Monday, January 14, 2013

Here is How Evolutionists Lie to the Public

A Classic Example



Hitler called it the Big Lie. To convince people your mythology is unquestionably true, small lies won’t do because the average person, who tells small lies himself, will not be fooled. But we believe outrageous, big lies, because we can’t believe anyone would have such audacity to promote them so forcefully. It must be true. And while we have always had myths, and shamans and priests to tell them to us, this time is different because the lie comes in the form of science, such as exemplified in this latest BBC video which we pick up at the 2:25 mark where evolutionist Matt Ridley, in response to the softball question of whether there is any debate in science about the fact of evolution, has these lies to tell:

No, it’s not. It’s quite clear now to scientists because the evidence has got stronger and stronger as the years go by. We now have genetic evidence, as well as the evidence from fossils and other things. We’ve sequenced the genome of Neandertal man, and we can clearly see how it is related to us, and related to the chimpanzee and so on, and we can see that we cross bred with it about 40,000 years ago”

We can read in the genes exactly the whole history of life. And we’re gradually understanding all of that, and it absolutely confirms there’s descent with modification with natural selection, and all these things that Darwin said. There’s plenty of room for disagreement about the details. It’s not one dogmatic theory, there’s a whole bunch of theories.

The first thing they should do when they see a consensus is try and shoot it down. But there is no question that all creatures on this planet are [evolutionarily] related. We can see that in the genes. They all share the same genetic code—it looks like a frozen accident. There’s no rhyme or reason why we have the particular genetic code we do. But bacteria have it, we have it, plants have it—it’s all connected.

Fifty years ago you could just about say “well, we still don’t know, what makes living matter different from non living matter. There might be something very special and incomprehensible about it.” That’s gone. We now know that it’s from information technology like any other, and it’s been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences.

That was such a dizzying flurry of big lies we, frankly, lost count. Those lies are so absurd, so unequivocally false, and spoken with such conviction, that the average person is sure to believe them.

Unfortunately such lies are the rule rather than the exception. This evolution propaganda segment was no mistake—it is unfortunately typical.

Of course one can make truthful arguments for evolution. And one can try to find scientific evidence to support it. It is not easy, but it can be done. But that is not what evolutionists do. They mandate evolution. They insist evolution is a fact in spite of the evidence. And that is a big lie.

371 comments:

  1. corrections:

    ,,the evidence has got weaker and weaker as the years go by.,,

    ,,We cannot read in the genes exactly the whole history of life.,,

    ,,absolutely confirms there’s no descent with modification with natural selection, and all these things that Darwin said.,,

    ...there is no question that all creatures on this planet are not [evolutionarily] related. We can see that in the genes...

    ,,,there is rhyme and reason why we have the particular genetic code we do,,,

    ,,,it’s has not been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences.,,,

    There all better! :)



    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately the genes do NOT determine what an organism is. No one knows what determines what an organism is. And until we know that we cannot know if one type of organism can evolve into another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If no one knows,how do they know genes don't? I thought you already knew the one organism can't evolve into another, now you say there is a chance

      Delete
    2. If no one knows,how do they know genes don't?

      Experiments. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote a book titled "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" that addresses the issue. Denton wrote an article that also addresses it.

      Genes control traits and INFLUENCE development. However being human is NOT a trait and influencing something is not the same as determining it.

      I thought you already knew the one organism can't evolve into another, now you say there is a chance

      What chance? I thought YOU knew that one organism could evolve into another. However it seems that your "knowledge" was all just imagination.

      Delete
    3. Joe,

      And until we know that we cannot know if one type of organism can evolve into another.

      Read what you wrote, "until" " we cannot know if", what is your interpretation of your sentence?

      Delete
    4. My interpretation is that your position is total BS beacuse we don't what makes an organism what it is so we cannot know if one type can evolve into another type.

      It is rather simple, actually.

      Delete
    5. What chance? Please be specific.

      IOW provide some data for this chance

      Delete
    6. Joe,

      beacuse we don't what makes an organism what it is so we cannot know if one type can evolve into another type.

      Joe,read what you wrote," we cannot know if" , that means it could or it couldn't,

      What chance? Please be specific.

      IOW provide some data for this chance


      You said it , provide your own data why we cannot know if it can, why didn't you say "No one knows what determines what an organism is. And until we know that we can know if one type of organism can evolve into another."

      Now it does not sound very logical but it eliminates the chance,according to you, that one type can evolve into another

      Delete
    7. OK so you aren't going to provide any data. Figures.

      Delete
    8. Joe,

      I already did repeatedly,I cited your statement

      Delete
    9. LoL! That ain't data but thanks for confirming your ignorance.

      Delete
    10. Let me try again,

      I cannot know if your name is Joe , therefore there is a chance that your name is Joe and there is a chance that your name is not Joe. Now substitute "one type of organism can evolve into another type" for " your name is Joe" . This is your statement

      I didn't make the claim you did, you claimed our lack of knowledge of A prevents knowledge of B, one of the things we have no knowledge of is whether B occurs.So there is a chance that B occurs, just as there is a chance that B doesn't occur.Your claim of lack of knowledge of B is a claim that there is a chance B occurs. Show me where I messed up and I will concede my density

      Delete
    11. V.

      I already did repeatedly,I cited your statement


      Joe
      .LoL! That ain't data but thanks for confirming your ignorance

      That is known as a self inflicted wound, in case you were interested

      Delete
    12. vel:
      That is known as a self inflicted wound,

      Only in your little-bitty mind.

      And we are STILL waiting for your data, vel.

      Delete
  3. We can't predict UCA-degree phenotype evolution, even by analogical extrapolation. Short of that you have to observe the evolution in question. That hasn't been done. Now, stop and think about how many absurd things we could say we know and have tons of evidence for once our knowledge isn't dependent on either observation, analogical extrapolation, or prediction corroboration. We could "know" all kinds of contradictory things with virtual certainty.

    Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief.


      Some people posting ignorant philosophical drivel are literally stupid beyond belief LFJJ, but it's not the scientists.

      Delete
    2. Yes, all thorTARD does is post ignorant philosphical drivel- if it could even be consudered philosophical. And it has been proven that thorton is stupid beyond belief.

      Delete
    3. Jeff ,
      Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief.


      Thorton
      Some people posting ignorant philosophical drivel are literally stupid beyond belief LFJJ, but it's not the scientists.


      A big fat softball waist high right over the plate

      Delete
    4. Both you and thorton are big fat softballs.

      Or was that big fat meatballs?

      Delete
    5. Joe G,

      Or was that big fat meatballs?

      Man that is one of my favorites, a meatball sandwich. Teresa's in Erie makes a Meatball Nightmare, a regular meatball sandwich with Parmesan ,mushrooms and hot peppers, toasted crispy. Yum. Next to an Oyster Loaf from Julien's that is my favorite po boy. Sorry for the digression,back on topic, Joe you are a moron:)

      Delete
    6. Oh man I'm in love with Teresa from Erie. Before I say something I would regret, is Julien man or a woman?

      Lots of comments this morning , are you guys retired, unemployed or you just fool your boss like me?

      Delete
    7. Work 4p- 12, I think Julien is a guy, it is in Lafayette, La. When I visit my sister the tradition is at least one meal at Julien Po Boys, my daughter goes for the Shrimp Po Boy. My wife not a fan. Ever heard of a King Cake?

      Delete
    8. Nice little tradition. All those sound interesting but I'm still thinking about Teresa's. What is King Cake?

      The other day I told my boss "I work so hard on avoiding work", he laughed but I was serious.

      Delete
    9. Teresa's is also one of those traditions,along with beignets, bar-b-que, Mexican food.You might see a pattern.

      In New Orleans, roughly starting at New Years til Fat Tuesday is known as Mardi Gras season, someone will have a pre Mardi Gras party. At the party for desert is served a cake shaped like a ring. It tastes like a Danish filled with cream cheese sprinkled with colored sugar on top. Inside is a small plastic baby. Whoever gets the baby has to host the party the next week. My daughter brought one back from N.O. yesterday, I did some serious harm to it last night and breakfast this morning.

      Perhaps we should get CH to do a food related post. I certainly have religious convictions on certain foods. French bread for instance.

      Delete
    10. V: Jeff ,
      "Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief."

      Thorton
      "Some people posting ignorant philosophical drivel are literally stupid beyond belief LFJJ, but it's not the scientists."

      A big fat softball waist high right over the plate

      Jeff: Man up, V. Here are the undeniable facts:

      1) We've never observed the radically diverging branching patterns in genealogical lineages posited by UCA'ists.

      2) Radically divergent branching patterns are the OPPOSITE of analogical extrapolation.

      3) There is no extant natural theory that implies that the particular divergent branching lineages posited by UCA'ists would occur if there was a UCA in the precambrian.

      4) Per 3, no causal theory corrobation of UCA has ever occurred.

      5) Cladistic tree-generation rules have no known correlation to the phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations + environment

      6) Per 5, cladistic tree-generation has absolutely ZERO known relevance to whether UCA could have occurred naturalistically

      Now, big boy, just WHAT data INDICATES that UCA happened naturalistically per the posited lineages? If you can't answer, then YES, UCA'ists are either pathological liars, morons, or both. If you can, you can stop a huge waste of time on this forum. Somehow I'm betting you haven't been keeping the REAL evidence a secret. There IS NONE.

      Delete
    11. Jeff,

      Jeff: Man up, V. Here are the undeniable facts

      Seriously,man up? Busy ,I'll get back to you.

      Delete
    12. Yeah. I'm serious. If you're a woman, woman up. IOW, adult up. Joining Moronton is a sure sign you're all bluff. This is so simple. Define HOW data serves as evidence for a hypothesis by showing HOW it indicates the hypothesis is more plausible than its competitors. Then, show the data that does that for UCA.

      Assuming that mutation rate speculation, etc magically coincides with unobserved, unpredicted, non-analogical phenotypic trajectories is just that--magic-think.

      Delete
    13. Jeff
      UCA? I’ll have to look that up.

      …back to the cake…

      King Cake sounds great, now I have to try it. Also, that little custom with hiding a toy baby inside is interesting. You mentioned Louisiana so I wonder if that’s French custom.

      I remember Mardi Gras well, it’s very popular European event and it naturally spread around the world with colonizers. Blaming and then burning effigy was fun. Hey crazy idea-we should burn Jerry Coyne effigy. First we have to find old fur coats to make his arms.

      I’m in trouble, Diogenes showed up unexpectedly. I’ll have to apologize to him for what I did few days ago.

      Delete
    14. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      1) We've never observed the radically diverging branching patterns in genealogical lineages posited by UCA'ists.


      Yes LFJJ, we have.

      What you really mean is you personally have never seen it on AIG and ICR and the other Creationist cesspools you get your "science" from.

      We do have some amazingly ignorant Creationists around here.

      Delete
    15. Eugen,

      I take it you are not a fan of Coyne , never really paid much attention to his blog, hardcore atheists are a different kind of fundie to me, that is why I never go to pz's blog anymore. Yes, I wouldn't mess with Diogenes .

      Not much effigy burning burning in its present form, mostly drinking and partying,watching extravagant floats and fighting for trinkets the members of the krewes throw. It is worth a visit if you get a chance.

      Delete
    16. Jeff,

      Yeah. I'm serious. If you're a woman, woman up. IOW, adult up

      A little housecleaning first, the softball was this "Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief " while I understand that is your belief it can just as well describe your position. After all the belief that anyone who disagrees with your" logic" is either stupid or a liar is foolish within belief, in my opinion,it ignores the possibility that one is mistaken or that the truth lies somewhere else. It also permits one to dismiss any alternate facts out of hand. Unless of course your only interest marginalize anyone who disagrees with you, then it effective way to block contradictory information.

      Delete
    17. Velik

      Oh, yeah it would be nice to see it once. Too bad there’s no burning of effigy anymore, all the blame and faults of the previous year were laid on him before the ignition.

      I have no respect for Jerry Coyne’s blog because him and his echo chamber are mocking theists and calling us “chew toys”. They should try to say it here and see how that goes.

      Delete
    18. Jeff's Undeniable Facts v.1

      So to be clear, your claim is the these are things that are indisputable , unable to be disputed or denied . Let's see what a non professional biologist can make of it.i hope that any requests for you to clarify your facts will not be viewed as not " maning up".

      1) We've never observed the radically diverging branching patterns in genealogical lineages posited by UCA'ists.

      Thorton apparently disagrees this is indisputable , but perhaps the word " observed" is an issue, is this required to happen in real time? A human lifetime? Would a fossil lineage count as observed? I believe the transitional of the whale is fairly complete. Second, if a process is too slow would we recognize it anyway in real time? Can we see the North American plate move?
      Now perhaps your request is even more, can we see the split between major groups, major branches?
      Perhaps if you specify exactly what would be required to falsify your claim

      2) Radically divergent branching patterns are the OPPOSITE of analogical extrapolation.

      First,why is nature bound by analogically extrapolation? QT would seem to violate any extrapolation.

      Second, the basic building blocks of the vast majority of life is the same, DNA is mostly universal, outwardly forms vary but built on the mostly the same structures. Cats and dogs are different but a lot the same,variations of a theme.in other words I can imagine more radically divergent branches
      Again perhaps specify exactly what consistutes " radical" in your claim, sorry to ask for these clarifications but facts require precision is order to judge undeniabilty

      3) There is no extant natural theory that implies that the particular divergent branching lineages posited by UCA'ists would occur if there was a UCA in the precambrian.
      Really, this is surprising since the UCA is supposed to predate the Cambrian, why does the appearance in the fossil record refute UCA? I have heard lots of explanations for the "sudden" appearance" ,more calcium in seawater, snowball earth, statistically the same rate of growth, previous mass extinction, appearance of eyes, life existing in greater diversity before the " explosion", 50 millions years is not sudden. It seems to me that these are theories on the level of the competing one that an unknown designer with unknown abilities for an unknown reason with an unknown mechanism over the period of 50 million years created primitive creatures which most of soon became extinct

      So I must say this fact is certainly disputable unless your definition " natural theory" is more of a strict scientific one.

      4) Per 3, no causal theory corrobation of UCA has ever occurred.

      This is easy then if 3 is disputable , the proof of 4 is the same

      5) Cladistic tree-generation rules have no known correlation to the phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations + environment

      No opinion,ask a professional, except one would have to known both factors to determine a correlation, do you know these facts?

      6) Per 5, cladistic tree-generation has absolutely ZERO known relevance to whether UCA could have occurred naturalistically

      Again ask a biologist,my guess is that this may also be in dispute

      Delete
    19. Jeff, part two

      Now, big boy,

      Compliments will get you nowhere,but thanks

      just WHAT data INDICATES that UCA happened naturalistically per the posited lineages?

      I suggest you ask a professional, in my experience people's, who deem themselves experts with no formal or actual in the field experience , opinion is questionable. It seems the height of hubris to believe I as an dabbler is/was smarter than every professional in a field with their years of experience, I hope understand my caution

      If you can't answer, then YES, UCA'ists are either pathological liars, morons, or both

      Sorry ,this is nonsense,why should my limited knowledge prove that others are morons? I am curious how you arrived at this conclusion.

      . If you can, you can stop a huge waste of time on this forum.

      I Imagine even omniscience on my part could not stop the debate on this forum. I guess it is a matter of one's goals that determine whether something is a waste. If your goal is to vanquish one's foes with the power of ones intellect and have them acknowledge it,it might be a waste of time, my condolences.

      Somehow I'm betting you haven't been keeping the REAL evidence a secret. There IS NONE.

      I am sure you are correct,no evidence against your belief will ever be REAL. After how could there be because there is NONE

      Delete
  4. Joe G says: "Unfortunately the genes do NOT determine what an organism is. No one knows what determines what an organism is. And until we know that we cannot know if one type of organism can evolve into another."

    I'm guessing the soul determines what an organism is and orchestrates its development from two cells to 100 trillion cells. But if scientists already exclude that possibility due to preconceived religious beliefs, the truth may be hidden for a while longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the soul just fills the existing body- AFIK.

      Delete
    2. Joe G

      "No one knows what determines what an organism is."

      So you exclude genes and soul for this task. Have you some suggestions of a probable candidate at list for the development aspect or you think that the knowledge of this cannot be reached.

      Delete
    3. Germanicus,

      Science has excluded genes for determining what will develop.

      But yes, the candidate would be the internal programming of the organism.

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      Science has excluded genes for determining what will develop.

      This must come as bad news for thousands of genetists, but good news for prospective fathers facing paternity suits

      Delete
    5. LoL! vel is happy with his ignorance as if it means something!

      How is that bad news for geneticists vel? I have two that say it isn't- that it is what it is. As for patermity tests, please explain te relevance, if you can.

      Dr Denton:

      To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

      Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

      Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene

      Delete
    6. Joe,

      LoL! vel is happy with his ignorance as if it means something!

      Didn't want you to feel all alone.

      How is that bad news for geneticists vel

      If " Science has excluded genes for determining what will develop" , why study genetics? Why worry if something causes genetic damage? Why do amniocentesis?

      Unless you are saying that genes have been excluded as the exclusive determinant of form? Recognizing the field of evolutionary developmental biology?

      Or as Dr Denton says above " It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation"

      . Now I am ignorant but this does not sound like the genes are excluded , it sounds they are a necessary component .

      Is this what you meant,not the sole determining factor? Perhaps it was the " excluded" ,here is the definition so you can see the source of my confusion
      b : to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion

      As for the paternity, I see I was in error,even a useless DNA if unique to an individual would be useful. My apologies.


      Delete
    7. If " Science has excluded genes for determining what will develop" , why study genetics?

      Because genes still do have an effect, just as Denton said.

      And developmental biology hasn't helped at all.

      Again genes INFLUENCE development but influencing is not the same as determining.

      Building materials influence what type of building can be constructed but they do not determine what will be constructed.

      Delete
    8. Joe,

      Again genes INFLUENCE development but influencing is not the same as determining

      If they influence then they are not excluded, thank you for the clarification.


      Building materials influence what type of building can be constructed but they do not determine what will be constructed.


      Perhaps it is the word " determine" that is a problem, the materials do determine what will be constructed, as does the design,as does the budget,as does the terrain ,as does the skills of the workmen. Many thing go into the equation.

      Delete
    9. vel:
      If they influence then they are not excluded, thank you for the clarification.


      They are excluded from DETERMINING the type of organism, vel.

      Perhaps it is the word " determine" that is a problem, the materials do determine what will be constructed,

      LoL! Please tell us how materials can determine anything. Thank you.

      Delete
    10. A couple of years ago I designed and built an addition onto my house. For that I had thousands of dollars worth of lumber, cement, nails and footings delivered to my house.

      I could have made any number of different things with all of that because the materials do not determine what i am building.

      Delete
    11. Joe,

      LoL! Please tell us how materials can determine anything. Thank you.

      I said they are a factor, you seem to have an issue with nuance, " many things go into the equation". For instance choice of wood and paper as framing will determine that you will be unsuccessfull in building 110 story skyscraper

      A couple of years ago I designed and built an addition onto my house. For that I had thousands of dollars worth of lumber, cement, nails and footings delivered to my house.

      Why did you choose those materials, why not gingerbread? Houses are built of gingerbread

      Delete
    12. OK, got it. I never said that genes nor the genome wasn't a factor.

      Carry on

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. The human genome has been concluded and no one found any "human" genes, ie genes that make us human.

    No one knows what genes say to make a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye. No one knows what genes determine the type of eye that will develop.

    So it is very clear that we don't know much of anything when talking about what makes an organism what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chubby Joe G

      The human genome has been concluded and no one found any "human" genes, ie genes that make us human.


      It's amazing but you manage to get a little more stupid every day.

      It's ALL our genes, the total sum of them that by definition make us human.

      Just like there's no one piece of a Corvette that makes it a Corvette. By definition a Corvette is the car you get when you assemble all its pieces.

      Fatboy Joe Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    2. What research demonstrates that we are the sum of our genome? Please be specific.

      Delete
  8. Joe G,

    "Science has excluded genes for determining what will develop."

    what is the meaning of your sentence?
    1) that the knowledge of the genes don't allow at the present status to make prevision on a future development (so I understand your use of the future).
    2) that genes (and dna) have nothing to do with the development.

    Please can you give me at least a reference of this point so that I can check it myself.

    "But yes, the candidate would be the internal programming of the organism."

    Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell? What is the stage of this research? Again, have you references.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) that the knowledge of the genes don't allow at the present status to make prevision on a future development (so I understand your use of the future).

      Dr Denton:

      To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

      Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

      Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene



      2) that genes (and dna) have nothing to do with the development.

      LoL!

      Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell?

      That is what science is for.

      What research demonstrates that we are the sum of our genome? Please be specific.


      Delete
    2. Germanicus,

      Good question , perhaps Joe has a unique definition of the word excluded. Both Joe' references do not seem to support the excluded claim, Denton actually allows some genes do determine development, the other is concerned with species,not individual, level effects.

      Delete
    3. vel,

      Please learn how to read- influencing is NOT the same as determining.

      The human genome has been concluded and no one found any "human" genes, ie genes that make us human.

      No one knows what genes say to make a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye. No one knows what genes determine the type of eye that will develop.

      So it is very clear that we don't know much of anything when talking about what makes an organism what it is.

      Delete
    4. Apparently Chubby Joe is taking a cue from batspit77, just C&Ping large swaths of Creationist nonsense with no attempt at support.

      At least Chubs hasn't started posting Fundy music videos yet.

      Delete
    5. Joe G

      As far as my question:

      "Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell?"

      You have given a very vague answer. I understand from your answer that nothing concrete has been proposed and we are still far to have candidate mechanisms.

      The other references that you post (Denton and Sermonti) are not very helpful to answer my specific question; they are more criticism on current theories but no specific alternative mechanisms are proposed. I have also the feeling that Sermonti himself is rather negative on the possibility to find an answer to this question.

      I have read few years ago a book of S. B. Carroll "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom."(2005). He presented several examples how the genome can control the development of organisms, up to complex form and pattern (e.g. the wing of a butterfly). At least he shows that up to a certain grade candidate mechanisms have been identified.

      Delete
    6. Denton said taht genes control the development. Controlling development IS NOT the ame as determining what will develop.

      I have also read Carroll- endles forms and making of the fittest. He doesn't know what determines what type of organism will develop other than what Sermonti said.

      Delete
    7. Joe G

      "Denton said taht genes control the development. Controlling development IS NOT the ame as determining what will develop."

      It is a little obscure what you(Denton) mean. Maybe you are saying that to produce an organism, we need more than the genome. The genes produce sure some parts, but not all.
      But with this we come again to my question, which other mechanism is involved in the development and were is localized. How much is due to genome and how much to this unknown mechanism. In any case, if no candidate is in sight for this complementary mechanism, why speculate on it. It seems to me more reasonable to assume that the development is controlled only (or at least, mostly) by the genome of which we all recognise that has a role in this process.

      Delete
    8. Nope, we know that the egg and other cellular components contribute to the development also.

      We know that from developmental biology

      Delete
    9. Joe G
      Are so egg and other cellular components that determine what will develop , at the contrary of the genome that only influences this?
      My only point is to understand what is determining what will develop, because you seems to attribute to the genome the only role to produce row material.

      Delete
    10. No one knows what determines what type of organism will develop. I am just pointing out that we already know there are other cellular factors than the genome.

      I am confident that when we find out it will be some type of internal software. The research would be to determine where/ what part of the cell.

      Venter synthesized DNA and the cell worked, so it ain't the DNA. The DNA to me would be more like RAM.

      Purely synthesized ribosomes do not function. That tells me they lack programming. Church synthesized part of a ribosome and it did crank out one polypeptide. That tells me that they corrupted that ribosome's programming.

      So just keep synthesizing away until the cell no longer functions.

      Delete
    11. joey said:

      "I am confident that when we find out it will be some type of internal software. The research would be to determine where/ what part of the cell."

      Well get crackin' joey, in your rootin tootin sooper dooper high falootin basement toaster repair lab and figure out where the alleged software is located! You say that's what science is for but why do you care what science is for and what makes you think that you know what science is for? Science deals with investigating, understanding, and explaining reality joey, not your religious fantasies. Come on joey, show that you are superior to science and can find the alleged software that your imaginary designer-allah allegedly installed.

      "...some type of internal software"...?

      What? You don't know what type of software? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Everyone else knows that it's the X-49 release of Windows 778, revision 12.2. The release and installation of the 12.3 revision has been delayed because allah is on a honeymoon with a goat named Mary Lou.

      And who's "we"? You and the voices in your head?

      Delete
    12. Great, another ignorant and belligernt lowlife shows up to add its raw spewage to the fray.

      Delete
    13. Joe G

      “I have also read Carroll- endles forms and making of the fittest. He doesn't know what determines what type of organism will develop other than what Sermonti said”.

      Carroll shows in his book several nice examples how the genome determines the development, controlling not only the substances, but also the shape and the structure of biological parts. He shows and explains how the genes are able to shape the development of body regions (e.g. Hox genes). The studies could be not completed, but they show clearly that genes make more than prepare row materials.
      It is for me a very interesting and promising work, at the contrary of Sermonti that offers nothing, other than the affirmation that is a mystery.

      Delete
    14. No, Carroll does NOT know what determines the final body plan and unguided evolution cannot account for HOX genes.

      But yes it, developmental biology- is evolutionism's last hope.

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

      Delete
    16. Joe G

      I don’t know if Carroll knows what determines the “final” body plan (*), but sure candidate mechanisms that explain how genes shape the development of body regions are pretty well identified.

      (*) Again it depends on what you are meaning. If you want to say that a complete description of all the processes is still missing, I agree fully with you.

      Delete
  9. In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a Horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the geneticist, Sermonti, is basically concluding the same thing Moses did 3,500 years ago when he wrote about different "kinds" of animals being fruitful and multiplying. "The mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known". It is refreshing to see a scientist just tell it like it is.

      I'm still waiting on an evolutionists here to give us one example of a genuine animal speciation being observed.

      Delete
    2. Joe,

      What cause a flower to be red or white?

      Delete
    3. Color would be a TRAIT and under the control of the color genes.

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      Color would be a TRAIT and under the control of the color genes.


      So genes determine whatever color an organism is

      "Unfortunately the genes do NOT determine what an organism is

      Care to clarify?

      Delete
    5. So genes determine whatever color an organism is

      Do they? The flower isn't the entire organism.

      Genes do control the color of human eyes.

      "Unfortunately the genes do NOT determine what an organism is

      Care to clarify?

      The stack of lumber didn't determine what I was building.

      What research demonstrates that we are the sum of our genome? Please be specific.

      Delete
    6. The color of the flower does not determine whether or not the plant would be a flowering plant or if the plant was even a plant.

      The color of the paint does not determine what type of car it is.

      Delete
    7. Joe,


      The color of the paint does not determine what type of car it is.


      Sure is does, it is a red car

      Delete
    8. Yup a red car is a type of car- to a moron.

      Delete
    9. Maybe you could make a nested hierarchy of types of cars then?

      Delete
    10. Anyone could, if they are smart enough.

      Delete
    11. That lets you off the hook,just think if you had been smart enough to say that about iPods we could have saved lots of time.

      Delete
    12. No, actually it lets you off the hook as you don't even know what a nested hierarchy is.

      And your ignorance is what wasted the time before.

      Delete
    13. Guiseppe Sermonti is not a "prominent geneticist", that is more creationist credential inflation. Because he's Italian and a crackpot, you think you can pass him off to Americans as somebody important.

      And that passage you copied from his book is basically insane. We know a lot about embryonic development as controlled by the HOX gene kit. We know the vertebrate HOX gene kit was formed by two duplications of the primordial HOX gene kit, as the various copies express the genes in the same order, physically, on the body on vertebrates vs. fruit fly embryos.

      But the real winner is this insane passage from Neal Tedford:

      So the geneticist, Sermonti, is basically concluding the same thing Moses did 3,500 years ago when he wrote about different "kinds" of animals being fruitful and multiplying.

      Wow. Can you read English? How the heck did you get that from Sermonti's ridiculous passage?

      Will you please explain to me that the story of Joseph and Laban, also written by Moses, proves that if a sheep drinks from water containing speckled wood, it will give birth to speckled lambs?

      I really need more your creationist cuttin'-edge, flat-Earth science from the Bronze Age.

      Delete
    14. d:
      Guiseppe Sermonti is not a "prominent geneticist

      Yes, he is.

      And that passage you copied from his book is basically insane.

      So you say yet cannot refute- you are just another ignorant coward.

      We know a lot about embryonic development as controlled by the HOX gene kit.

      Controlled but NOT determined. And unguided evolution cannot account for HOX genes. You lose.

      Delete
    15. Joe G: So you say yet cannot refute-

      The Sermonti quote did not present any evidence. The quote of Sermonti was pure argument from authority. Argument from authority is inferior to argument from evidence.

      Here's the evidence: vertebrates have four copies of HOX gene kit and the genes in each kit are sytenous with the genes in arthropods like fruit flies. The genes in each gene kit are expressed in the same order in embryo body segments during embryonic development, when we compare vertebrate (e.g. humans) and fruit flies.

      This proves that we know vastly more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago. This proves that the plain meaning of Sermonti's quote, at least taken out of context anyway, is not just wrong but denialist. Denying the earth is round.

      This proves one of three things must be true.

      1. Sermonti is an idiot.

      2. Sermonti was lying.

      3. Sermonti was quoted out of context to change his meaning.

      I'd guess 3, but you take your pick.

      And unguided evolution cannot account for HOX genes.

      Gish gallop. Joe has proven wrong, thus trying to change the subject.

      The fact is, we do understand far more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago, so Sermonti is either ignorant of modern science, or he was quoted out of context. He seems unaware of any work done since 1920.

      Our knowledge of HOX gene kits and embryonic development proves that we DO know vastly more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago.

      Thus, Joe G is proven wrong. He wants to change the subject to "Where did the HOX genes come from?" Doesn't matter-- Joe G is proven wrong.

      If the HOX genes were made by space aliens or randomly by a tornado, no matter-- we DO know vastly more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago, so Joe G is proven wrong.

      But creationists clearly believe "ignorance is good for creationism. What's bad for science is good us," even when the ignorance is their fictional creation.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good job Herr Cornelius Goebbles! Using the big lie to accuse the evil scientists of being the liars!

    Adolf from the DI will be by with your usual Creationist propaganda payment voucher in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And cowardly sock-puppet thorton/ occam's afterbirth spews it usual substance-free diatribe.

      Delete
  12. Automobiles, too, are related. But I don't see anybody clamoring that they evolved via common descent, natural selection and random mutations. Evolutionists are not just liars. They are stupid as well.

    Really stupid.

    Stupid as s%$#.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of scientists in general, the great Paul Feyerabend once wrote:

      The most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society.

      From Against Method by Paul Feyerabend

      Feyerabend might as well be talking about evolutionists. The evolutionist's big stupid lie is certainly surrounded with a carefully crafted aura of excellence.

      Delete
    2. Louis,

      Automobiles, too, are related. But I don't see anybody clamoring that they evolved via common descent, natural selection and random mutations. Evolutionists are not just liars. They are stupid as well.

      Maybe you need to brush up on the " birds and the bees" .

      Delete
    3. LoL! Unguided evolution can't account for birds nor bees. It cannot account for reproduction.

      Maybe you need to brush up on reality.

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      LoL! Unguided evolution can't account for birds nor bees. It cannot account for reproduction.

      "The birds and the bees" is an euphemism and a lot of reproduction seems unguided. The only people possibly clamoring for an car to demonstrate those qualities would be someone who believed that organisms were created the same way,more or less ,as cars. So Joe why no clamoring?

      Delete
    5. No, reproduction doesn't seem unguided and your position cannot account for it anyway.

      Delete
    6. Is that by design or just an unguided pun? Either way,nicely done.

      Delete
    7. velikovskys:
      "The birds and the bees" is an euphemism and a lot of reproduction seems unguided.

      Maybe a lot of how you (try to) reproduce seems unguided. Maybe you should start with an experienced partner.

      Delete
    8. Arguing with velikovskys is like arguing with a toaster. Something's not right with that boy.

      Delete
    9. He doesn't argue. He just kinda babbles and rambles. But that just proves that there is something wrong with that boy.

      (He's just here to mess with us)

      As Doug Adams would have it "Mostly Harmless"

      Delete
    10. Louis,


      Arguing with velikovskys is like arguing with a toaster. Something's not right with that boy.


      I'd be worried if you felt any other way. I am sorry ,Louis ,did you actually make an argument beyond lying psychos?

      Delete
    11. Joe,

      He doesn't argue. He just kinda babbles and rambles

      I do have a particular style,but since I am not an expert on biology it would be foolish to argue biology.Thorton,Troy Ian are much better informed and are more inclined.

      But that just proves that there is something wrong with that boy.

      I argue about what interests me, the logic of an argument .

      (He's just here to mess with us)

      That is just a fringe benefit, I enjoy a thoughtful argument and still have hope someday you might happen on one, Louis on the other hand is boringly crazy but easy to provoke

      As Doug Adams would have it "Mostly Harmless"

      That would be a good epitaph

      Delete
    12. Thorton,Troy Ian are much better informed and are more inclined.

      And they have all been proven to be ignorant.

      Oh well...

      Delete
    13. I obviously need amend my list the include Diogenes

      Delete
  13. This is interesting

    CH posted this warning on Jan. 10th:

    Cornelius Hunter January 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Everything was good until the end where you brought in the language. C'mon folks, leave out the language.

    Since that time Joe G has posted this:

    All from posts by Joe G in the last four days


    Thank you for doing the leg work ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome.

      I don't see anyone having any problem with "idiot" or "moron" being tossed about, that's par for the course for these type of boards where emotions run high. Creative clean insults can be quite amusing and are appreciated by which ever side makes them. :)

      But there's only one poster, Joe G, who consistently goes way over the line with his vulgar obscenities. He's already been banned from several other blogs for exactly the same behavior. I see you've wasted hours cleaning up after his mess here too.

      Why is he allowed to keep posting his disruptive verbal pornography here?

      Delete
    2. Umm if you weren't here spewing your childish insults my posts would be clean and on-topic.

      If you weren't a liar and didn't spew false accusation after false accusation, my posts would be clean and on-topic.

      But you consistently lie, badger, equivocate, insult for insulting's sake, apparently, falsely accuse people and are always belligerent

      Why are you allowed to post anywhere? Most sites have already banned you and your sock-puppets. This is the only non evo forum that allows you.

      Why do you allow him here Dr Hunter? Is he your amusement? Does his existence allow you an air of superiority, ie as an example of how low evos really are?

      OK I understand that.

      Delete
    3. Shouldn't you be posting pictures of porn right about now Chubs, to go along with your other potty-mouthed obscenities? That got you banned from one site.

      Or maybe threatening to beat up people then giving out a fake address where you could be found? That was another classic Joe G moment.

      You really are the stupidest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    4. BTW Fatboy, I still haven't forgotten or forgiven the threats you made against my family.

      All your mouthy obscenity-laded bawling won't change that.

      Delete
    5. LoL! And more false accusations from the flacid coward and hypocrite.

      Why is it that you NEVER support anything that you say about me?

      Why do you always run and cry to Dr Hunter when your belligerence is exposed?



      Delete
    6. Another prediction fulfilled:

      But you consistently lie, badger, equivocate, insult for insulting's sake, apparently, falsely accuse people and are always belligerent

      and the flacid coward follows that up with two lie-filled posts.

      Nice job fc

      Delete
    7. Wow thorton spews nothing but lies and false accusations and that like the coward it is runs to Dr Hunter for protection against retaliation?



      BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA

      Delete
    8. You seem to be doing the same thing Joe. Just make up a word that means the same thing,we will get the meaning, I do it for you if you want,after all Jeff needed help too. The Man asked you to stop,stop.

      Delete
    9. vel,

      thorton is lying about me and spewing false accusations. Why aren't you chiding him? And I have stopped using bad words and use the same level that thorton is using.

      Are you demented? Seriously

      If you can't see that thorton is nothing but a cowardly instigator, then you have serious issues.

      Delete
    10. LOL!

      It's always someone else's fault with Chubby Joe.

      All those obscenities he posts - someone made him do it.

      Linking to porn - someone made him do it

      Making physical threats - someone made him do it.

      All the boards he's been banned from - it was all those evil evos lying about him, he never brought it on himself.

      What a 100% loser.

      Chubby Joke never met a "accept-NO-personal-responsibility" excuse he didn't like.



      Delete
    11. flacid coward:
      All those obscenities he posts

      What about your obscenities? What I post is in direct response to YOUR lies, false accusations, insults and belligerence.

      Linking to porn

      I never did that. You are a liar.

      Making physical threats

      Still waiting for evidence for that too. Strange, that.

      And thorton/ occams afterbirth has been banned from more boards than I have. This is the only non evo board that allows him.

      OTOH I get banned by evos for exposing their lies and cowardice.

      thorton, the flacid coward, liar, punk and hypocrite, strikes again.

      As I said:

      If you can't see that thorton is nothing but a cowardly instigator, then you have serious issues.

      Delete
    12. As for not taking personal responsibility, I am not the instigating, flacid coward who ran to Dr Hunter for protection.

      Obvioulsy you can dish it out but you are too much of a cry-baby to take it.

      Delete
    13. Chubby Joke G

      What about your obscenities?


      I haven't posted any obscenities Chubs. That's all you.

      T: "Linking to porn"

      I never did that. You are a liar.


      If I get Dr. Elizabeth Liddle, the person who runs TSZ and who banned you for the offense, here to testify that you did indeed post your "tunie" porn, will you agree to never post here again?

      Let's see who's a liar Chubs.

      This is the only non evo board that allows him.

      LOL! The only board I've been "banned" from is UD which lists hundreds of pro-science posters banned. You were the only person ever banned at TSZ. In fact, your big mouth even got you banned at Fred Williams' YEC haven EvolutionFairyTales. That took a special kind of stupidity Chubs, the Joe Gallien kind.

      OTOH I get banned by evos for exposing their lies and cowardice.

      LOL! Of course it wasn't your fault you got banned all those times Chubs. It wasn't your relentless stream of lies, vulgarity, and stupidity. It was those darn evos conspiring to EXPEL ID-Creationism's brightest star!

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    14. flacid lying coeward:
      I haven't posted any obscenities

      Liar. I can link to your obscenities.

      If I get Dr. Elizabeth Liddle, the person who runs TSZ and who banned you for the offense, here to testify that you did indeed post your "tunie" porn, will you agree to never post here again?

      She will have to show that what I posted was porn. And seeing it doesn't match the definition it wasn't.

      So please, bring her here and have her prove that what I posted what porn. And she doesn't get to make up her own definitions.

      Then she will have to show that the picture she posted doesn't match her definition.

      he she does all of that, I will leave. If she doesn't, you have to leave.

      And if she doesn't come here to do any of that, you have to leave.

      We will see who the liar is, punk.

      This is the only non evo board that allows him.

      The only board I've been "banned" from is UD

      Liar and irrelevant.

      You were the only person ever banned at TSZ.

      So what? It is just anoy=ther evoTARD coward's haven

      OTOH I get banned by evos for exposing their lies and cowardice.

      Of course it wasn't your fault you got banned all those times

      No, it's my fault for exposing theor lies, ignorance and nonsense.

      They have to ban me or they end up looking like total flacid cowards, like you.

      Delete
    15. Chubby Joe G

      So please, bring her here and have her prove that what I posted what porn. And she doesn't get to make up her own definitions.


      You don't get to make up your own definitions either Chubs, especially not on someone else's board where you were a guest.

      Go ahead and post your 'tunie' pic here Chubs. Let Dr. Hunter and the rest of the readers see for themselves.

      You won't because you know you got caught in another lie. Lying seems to be the only thing you're good at.

      I get banned by evos for exposing their lies and cowardice.

      LOL! Darn Chubs, maybe you can get the DI to put you in EXPELLED 2, Revenge of the Fatboy.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    16. flacid coward:
      You don't get to make up your own definitions either

      I never do. That is why I know what I posted a link to wasn't pornography- it doesn't match the standard definition.

      So I take it that, like the lowlife flacid coward that you are, you aren't going to support your claim and instead are going to go all belligerent as normal.

      BTW, flacido de coward, just because I won't post that link here does not mean its porno. I know in your little demented brain that you think it does, but then again you are a proven flacid coward.

      Biggest. Cowardly. Liar. Ever.

      Delete
    17. Joe,
      vel,

      thorton is lying about me and spewing false accusations. Why aren't you chiding him? And I have stopped using bad words and use the same level that thorton is using.


      Apparently CH cares about the seven words, and yes you still used them recently. My question is why do you let yourself be jerked around like a monkey on the chain by Thorton. If you ignored it and just continued to do whatever it is that you do,he would lose interest, it is your reaction that rewards the behavior . You are constantly calling me moron coward stupid etc. do I ever acknowledge it? Why give you the satisfaction. Humor is the greatest weapon not stupid boring insults.

      And Joe I saw the post of the picture,while it wasn't technically porn, it was highly inappropriate and you deserved to get the boot, now I realize that you will not heed any of this but as you said something is wrong with me.

      Delete
    18. Umm it isn't porn at all. Period. And it was highly appropriate given the lies, cowardice and treatment provided by the evos posting there.

      They are a bunch of lowlife instigating cowards.

      And no, I do not ignore lies, especially lies about me. He should just be banned. Then I will ignore him.

      To me it's like how dare Dr Hunter allow this pig to continually post lies about me?

      Then the way thorton runs to tattle and kiss his butt, well that is classic cowardice. Especially seeing that his trash talking lies would get his butt kicked in the real world, he is getting off pretty easy.

      If you can't see that thorton is nothing but a cowardly instigator, then you have serious issues.

      Delete
    19. LOL! I knew Fatboy Joke Galliem would be too afraid to post his 'tunie' pic.

      Chubby Joke G

      Especially seeing that his trash talking lies would get his butt kicked in the real world, he is getting off pretty easy.


      Fatboy Joke Gallien, world's dumbest Creationist and internet tough guy!

      Delete
    20. It's the truth thorton. You wouldn't get away with the way you talk to us in the real world. You are just a cyberbully.

      You HAVE to hide behind the intertubes.

      Delete
    21. velikovskys

      My question is why do you let yourself be jerked around like a monkey on the chain by Thorton. If you ignored it and just continued to do whatever it is that you do,he would lose interest, it is your reaction that rewards the behavior .


      Joe is waaaay too stupid to ever realize he's being played like a Stradivarius. He's been way too stupid for years, and he'll be way too stupid for years to come.

      He doesn't understand evolutionary biology even a little, only repeats the same stupid Creationist talking points ad nauseum. Screaming obscenities and making threats is the only gratification his big fat ego gets.

      Delete
    22. flacid coward:
      He doesn't understand evolutionary biology even a little,

      Hey bitch, I have proven that you are ignorant wrt the theory of evolution:

      Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on another one of Cornelius Hunter's blog posts Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Thorton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Also I am not getting played. I am exposing your ignorance.

      Delete
    23. Chubby Joe G

      You HAVE to hide behind the intertubes.


      LOL! Says the spineless wonder who gave out a fake address in a parking lot as the place to find him so he could "teach you a lesson". :D :D :D

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, world's dumbest Creationist and internet's toughest tough guy!

      Delete
    24. LOL! You even tell the fat moron he's being played and he's still too stupid to get it.

      Amazing.

      Delete
    25. Chubby Joke G

      I am exposing your ignorance.


      LOL! I freely admit I'm ignorant of the positive scientific evidence you say you have on pyramids antennas for contacting space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts.

      Maybe when you're done licking that Crisco off your fingers you could post it here.

      Delete
    26. flacid coward:
      Says the spineless wonder who gave out a fake address in a parking lot as the place to find him so he could "teach you a lesson"

      Liar. Just tell me when you will be there.

      Obviously a coward like you never heard of the expression "take it outside (to the parking lot)"

      Typical coward.

      And again exposing your ignorance is not getting played.

      Delete
    27. Thorton,

      do you have evidence that Joe G made threats against your family?

      Is there a thread or other evidence at TSZ wherein Joe G posted the offensive photograph and was banned?

      Delete
    28. flacid coward thorton:
      I freely admit I'm ignorant of the positive scientific evidence for evolutionism.

      OK

      Delete
    29. do you have evidence that Joe G made threats against your family?

      No

      Is there a thread or other evidence at TSZ wherein Joe G posted the offensive photograph and was banned?

      Old news. Only losers care.

      Delete
    30. Diogenes

      Thorton,do you have evidence that Joe G made threats against your family?


      It was 6 or so years ago back on the old NAIG board. Joe used to post there as "John Paul", The BB software they use is rather primitive and doesn't keep archives AFAIK. I know what Joe did however, and so does he.

      NAIG also

      Is there a thread or other evidence at TSZ wherein Joe G posted the offensive photograph and was banned?

      Here is the link where Joe posted the 'tunie' pic (moderator removed pic)

      Here is the TSZ page with the rules for posting porn being a permanent ban, put in place specially because of this incident.

      If you drop a line to Dr.Liddle at TSZ I'm sure she'll confirm it.



      Delete
    31. Diogenes, you may find this interesting. There is a 100+ page thread at the Panda's Thumb board ATBC discussing Joe's anti-social behavior and threat-making. Particularly disturbing is an incident from the early 2000's where Joe was making physical threats from his workplace at Stratus Computers. Someone traced the IP back to Stratus and reported the threats, Joe was subsequently fired.

      Here are (with links) various people discussing Joe's numerous physical threats. Read the thread from the start for a real treat.

      Joe Gallien's disgusting behavior

      Quite a piece of work our little internet tough guy is.

      Delete
    32. LoL! And MORE lies and false accusation from the flacid coward.

      Delete
    33. So thorton the flacid coward gets caught lying and spews more lies in his defense.

      Delete
    34. Thorton,

      I am disappointed you did not save the URL for the NAIG thread.

      But thank you for the AtBC thread, I will examine it.

      Delete
  14. Wow thorton spews nothing but lies and false accusations and that like the coward it is runs to Dr Hunter for protection against retaliation?



    BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr Hunter,

    thorton spews nothing by lies, insults and false accusations:

    ThortonJanuary 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM
    Apparently Chubby Joe is taking a cue from batspit77, just C&Ping large swaths of Creationist nonsense with no attempt at support.

    At least Chubs hasn't started posting Fundy music videos yet.

    ThortonJanuary 14, 2013 at 8:08 AM

    Fatboy Joe Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

    ThortonJanuary 14, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    Liar for Jesus Jeff


    And that is just from this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From another thread:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-i-pointed-out-absurdity-evolution.html#comment-form

    ThortonJanuary 14, 2013 at 8:15 AM

    Fat idiot Joe Gallien




    ThortonJanuary 14, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    Fat Idiot Joe Gallien


    I could fill up your blog with thorton insults, lies and false accusations.

    Is having an evo lunatic polluting your blog really the way you want to run it?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, Joe. Atheists have no grounds to expect anyone to behave according to any normative criteria. And anyone that calls someone a liar and yet can't produce a smidgen of evidence to back up that claim is either depraved or pathetically moronic.

      Delete
    2. If they were civil then we would be civil. But for some reason it is OK for them to attack us but not OK for us to retaliate.

      That just ain't right.

      Delete
    3. Actually, CH is so right on this last post that he might as well shut down posting again. It's not like his opposition has anything relevant to say. It's just one logical fallacy after another, mixed in with groundless insults. It's a waste of perfectly good disk space.

      The most amazing thing is that when they say something that isn't just bogus, they're actually doing teleological-platonic thought themselves. It's literally mind-boggling. At no time are they ever doing scientific reasoning in terms of event regularities and predictions relevant to their beliefs.

      Delete
    4. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      The most amazing thing is that when they say something that isn't just bogus, they're actually doing teleological-platonic thought themselves. It's literally mind-boggling. At no time are they ever doing scientific reasoning in terms of event regularities and predictions relevant to their beliefs.


      LOL!

      Shorter LFJJ:

      "I don't understand the science being discussed at all, so that means no one else can understand it either!"

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    5. You never discuss any science, flacid coward. Never. You don't even know what science is.

      So shut up and go run to your surrogate mother for protection

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joke G

      You don't even know what science is


      Tell us again about the positive scientific evidence for pyramid antennas to contact space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts Fatboy. Show everyone you know what science is.

      Now go ahead and do the famous Fatboy yell: "there's more evidence for them than EVOLUTION, because EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!! "

      Delete
    7. No thorton, we are STILL waiting for YOU to post positive evidence for evolutionism so we know what you will accept.

      But you never do. You just crap your pants and eat it as if your mental illness is proof of evolutionism.

      So until you show that you know what evidence is and that you can have a civil discussion like a normal grown-up, anything I post will just be denied and be a waste of time.

      And AGAIN pyramids contacting space aliens was never my claim. So you can cram your belligerence where the sun don't shine.

      So ante up or shut up, you pathetic lowlife.

      I see that you cowardly backed out of your challenge to bring Lizzie here- so you need to leave, loser.

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joke G

      And AGAIN pyramids contacting space aliens was never my claim.


      Yes it was Chubs. Back in November I asked you for your evidence that the Great Pyramid was an antenna and you linked to some woo woo site which stated:

      "WHETHER THE PYRAMID OF CHEOPS COULD SERVE FOR COMMUNICATION WITH SPACE?

      and Karel Drbal, a Czechoslovakian engineer and pyramidologist, described the pyramid as "a kind of cosmic antenna, tuning into sources of energy of vaster intensity and then focusing it into its centre."

      Why did you offer that woo as your supporting evidence then?

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    9. And AGAIN pyramids contacting space aliens was never my claim.

      flacid liar:
      Yes it was

      Nope, never was.

      And as YOU pointed out it was someone else's claim.

      You are just the stupidest and dumbest prick ever.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joe G

      And as YOU pointed out it was someone else's claim.


      YOU posted it Chubs when asked for evidence to support your pyramid antenna claims.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
  17. Joe G,
    are you the same Joseph who wrote this:

    "Evolutionists are cry-baby table-pounders-

    ... Evos are bullies and there is still only one way to deal with bullies- punch them squarely in the nose."


    At this Uncommon Descent thread?

    That was you, right, Joe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Do you have a point? Do you think there is some other way to deal with lying coward bully-wannabees, ie evolutionists?

      Please do tell

      Delete
    2. Chubby Joe G

      Yes. Do you have a point? Do you think there is some other way to deal with lying coward bully-wannabees, ie evolutionists?


      All those denials then you admit to threats of physical violence.

      You're our own roly-poly lance Armstrong here Chubs.

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    3. flacid coward:
      All those denials then you admit to threats of physical violence.

      Not a threat- a METHOD.

      And only a coward would think that the METHOD is a threat

      Once again cry-baby "where's my surrogate mommy now!" thorton proves he is just as stupid as one can get.

      Delete
    4. Joe G: Yes. Do you have a point? Do you think there is some other way to deal with lying coward bully-wannabees, ie evolutionists?

      Oh yes, I have a point. I want to know more, Joe. I'm fascinated by you.

      Do you have any plans to punch anyone in the future, Joe? Near future, maybe?

      What is cause for punching, Joe?

      "Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"... KAPOW!!

      Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell, p.303, wrote "The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA", which isn't true ... KAPOW!!

      "Australopithecus looks like a human from the waist down and ape from the waist up" ... KAPOW!!

      "There are 32 species of feathered dinosaurs" ... KAPOW!!

      "Ambulocetus has the teeth and ear structure of a whale and limbs of an artiodactyl" ... KAPOW!!

      Tell me, Joe, what can we say that will get you to punch us?

      Whom, specifically, will you punch first, you brave, brave man? Who's first on the list? Dawkins, eh? PZ Myers, maybe? Be specific. When are they gonna get it?

      Delete
    5. "Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"...

      Except they are not.

      Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA", which isn't true

      Yes it is. You can just produce them indirectly.

      "Australopithecus looks like a human from the waist down and ape from the waist up"

      Not really

      The cause for punching is the continued lies and overall bulying from evos.

      PZ said that evos should break out the basevall bats and brass knuckles to deal with us.

      So tell me, chumly, what is really bothering you?

      Delete
    6. Joe G:

      [quote from Stephen Meyer's chemical falsehoods] "Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA"

      Yes it is [true]. You can just produce them indirectly.

      Um, so you are saying that because you can produce them, that means you can not produce them, as Meyer claimed. You are basically saying Not-Q is true because Q is true. Thus Meyer right.

      Typical creationist logic, we know. Call it the Law of Mandatory Contradiction (LMC).

      "Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"...

      Except they are not.

      Citation to the literature, please, Joe, or STFU.

      If 'common design implies common designer', why do creationists always lie to claim the design is uncommon?

      "Australopithecus looks like a human from the waist down and ape from the waist up"

      Joe: Not really

      Whoa. I have been swamped by your vast knowledge of science. Please slow down-- my brain cannot process your mountain of evidence. Please break "Not really" up into parts, first writing "Not" and only later writing "really" when my brain is ready to process it.

      You win, Joe. I concede. Your "Not really" has defeated me. You have proven that 6,000 years ago, dirt turned into the human genome by sorcery.

      I accept Christ as my personal Savior. I will start hating on the gays and using the rod on my children now.

      But tell me, Joe: you mean Australopithecus has something non-ape-like above the waist? What would that be? Or: you mean it has something non-human-like below the waist? Which part would that be, Joe? The sacrum? Bicondylar surface? Toe bones? Do tell, Joe.

      The cause for punching is the continued lies and overall bulying from evos.

      But be specific, Joe. Which continued lies are cause for punching? Specifically.

      Delete
    7. d:
      Um, so you are saying that because you can produce them, that means you can not produce them, as Meyer claimed.

      Nope. Tat ain't ewhat Meyer's claimed and it ain't what I said, either.

      Obvioulsy dishonesty is your playing card.

      Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"...

      Except they are not.

      Citation to the literature, please

      Why don't YOU cite the litertature of STFU?

      Please cite the literature in which they conducted a complete side by side comparison.

      Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

      If 'common design implies common designer', why do creationists always lie to claim the design is uncommon?


      They don't- you lie, as usual.

      BTW, I am not a christian but you are still a loser.

      Delete
    8. Joe:
      Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

      You are a moron. What is your evidence that "98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome"? You did not give any citations.

      I said 98.7%, not 98.5%, and I was citing the standard reference everybody cites, which was based on sequencing 94% of the chimpanzee genome. Specifically: the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis
      Consortium, 2005. Details below.

      My number was based on sequencing 94% of the chimpanzee genome, Joe.

      Yet Joe writes:

      Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

      Are you going to take that back, Joe?

      Let me be more specific in my citation:

      Tarjei S. Mikkelsen at al. Initial Seqence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome. Nature 437 (2005). 69–87.

      Let me quote CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, on the 2005 data cited above:

      "The total coverage of the rough draft is 2.7 billion nucleotides, 94% of the chimpanzee genome...

      The rough draft sequence supports the initial findings [from the 1970's] of high similarity (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). Due to the fragmentary nature of the sequence, researchers were only able to align about 2.4 Gb of high quality DNA sequence (about 80% of the human genome). They found that nucleotide mismatches over the whole alignment totaled ~35 million and averaged 1.23%." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

      That's 100% - 1.23% = 98.77% identity Joe, with 94% of the chimp genome analyzed.

      CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood then double-checked their 2005 results. He compares PROTEIN sequences, not DNA sequences, so his numbers are a little different:

      "...I found that 75% of the human predicted protein sequences matched a predicted chimpanzee sequence at >97.25% identity, and more than half were >99% identical... My analysis confirms the similarity reported by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005)." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

      But wait. Some of those human-chimp differences are due to comparing just two individuals, ignoring variation WITHIN each species (SNP's = single nucleotide polymorphisms.) So the varation within species = SNP's has to be subtracted out, which reduces the inter-species difference:

      "In detecting species-specific genomic differences between humans and chimps, it is necessary to identify differences that are polymorphic in one or both species, since polymorphisms cannot by definition be fixed, or species-specific, differences. For example, the frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in humans and chimpanzees suggests that the fixed differences between the two genomes may be as low as 1.06% (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). The remaining differences in the published sequences are variants within one species or the other." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

      So the inter-species difference could be as low as 1.06%, and per-nucleotide identity could be as high as 98.94%.

      Yet Joe tells us:

      Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

      I asked you before, Joe, I'll ask you again: If your hypothesis is 'common design implies common designer', WHY ARE YOU LYING OUTRIGHT TO MAKE THE COMMON DESIGN APPEAR UNCOMMON?

      Delete
    9. Here is another question I asked Joe, which he will not answer; simple, easy question:

      But be specific, Joe. Which continued lies are cause for punching? Specifically.

      Joe never answers. It's easy enough.

      You don't understand genomics, Joe. But you understand punching. Surely you can at least answer punching questions?

      Delete
    10. @Joe Gallien:
      flacid liar

      By my count, you have written the word "flacid" 20+ times in this thread alone, and 20+ instances are spelled incorrectly.

      Since you like to demean people's sexuality, I am guessing you meant "flaccid."

      If you are going to demean people's sexuality, please use correct spelling.

      I return to my question:

      But be specific, Joe. Which continued lies are cause for punching? Specifically.

      Easy question. Still waiting for an answer.

      Delete
  18. Dr. Cornelius,

    Um, you do know that Hitler accused the Jews of practicing "the Big Lie", right?

    And so now you accuse "Darwinists" of practicing "the Big Lie", right?

    I've noticed that ID ideology is nearly identical to Nazi ideology, except with "Jews" replaced by "Darwinists". Dr. Cornelius gives us yet another example.

    Let us compare ID and Nazism, and let's see what happens when you replace "Jew" with "Darwinist."

    1. In both cases, the Jew/Darwinist is claimed to be purely destructive, because he is atheistic/materialistic, and materialism can only be destructive. (Note that the Nazis accused Jews of being closet "materialists" just pretending to have a religion.)

    2. The Jew/Darwinist is called a Christ-killer. (Yes, creationists William Dembski, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Kindell, and Dan Gilbert did indeed call "Darwinists" Christ-killers, and yes, Nazis called Jews Christ-killers.)

    3. The Jew/Darwinist is blamed for causing World War I *AND* World War II.

    4. The Jew/Darwinist initiated, and is behind, Bolshevik revolutions.

    5. The Jew/Darwinist is determined to destroy Christianity.

    6. The Jew/Darwinist is dangerous because he does not believe in an afterlife.

    7. The Jew/Darwinist is an intellectual elite maintaining a stranglehold on all professional institutions by illicit means.

    8. The Jew/Darwinist is called a disease, parasite, or vermin that feeds on the host body, Christendom, and must be eliminated or civilization will perish.

    9. The Jew/Darwinist has promoted a "worldview" that is mechanistic, reductionist, materialistic, corrosive to society, etc.

    10. The Jew/Darwinist is blamed for promoting homosexuality, abortion, and lascivious popular entertainment.

    11. The Jew/Darwinist is to blame for higher criticism of the Bible/documentary hypothesis.

    12. The Jew/Darwinist is to blame for secularism, liberalism, rationalism, and the Enlightenment.

    13. The Jew/Darwinist is himself sensuous and sexually promiscuous.

    14. The Jew/Darwinist has promoted a "worldview" that ruined modern art, modern music, theater, etc. The Jew/Darwinist can neither create beauty nor appreciate it.

    15. The Jew/Darwinist destroys family and/or marriage because of his materialism.

    Now, thanks to Dr. Cornelius, I can add #16:

    16. The Jew/Darwinist practices "The Big Lie."

    Thanks, Dr. Cornelius!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diogenes? Is that you?

      Sorry for making you drunk and stealing your lamp the other day. I would return the lamp but I needed the lunch money while I was walking by the pawn shop and next thing you know …

      Delete
  19. It's a shame evolutionists won't share this alleged evidence with the rest of us. Even one of their own (Margulis) admitted the evidence for the neo-darwinian 'theory' was missing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quote in context, with source, please.

      Delete
    2. Since you haven't give a quote from evolutionist "experts", I'll give five quotes from five "experts" on Intelligent Design.

      Paul Nelson, ID expert, admits THERE IS NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

      "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” [page 64, "Interview: The Measure of Design, A Conversation About the Past, Present & Future of Darwinism & Design". Touchstone 17 (6): 60–65. July/August 2004.]

      Phillip Johnson, ID expert, admits THERE IS NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

      I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” [The Berkeley Science Review, “In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley”, Spring 2006]

      George Gilder, ID expert, ADMITS INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO CONTENT:

      “What’s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there’s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.” [George Gilder, Boston Globe, 2005]

      The pro-ID blogger, EvoGuide, admits INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS DEAD AND WAS NEVER ALIVE.

      "To all my fellow evolution skeptics out there, I’m sad to tell you that creationism and ID are dead. And it’s not even as if ID entered the ring with evolution and got its butt kicked all over the canvas. Then at least, it would have died in honor. Instead, its more as if, for all these years, it has not yet even been able to figure out how to climb into the ring." [EvoGuide, “Towards a Better Version of ID- A Manifesto”]

      And ID proponent "Atheistoclast", aka Joe Bozorgmehr, admits INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO THEORY AND CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO SCIENCE.

      "... I will admit that the DI contributes absolutely nothing to science. It just attacks Darwinism but offers no plausible alternative. I fully agree that, even if an inference for design is plausible, that doesn’t really help us very much. Science wants to know how something has emerged and who by. They haven’t discovered this and so they have no theory of their own. [Joe Bozorgmehr at Panda's Thumb]

      Delete
    3. Diogenes,

      ID is a hypothesis, but so is Darwinian Evolution. Even several Evolutionary sources will admit Evolution is still in the hypothesis phase which is expected given the wide array of Evolutionary claims.

      Delete
    4. Icplusplus,
      Even several Evolutionary sources will admit Evolution is still in the hypothesis phase

      I call "Bull" on that. You make a bare assertion. I presented evidence cited to the sources. You present no evidence, just bare assertion.

      Evolution is a theory because, unlike a mere hypothesis, it makes testable predictions confirmed by observations. I know the evidence itself, thus I don't need to care what "experts" think.

      We don't need "experts." We have evidence: the fossils that you creationists insisted were impossible, and that, being intermediate, were supposed to be impossible and would supposedly drop dead. They did exist, contra your predictions, and we found them. We have the genomic comparisions. We have the unique nested hierarchy and the tree of life. We have biogeography.

      You can't even explain why there are so many macropods in Australia. Swam over the Sunda Strait after running from Noah's Ark over the Himalaya, maybe?

      Does your theory predict Austalidelphian marsupial fossils in Antarctica? No? What the hell does it predict?

      Delete
    5. I presented five quotes from five ID experts admitting Intelligent Design has no theory and/or is dead in the water.

      I'm still waiting for quotes from Lynn Margulis or from "several Evolutionary sources" [Icplusplus] saying evolution is just a hypothesis. These were claimed to exist. Still waiting...

      Delete
    6. lcplusplus

      Even several Evolutionary sources will admit Evolution is still in the hypothesis phase


      I too would like to see these Evolutionary sources that describe evolution as only a hypothesis.

      Creationists have this nasty habit of making up things as they go. Many people consider it lying.

      Delete
  20. Some may find this interesting on Diogenes since it shows up here to smear;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.html

    Also the same Diogenes whom called Dr. Shapiro a "cowardly wuss" and has delusions of grandeur Dr. Shapiro is "terrified" of him as stated on another blog. It now appears it is after Joe and Dr. Hunter...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Looks like Diogenes had some valid criticisms of Shapiro's claims, but Shapiro banned Diogenes from posting at Shapiro's HuffPo blog. That was sure brave of him.

      Also looks like Diogenes was banned by those truth-seeking ID "scientists" at UD (what a surprise) for disputing their same IDiot claims on junk DNA.

      Sandwalk: Junk CNA, junky science writing

      For the IDiot Creationists this has never been about advancing honest science.

      Delete
    2. Shapiro said he did not ban me, but I tried submitting comments at his blog post devoted to attacking me personally, and my comments vanished.

      I did not have trouble posting comments full of substantive criticisms at Mike White's blog. You can read my substantive criticisms in the comments here. Shapiro had no comeback except to repeat "you're closed-minded" over and over again, nor did any creationists have any substantive comebacks.

      Their genomes are still one-one hundredth the size of the genomes of certain amoeba species, one fifth the size of the marbled lungfish's genome, and eight times the size of the pufferfish genome. They have no explanation for that except to say, "It happened by magic!" If you want scientific explanations, see "The Origin of Genome Architecture" by Michael Lynch.

      I was indeed banned from the Facebook page of the DI's Biologic Institute-- I wrote hundreds of comments comparing the "facts" in their book "Science and Human Origins" against actual facts. That made them look bad, so Ann Gauger deleted my comments and banned me.

      I was also banned from the Facebook page of creationist Ray Comfort-- when he said Hitler was one of Darwin's "top students", I wrote dozens of comments pointing out that Hitler never said the name Charles Darwin, but did express his creationist beliefs in public and in private. This made Ray Comfort look bad, so he deleted my comments and banned me.

      Delete
    3. @Thorton:

      If you visit this thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk, you should know that the "Anonymous" attacking me there is the same person as "rjop" attacking me in this thread, here. This person follows me from blog to blog, and has several online ID's, including rjop, misc, and anonymous.

      Also it's the same person as "rjop" attacking me at Mike White's blog post on Junk DNA.

      Also, the same person as "misc" attacking me at Ewan Birney's ENCODE blog post.

      Delete
    4. Just to make sure we are clear, I reiterate: I was not banned from UD and I never claimed to be banned from UD.

      I was banned from the Facebook page of the DI's Biologic Institute, presumably by Ann Gauger, since she maintains it, and it's her writing style.

      Delete
    5. And lastly I will comment on rjop:

      Diogenes since it shows up here to smear

      Wow, what hypocrisy. Dr. Cornelius' Blog post contains no scientific facts, none, and exists only to compare Matt Ridley and all scientists to Adolf Hitler. That's OK, according to rjop.

      So I compare ID proponents' beliefs to Hitler's beliefs, which are nearly an exact match, and rjop calls that a "smear."

      Why is it OK when Dr. Cornelius does it, using ignorance, but a "smear" when I do it, using facts? What's the difference?

      Well, the difference is that I can back up what I say with quotes, facts, and evidence.

      Delete
    6. I see lots of ramblings, Diogenes, but no substance.

      Delete
    7. @Icplusplus:

      I included a link to Mike White's blog, in the comments of which I included numerous quotes and evidence on genomics.

      Did you look at that? Or did you just write whatever?

      Here is a typical comment of mine from that blog:

      Diogenes: "Here is Susumu Ohno, the scientist who coined the term "Junk DNA", correctly predicting how many genes humans would have, back in 1972, 40 years ago:

      Ohno, 1972: "The observations on a number of structural gene loci of man, mice and other organisms revealed that each locus has a 10^-5 per generation probability of sustaining a deleterious mutation. ...the moment we acquire 10^5 gene loci, the overall deleterious mutation rate per generation becomes 1.0 which appears to represent an unbearably heavy genetic load. [Therefore] the total number of gene loci of man has been estimated to be about 3×10^4." [Ohno, S. 1972. So much “junk” DNA in our genome. Evolution of Genetic Systems, pp. 366-370.]

      The same evolutionary arguments that put an upper limit of 30,000 on the number of human genes, also led to the prediction of Junk DNA.

      Ohno's predictions were confirmed, first, by the Human Genome Project, which found ~25,000 genes.

      ENCODE found organism-level function that constrains DNA sequence in only 9% of the genome, according to Ewan Birney."


      Icplusplus:

      If you did look at my comments at Mike White's blog, and after reading them, you then wrote "I see lots of ramblings, Diogenes, but no substance," you were just lying.

      Delete
  21. Those who oppose benevolent/competent design have no non-arbitrary normative criteria by which to judge. Diogenes is clueless. Sane people couldn't care less about his arbitrary judgments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff: Those who oppose benevolent/competent design

      "Benevolent design." You mean like the nematode that causes river blindness in children? An infection which depends upon the nematode evading the immune systems of both its black fly vector and of humans, and also depends on the symbiosis of wolbachia and onchocerca? "It is not the nematode, but its endosymbiont, Wolbachia pipientis, that causes the severe inflammatory response that leaves many blind. The parasite is transmitted to humans through the bite of a black fly of the genus Simulium. The larval nematodes spread throughout the body. When the worms die, their Wolbachia symbionts are released, triggering a host immune system response that can cause severe itching, and can destroy optical tissue in the eye... An estimated 18 million people suffer from onchocerciasis, with approximately 270,000 cases of blindness related to the infection." [Wikipedia]

      Or maybe by "Benevolent design", maybe you meant the many, many parasites that practice mind control and cause their hosts to go insane and commit suicide? Like the toxoplasma infection that controls the minds of mice, so that they run towards cats to be eaten?

      “... fungus [cordyceps]-infected zombie ants are lured to their death to spread their parasite, and similarly, a protozoan called toxoplasmosis makes infected mice approach cats, the parasite's ultimate host." [Zombie Caterpillars Rain Death From Treetops. By Jennifer Welsh. LiveScience.com – Thu, Sep 8, 2011]

      Note there are 400 species of the fungus cordyceps, most exquisitely specific, sorry I meant "benevolent", to one species of insect host. And as for "benevolent" viruses:

      "A single gene in a caterpillar virus sends its victims running for the treetops, where they die and their bodies liquefy, sending an ooze of virus particles on their brothers and sisters below. This... baculovirus infects only gypsy moth caterpillars, essentially turning them into zombies. It... sends them up into the tree leaves during the day (a behavior they normally save for the cover of darkness), where they die among the leaves as they wait to molt." [Ibid.]

      Or maybe by "Benevolent design", you meant the trematode Ribeiroia, which is so "benevolently" designed that it can evade (benevolently) the very different immune systems of three very different hosts, infecting snails, then larval amphibians, then lastly infecting mammals or birds?

      "Ribeiroia is a group of trematode parasites (or flatworms) that sequentially infect freshwater snails in the family Planorbidae... as first intermediate hosts, fish and larval amphibians as second intermediate hosts, and birds and mammals as definitive hosts... In North America, infection by Ribeiroia has been linked to amphibians with limb malformations, such as extra limbs and digits, missing limbs and limb elements, and improperly formed limbs." [Wikipedia]

      Maybe by "Benevolent design" you meant sacculina, the crab parasite, which castrates them, changes their sex, and controls their minds?

      “... the particularly gruesome "root-head" Sacculina that parasitizes crabs by castrating the crustacean and transforming it into "a feeding machine" to sustain the root-head, Gould (1996).” [James Downard vs. Ann Coulter, Part 2]

      No. Most likely, by "benevolent design", you probably meant Michael Behe's favorite example of design, the malaria parasite.

      "The World Health Organization has estimated that in 2010, there were 216 million documented cases of malaria. That year, between 655,000 and 1.2 million people died from the disease (roughly 2000–3000 per day),[1] many of whom were children in Africa." [Wikipedia]

      Well, I'm feeling the benevolence.

      Delete
    2. C'mon D, we all know that bad stuff only happens because of Da Fall. Says so right in the IDC science textbook, Genesis 3:1-24.

      Delete
    3. @Thorton:

      You are correct. The creationist explanation for what Jeff calls "benevolent design" is that Eve ate an apple. Chicks are to blame.

      Delete
  22. You are just the stupidest and dumbest prick ever.

    Joe G's witty and sophisticated name-calling. Reminds me of kindergarten.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting. Looks like Diogenes had some valid criticisms of Shapiro's claims, but Shapiro banned Diogenes from posting at Shapiro's HuffPo blog. That was sure brave of him.

    Also looks like Diogenes was banned by those truth-seeking ID "scientists" at UD (what a surprise) for disputing their same IDiot claims on junk DNA.


    Wrong he was not banned from Shapiro's Blog nor UD> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/ (Start @ 496) Evolution evangalists always cry "banned" as a defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. rjop, who follows me from blog to blog and has several online ID's, and whose attacks on me never contain scientific evidence:

      You have misplaced your reply to Thorton's comment. I respond to your accusation in the proper place above.

      Delete
    2. Just to make sure we are clear, I reiterate: I was not banned from UD, and I never claimed to be banned from UD. UD banned dozens of other evolutionists, but not me.

      I was banned from the Facebook page of the DI's Biologic Institute, presumably by Ann Gauger, since she maintains it, and it's her writing style.

      Delete
  24. Diogenes do not flatter yourself I am not following you from blog to blog. I happened to be reading this article by Dr. Hunter and noticed your rants. And rjop, misc, and anonymous are the only ID's I use and have no problem stating I am the same person. You on the other hand have numerous ID's and lie about it.

    presumably by Ann Gauger, since she maintains it, and it's her writing style.

    Do tell what Ann's "writing style" is?

    If you visit this thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk, you should know that the "Anonymous" attacking me there is the same person as "rjop" attacking me in this thread, here. This person follows me from blog to blog, and has several online ID's, including rjop, misc, and anonymous.

    So what, I told you then they are me. Are you ready to tell me your first name to clear the air?

    Also it's the same person as "rjop" attacking me at Mike White's blog post on Junk DNA.

    Also, the same person as "misc" attacking me at Ewan Birney's ENCODE blog post.


    Attacking you? Ahh poor baby, I will respond as you do to others.. Whaaaaahhhhhh!!!

    You have misplaced your reply to Thorton's comment

    No, the reply link under each comment is not working for me and can only comment at bottom. You and Thorton seem to stick up for each other quite a bit.. Perfect match, two pricks in pod.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rjop: Diogenes do not flatter yourself I am not following you from blog to blog

      You admitted you followed me from HuffPost to Sandwalk.

      In none of these places have you ever made a single scientific point, or related a single datum or tiny bit of scientific evidence. With you, it's nothing but ad hominems and argument from creationist authority.

      Delete
    2. Myself: I was banned from the Facebook page of the DI's Biologic Institute, presumably by Ann Gauger, since she maintains it, and it's her writing style.

      rjop: Do tell what Ann's "writing style" is?

      Morally superior schoolmarm.

      To be specific, Dolores Umbridge.

      Delete
    3. @Rjop:

      Here is a more detailed description of Ann Gauger's style:

      "She speaks with a quiet, childish, high-pitched voice, and loves kittens, chocolate cakes, biscuits, tea and other cute things, decorating her office with related paraphernalia. She has a tendency to speak to people she feels are her lessers in a very condescending tone, as if they are simpletons or very young children.

      ...Umbridge's time at Hogwarts is characterised by cruelty and abusive punishments against students; she forces Harry Potter, Lee Jordan and other students to whom she gave detention to write lines using a blood quill... By speaking derisively to a herd of centaurs, she provokes them and they abduct her...

      Umbridge [becomes] the head of the Muggle-born Registration Commission, and appears to have written a leaflet called "Mudbloods and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful Pure-Blood Society", indicating her full support of Voldemort's regime."

      [Wikipedia on Dolores Umbridge]

      Delete
  25. @ Dio

    And I suppose calling Shapiro a "cowardly wuss" and ranting on how you get to blog on how Shapiro is "scared to death" of you is making a "scientific" argument. What was that about hypocrisy again? BTW where's the blog on how Shapiro's is "scared to death of you"?

    You admitted you followed me from HuffPost to Sandwalk

    Nope, I admitted to following you from the Christian Post (where you were posting under your real name) to Shapiro's blog in which you switched out ID's after I challenged you to post on his blog regarding Encode. You gave me the Sandwalk link when we were discussing Encode back in Sept. Stop playing dumb.

    Morally superior schoolmarm

    Really, citations of Ann's writing style being that of a Morally superior schoolmarm please. And still waiting for your fist name.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note to all innocent bystanders:

      rjop has a mental fixation where she imagines that I am everyone on the internet who has ever proven her wrong, with evidence. Which is a hell of a lot of people. Thus she thinks she met me at Christian Post, where I never commented, and she says she knows my "real name", but she won't write it.

      rjop:

      Nope, I admitted to following you from the Christian Post (where you were posting under your real name) to Shapiro's blog in which you switched out ID's after I challenged you to post on his blog regarding Encode.

      I stand corrected... sort of... you claim to have followed me, not from HuffPost, but from Christian Post. Where I never actually commented.

      rjop: And still waiting for your fist name.

      As I told you before: you insist you know my whole real name, so you prove that. Right it down yourself RIGHT NOW. Prove you know my name, crazy lady.

      Delete
  26. Like I said before my suspicions are 100% confirmed due to your refusal to clear the air and state your first name.

    You also failed to produce citations of Ann's writing style being that of a Morally superior schoolmarm and the Blog you bragged about in where Shapiro is scared to death of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You insist you know my whole real name, so you prove that. Right it down yourself RIGHT NOW. Prove you know my name, crazy lady.

      Delete