Monday, January 7, 2013

New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms

No More RM+NS

It has been known for years that organisms and populations adapt to environmental challenges by mutating DNA nucleotides that are particularly exposed during transcription. In other words, when faced with an environmental challenge a cell identifies certain genes which can help meet the challenge. But the gene might require some modification. And so when the DNA double helix is unwound (in order to make a copy of the gene) the exposed single stranded DNA is subject to mutation. Therefore mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations. As one paper explained:

The resulting mutants provide appropriate variants for selection by the stress involved, thus accelerating evolution with minimal random damage to the genome.

Note the word appropriate, for it is key. It means that the genetic variants that are created are not random with respect to the threat. Instead, they have a far greater probability of enhancing the organism’s ability to deal with the environmental challenge.

Now follow-on research indicates that these mutagenic mechanisms are essentially the same in all living cells. Therefore these mutagenic mechanisms, which target mutations in response to environmental challenges, must have arisen very early in evolutionary history. As the paper explains:

Unique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, resulting in higher mutation rates for those genes most likely to solve the problem.

These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time. Instead, evolution created mechanisms which directly respond to future threats. These mechanisms would, themselves, bring about evolution. In other words, evolution creates evolution. That’s incredible.

196 comments:

  1. Psychopaths have an incredible tolerance for shame and humiliation. This is nothing that a little just-so pseudoscientific BS story cannot fix.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder why they never tell us how likely it is that these mechanisms should have arisen by pure chance in the posited time-frame? Oh yeah--they have no clue. And yet undirected UCA is KNOWN to be plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like more confirmation of Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"- see "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last one out of the evolutionist room please turn off the lights. Oh sorry, the lights are already off.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL! All you need now is batspit77 quoting scripture and you'll have a full house of IDiot Creationists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! cowardly evoTARD thorton-

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

      Delete
  6. Thorton said: "All you need now is batspit77 quoting scripture and you'll have a full house of IDiot Creationists."

    ID does not equate to Creationist. Creationists standard model starts with the Bible. ID'ers model only points to the Bible.

    Evolutionists model is looking more and more like God did it, except they can't get themselves to invoke the name of God yet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The bus of evolution ran out of gas years ago. Fortunately for them they were on the downhill side of things so they were able to make it appear as though they were still making progress. The last few years have made it very clear the bottom of the hill is in sight.

    No doubt when the bus comes to a stop, the most dedicated of the evolutionists will run by the windows with changing scenery in an attempt to convince people the bus is still rolling.

    Thorton, your LOL sounds very much like nervous laughter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For years, even despite criticism from IDers themselves, I've been saying that NS doesn't even exist. It's this type model of "directed mutations" that I had in mind, probably influenced (per Joe G's reminder) by my reading of Dr. Spetner's book (which is excellent.)

    While there will always remain an element of NS---which is it's principal role in organisms, that of elimination = death---the principal driver of 'adaptation' is, to quote above, [u]nique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target[ing] specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, . . .

    When biology finally is able to see how organisms adapt, I suspect that NS will become almost a forgotten element in the process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PaV Lino

      For years, even despite criticism from IDers themselves, I've been saying that NS doesn't even exist.


      One of the many reasons people rate your scientific acumen on par with what the cat buries in the litter-box.

      Delete
    2. I would say NS exists. It just doesn't do anything.

      IOW it is very likely that there is differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in chance/ happenstance) variation.

      But so what? It is also very likely that there is differential reproduction due to a variety of other reasons.

      Delete
    3. Joe G:

      Is it "differential reproduction", or is it "differential death"?

      This is exactly what Dawkins will tell you: NS is the Grim Reaper. It's "selective death."

      In the end, the principal role of what Darwin calls NS is simply the elimination of the unfit, the defective.

      Why call that "selection". Let's call it NE: Natural Elimination.

      IOW, if you ask the question: where did life come from in all its beauty and splendor, to answer this question by saying it is brought about by "death" (NE = NS) is just a ridiculous assertion.

      But, of course, scientists of all stripes are making ridiculous statements. For example, we now have physicists who tell us that "something can come from nothing." It's as if Charles Darwin is reincarnated and has now become a physicist; i.e., the same demented logic.

      Delete
    4. Is it "differential reproduction", or is it "differential death"?

      Yes! It's two, two mints in one.

      And the word "selection" was used for deception purposes.

      Delete
  9. Nic

    The bus of evolution ran out of gas years ago. Fortunately for them they were on the downhill side of things so they were able to make it appear as though they were still making progress. The last few years have made it very clear the bottom of the hill is in sight.


    The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

    Thorton, your LOL sounds very much like nervous laughter.

    No Nic, that's the scientific community laughing AT you, not with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton,

      "No Nic, that's the scientific community laughing AT you, not with you."

      I never said the scientific community was laughing with me, I said your laughter was nervous laughter and so is the laughter of the scientific community.

      I'm curious, when did laughter become evidence for ones position?

      As for the demise of evolution, it is indeed coming and at 160+ contentious years, it will rank as one of the shortest lived hypotheses in history.

      The time will come when the honest aspects of the scientific community will blush day-glow red at the mention of evolution.

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

      Delete
    3. Nic

      I'm curious, when did laughter become evidence for ones position?


      LOL! When did childish empty bluster that one of the best supported theories in the history of science is all wrong and ready to collapse become evidence for your position?

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism"

      Just curious. What did you think this would accomplish? To me all it shows is that intelligent people have known evolution to be palpable nonsense from the very beginning and very little has changed. Now the so-called science at the basis of evolutionary thought is being shown for the sham it always has been.

      Delete
    5. Thorton,

      "LOL! When did childish empty bluster that one of the best supported theories in the history of science is all wrong and ready to collapse become evidence for your position?"

      Ah, more nervous laughter.

      Stating a clear fact is not 'childish empty bluster'.

      As for evolution being a well supported theory, that's true only to evolutionists. Those who oppose it see it as palpable nonsense with little or no support.

      Before you attempt to use it, I must repeat the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is not acceptable?

      Delete
    6. If evolutionism is "one of the best supported theories in the history of science", then why can't anyone produce a testable hypothesis for it?

      What, exactly, is supporting it?

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. JG: What, exactly, is supporting it?

    JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses. Remember, politicians are, well, politicians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,

      JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses. Remember, politicians are, well, politicians.

      So true,biology is a waste of money. It is amazing that a scientific theory can cause the collapse of civilization,wait a minute maybe this is all the designer's design,and we are preprogrammed to survive the change of enviroment.

      Delete
    2. Vel chimes in with iots usual nonsense-

      Biology is OK vel- evolutionism is a total waste of money. As you and thorton have proven, it can't even be tested.

      Delete
  12. Biology isn't a waste of time or money.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What JG asked was what supports the belief that UCA is true. The answer is, of course, extreme credulity. But it gets lots of its momentum from non-stop groundless pontifications backed by tax-funded institutions. My point was that Moronton is right--that credulity will not be displaced from its current favored position within those institutions because of political reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all. If there is no such thing, then it just is a fact that over 150 years of pontificating about UCA has bought us nothing practical that wouldn't have been discovered just by researching how cells work and making reasonable extrapolations therefrom.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Poor Liar for Jesus Jeff, he just hates that evilution which scares him so!

      Please, someone help LFJJ and make the mean old evilution go away!

      Delete
    3. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all


      It's not up to science to disprove your stupid claims LFJJ. If you have some scientific positive evidence for separately created kinds, present it. I've only been asking you for a month now and you've soiled your pants and run away every time.

      What were the first separately created 'kinds' LFJJ? When were they created, and how?

      Do you ever do anything besides blow hot air?

      Delete
    4. Liar for liars thorton can only blow and sure as hell cannot produce any science to support his position's claims.

      Delete
    5. You can present evidence all day long, but Moronton is so clueless he doesn't even know what evidence is. He thinks it's speculatio with lots of detail. What an ABSOLUTE moron.

      Delete
    6. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      You can present evidence all day long,


      Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?

      Why is there NO such evidence in the fossil and genetic records?

      I know! You're just another ignorant Creationist blowhard Liar for Jesus!

      You and Fatboy make a great couple.

      Delete
    7. Genetics supports separately created kinds.

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joke G

      Genetics supports separately created kinds.


      Here is the interactive Tree of Life site with access to all the genetic data.

      Interactive Tree Of Life

      Please show in the data this support for separately created kinds.

      Put up or shut up Fatboy.

      Delete
    9. Jeff,

      But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all

      Do you have a concise reference to what the theory of SA entails? So far it seems to have not precise structure. It would be hard to know whether it does or not. But from my elementary knowledge of biology or astronomy or physics or geology, all can be the result of the design mechanism. Necessity and chance being sufficent does not exclude design. Gravity could require the will of the designer to operate, random mutations could be a design which mimics the random. The Grand Canyon carved in a single day by an advanced designer.Your heart attack not the result of lifestyle but a direct intervention from an unseen designer.

      An unknown creator with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons is capable of anything logically possible,unless you know philosophically otherwise. So nothing can eliminate that possibility, science can explain to degree observed phenomenon with other observed phenomenon and logically connections , which luckily has resulted in a practical explanations for humanity's well being, air conditioning for one.


      JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses

      Do you have any reason why the ToE will cause civilization to collapse?

      Slightly of topic, at some point previously you stated the 1 ) man's inductive nature 2) observation of the world. Results in proof of a competent benevolent ,maybe ,designer. Now I may have muddled that a bit but would you mind going into your reasoning? Thanks

      Delete
    10. Jeff,

      UCA has bought us nothing practical that wouldn't have been discovered just by researching how cells work and making reasonable extrapolations therefrom.

      Any evidence for this? SA was the accepted theory,still is among the majority of Americans probably, until Darwin. It would seem from a superficial view progress in understanding the functions of the biosphere has mostly occurred after the introduction of natural caused diversity. After all most medical experimentation is based on commonality of organisms. True, common design could be theorized but as we discussed there is no law of common design.

      Delete
    11. A Darwinist has claimed:

      Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?

      It's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion.
      It's Darwinists who have to explain why the "intermediates" are absent, not the other way around.

      Delete
    12. PaV Lino

      A Darwinist has claimed: "Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?"

      It's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion.


      For the record PaV, are you claiming the original separately created 'kinds' are the animals found in the Cambrian age fossil beds? Animals that lived over 500 MYA and which then evolved into all the other life forms we know of, both extant species and extinct ones?

      Before we go any further you need to commit if that is really your position.

      Delete
    13. V: Do you have a concise reference to what the theory of SA entails? So far it seems to have not precise structure.

      J: It doesn't have precise structure. Because people can vary as to their inferences to which lineages are distinct. I suspect that most SA'ists have a few criteria in mind, such as minimizing speculation, allowing for more or less extrapolation based on one's classificational criteria, etc.

      V: But from my elementary knowledge of biology or astronomy or physics or geology, all can be the result of the design mechanism.

      J: There's two senses in which one can use design. One can say there are purely natural (i.e., deterministic) event sequences beyond some originally-designed configuration of initial conditions. Or one can mean libertarian causality is involved beyond the initial conditions of the history of the universe. We don't the first case is logically possible yet.

      V: Your heart attack not the result of lifestyle but a direct intervention from an unseen designer.

      J: A designer of the kind theism posits must not only NOT render induction worthless, but must EXPLAIN the fit of the inductive human mind TO an extra-ego reality of non-self beings that behave according to the regularities we are compelled to infer exist. Otherwise, theism is as arbitrary as you're describing. That's not to say the regularities we infer have to be exactly correct. But they have to be correct to the extent that we can function teleogically by applying them. More than that, our inductive approach must be truth-approximating when applied over the long-term, or science has nothing to do with truth whatsoever.

      V: An unknown creator with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons is capable of anything logically possible,unless you know philosophically otherwise. So nothing can eliminate that possibility,

      J: Indeed. But we can't predict phenotypes to hardly any degree at all. Thus, UCA is just speculation thus far. Maybe a naturalistic theory will explain it one day. We have no such theory now.

      V: Do you have any reason why the ToE will cause civilization to collapse?

      J: I didn't say that. Civilizations collapse. The details in the causality can vary, I'm sure.

      Delete
    14. V: Slightly of topic, at some point previously you stated the 1 ) man's inductive nature 2) observation of the world. Results in proof of a competent benevolent ,maybe ,designer. Now I may have muddled that a bit but would you mind going into your reasoning?

      J: You may have muddled an important part of it--the apart about the "observation of the world." Once we posit the occurrence of false memories, illusions, phantom pain, etc, it is clear that our belief that there is an external world of 3-dimensionally-extended beings (yes, I know some scientists doubt even that) is an inference, not magical intuitive knowledge.

      But when you analyze why we believe what we infer (when our inferences are rational, i.e.), it's ultimately because it's believed to be more satisfying in the long-term to believe thus. There is no way to prove one's axioms. Thus, we must begin, once we gain the capacity to do true volitional adjudication, with something more sentient than epistemic, like, "I'm designed to seek satisfaction." And we proceed by holding on to those rational modes of discursive conclusion-derivation and intuitive beliefs that seem necessary to our long-term satisfaction. I.e., we're even parsimonious with these. Because parsimony is SATISFYING.

      Thus, long-term (not short-term) satisfaction and belief are married together for rational persons (try being a radical skeptic for a day--it's too wearisome to do). It would seem that the following are pretty obvious:

      1) an explanation is better (i.e., more satisfying) than no explanation

      2) an explanation with greater explanatory breadth is greater than one with less explanatory breadth

      3) when two explanations have equal explanatory breadth, the more parsimonious one is better

      4) (this one is the one relevant to SA and UCA) when two natural explanations explain the exact same data, but little of the total data they wish to explain, the explanation that has to posit the least ad-hoc hypotheses is better.

      With respect to 1), the hypothesis, "I'm designed to seek satisfaction," is explained by a sympathetic designer with the revelant capacities and past volitional/intentional posture. There is no other conceivable explanation I can think of.

      With respect to 4), we can't currently predict phenotypes, using event regularities applied to initial conditions, beyond that which is consistent with staunch SA (i.e., lots of separate ancestors). Thus, SA is better NOW simply because it is currently less speculative. The minute this ceases to be the case, it will be because there will be predictions that corroborate UCA over SA. Speculation is just another way of saying "ad-hoc hypotheses." Clearly, 2) & 3) don't even apply to most folks' conceptions of SA and UCA.

      Delete
    15. coward:
      Here is the interactive Tree of Life site with access to all the genetic data.

      Interactive Tree Of Life

      Please show in the data this support for separately created kinds.


      Please show us in the data this alleged support for UCA. Please be sure to include the evidence that accounts for all of the physical DIFFERENCES observed.

      Delete
    16. The Cambrian Explosion is a complete refutation to Darwin's theory; and he knew that.

      We now know that the reasons he gave for this "explosion" are absent. Hence, by Darwin's very words, his theory is wrong.

      Now, it's you Darwinists that have to come up with an explanation. The Cambrian Explosion fits in quite nicely with the view of Intelligence Design. So, the ball is on your side of the net. No use trying to equivocate and obfuscate. Unless you can explain the Cambrian Explosion in Darwinian terms, then you have no scientific theory. Plain and simple.

      End of discussion.

      Delete
  14. Thorton,

    "What were the first separately created 'kinds' LFJJ? When were they created, and how?"

    What was the universal common ancestor, Thorton? How did it come into existence and when? How did it become the ancestor to all extant life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What was the universal common ancestor, Thorton? How did it come into existence and when? How did it become the ancestor to all extant life?

      What is the nature of the intelligent designers?

      How did he, she, it or they come into existence?

      How did he, she, it or they accomplish their designs?

      Who or what designed the designer?

      Remember, you need to provide a step-by-step description from the moment the idea was conceived to the moment it was completed.

      That is, if you are prepared to meet the same "pathetic level of detail" standard you are demanding of science.

      Otherwise, all you have are faith-based claims and the kind of evidence that would be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law.

      Delete
    2. What is the nature of the intelligent designers?

      Why does it matter?

      How did he, she, it or they come into existence?

      Why does it matter?

      How did he, she, it or they accomplish their designs?

      Why does it matter? We don't know how the designers of Stonehenge designed and built Stonehenge, but we know it was designed.

      Who or what designed the designer?

      Why does it matter?

      That is, if you are prepared to meet the same "pathetic level of detail" standard you are demanding of science

      LoL! Your position doesn't have anything to do with science.

      Otherwise, all you have are faith-based claims and the kind of evidence that would be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law.

      But THAT is ALL YOU HAVE.

      Heck you can't even muster a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

      Delete
    3. You see Ian, Joe only requires evidence from those he disagrees with , his position requires none since it would by definition take a moron to disagree ,in fact Joe views it as an insult to even question his " theory" . Is that about right, Joe?

      Delete
    4. I like Chubs' latest catch-all evasion to questions:

      "why does it matter".

      Instead of providing links and evidence from the primary scientific literature like we've been doing maybe we should try Chubs' stock answer.

      Delete
    5. Joe G January 8, 2013 5:14 AM

      [...]

      Why does it matter?

      [...]

      Why does it matter?

      [...]

      Why does it matter?


      Seriously?

      You aren't the least bit curious about the nature of this designer? It doesn't matter to you in the slightest? If that's the case then you really don't understand science.

      Why does it matter? We don't know how the designers of Stonehenge designed and built Stonehenge, but we know it was designed.

      Yes, even though we don't know the names of all those designers and engineers and laborers who built it, even though we don't know the names of their parents or children or what they liked in the way of food, we are pretty sure it was designed because but we do have good archeological evidence that there were human societies around at that time who had knowledge of using materials like wood and leather and stone. In other words, we have good evidence for the existence of the most likely designers.

      And based on the knowledge we have of these people and their technology, archeologists have spent a great deal of time working out how they might have built Stonehenge, where they might have obtained the raw materials, how they might have transported them to the site, how they might have dressed the stones and erected them.

      Yet, Intelligent Design theorists are apparently completely indifferent to the nature of this designer or designers of theirs who created life we see around us or maybe even created the entire universe.

      Who or what designed the designer?

      Why does it matter?


      Why do you think? Try approaching it like a scientist for once. What can you infer about your designer and how might it be of use?

      LoL! Your position doesn't have anything to do with science.

      I'm asking the sort of questions you should be asking but don't. Which is the more scientific approach?

      Otherwise, all you have are faith-based claims and the kind of evidence that would be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law.

      But THAT is ALL YOU HAVE.


      The evidence for science in general and evolution in particular has stood up in a court of law on several occasions, which is more than can be said for intelligent design/creationism.

      Delete
    6. Ian,

      "Remember, you need to provide a step-by-step description from the moment the idea was conceived to the moment it was completed."

      No, I don't. You certainly cannot do that for anything connected to evolution.

      The existence of something does not require it to be explained. Many things exist without explanation. How does love exist, or humour or beauty. Can you explain any of these thing materialistically?

      Delete
    7. Liar for Liars throTARD:
      Instead of providing links and evidence from the primary scientific literature like we've been doing

      LoL! YOU don't have any scientific literature that supports unguided evolution you cowardly liar.

      YOU can't even produce a testable hypothesis for it.

      Delete
    8. Ian:
      You aren't the least bit curious about the nature of this designer?

      Yes I am. How do YOU say we go about determining that given all we have is the design to go by?

      If that's the case then you really don't understand science.

      LoL! How can science tell us about the designer Ian given we only have the design to study?

      What has science told us about the designer(s) of Stonehenge? Nothing of any importance, that's for sure.

      Yes, even though we don't know the names of all those designers and engineers and laborers who built it, even though we don't know the names of their parents or children or what they liked in the way of food, we are pretty sure it was designed because but we do have good archeological evidence that there were human societies around at that time who had knowledge of using materials like wood and leather and stone. In other words, we have good evidence for the existence of the most likely designers.

      LoL! Yeah because of what they left behind, ie STONEHENGE and other artifacts. But tat does NOT mean humans built it. They could have just found it.

      Yet, Intelligent Design theorists are apparently completely indifferent to the nature of this designer or designers of theirs who created life we see around us or maybe even created the entire universe.

      LoL! Intelligent design is about the DESIGN, NOT the designer(s).

      The evidence for science in general and evolution in particular has stood up in a court of law on several occasions, which is more than can be said for intelligent design/creationism.

      LIAR. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution you lying coward.

      Delete
    9. vel, proud to be ignorant:
      You see Ian, Joe only requires evidence from those he disagrees with , his position requires none since it would by definition take a moron to disagree ,in fact Joe views it as an insult to even question his " theory" . Is that about right, Joe?

      Nope, not even close. There is plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design. And myself and others have presented it. That all you can do is choke on it does not make that evidence go away.

      But thanks for continuing to prove that you are nothing but an ignorant coward.

      Delete
    10. Fatboy Joke Gallien's meltdown continues, well into its third day and going strong.

      The only real question - how long will his latest tardgasm last?

      Delete
    11. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR FROM THE COWARDLY thorton.

      Delete
    12. Joe,


      Nope, not even close. There is plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design. And myself and others have presented it. That all you can do is choke on it does not make that evidence go away.


      Let's try an experiment and see if I was right, Joe what is the best piece of positive evidence for ID? The appearance of design?

      Delete
    13. In biology- Living organisms. In living organisms all of their systems and subsystems.

      For example the ribosome is a genetic compiler and artificial ribosomes do not function (because they aren't programmed). And that means they ain't reducible to their parts. And your position requires that they are so reducible.

      In physics, the laws of nature.

      That said, what is the best piece of evidence for the blind watchmaker?

      I bet you choke on that

      Delete
    14. V: Let's try an experiment and see if I was right, Joe what is the best piece of positive evidence for ID? The appearance of design?

      J: What do you think the "appearance of design" amounts to? I think it's precisely the kind of analogies, etc discussed in a book about teleology and nature.

      Go here -- http://www.amazon.com/Teleology-Norms-Nature-Studies-Philosophy/dp/0815336020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357400881&sr=8-1&keywords=teleological+arrow –- and then select the “search inside book” option on the left. Then read the “first pages.” The kinds of analogies this guy brings out seem to be what we mean by the APPEARANCE of design in organisms. And it explains why Hume's approach is so over-simplistic, on the other hand.

      Delete
    15. I apologize Joe for my misjudgement,

      In physics, the laws of nature.

      So the laws of nature were designed. ok . therefore anything that happens according to those laws, necessity and chance,is undesigned or designed?

      Delete
    16. Jeff,

      J: What do you think the "appearance of design" amounts to?

      Control

      Delete
    17. So the laws of nature were designed. ok . therefore anything that happens according to those laws, necessity and chance,is undesigned or designed?

      Yes.

      Cars are designed but accidents still happen, vel.

      Delete
    18. J: What do you think the "appearance of design" amounts to?

      V: Control

      J: Control is what free agents do when they act freely. But what is it that causes the directed effects of free-will to APPEAR to be effects of free-will?

      Delete
  15. Nic

    Thorton: "What were the first separately created 'kinds' LFJJ? When were they created, and how?"

    What was the universal common ancestor, Thorton? How did it come into existence and when? How did it become the ancestor to all extant life?


    No one knows for certain, but according to the evidence we do have the UCA was most likely an assemblage of organic molecules capable of self-replication with variation. It came into existence over 3.5 BYA, possibly as long as 3.9 BYA. There are several competing hypothesis about where the event first took place, each with some supporting evidence. They include undersea thermal vents that would have provided energy for the reactions or shallow depressions on the surface of clay deposits that would have acted as a primitive protective membrane.

    Once the first imperfect self replicators emerged and began competing for resources the processes of evolution kicked, and have run uninterrupted for well over 3 billion years.

    There is quite a bit of information on the current state of abiogenesis research for those who aren't too lazy to look for it.Wiki has a good overview with lots of links to the primary literature

    Abiogenesis

    Now, how about some details from your side?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One question Thorton, that organic molecules in the UCA were racemic or quiral?

      Delete
    2. Liar thorton:
      No one knows for certain, but according to the evidence we do have the UCA

      Liar.

      They include undersea thermal vents

      Nope, can't happen there- too much water to dilute the mixture of chemicals.

      shallow depressions on the surface of clay deposits that would have acted as a primitive protective membrane.


      Nope, no evidence for that either. Imagination is not evidence tard-boy.

      There is quite a bit of information on the current state of abiogenesis

      Yes, it has been a complete failure.

      Delete
    3. I see now, Moronton. The details on your side are details about speculations. And this is what UCA'ists call evidence? That their speculations are so voluminous that there's lots of details to them? GOT IT!

      Delete
    4. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I see now, Moronton. The details on your side are details about speculations


      No you don't see because you're a lazy liar.

      Too lazy to read the summary provided.

      Too lazy to follow the links to the research published in the primary scientific literature.

      Too lazy to understand the evidence that has been discovered.

      Face it LFJJ - you don't understand the science involved because you don't want to understand the science involved. You and Fatboy feel much safer living in your made-up fantasy world of Noah's Ark and the separately created 'kinds'.

      None of you clowns has presented a single detail or piece of evidence for your SA fantasy BTW. You can't.

      Delete
    5. Lair for liars thorton les again- there isn't any science that supports your claims assface.

      You can't even produce a testable hypothesis

      Delete
    6. Oh boy, a two-day Fatboy meltdown! Good start for the year Chubs!

      Delete
    7. OH BOY, ALL SCIENCE SO FAR FROM THE LIAR"S LIAR.

      And it is very telling that tard-boy STILL cannot produce a testable hypothjsis for its position...

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joke G

      OH BOY, ALL SCIENCE SO FAR


      Says the obese ignoramus who believes the Great Pyramid was an antenna to contact space aliens, that reincarnation actually happens, and that ghosts and real.

      Do tell us about science Chubs, it's quite amusing.

      Delete
    9. Thorton,

      "No one knows for certain, but according to the evidence we do have the UCA was most likely an assemblage of organic molecules capable of self-replication with variation. It came into existence over 3.5 BYA, possibly as long as 3.9 BYA. There are several competing hypothesis about where the event first took place, each with some supporting evidence. They include undersea thermal vents that would have provided energy for the reactions or shallow depressions on the surface of clay deposits that would have acted as a primitive protective membrane.

      Once the first imperfect self replicators emerged and began competing for resources the processes of evolution kicked, and have run uninterrupted for well over 3 billion years.

      There is quite a bit of information on the current state of abiogenesis research for those who aren't too lazy to look for it.Wiki has a good overview with lots of links to the primary literature

      Now, how about some details from your side?"

      Are you really serious? You think this is providing details? This is considerably less than story telling. Can you demonstrate any of this? Not at all, it's nothing but fables.

      Until you can explain how life could originate on its own and show details of how this self initiated life acquired the ability to self replicate, let alone self replicate with variation, you can't even go to the next step of speculating how this entity could become the common ancestor for all life throughout history.

      Evolutionary science is like a traveler who believes he is nearing his destination, when in fact, he is still at home in bed, asleep, without his luggage packed or travel plans in place. All his progress exists no where outside of his own imaginings.

      May have, could have, possibly, perhaps, it is believed, most likely, etc., etc. This is not scientific language. This is the language of imagination, speculation and story telling. Evolution is rife with it and that is all you've presented above.

      Try again if you wish, but I doubt you will be able to come up with anything better.

      Delete
    10. Nic said, "Evolutionary science is like a traveler who believes he is nearing his destination, when in fact, he is still at home in bed, asleep, without his luggage packed or travel plans in place. All his progress exists no where outside of his own imaginings"

      Right on.

      Delete
    11. Nic

      Are you really serious? You think this is providing details?


      No Nic, I provided an exceptionally short summary of a very complicated topic. I also provided a link to a more detailed summary which in turn provided lots of links to the much more detailed scientific research.

      As usual you were too lazy to read or follow to get the details you claim don't exist.

      I can't do anything about your desire to stay willfully ignorant Nic. Maybe you should see a councilor.

      Now where are your details, ANY details of your claimed separately created kinds? Even a link to a summary would be nice, but apparently you don't even have that.

      Delete
    12. Thorton may you plase point me the link where explains if the UCA molecules were racemic or chiral?
      Thank you.

      Delete
    13. Blas

      Thorton may you plase point me the link where explains if the UCA molecules were racemic or chiral?
      Thank you.


      Pretty sure that hasn't been conclusively determined yet.

      Is there some reason you're incapable of doing your own literature searches?

      Delete
    14. Thorton said

      "Pretty sure that hasn't been conclusively determined yet."

      So the strong evidence for the existance of UCA still didn´t show if the chirality problem was solved before of after UCA.
      Does racemic macromolecules self replicate?
      Or this is not conclusive determined yet too?

      "Is there some reason you're incapable of doing your own literature searches?"

      Maybe I have smaller IQ than you.

      Delete
    15. Blas

      Maybe I have smaller IQ than you.


      Ya think? ;)

      Delete
    16. Thorton,

      "As usual you were too lazy to read or follow to get the details you claim don't exist."

      I've read lots of material on abiogenesis, none of it even remotely scientific, so let's not waste our time on that rabbit path.

      "Now where are your details, ANY details of your claimed separately created kinds?"

      Well tell me then, how would you explain the vast diversity of life we see extant today. Your failed attempt at common ancestry doesn't do the trick, so what's next?

      The diversity of life speaks very clearly to separate kinds. You're so committed to common ancestry, you refuse to see what's right in front of your nose. Sort of a forest and trees thing.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      I've read lots of material on abiogenesis, none of it even remotely scientific, so let's not waste our time on that rabbit path.


      I can easily believe you're read lots of non-scientific horsecrap from Answers In Genesis and other Creationist garbage sites.

      Name any of the technical papers, articles, or books from the primary scientific literature you've read on the topic. Hand waving apologetics isn't very impressive.

      Well tell me then, how would you explain the vast diversity of life we see extant today.

      Evolution through common descent as evidenced by the huge amount of consilient data from dozens of scientific fields. The same as 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community. You know, people who actually study and work with the subject for a living.

      The diversity of life speaks very clearly to separate kinds. You're so committed to common ancestry, you refuse to see what's right in front of your nose. Sort of a forest and trees thing.

      Sorry Nic but your ignorance based personal incredulity will get you exactly nowhere in the scientific world.

      Delete
    18. cowardly equivocator:
      Evolution through common descent...

      What "evolution" you cowardly douchebag? Why is it that unguided evolution can't even muster a testable hypothesis?

      Delete
    19. thorton is just upset because there is more evidence for pyramid antennas, reincarnation and ghosts, than there is for his position.

      thorton is just your normal piece-of-shit pencil-neck geek

      Delete
    20. Chubby Joke G

      there is more evidence for pyramid antennas, reincarnation and ghosts, than there is for his position.


      LOL! Yet the Fatboy still wonders why he ends up the laughingstock of every science discussion board he pollutes.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien - the dumbest Creationist woo-swallower of them all.

      Delete
    21. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR- typical cowardly thorton still has nothing but cowardly spewage.

      Delete
    22. Thorton,

      "I can easily believe you're read lots of non-scientific horsecrap from Answers In Genesis and other Creationist garbage sites."

      And that description would apply to anything with which you disagree, regardless of its source.

      "The same as 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community. You know, people who actually study and work with the subject for a living."

      Well you're not a professional scientist, so you would not be part of that 'rest of'.

      As for the 99.9%, that's simply argumentum ad populum. Tell me, is it possible that 99.9% of scientists could be wrong?

      "Sorry Nic but your ignorance based personal incredulity will get you exactly nowhere in the scientific world."

      Sorry Thorton, but we're not in the scientific world, we're on an internet blog.

      Delete
    23. Nic

      And that description would apply to anything with which you disagree, regardless of its source.


      You forgot to list the work on OOL you've read from the primary scientific literature. I assume that means you've read ZERO.

      Well you're not a professional scientist, so you would not be part of that 'rest of'.

      Actually I am.

      As for the 99.9%, that's simply argumentum ad populum. Tell me, is it possible that 99.9% of scientists could be wrong?

      Yes but it would be incredibly unlikely. I'll go with the evidence that convinced them and me since you won't be providing any contradictory evidence.

      Sorry Thorton, but we're not in the scientific world, we're on an internet blog.

      Then why are you guys constantly harping about how we should get rid of teaching evolution in schools and stop using it in research? Aren't schools and research labs part of the real world?

      Delete
    24. I'll go with the evidence that convinced them and me since you won't be providing any contradictory evidence.

      There isn't any such evidence. And as you have proven there isn't even a testable hypothesis.

      And tehre aren't any research facilities that use evolutionism. Not one.

      Delete
    25. Thorton,

      "Actually I am."

      Well I'm not and seeing as you're quite incapable of persuading me with your arguments, I'm led to believe you're not either.

      "Yes but it would be incredibly unlikely."

      Well it's nice that you admit that possibility.

      "Then why are you guys constantly harping about how we should get rid of teaching evolution in schools,..."

      Show me where I ever said that.

      Delete
  16. Here is something for teh ignorant moron thorton to consider-

    I another thread thorton spewed that dogs cannot evolve into cats because they are on existing separate branches.

    So that means if cats never existed that dogs could evolve into cats.

    THAT is the stupidity that flows form evolutionitwit "logic"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chubby Joke G

    So that means if cats never existed that dogs could evolve into cats.


    Sure Chubs, and if you ever grow a pair you could be a man too.

    What is your point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND MORE SCIENCE FROM THE COWARD'S COWARD.

      Just because you don't have a pair doesn't mean you can project your coawardice onto others.

      My point? Just continuing to expose your stupidity- it's a full-time job

      Delete
    2. Fatboy's latest meltdown shows no signs of slowing...

      Delete
    3. The coward's coward latest substance-free response....

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      assface!

      saclicker!

      cowardly little prick!

      lying piece of shit!


      That's good Chubs, go ahead and vent that anger and frustration that being such an obese ignorant loser must make you feel. All that hostility and resentment, all that jealousy you have towards real scientists and people who actually understand the technical details of the topics you try and BS your way through - go ahead Chubs, let it ooze out like the pus from your canker-covered lips.

      Delete
    5. Cowardly thorton the pathological liar strikes again.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR- AIN'T THAT RIGHT ASSFACE

      Delete
    6. To thorton:

      assface!

      saclicker!

      cowardly little prick!

      lying piece of shit!


      All of that is supported by the evidence. Perhaps that is what has thorTARD all in a tither as it is too ignorant to understand what evidence is.

      Delete
    7. Good Chubs! Let out all that anger about being such an incompetent failure in life! SCREAM at those science knowledgeable folks who are way more informed than you! SCREAM!

      You really are the perfect spokesman for ID-Creationism.

      Delete
    8. Cowardly thorton the pathological liar strikes again.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR- AIN'T THAT RIGHT ASSFACE.

      And thorton doesn't even know what science is because he is an ignorant little faggot.

      Delete
    9. Wow, the meltdown intensity is increasing! This could end up being a Fatboy category 5!

      Delete
    10. And thorton's cowardly projections are duly noted

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. Who sez we ain't?

      Just sayin'...

      For example I am getting along just fine by exposing thorton as the liar, loser and coward that it is.

      And thorton is getting along just fine by spewing its lies and being the premier spokesthing for coawrds and pathological liars.

      Delete
    2. At least you're not being charged for the entertainment. ;)

      Chubs has apparently decided he wants to force CH to shut down the blog again. Thus the huge flood of pointless obscenities.

      It happens everywhere Chubs shows up on the web. He posts the same Creationist nonsense, gets called on it, responds the only way he knows how with his filthy mouth and threats of physical violence. There's a good reason he's been banned from so many science discussion boards.

      Delete
    3. LoL! thorton, the hyprocrie and cowardly sock-puppet, has been booted from more forums than anyone.

      Its cowardly spewage ruins discussions and its cowardice is well known.

      Delete
    4. Joe G,

      Thorton: "Chubs has apparently decided he wants to force CH to shut down the blog again. Thus the huge flood of pointless obscenities."

      Joe, Thorton is right, if you keep on spewing abusive and foul language Cornelius will shut down the comments again.

      I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary to get so carried away with your insults. It only reflects negatively on you and does absolutely nothing to enhance your position.

      Please reign it in, I'm tired of seeing such comments. Thorton is entitled his opinion and if you can't respond to his comments in a civil and decent manner, don't say anything at all.

      Delete
    5. Hi Nic-

      I will respond to thorton the way it deserves to be responded to. If you can't see that thorton is nothing but an abusive punk then I feel bad for you.

      Delete
    6. Nic,
      Please reign it in, I'm tired of seeing such comments. Thorton is entitled his opinion and if you can't respond to his comments in a civil and decent manner, don't say anything at all

      In Joe's defense this is the pg version of Joe.

      Delete
    7. I don't need your "defense"- you are nothing but a coward vel- so bugger off

      Delete
    8. Eugen,

      How did you make your comment blue?

      Delete
    9. LoL!

      It's called an embedded link, vel. HTML codes, look them up

      Delete
    10. Joe huffs
      I don't need your "defense"- you are nothing but a coward vel- so bugger off

      Of course not ,Joe. You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You

      Delete
    11. LoL! What a moron you are. I don't want evos to like me- you chumps are the biggest bunch of lying assholes in the history of this planet.

      Delete
    12. Joe,


      It's called an embedded link, vel. HTML codes, look them up


      Thank you, Joe.

      Delete
    13. Joe,
      LoL! What a moron you are. I don't want evos to like me- you chumps are the biggest bunch of lying assholes in the history of this planet.

      That's a brave little soldier,

      Delete
    14. That's a typical cowardly response

      Delete
    15. BTW vel, we are STILL waiting for the best piece of evidence for unguided evolution.

      Perhaps you can start with a testable hypothesis.

      Delete
    16. Chubby Joke G

      BTW vel, we are STILL waiting for the best piece of evidence for unguided evolution.


      The best piece is the fact that in 150+ years of looking no one has come up with a single piece of evidence to indicate evolution IS guided by some external purposeful intelligence.

      You can't prove a negative Chubs. All you can do is amass evidence that shows the claimed condition ('guided' evolution) is both unlikely and unnecessary, which is exactly what science has done.

      Science doesn't need to disprove your 'guided' evolution stupidity any more than it needs to disprove 'guided' gravity - the idea that gravity is actually caused by invisible pixies who fly around pushing down on things.

      It's pretty simple Chubs: if you want to make a case for 'guided' evolution then provide the positive evidence for 'guided' evolution. Describe and demonstrate a mechanism for how the 'Designer' physically manipulated materials. Provide a timeline for when this supposed 'guided design' was done. Describe and demonstrate who or what did the 'guiding'.

      You got a whole lotta nothin' Fatboy. Same as always.

      Delete
    17. Joe,

      That's a typical cowardly response

      Didn't want to disappoint ,after all you love to use that word

      Delete
    18. Joe,
      BTW vel, we are STILL waiting for the best piece of evidence for unguided evolution.

      Perhaps you can start with a testable hypothesis.


      How much will you pay me?

      Delete
    19. strawman:
      The best piece is the fact that in 150+ years of looking no one has come up with a single piece of evidence to indicate evolution IS guided by some external purposeful intelligence.

      Not required. Computer programs are not guided by external programmers.

      All you can do is amass evidence that shows the claimed condition ('guided' evolution) is both unlikely and unnecessary, which is exactly what science has done.

      Liar. You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. No one can.

      And dumbas, there isn't any disproving guided evolution, and obvioulsy there isn't any positive evidence for unguided evolution.

      Also I and others have provided the positive evidence for guided evolution. But you, being an ignorant punk, choked on it. You don't seem to know what evidence is.

      Describe and demonstrate a mechanism for how the 'Designer' physically manipulated materials.

      Describe and demonstrate an unguded mechanism for for evolving a multi-protein system.

      YOU don't get it- all you have are bald declarations and nothing else. YOU have a whole lot of mothin' projector fag.

      Delete
    20. Didn't want to disappoint ,after all you love to use that word

      I don't like using it. It just fits. Don't blame me because the truth hurts.

      Delete
    21. BTW vel, we are STILL waiting for the best piece of evidence for unguided evolution.

      Perhaps you can start with a testable hypothesis.


      How much will you pay me?

      If you can provide a testable hypothesis, along with supporting evidence for unguided evolution, you will win a Nobel Prize and be paid over a million dollars.

      Delete
    22. velikovskys

      How much will you pay me?


      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

      You just cost me a mouthful of a good merlot!

      Well worth it!

      Delete
    23. Chubby homophobe Joe Gallien

      projector fag.


      Fatboy steps up his campaign to get himself banned from all of Blogger. I can't wait until he starts in with the racial slurs.

      Keep going Chubs, you can do it if you try!

      Delete
    24. I'm going to get banned because YOU are a belligerent lying coward? How does that work, exactly?

      Delete
    25. If the powers of Blogger had any sense, any at all, thorton would be banned from all of Blogger, just like he is banned from most honorable places.

      Delete
    26. Joe G

      "I will respond to thorton the way it deserves to be responded to."

      He deserves to be responded to in a respectful manner, just like anyone else. Thorton is a person not an 'it', treat him appropriately. That's not to say he does not cross the line as well. But to fuel the fire only leads to the generation of heat and no light.

      "If you can't see that thorton is nothing but an abusive punk then I feel bad for you."

      Thorton is an individual who holds a different viewpoint on origins, and defends it vigorously. If you wish to change his viewpoint you won't do so by using the vulgar abusive language you do.

      Delete
    27. And BTW momma's boy thorton, telling the truth doesn't make me a homophobe and I don't equate fags with homosexuals.

      And just so you know- my daughter's God father is a homosexual. That is how much of a homophobe I am. Dumbass

      Delete
    28. veliskovskys,

      "In Joe's defense this is the pg version of Joe."

      Now that's just plain sad.

      Delete
    29. Nic,

      Obvioulsy you have serious issues. thorton lies, insults and spews false accusations.

      So no, he does NOT deserve any respect at all. And how do you know thorton is a male? I have my doubts.

      BTW there isn't any changing thorton's PoV- it is held without evidentiary support. He is deluded and a loser. I wouldn't want "him" as an IDist.

      And that you think my language is vulgar and abusive but his isn't, tells me that you are on something.

      Have a nice day...

      Delete
    30. Chubby Joke G

      You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. No one can.


      Here's one. Take one E coli and clone it 12 times. Start 12 identical colonies. Keep track of them over 30K generations.

      Hypothesis: if evolution is unguided, we should see evolution change the colonies in 12 unique ways. If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies.

      Guess what Fatboy - Lenski already did the experiment. 12 identical colonies of E coli from the same clone, identical selection pressures, end result after 30K generations was 12 noticeably different colonies. One even had a remarkable, completely new function, the ability to utilize citrates for energy.

      Unguided hypothesis supported, guided process not supported.

      Why did your "guided" evolution produce 12 different results Chubs? Why didn't all 12 get the same result? Unless you want to claim the goal of the "guidance" was merely to survive no matter what the answer was, in which case you just described mainstream views on evolution.

      SMACK!

      Harsh reality dope slaps the Fatboy yet again.

      Delete
    31. Thorton,

      "You can't prove a negative Chubs."

      Sure you can.

      Delete
    32. Nic

      Thorton,"You can't prove a negative Chubs."

      Sure you can


      OK then, prove that gravity isn't Intelligently Guided by the invisible Gravity pixies.

      Delete
    33. loser:
      Here's one. Take one E coli and clone it 12 times. Start 12 identical colonies. Keep track of them over 30K generations.

      Hypothesis: if evolution is unguided, we should see evolution change the colonies in 12 unique ways.


      Why? Why would only unguided evolution do that? WHWRE IS YOUR SCIENCE?

      If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies.

      Nope.

      Why did your "guided" evolution produce 12 different results

      For the reasons I have already told you, you moron-> there was more than one selection pressure, more than one solution.

      IOW because you are an ignorant turd, you think unguided evolution is supported.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FER...

      Delete
    34. loser:
      OK then, prove that gravity isn't Intelligently Guided by the invisible Gravity pixies.

      LoL!!!! Your position can't even explain gravity's existence.

      Delete
    35. Joe G,

      "So no, he does NOT deserve any respect at all."

      If that's your attitude I can only feel pity for you.

      "And how do you know thorton is a male? I have my doubts."

      Does it matter? Would you show more respect if you knew he was? How do I know you're a male?

      "And that you think my language is vulgar and abusive but his isn't, tells me that you are on something."

      Did I not say Thorton crosses the line as well? However, I cannot recall him using vulgarity. Abusive, yes. But you trying to outdo him is simply immature.

      Delete
    36. Thorton,

      "OK then, prove that gravity isn't Intelligently Guided by the invisible Gravity pixies."

      This is why I doubt you're a qualified scientist, your reasoning ability is lacking.

      Did I say you can prove all negatives? No. Your comment was you cannot prove a negative, I said you could. That's not the same as saying you can prove all negatives.

      Delete
    37. Chubby Joke G

      For the reasons I have already told you, you moron-> there was more than one selection pressure,


      What were the selection pressures that were different for each colony Chubs? Please list them. The experiment protocols had all 12 colonies handled identically.

      more than one solution.

      More than one solution to what Chubs? The problem of how to survive and produce another generation? Congratulations Chubs, you just describe evolution.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    38. Thorton,

      "If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies."

      Why?

      Delete
    39. loser:
      What were the selection pressures that were different for each colony

      They don't have to be. Each colony had more than one selection pressure. So there was more than one solution and more than one way to find each solution.

      And yes, I know I described evolution you equivocating coward- INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVOLUTION.

      But anyway I noticed that like the coward you are you couldn't explain why only unguided evolution would do what you said.

      Delete
    40. Nic

      Did I say you can prove all negatives? No. Your comment was you cannot prove a negative, I said you could. That's not the same as saying you can prove all negatives


      I also said it in reference to one specific case - the demand to prove evolution was unguided.

      Context matters Nic, especially to intellectually honest folks.

      Delete
    41. There isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can construct stuff.

      And you have proven that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution...

      Delete
    42. loser:
      Context matters Nic, especially to intellectually honest folks.

      And that is why thorton ALWAYs talks out-of-context, quotes out-of-context and couldn't understand the context if its life depended on it

      Delete
    43. Nic:
      If that's your attitude I can only feel pity for you.

      BWAAAAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAA

      Thanks for the laugh...

      Delete
    44. Chubby Joke G

      Each colony had more than one selection pressure.


      The experiment protocols specified they all had the same treatment.

      Please show your evidence the protocols were not followed and that each colony had different selection pressures. List them.

      Looks like you're just flat out lying again.

      you couldn't explain why only unguided evolution would do what you said.

      LOL! So according to you your Magic Evolution Guider purposely made it look like unguided evolution.

      And yet you still wonder why so many people consider you an idiot.

      Delete
    45. Nic

      Thorton, "If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies."

      Why?


      According to Chubs the guidance is pre-programmed in like software. When you give 12 identical programs the same inputs you should get the same outputs.

      Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach. All 12 colonies had identical citrates available, yet only one developed the ability to digest it.

      Unless, as I said before, the goal was just "survive by any means". In which case you have the Intelligent Guider mimicking the functions of unguided evolution exactly.

      Not exactly evidence for ID.

      Delete
    46. Joe,


      And that you think my language is vulgar and abusive but his isn't, tells me that you(Nic) are on something.

      Have a nice day...


      Uh oh, now Nic is on Joe's list too. At least you are just addled and not yet a coward. Hey Joe can your insults be placed in a nested hierarchy?

      Delete
    47. velikovskys

      Uh oh, now Nic is on Joe's list too. At least you are just addled and not yet a coward. Hey Joe can your insults be placed in a nested hierarchy?


      Geez! If an iPod one costs $7000, just imagine how much Chubs would charge to place "Assface", "Turd", and "Fag".

      Delete
    48. Eugen asks,

      Can't we all get along?

      What fun would that be? I would feel bad for Joe if I didn't believe that he enjoys the attention, of any variety. But what does a cowardly coward moron know?

      Delete
    49. Thorton,

      "According to Chubs the guidance is pre-programmed in like software. When you give 12 identical programs the same inputs you should get the same outputs."

      This may sound dumb, but it's a serious question none the less. Do you follow sports at all?

      Delete
    50. Nic

      This may sound dumb, but it's a serious question none the less. Do you follow sports at all?


      Somewhat. Played lacrosse and baseball in college, football bores me. Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing Chubs' claim of 'guided evolution' with the outcome of a sports contest being different every time. What's the purpose of a supposedly "Intelligent Guider" of evolution doing any guiding if has no control over the result?

      Delete
    51. Thorton,

      "Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing Chubs' claim of 'guided evolution' with the outcome of a sports contest being different every time."

      Nope, I won't do that.

      If you do understand sports, then you understand the nature of sports as well. That being there are rules which govern the playing of sports. Think of those rules as the 'program' which runs the mechanism. Now think of the teams and the execution of play as the design of the sport.

      In the case of hockey, which is similar to laCrosse, you have 6 members on each side whose goal it is to score on the other team while at the same time preventing the other team from scoring.

      Nothing in a hockey game is random in that the rules dictate what can and cannot be done in order to run the program. However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design.

      Players react to various situations and adjust they actions accordingly. These adjustments can vary greatly, but they must all fall within the rules of the program.

      Thus the mechanism of the program allows various ways to score and prevent scoring, while not violating the design.

      Delete
    52. Each colony had more than one selection pressure.

      The experiment protocols specified they all had the same treatment.

      Nice non-sequitur. Each colony had more than one selection pressure.

      And that means there was more than one solution and as always more than one way to reach each solution.

      I see that you are too ignorant to understand that.

      Please show your evidence the protocols were not followed and that each colony had different selection pressures.

      LoL! That isn't what I said, you moron.

      Each colony had the same selection pressures- multiple different pressures, which means there was more than one was to solve teh survival problem.

      you couldn't explain why only unguided evolution would do what you said.

      So according to you your Magic Evolution Guider purposely made it look like unguided evolution.

      Except it does NOT look like unguided evolution. No one knows what unguided evolution would look like.

      According to Chubs the guidance is pre-programmed in like software. When you give 12 identical programs the same inputs you should get the same outputs.

      Nope. Hump that strawman you coward.

      Did dawkins weasel produce the same paths to teh solution? No. And his had only ONE target.

      Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach.

      Maybe in your little bitty mind. However in real-life that isn't so.

      Again there was MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE PRESSURE.

      And the way to get to the citrate doesn't appear to be unguided in any way- two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      THAT is Intelligent Design Evolution



      Delete
    53. vel the spewer:
      I would feel bad for Joe if I didn't believe that he enjoys the attention, of any variety.

      I don't enjoy attention, vel. The only reason I post is to correct evoTARD lies, false accusations and hubris. It is a full-time job given the likes of you and thorton.

      Heck I ain't even going to enjoy the court case that is going to happen when I insist that the local schools carry a "theory" of evolution disclaimer.

      It should be interesting though as the disclaimer is going to say that darwin set up and argured against a strawman and that neither Intelligent Design nor YEC's baraminology are anti-evolution as they both accept allele frequencies changing, descent with modification and speciation.

      Delete
    54. vel:
      Hey Joe can your insults be placed in a nested hierarchy?

      What insults? Just because the truth hurts doesn't mean the truth is an insult...

      Delete
    55. Nic

      In the case of hockey, which is similar to laCrosse, you have 6 members on each side whose goal it is to score on the other team while at the same time preventing the other team from scoring.

      Nothing in a hockey game is random in that the rules dictate what can and cannot be done in order to run the program.


      I know, I played that too. :)

      What does any of that have to do with Lenski's E coli experiment?

      What were the outside 'rules' the E coli colonies were following? How did you determine them? Were there referees who gave them penalties if the rules were violated ?

      A hockey goal has a very specific definition - entire puck must cross the goal line, can't be directed in with hand or skate, etc. What was the pre-specified 'goal' of the E coli, and how did you determine it?

      I appreciate that you're making an attempt but that was a really lame analogy.

      However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design

      Ask Brett Hull and the Buffalo Sabres about that one. ;)

      Delete
    56. Chubby Joke G

      Nice non-sequitur. Each colony had more than one selection pressure.

      And that means there was more than one solution and as always more than one way to reach each solution.


      You're a liar making up things out of whole cloth again Chubs. List the multiple selection pressures, according to you there must be at least 12 since each colony evolved to be measureably different. List the 'solutions' each of the 12 colonies came up with.

      T: "Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach."

      Maybe in your little bitty mind. However in real-life that isn't so


      Damn you're an idiot. If there was no pre-specified goal, no pre-specified path and the 'solution' was just to survive selection pressure by any means then you are still describing regular unguided evolution.

      That's just as stupid as claiming the invisible Gravity Pixies direct gravity, only do it in way that makes gravity look completely natural.

      It also means there's still ZERO evidence for any outside direction in evolution.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all.



      Delete
    57. How was it determined that the mutations taht took place in Lenski's E. coli were random/ chance events?

      How was it determined tat any genetic change is a random/ chance event?

      Delete
    58. dumbass:
      List the multiple selection pressures, according to you there must be at least 12 since each colony evolved to be measureably different.

      Read the paper you moron. It is all in there.

      Even Ogre mkv/ Kevin McCarthy understands there was more than one selection pressure. So it appears that YOU are the ignorant one here.

      If there was no pre-specified goal, no pre-specified path and the 'solution' was just to survive selection pressure by any means then you are still describing regular unguided evolution.

      LoL! Again Dawkins' weasel refutes your ignorance.

      That's just as stupid as claiming the invisible Gravity Pixies direct gravity, only do it in way that makes gravity look completely natural.

      AGAIN YOUR POSITION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR GRAVITY. YOU ARE A LOSER.

      It also means there's still ZERO evidence for any outside direction in evolution.

      Not required you moron. There is still zero evidence that evolution is unguided.

      Delete
    59. Again there was MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE PRESSURE.

      And the way to get to the citrate doesn't appear to be unguided in any way- two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      THAT is Intelligent Design Evolution

      Delete
    60. Chubby Joke G

      Read the paper you moron. It is all in there.


      I did read the paper(s) plural Fatboy. There's nothing in there about 12 different selection pressures driving the colonies to 12 different solutions.

      LoL! Again Dawkins' weasel refutes your ignorance.

      Every time you run Weasel you pre-specify its goal you idiot. What was the pre-specified goal of the E coli?

      There is still zero evidence that evolution is unguided.

      If evolution is "guided", why do new mutations that happen in every generation follow a skewed bell-shaped distribution with deleterious, neutral, and beneficial ones? Why does natural selection then act to reduce the deleterious ones and favor the beneficial ones?

      The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations

      Fatboy Joke still claiming that his 'guided' evolution exactly mimics natural unguided evolution. That Designer sure does work in mysterious ways, eh Fatboy?

      THAT is Intelligent Design Evolution

      No, that's a fat fool claiming natural unguided processes as "Intelligent Design" with ZERO positive evidence.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    61. Chubby Joke G

      How was it determined tat any genetic change is a random/ chance event?


      It's been empirically observed in hundreds of experiments that genetic changes have a random effect on reproductive fitness. Since there is ZERO evidence of an outside agency consciously directing the mutations to produce these random results, the conclusion is that they are indeed undirected and random WRT fitness.

      How many hundreds of times does that need to be explained to you Chubs? Would it help if we spelled it out in vanilla frosting on top of a double dutch chocolate cake?

      Delete
    62. dumbass:
      There's nothing in there about 12 different selection pressures driving the colonies to 12 different solutions.

      I never said there was. You are just a moron.

      Every time you run Weasel you pre-specify its goal.

      NOT THE SOLUTION YOU MORON.

      And the solution is what we are talking about.

      If evolution is "guided", why do new mutations that happen in every generation follow a skewed bell-shaped distribution with deleterious, neutral, and beneficial ones?

      Non-sequitur. No one said that chance mutations do not occur.

      Why does natural selection then act to reduce the deleterious ones and favor the beneficial ones?

      Natural selection doesn't act. And "beneficial is relative.

      still claiming that his 'guided' evolution exactly mimics natural unguided evolution.

      Dumbass throton still doesn't know how to determine that genetic changes are chance events.

      It's been empirically observed in hundreds of experiments that genetic changes have a random effect on reproductive fitness.

      And as I told you before that is totally meaningless as to whether or not the genetic changes are chance events.

      Since there is ZERO evidence of an outside agency consciously directing the mutations to produce these random results

      AGAIN ID DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY OUTSIDE AGENCY DIRECTING ANYTHING. COMPUTER'S DO NOT NEED OUTSIDE AHENCIES DIRECTING THEIR PROGRAMS.

      YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE AND A MORON.

      How many times does that have to be explained to you asshole?

      Delete
    63. Thorton,

      "What were the outside 'rules' the E coli colonies were following? How did you determine them? Were there referees who gave them penalties if the rules were violated?"

      The rules were that 'like produces like'. Lenski's work continually produced only more bacteria, so obviously some rules were in effect. As for penalties for violating the rules,... death.

      "What was the pre-specified 'goal' of the E coli,..."

      The specified goal was continued existence through reproduction.

      Nic: "However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design"

      Thorton: "Ask Brett Hull and the Buffalo Sabres about that one. ;)"

      If Hull had followed the puck into the crease it would have been fine, but as he was in the crease before the puck, it should have been disallowed.

      No analogy is perfect, but this one does a good job of pointing out how a specified problem solving design can function by implementing a variety of solutions while remaining within the guidelines of that design.

      All hockey players have a few odorous goals on their resume. I had one go in off my head once. There you go, now you have an explanation for my stupidity. ;)

      Delete
    64. Nic

      The rules were that 'like produces like'.


      Define 'like'. How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?

      I can follow the rule "any one step can't be more than 3' from your present location" and still walk 3000 miles with enough steps.

      The specified goal was continued existence through reproduction.

      The same result as unguided evolution. Got it.

      No analogy is perfect, but this one does a good job of pointing out how a specified problem solving design can function by implementing a variety of solutions while remaining within the guidelines of that design.

      Your analogy makes that point, but the point still has nothing to do with biological evolution in general and the Lenski experiment in specific. If your guidelines are the incredibly broad "stay alive long enough to reproduce" then again your "guided design" is indistinguishable from unguided evolution.

      Delete
    65. thorton:
      How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?

      Quite a bit. Just look at dogs. But they are all still dogs.

      The same result as unguided evolution.

      No, unguided evolution just breaks and/ or deteriorates.

      But anyway the claim is that organisms were designed to evolve and eveolved by design- WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE GUIDANCE.

      Their goal was to adapt to their environment- again by design. And Lenski showed that is what they do.

      two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

      Your position:

      It just happened man, you idiots!

      Our position:
      An internal algorithm figured out a way to utilize its current components in such a way so that more nutrition could get into the cell.

      Delete
    66. Joe,

      An internal algorithm figured out a way to utilize its current components in such a way so that more nutrition could get into the cell.

      That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE says random mutations etc, where is algorithm stored, how is it stored,how does it " know" it is time to activate,does it create mutations etc. Until you come up with those you are just speculating, with less evidence than the ToE?

      Delete
    67. Thorton,

      "How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?"

      That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that difficulty does not mean there are no limits when it comes to variation. Ligers, Mules, etc., would testify to that.

      "I can follow the rule "any one step can't be more than 3' from your present location" and still walk 3000 miles with enough steps."

      You cannot however, limit your steps to 3' from your starting point and still walk 3,000 miles.

      "The same result as unguided evolution. Got it."

      That could be evolutions goal if it existed, that's true.

      "Your analogy makes that point, but the point still has nothing to do with biological evolution in general and the Lenski experiment in specific. If your guidelines are the incredibly broad "stay alive long enough to reproduce" then again your "guided design" is indistinguishable from unguided evolution."

      You seem to miss the point. Even if the two processes were indistinguishable, upon which I disagree, it would not mean evolution was true.

      Delete
    68. vel:
      That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE says random mutations etc, where is algorithm stored, how is it stored,how does it " know" it is time to activate,does it create mutations etc. Until you come up with those you are just speculating, with less evidence than the ToE?

      "It just happened" ain't science, vel. And as I told you above wholy artificial ribosomes DO NOT FUNCTION, which tells us there is more at play than just its physical components.

      Delete
    69. Nic

      That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that difficulty does not mean there are no limits when it comes to variation.


      Then what are the limits, and what causes them? We keep asking you guys but all we've ever gotten is "dogs are still dogs", or something equally stupid. How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years? How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?

      Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?

      Ligers, Mules, etc., would testify to that.

      Ligers and mules aren't examples of evolution. They're individual animal hybrids born of closely related species.

      You cannot however, limit your steps to 3' from your starting point and still walk 3,000 miles.

      What barrier limits me to 3' from my starting point? What barrier makes it impossible for small morphological micro-changes to add up to larger morphological macro-change? "We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time.

      You seem to miss the point. Even if the two processes were indistinguishable, upon which I disagree, it would not mean evolution was true.

      Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects. You add an additional external factor, this "Intelligent Designer" no one's got the slightest bit of evidence for, and claim this imaginary Entity caused the same effects. It's the Invisible Gravity Pixies all over again.

      Delete
    70. Chubby Joke G

      blah blah blah


      Fatboy, why don't you shut the hell up and let the adults talk.

      Delete
    71. Liar for liars thorton:
      Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects.

      Liar.

      It's the Invisible Gravity Pixies all over again.

      And your position STILL can't explain gravity's existence.

      You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time.

      There isn't anything in those small changes that we can take to equal the large changes required.

      Slightly altering an existing organism doesn't get you new body plans with new body parts. Heck we don't even know what makes organisms what they are, so how can you say anything about it?

      How many mutations does it take to get a new body part?

      OK so according to the resident evolutionitwits, dogs can't evolve into cats because cats already exist. But if cats didn't exist then dogs could evolve into cats.

      Can any evoTARD tell us about this magical barrier and how it works?


      thorton, the pathetic lying wussy- anytime you want to come shut me up momma's boy- Tweedo's awaits your cowardly arrival.

      Delete
    72. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      How many mutations does it take to get a new body part?


      How many Tweedo's double-cheese pizzas did it take to get you over 350lbs?

      Delete
    73. Thorton,

      "How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"

      For as long as we know. It's simply presumptive conjecture that they came from a non-canine ancestor.

      "How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?"

      That's for you to answer. You assume that change happened in the past and led to dogs and will happen in the future and lead to some yet unknown creature. It is precisely this for which you have nothing but conjecture based on assumption of the truth of evolution.

      "Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?"

      Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?

      "Ligers and mules aren't examples of evolution. They're individual animal hybrids born of closely related species."

      I know they are not examples of evolution. I don't accept evolution, remember? Please stay with the program. Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.

      "We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time."

      Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise. You're the one making claims based on groundless conjecture. I at least have observable events in present time to support my view. You have nothing but story telling to support yours.

      "Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects."

      You use the term 'natural' as if it, in and of itself, refutes the existence of God. Do you suppose nature needs an origin?

      Delete
    74. Thorton,

      "Context matters Nic, especially to intellectually honest folks."

      Yes it does. So tell me, what's the context of Invisible Gravity Fairies? Be honest.

      Delete
    75. Nic

      Thorton: "How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"

      For as long as we know.


      How long is that Nic? Give me a number.

      "How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?"

      That's for you to answer.


      No, it's for you. You're the one claiming there's this magic barrier that can never be crossed. Tell me what the limits are.

      Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?

      Because we've got all this fossil evidence that shows the gradual change and the common ancestry, between canidae and ursidae for instance. We've got all this genetic evidence that shows the identical common ancestor relationship between extant species. THAT'S why Nic.

      The Origin and Evolution of the Dog Family

      You guys can yell "different interpretation" all you want but the evidence is still going to be there bearing testimony to your LA LA LA approach.

      Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.

      You stay with the program. We are talking about changes within a single lineage over time, not how two separate lineages have evolved far enough apart to be no longer interfertile.

      Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise.

      Not to be too harsh Nic but you have no friggin' idea about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible.

      Delete
    76. Joe,

      "It just happened" ain't science, vel. And as I told you above wholy artificial ribosomes DO NOT FUNCTION, which tells us there is more at play than just its physical components.

      I agree, but mutations do happen. Are all mutations due to these algorithms which apparently do not reside in the physical structure of the organisms?

      Delete
    77. Liar for liars thorton:
      No, it's for you. You're the one claiming there's this magic barrier that can never be crossed. Tell me what the limits are.

      Nope:

      OK so according to the resident evolutionitwits, dogs can't evolve into cats because cats already exist. But if cats didn't exist then dogs could evolve into cats.

      Can any evoTARD tell us about this magical barrier and how it works?


      STILL WAITING

      Because we've got all this fossil evidence that shows the gradual change and the common ancestry

      No, it only looks like that to you. There isn't any way to verufy what you see.

      We've got all this genetic evidence that shows the identical common ancestor relationship between extant species.

      You don't have any genetic evidence that explains the physical DIFFERENCES observed. And that means you have nothing.

      Delete
    78. vel:
      I agree, but mutations do happen.

      And tehre isn't any evidence they all happen by chance.

      Are all mutations due to these algorithms which apparently do not reside in the physical structure of the organisms?

      What does that even mean? IOW unpack your useless word salad and repost it.

      Delete
    79. Liar pinhead:
      How many Tweedo's double-cheese pizzas did it take to get you over 350lbs?

      I still only weigh 210 lbs- go figure. thorton has to lie to make itself feel big- too bad it is nothing but a pencil-neck liar.

      Delete
    80. Thorton,

      "Not to be too harsh Nic but you have no friggin' idea about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible."

      Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.

      What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation.

      As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution?

      Delete
    81. Nic

      I find your post interesting, but the amount of different questions that is you arising makes difficult an answer to the whole. To start on some points:
      1) I agree with you that data alone are not worth without an underling explanatory framework (a theory in scientific language), but I don't agree in your absolute relativism that on the base of the data it is not possible at all to build a judgment among different theories. There are good and bad explanations.
      2) This is maybe a little provocative. Why you don't apply your relativism also to the Bible? The conclusion can sound like:
      < If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (i.e. that the Bible is the inerrant word of God) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. >
      3) Do you frankly think that your level of knowledge in the field is enough to examine the proposed pieces of evidence (e.g. fossil records, comparative anatomy, molecular biology). Rejecting what is claimed by 99% of the people that are working in the field can be also defined pride.

      Delete
    82. Germanicus-

      "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens

      That is why we reject what your alleged 99% say.

      Delete
    83. Chubby Joe G

      That is why we reject what your alleged 99% say.


      Who's "we" Chubs? You and your fat rolls?

      Delete
    84. Joe G

      Nice sentence, but this is not helping my discussion with Nic.
      The argument is that both recognise presence of data, but according to Nic this same set can support different points of view (interpretations)as well.
      By the way when you say "we" what you are meaning? Are you speaking for you or also for which other (also for Nic?)?

      Delete
    85. Nic

      Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.


      But that's not what actually happened Nic. Scientists in the 1800's started with the idea that Biblical Creation was the truth. However, as more and more data was collected it became apparent to the chagrin and consternation of many that the evidence did not support the Biblical story of a young Earth and special Creation. New hypotheses were formed and tested that would explain the data, and from that ToE was born. As it works out, every piece of data gathered since OOS was published supports the theory, and nothing has been found to contradict it. Mistakes in small details have been discovered and corrected over the years, sure, but nothing at all has been found to contradict the major ideas.

      What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation.

      I don't know of any fully qualified scientists who reject ToE based solely on the data and not due to their religious leanings. Do you?

      For one thing, not all interpretations are equally supported. There's only one explanation right now that explains ALL the evidence in a consilient, logically consistent manner and it isn't special Creation.

      As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution?

      The processes of evolution can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in real time too. Specific results won't always be repeated due to the random component of genetic variation, but trends can be repeated.

      Are you still interested in a discussion of the part natural selection plays in evolutionary processes?

      Delete
    86. Natural selection exists- that is it.

      And I know many fully qualified scientists who reject the ToE do to the lack of supporting evidence.

      Just because you are a blind and ignorant follower doesn't mean the evidence is there to support the ToE.

      Delete
    87. Chubby Joe G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!


      Hey Chubs, these space aliens you say the pyramid antenna was built to contact, do they experience reincarnation after they die too? Do they have ghosts?

      What sound does the Fatboy Joke Gallien train whistle make?

      WOO! WOO!

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    88. All science so far- you would think that if evolutionism had some positive evidence torton would have posted it by now- as I have done with ID.

      Delete
    89. As it works out, every piece of data gathered since OOS was published supports the theory, and nothing has been found to contradict it.

      Except that natural selection has been shown to be impotent, genetic accidents do not construct anything and the origin of species still eludes us.

      Delete
  19. OK so according to the resident evolutionitwits, dogs can't evolve into cats because cats already exist. But if cats didn't exist then dogs could evolve into cats.

    Can any evoTARD tell us about this magical barrier and how it works?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another view of directed mutations involves quantum mechanics. In a series of papers over the past decades, a strong argument has been made for quantum effects of entanglement between DNA and the cellular environment which tries to explain directed or adaptive mutations. You will find a lot more on this topic here.Adaptive Mutations and Quantum Mechanics

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete