions? If they weren't ignorant they would know the answers.

      So eat it, queenie

      Delete
  21. No. You don't get it, thorton. You're the losers in this script. Although this blog and UD seem to be having an appreciable impact on just that large scientific community you cite.

    But it's not necessary. We WILL win. And I mean Christianity across the board. If you told me how I know, you would really would laugh - until it happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you told me how I know, you would really would laugh

      Judging by the garbled prose, we have another ba77-like converted brain-damaged addict here.

      They want to win so badly because they feel like losers and Jesus is their new coach.

      Sad, really.

      Delete
  22. Paul

    No. You don't get it, thorton. You're the losers in this script. Although this blog and UD seem to be having an appreciable impact on just that large scientific community you cite.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    oh, let me catch my breath...

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    ..clear the tears of laughter from my eyes

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    "appreciable impact on just that large scientific community"

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Oh dear. That may be the funniest thing a clueless Fundy Creationist ever said!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul

    But it's not necessary. We WILL win. And I mean Christianity across the board. If you told me how I know, you would really would laugh - until it happens.


    You could always get batspit77 to provide a few dozen more pages of Godspam. That always convinces scientific audiences.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ya see queenie, YOU need to show what that data has to do with blind and undirected chemical processes. You don't get to just baldly assert it...

    ReplyDelete
  25. (AGAIN Looks around at the thousands of top tier colleges and universities that offer degrees in the evolutionary sciences at the undergrad and grad level. Looks at the millions of professional scientists and researchers in biology, genetics, paleontology, medicine, etc. who successfully use the evolutionary paradigm in their work every day. Looks at the hundreds of professional science journals publishing hundreds of studies with more evidence on the details of evolution every week.)

    (Then looks at the handful of cranks at UD and the DI with zero research, zero results, zero evidence, and who so resemble the drunk nutter on the corner screaming at the street lamp)

    Hey Chubs, check out the scoreboard. What's the score big guy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AGAIN with the bluffing EQUIVOCATION-

      Blind and undirected chemical processes, queenie.

      Why is it that with all of those resources we can't even get one testable hypothesis wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution (along with positive evidence)?

      And why is it with all of those resources no one can tell us how many mutations it takes to get a tetrapod starting with a finned fish?

      You are nothing but a bluffing coward

      Ya see queenie, YOU need to show what that data has to do with blind and undirected chemical processes. You don't get to just baldly assert it...

      Ignoring that just PROVES that you are willfully ignorant.

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. Promote your Website, Get Facebook Likes, Website Visitors and youtube Views on your Video
    Just Contact For More Marketing plans : jobzcornerz@gmail.com
    www.jobzcorner.com

    ReplyDelete
  28. Latest Hot Current Affairs, Entertainment News, Pictures, Videos, Latest Hot News updates, Business News, Online Marketing, Online Jobs, Mp3 Tunes, Latest Ringtones, Bollywood Girls, Entertainment Girls, Hot Girls and Most popular Affairs in the World
    Daily News updates about Latest and Hot Current Affairs
    HotCurrentAffairs.com

    ReplyDelete