Monday, January 14, 2013

Trending: Evolution’s Information Technology

What Next?

Art may not imitate life but evolution certainly does. Once the leading edge in biology was breeding and so evolution was cast as a natural breeder. Now the state of the art is genetic engineering and, so, evolution is cast as a natural genetic engineer. And of course the unquestionable trending topic of our time is Information Technology. Just check the employment pages. Do you know Networking, Epic, SAN Citrix, Notes, NextGen, BES, Android, VMware, TCPIP, UNIX, Windows, Active Directory, EMC, Peoplesoft, iPhone, iPad, LANWAN, blade, VoIP, CAT5 and Avaya? If so then you’re trending. And so is evolution. After all, as Matt Ridley explained, “it’s from information technology.” Or as Paul Davies writes this week, “Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information.” And Emory University evolutionists are now telling us that chemical evolution includes the “capture, mutation, and propagation of molecular information.” And within Information Technology the trending term is “network,” and so it is with evolution as well:

Chemical evolution includes the capture, mutation, and propagation of molecular information and can be manifested as coordinated chemical networks that adapt to environmental change. The robustness of a chemical network depends on the diversity of its membership, which establishes the probability for the successful selection of superior chemical species and populations. A dynamic exchange of network component structures and assemblies, via both covalent and noncovalent associations, is fundamental for the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions, as an inherent part of chemical evolution.

For as one evolutionist has explained, “Molecular cell biology has uncovered sophisticated networks in all organisms.”

If this doesn’t exactly strike you as the stuff of random mutations, consider the most recent evolutionary epicycle, molecular intelligence:

These diverse approaches to deconvolution and reintegration of the origins of the cell, projected in collaboration through the lens of chemical evolution, suggest a remarkable degree of intrinsic molecular intelligence that guide the bottom-up emergence of living matter. … A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter. Darwin’s hypothesis further predicts the emergence of new intelligent materials, ones not limited to what can be deduced from biology’s “archeological” remnants but even more diverse and exotic realms of dynamic chemical systems that might never have been explored by extant biochemistry.

Molecular intelligence, networks, platforms for molecular information, management of information, information technology?

Does evolution also know VMware and TCPIP?

Why is it that evolution follows whatever is trending? Could it be that evolution, rather than uncovering new and remarkable truths about nature, is actually a cultural construct, meeting our needs and expectations for an origins narrative? Could it be that rather than creating life, evolution imitates life? Just Sayin’

104 comments:

  1. These diverse approaches to deconvolution and reintegration of the origins of the cell, projected in collaboration through the lens of chemical evolution, suggest a remarkable degree of intrinsic molecular intelligence that guide the bottom-up emergence of living matter.

    Voodoo science is alive and well in academia. Calling this evo-materialist cult a religion of cretins does not come close to doing it justice. Personally, I like the creation myths of the ancient Babylonians and the Egyptians better. They are a lot less boring, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From the article:

    The Darwinian threshold required for appearance of the biological cell underscores the development of “self” versus “non-self” in these chemical networks. The barriers that define dynamic chemical systems as uniquely self must be physically and kinetically selective to permeability, primarily of nutrient molecules that maintain network viability. The approaches presented in this issue evaluate roles of atmospheric flux, lipid-like compartmentalization, and self-replicating protocells in creating nanoscale assemblies that could provide the necessary features of a cellular system.

    How does crap like this get published in a scientific journal?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter.

    Those bozos have no clue as to what the word 'intelligent' means. To be intelligent (and here, I agree with atheist Jeff Hawkins) is to be able to anticipate events, patterns, pain and pleasure, etc. From this predictive ability, comes goal-oriented behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Like a virus (both biological and computer kind) The Deceiver has hijacked that which was designed to be good to replicate his own lies. According to the Book of Revelation there is only one outcome for this trending.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is strange that the more technologically advanced we get the better we are able to undrstand living organisms because their workings match our technology.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Complexity, complexity, complexity!

    Complexity!

    Complexity, complexity, complexity!

    Complexity!

    Complexity, complexity, complexity!

    Wow, this natural feature is really really complex!

    Complexity, complexity, complexity!

    COMPLEXITY!

    ...therefore, "Design".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. Complexity is a show stopper for evolutionists and other bozos. That's why they talk about it so much. Complexity kills evolution dead but it's the foundation of ID.

      Delete
    2. Thorton, by now you know or should know that the issue is specified complexity reflecting functional organisation beyond the reasonable reach of available atomic and temporal resources moved by blind chance and mechanical necessity, pointing to contrivance, aka design. That you find yourself somehow unable to state and respond to the actual issue after all this time speaks volumes on the balance on the merits. KF

      Delete
    3. Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat, you resort to one red herring after another, leading out to one strawman after another, soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion as radical skepticism becomes self-referentially incoherent and the slander oil soaked strawman erupts in flames, filling the air with noxious and blinding smoke, and all too many are taken in. Sadly!

      Delete
    4. Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat, you resort to one red herring after another, leading out to one strawman after another, soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion as radical skepticism becomes self-referentially incoherent and the slander oil soaked strawman erupts in flames, filling the air with noxious and blinding smoke, and all too many are taken in. Sadly!

      Spoken like a psychopath.

      Mental illness is rampant among evolutionists. Know your enemy.

      Delete
    5. Louis Savain

      Spoken like a psychopath.


      LOL!

      I know.

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    6. Did kairosfocus really just try to reason with thorton?

      I see thorton responded with its usual lie-filled flacid cowardice.

      Quick, go run to mommy for protection, thorton.

      Delete
    7. Chubby Joe G

      Did kairosfocus really just try to reason with thorton?


      Look on the bright side Fatboy - since you're already unemployed your making physical threats to people won't get you fired like it did the last time.

      Delete
    8. LoL! Little flaccid coward spews more lies.

      Nice job, pricklick.

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joke G today

      flaccid

      prick

      pricklick

      dickhead


      LOL! I see Chubby Joe's promise to clean up his vulgar, obscenity-spewing act lasted two whole days.

      Delete
    10. LoL! Only a prude little cowardly momma's boy would think those are onscene- and here we have thorton.

      Delete
    11. joey asked:

      "Did kairosfocus really just try to reason with thorton?"

      No, because gordo doesn't know how to "reason". All he knows how to do is baldly assert massive amounts of IDiotic creobabble.

      Delete
    12. Go munch on your buttcrack cling-ons

      Delete
  7. Evolutionists possess no objective metric (at least that they want to admit to) for determining if something is designed. They have imagined evolution as a blank check that can be filled in with whatever is found.

    For the evolutionist then, complexity raised to the power of infinity is still within the bounds of evolution. Skeptics often believe that showing greater complexity will shake the diehard evolutionist. This doesn't seem to be the case. It does give the skeptic greater confidence in their skeptism, so it is valuable.

    For the evolutionists, it gets worse. Not only do evolutionists believe that complexity raised to the power of infinity is within the bounds of their theory, but repeated convergent evolution of the same complexity raised to the power of infinity is also within bounds.

    What really matters to the evolutionist is that the earth is old, there are fossils, some life has changed over time and bird beaks can vary in size. From these humble facts comes the theory that accepts any level of complexity found in the history of the planet. They also grant themselves immunity to be able to say they don't know, but... they still know for sure that EveooluutionDidIt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely, any random garbage which would be regarded as...literal garbage by Engineers, programers, mathematicians etc...however to Evolutionists it's a good useful candidate for function as anytime down the road it can be selected and improved upon.
      Anything can be a integrated function with the magic wand of Evolution.
      Complex software you say? Evolution can do it, and better.
      You better believe it otherwise you are just a stupid creationist.

      Delete
    2. Neal Tedford January 15, 2013 at 7:37 AM

      Evolutionists possess no objective metric (at least that they want to admit to) for determining if something is designed.


      Nobody does, as far as we know.

      They have imagined evolution as a blank check that can be filled in with whatever is found.

      Much like the way an unspecified designer can account for anything we observe?

      For the evolutionist then, complexity raised to the power of infinity is still within the bounds of evolution.

      I seem to remember Dembski once citing a list of around forty definitions of information and complexity. Which one are you using in this context?

      What really matters to the evolutionist is that the earth is old, there are fossils, some life has changed over time and bird beaks can vary in size.

      ...not forgetting the peppered moth, nylon-eating microbes, Tiktaalik, antibiotic resistance and so on.

      The point being that for evolution to have a chance of occurring, there must be both the processes in place and sufficient time for them to work. There is no doubt that mutations occur and that there have been billions of years for those mutations to lead to the variety of life we observe. It may not all be down to naive selection but the fossil record and a wealth of observations show that changes have happened and are still happening.

      Delete
    3. Peppered moth- still a moth.

      nylon-eating microbes- "built-in responses to environmental cues"

      Tiktaalik- found in the wrong time period- fossil record now show fish->tetrapods-> fish-a-pods

      Tiktaalik was out of order.

      BTW Ian, ID is not anti-evolution.

      Delete
    4. Ian, I was speaking in general and theoretically terms due to where evolutionists seem to be stuck.

      However a person wants to define complexity, evolutionists dismiss it. There is nothing that can be said of the discovery of biological complexity, systems integration, technology or whatever you want to call it, in which evolutionists do not have a blank check waiting.

      In other words, evolutionists would never stick to a metric that says if we discover x, y , or z, then this is beyond ToE and requires an intelligent design agent.

      Evolutionists won't know biological design if they say it, because of their blank check syndrome. Pick any number of improbabilty to infinity and it simply doesn't matter to the evolutionist. They have an old earth, some fossils, and bird beaks, so it must have happened.

      Delete
    5. Tedford the Slow

      However a person wants to define complexity, evolutionists dismiss it. There is nothing that can be said of the discovery of biological complexity, systems integration, technology or whatever you want to call it, in which evolutionists do not have a blank check waiting.


      Because it's been proven that iterative feedback processes that carry forward heritable traits can and do produce complexity. The longer the processes run, the more complex the output can be.

      Evolution is an iterative feedback processes that carries forward heritable traits and has been running for over 3 billion years with untold quadrillions of individual animals produced.

      Merely screaming "complexity" is therefore not an indication of any external intelligent guiding influence. You need external positive evidence to back up your design claims.

      In other words, evolutionists would never stick to a metric that says if we discover x, y , or z, then this is beyond ToE and requires an intelligent design agent.

      The metric is to find outside positive evidence of this "design". Identify the mechanism by which the physical manufacturing was done, and the place, and the time. Identify the Designer.

      You have any of that Tedford? Any of you IDiots have that?


      Delete
    6. toad:
      Because it's been proven that iterative feedback processes that carry forward heritable traits can and do produce complexity.

      Mere complexity isn't the issue.

      Merely screaming "complexity" is therefore not an indication of any external intelligent guiding influence.

      Then it is a good thing that we don't do that.

      The metric is to find outside positive evidence of this "design".

      We have. That you are too stupid to grasp it just proves that morons like you don't belong anywhere near science.

      Delete
    7. "Because it's been proven that iterative feedback processes that carry forward heritable traits can and do produce complexity."

      Why is it complexity to Evolutionists somehow means integrated function?

      Delete
    8. "Merely screaming "complexity" is therefore not an indication of any external intelligent guiding influence. You need external positive evidence to back up your design claims."

      Who is making this "complexity" claim?

      Delete
    9. lcplusplus

      Who is making this "complexity" claim?


      Tedford just made it above. Try reading for comprehension.

      Oh, you still us the reference to your claimed scientific sources saying evolution in only a hypothesis.

      Or do you want to admit you were making that up too?

      Delete
    10. OK, Thorton. I doubt Tedford was making the claim that mere complexity is whats relevant to ID.

      Do you actually believe that Tedford is making this claim?

      Do you actually believe ID is making this claim?

      Delete
    11. "Oh, you still us the reference to your claimed scientific sources saying evolution in only a hypothesis."

      Unfortunately I cannot find the links. Perhaps if I input the right keywords in the right sequence...
      or do you think the weasel algorithm can help me in this regard?

      Delete
    12. butthead:
      Try reading for comprehension.

      Yes, YOU should give it a try, for once.

      Delete
    13. lcplusplus

      OK, Thorton. I doubt Tedford was making the claim that mere complexity is whats relevant to ID.


      Still can't read for comprehension I see.

      Do you actually believe that Tedford is making this claim?

      Of course he did. It's right there in print.

      Do you actually believe ID is making this claim?

      Of course they do. It's pretty much their only argument: "this is too complex for natural processes, so GAWD, er, THE DESIGNER DID IT!

      Unfortunately I cannot find the links.

      Funny how IDCers can never "find the link" when asked to back up their inane claims. Never.

      or do you think the weasel algorithm can help me in this regard?

      Maybe. Put in "cdesign proponentsists". The program will vector right to the ID camp.

      Delete
    14. butthead liar thorton-

      ID does NOT make any claims about mere complexity = design. None whatsoever. You are an ignorant puke.

      And if your position had any positive evidence, any at all, then ID would be a non-starter.

      But here you are trying to refute ID with your ignorance and belligerence.

      Delete
    15. Chubby Joke G

      ID does NOT make any claims about mere complexity = design. None whatsoever.


      LOL! Maybe you should tell that to Behe and Dembski the next time they trot out irreducible complexity.

      "Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity."

      irreducible complexity

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    16. Thank you for proving that you are just a belligerent retard.

      Irreducible complexity is NOT the same as mere complexity.

      You have to be either very stupid, very ignorant or very dishonest.

      Delete
    17. Chubby Joke G

      When I swim in the ocean Greenpeace gives me a special protective escort


      Hey Chubs, how does your "genetic internal programming" that you say directs evolution manage to evolve irreducibly complex structures?

      Go ahead Chubs, make up some more Creation Science on the spot.

      Delete
    18. Thorton, where did I make the claim about providing "scientific" sources?

      I stated "evolutionary sources", in this case it was a few websites I've visited in the past that ranked the highest at the time on Google.

      ...but I'm sorry if you confused "evolutionary" with "scientific".

      Delete
    19. lcplusplus

      Thorton, where did I make the claim about providing "scientific" sources?

      I stated "evolutionary sources", in this case it was a few websites I've visited in the past that ranked the highest at the time on Google.


      LOL! "The dog ate my homework!"

      Why can't you find them again now? They can't all have gone 404, now could they?

      ...but I'm sorry if you confused "evolutionary" with "scientific"

      I'm sorry you confused unsubstantiated Creationist BS with scientific discussion.

      Delete
    20. moron coward:
      how does your "genetic internal programming" that you say directs evolution manage to evolve irreducibly complex structures?


      Via its program you dolt. IE BY DESIGN.

      Nice to see that you still get all belligerent when your ignorance is exposed.

      Delete
    21. Chubby Joe G

      T: "how does your "genetic internal programming" that you say directs evolution manage to evolve irreducibly complex structures?"

      Via its program you dolt. IE BY DESIGN


      Another empty buzzword non-answer by the compulsive liar.

      Nice to see you admit that Behe's claim about irreducible complexity is wrong though, that IC systems can arise through stepwise evolutionary (even if guided) processes.

      So which is the real "ID" version Chubs? Yours or the Dembski /Behe one?

      Why can't you IDiot Creationists even agree on the basics?

      Delete
    22. ignorant rwon noser:
      Nice to see you admit that Behe's claim about irreducible complexity is wrong though, that IC systems can arise through stepwise evolutionary (even if guided) processes.

      LoL! Behe's claim pertains to unguided evolution only.

      Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really??

      Delete
    23. chubby Joke G

      Behe's claim pertains to unguided evolution only.


      LOL! Hey idiot, they're the same identical steps to IC whether they are guided or not.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    24. butt muncher:
      they're the same identical steps to IC whether they are guided or not.

      Only a complete moron would say something like that, and here you are.

      I would love to see an unguided program produce "Methinks it is like a weasel". Or an unguided process produce an automobile.

      Unguided processes can't even produce a 5 piece mousetrap you drooling loser.

      But nice to see taht you really do think that your ignorance is meaningful.

      Must be nice to get through life kissing other people's butts. Your parents must be very proud of you.

      Delete
    25. Obese Tool Joe G

      I'm a complete moron


      You sure are Chubs. You just produced an argument that cuts the legs right out from under Behe's "irreducible complexity" brain cramp.

      Another own goal for Team Fatboy.

      Delete
    26. complete moron thorton:
      I'm a complete moron and pissed my pants

      Yes, we know.

      What we want to know is why do you think that means that you refuted something.

      BTW oxyclean may clean that brown ring around your neck.

      One more thing- please stop smelling your fingers when you finish scratching inside of your butt crack. That's really disgusting.

      Delete
    27. Neil said:

      "Evolutionists possess no objective metric (at least that they want to admit to) for determining if something is designed. They have imagined evolution as a blank check that can be filled in with whatever is found.

      For the evolutionist then, complexity raised to the power of infinity is still within the bounds of evolution. Skeptics often believe that showing greater complexity will shake the diehard evolutionist. This doesn't seem to be the case."

      Well spoken. It is not so much the evidence as the worldview or as Cornelius says, the religion, that drives the interpretation of the evidence.

      It is amazing what evolutionists will actually confess to believing in when pressed: (Everything comes from nothing, consciousness from chemicals, personality and purpose from impersonal and random processes, design, computer hardware and software that replicate themselves, information, machines, etc all from mindless matter.) We creationists certainly do not have a corner on faith. They give us a good run for the money!

      Delete
  8. Neal Tedford

    "Evolutionists possess no objective metric (at least that they want to admit to) for determining if something is designed."

    I thought that this was a claim of ID-proponents (e.g. Dembski’s CSI) to posses this metric, also if agree with you that we have seen very little of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have such a metric.

      What Neal is referring to is you guys just say "It ain't designed, it ain't designed. Anything but design!", no matter what the evidence.

      Delete
  9. "We have such a metric"

    Which is your metric? Dembski original, or a variant. I have followed recently a threat in TSZ/UD (GPuccio's dFSCI)and it seems to me that there are so many versions of it as the ID-proponents. And frankly none of them very convincing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CSI works. And it is more than evolutionists have to determine that evolution is unguided.

      Delete
    2. CSI works.

      That hasn't been demonstrated yet.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joe G

      CSI works. And it is more than evolutionists have to determine that evolution is unguided


      Hey Chubs, what's the CSI of the Giza Pyramid Antenna for contacting space aliens?

      Do a rough calculation of the CSI for us, will ya? Show us the methodology.

      Delete
    4. Joe G

      "CSI works."
      After the proposal of Dembski some years ago I am not aware of any following research in which the CSI-method has been applied successfully for design detection. Maybe you have some examples to prove your claim (an application to distinguish among a designed and a not designed object). I insist on it because if really ID-proponents want to present their work as science (and I understand that this was the target), the establishment of a metric is really a basic step.

      "And it is more than evolutionists have to determine that evolution is unguided."
      This sound as "and also if it can be demonstrated that we have nothing, we claim that the opponent theory has less". A part that you don't support this claim, in any case, for your case this is irrelevant; you have to present your positive evidence. You cannot avoid (if you are interested to make science) to demonstrate the first point.

      Delete
    5. G:
      After the proposal of Dembski some years ago I am not aware of any following research in which the CSI-method has been applied successfully for design detection.

      So what? It works.

      I insist on it because if really ID-proponents want to present their work as science (and I understand that this was the target), the establishment of a metric is really a basic step.

      Evolutionism doesn't have any metric yet it is presented as science.

      And any alternative just has to meet the same standard as the reigning paradigm.

      NO DOUBLE STANDARDS ALLOWED.

      Delete
    6. CSI works.

      Ian:
      That hasn't been demonstrated yet.

      yes, it has. OTOH your position has never demonstrated anything- NEVER.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    7. “So what? It works.”
      I am afraid but I had something different in mind as “positive evidence”. I can simply
      cite you
      in this case:
      “No, bald assertions are not scientific and all you have are bald assertions”

      ”Evolutionism doesn't have any metric yet it is presented as science.”
      I don’t know which metric you are referring, but to possess “design metric” is a specific claim of you (as ID-proponent) and not of biologist-evolutionists.

      “NO DOUBLE STANDARDS ALLOWED”. Yes, each should back-up “own” claims. But again, this cannot be interpreted as a justification to not do the own home work.
      You seems don’t understand the chances that you have. As soon as you have a successful method to detect design, your theory wins. This was the attempt of Dembski that understood well that without this step ID could not access a scientific level.

      Delete
    8. Let's see- archaeologists can determine design from not. Forensic scientists can determine design from not. And SETI researchers also have a criteria for determining design from not.

      That said I just posted the methodology for detecting design- the last post in this thread.

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joe G

      Let's see- archaeologists can determine design from not. Forensic scientists can determine design from not. And SETI researchers also have a criteria for determining design from not.


      How do those three cases determine design Chubs? Do they do it just from measuring the object in question? Do they use CSI? Or do they do it using external knowledge, by comparing to other existing, known-to-be-designed patterns, tool marks, identified designers?

      You claim you can tell design just from the object itself via CSI, remember?

      You can't do it Chubs. As always you're an empty windbag.

      Delete
    10. dumbass:
      How do those three cases determine design

      I told you below.

      Or do they do it using external knowledge, by comparing to other existing, known-to-be-designed patterns, tool marks, identified designers?

      That is how ID works, moron. Our existing knowledge of cause and effect relationships.


      You claim you can tell design just from the object itself via CSI, remember?

      No I don't remember but we can becvause of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- only ageency can produce CSI.

      OTOH your position STILL has nothing- no methodology and no evidence.

      And I understand that makes you very upset.

      Delete
    11. joey, you're doing your usual dance to avoid supporting your "CSI works" claim. You have NEVER responded to a challenge to calculate 'CSI' with an actual calculation of 'CSI'.

      Calculate the 'CSI' in a banana, a frog, a 5 pound chunk of granite, a maple leaf, a pupfish, a peppered moth, and a hydrothermal vent, and also demonstrate exactly how complex specified information, irreducible complexity, digital functional specified complex information/organization, or any other 'ID' claim would revolutionize (or even help) research, discoveries, and explanations regarding nature. Compare the 'CSI' and lack thereof between several designed and non-designed things in nature. Don't skimp on the details and evidence. Show that "CSI" works" and that it isn't just an empty label.

      Delete
    12. LoL! TWiT, your ignorance means nothing.

      I have calculated that CSI is present in the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria. That means CSI is present in bananas, frogs- well all organisms.

      As for helping research, well, moron, ID will help the same way forensics helps. The same way archaeology helps. Ya see, dipstick, reality says it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely. That determination is a total game changer.

      Asd for empty, that would be YOUR position. If your position had something other than your belligerence, you would just produce it and ID would be finished. But seeing tat you are an ignorant cowardly blowhard, you have to attack ID with your ignorance.

      You are a pathetic loser.

      Delete
    13. Hmm, I see that you still can't show that "CSI works".

      joey g: Dumbest. Bluffer. Ever.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a testable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.


    However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend!


    So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away.


    How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?


    1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker


    2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”


    So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As expected, Chubby Joe merely regurgitates the same tired ID-Creationist meaningless blather with ZERO evidence.

      Joe, what is the CSI of Stonehenge?

      Do the CSI calculations for us.

      Do the CSI calculations for ANY object - a baseball, a flower, a goldfish. Pick one and demonstrate by using CSI that it was designed.

      I say you can't. You know you can't.

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

      Delete
    3. Strange, I didn't say anything about CSI and here is thorton, the cowardly freak, spewing CSI!

      I would not use CSI for Stonehenge- wrong tool you moron. I wouldn't use it for a baseball either- again, wrong tool.

      As for a flower and goldfish- well their genomes prove they contain CSI and there isn't any evidence tat blind and undirected processes can produce them, so we infer they were designed.

      However thorton is too stupid to grasp any of that and too much of a coward to tell us about his position's "methodology"

      Delete
    4. Chubby Joe G

      As for a flower and goldfish- well there genomes prove they contain CSI


      Then do the CSI calculations for us Fatboy.

      You can't do it. All you IDiots do is change the ignorance-based subjective "this looks designed to me" to the equally ignorance-based and equally subjective "this looks to have gobs of CSI to me".

      Give us one real world case anywhere - not the same old C&Ped BS "example" from the DI - of someone using CSI.

      Delete
    5. I have already demonstrated that the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria contains CSI.

      OTOH all you can demonstrate is your belligerence and ignorance.

      Delete
    6. Joe,

      I would not use CSI for Stonehenge- wrong tool you moron. I wouldn't use it for a baseball either- again, wrong tool.

      What is the appropriate tool? What does it measure?

      Delete
    7. vel:
      What is the appropriate tool?

      Counterflow

      What does it measure?

      Artificiality.

      Delete
    8. LOL! Exactly as expected, Chubby Joe can't provide a real world example of where anyone used "CSI" for anything.

      He does his usual ID-Creationists tap dance, waves his pudgy hands and throws out the same undefined and meaningless IDiot buzzterms he always uses.

      Another day, another FAIL for the IDiot Creationist. Oh well.

      Delete
    9. LoL! We use CSI in our every day lives, moron. Compuetr programs are CSI. Information Technology is all about CSI.

      IOW the world uses CSI for just about everything, moron.

      Delete
    10. vel:
      What is the appropriate tool?

      Counterflow


      What is counterflow?

      LoL! We use CSI in our every day lives, moron. Compuetr programs are CSI. Information Technology is all about CSI.

      IOW the world uses CSI for just about everything, moron.


      Perhaps you could explain further, what is the criteria to know if the information contained in an object can be measured with CSI? Is the computer have csi or just the program?

      Delete
    11. Chubby Joe G

      LoL! We use CSI in our every day lives, moron. Compuetr programs are CSI. Information Technology is all about CSI.

      IOW the world uses CSI for just about everything, moron.


      Then why can't you provide a single CSI calculation or CSI value?

      I know why!

      You're a lying IDiot trying to bluff your way through. AGAIN

      Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    12. dear prudence:
      Then why can't you provide a single CSI calculation or CSI value?

      We have. That you are too stupid to grasp it just proves that morons like you don't belong anywhere near science.

      Biggest. Liar. Ever



      Delete
    13. vel:
      What is counterflow?

      It's what investigators use to determine if an agency was involved, ie something nature, operating freely couldn't produce.

      Mother nature is good at producing stones but the presence of counterflow tells us that Stonehenge was designed, ie constructed puposely.

      Perhaps you could explain further, what is the criteria to know if the information contained in an object can be measured with CSI? Is the computer have csi or just the program?

      You use CSI when something is easily amendable to Shannon Information. Genomes, polypeptides- those work. Otherwise you look for counteflow, ie signs of work

      It's all on my blog

      Delete
    14. Joe G

      T: "Then why can't you provide a single CSI calculation or CSI value?"

      We have.


      LOL! They must be invisible then because no one has seen them here!

      Another sad example of compulsive liar Joe Gallien doing what he does best.

      Delete
    15. LoL! You have to pull your head out of you butt before you can see anything!

      Another fine example of thorton's willful ignorance.

      Delete
    16. Chubby Joke G

      When people tell me to haul ass I have to make two trips


      Still no CSI evidence from Chubs. Looks like compulsive liar roly poly Joey was lying again.

      Delete
    17. LoL! You have to pull your head out of you butt before you can see anything!

      Another fine example of thorton's willful ignorance.

      Delete
    18. thorton, ignorant wrt CSI:

      Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, I give you Thorton, the amazing EvoTard and its incredible math/ information formulation:



      tardtard had sed:


      I start with a gene of length 32 base pairs. I give it to IDCer One and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs as 5 bits



      The gene then undergoes a duplication event to length 64 base pairs. I give it to IDCer Two and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs. He gets a CSI value of 6 bits, or one bit larger than IDCer One's case.



      I didn't understand that as each nucleotide = 2 bits. 4 possible nucleotides = 2^2 = 2 bits. So, to me, a gene with 32 base pairs would have the information carrying capacity of 64 bits.



      Back to tardtard. So I asked it about its math. tardtard responded with:


      2^5 = 32, 2^6=64



      That is so wrong it is pathetic. tardtard is proud to be an ignorant piece of shit liar.



      So according to thorton if I have 32 bits of information and someone gives me 32 more bits of information, I only have 6 bits of information.



      Thanks for the continued entertainment thorton. Now I understand why you won't support your position.

      Give it up moron, you are out of your league

      Delete
    19. Chubby Joke G

      I once got a summer job as a land fill.


      Still no CSI evidence from Chubs. Looks like compulsive liar roly poly Joey was lying again.

      Delete
    20. LoL! thorton still thinks its ignorant sepwage means something.

      Give it up moron, you are out of your league.

      Delete
    21. Choke on this, coward:

      First read this-



      Mycoplasma genitalium- an organism all evotards should be personally familiar with and complex specified information, the concept evotards remain willfully ignorant of.



      CSI has a lower threshold of 500 bits of specified information. Biological function is a specification.



      Mycoplasma genitalium has 580076 base pairs, which equals 1,160,152 (d'oh) bits of information carrying capacity. Out of that 529477 bp code for proteins, ie functionality. That equals 1,058,954 bits of specified information, which is well above the 500 bit threshold.



      Heck just looking at the number of protein coding genes it is obvious that the 500 bit threshold would be easily surpassed.



      No need to get a perfect number for the organism, the threshold is set.

      Delete
    22. Chubby Joke G

      When I take a shower my feet stay dry


      Still no real world usage of CSI by anyone from Chubs. Looks like compulsive liar roly poly Joey was lying again.

      Delete
    23. brown nose thorton:
      When I take a shower my feet stay dry

      I am sure they do.

      Still no real world usage of CSI by anyone

      Everyone uses it every day.

      Delete
    24. Chubby Joke G

      When I sit around a room, I sit AROUND a room.


      Still no real world usage of CSI by anyone from Chubs. Looks like compulsive liar roly poly Joey was lying again.

      Delete
    25. brown nose thorton:
      When I sit around a room, I sit AROUND a room. and stroke all the boys.

      I am sure you do.


      Still no real world usage of blind watchmaker evolution.

      Delete
    26. LOL!

      Fatboy admits defeat, can't produce any real world usage of CSI by anyone. Compulsive liar roly poly Joey was definitely caught lying again.

      Delete
    27. LoL!

      brown nose coward thorton admits ignorance and cowardice.

      And still can't produce any real world usage of the blind watchmaker. It is as useless as he is.

      Delete
    28. Good old one-note Fatboy Gallien

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"

      Fatboy Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    29. LoL!

      brown nose coward thorton admits ignorance and cowardice.

      And still can't produce any real world usage of the blind watchmaker. It is as useless as he is.

      Delete
  12. You want Hot Girls Pictures or Hot Videos.?? Most popular and famous hot Girls
    hotentertainnews.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you had pictures of little boys thorton would be very interested.

      Delete
  13. joey g said:

    "As for a flower and goldfish- well their genomes prove they contain CSI..."

    Hey joey, how do their genomes "prove" that they contain 'CSI'? Does the 'CSI' in their genome determine what they are? If not, what does the 'CSI' in their genome do? Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In this thread on January 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM joey g said:

    "CSI works. And it is more than evolutionists have to determine that evolution is unguided."

    Yet the following day (January 16, 2013 at 6:38 AM) joey said:

    "Strange, I didn't say anything about CSI and here is thorton, the cowardly freak, spewing CSI!"

    Way to go joey. LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  15. TWiT,

    Just admit that you are an ignorant moron who cannot follow along.

    The post that thorton responded to did NOT contain anything about CSI.

    It's as if you are proud to demonstrate that you are a dishonest freak.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is is just me or are others tired of this childish nonsense too?

    Thorton:

    Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat, you resort to one red herring after another, leading out to one strawman after another, soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion as radical skepticism becomes self-referentially incoherent and the slander oil soaked strawman erupts in flames, filling the air with noxious and blinding smoke, and all too many are taken in. Sadly!

    Chubby Joe G : Look on the bright side Fatboy/ - since you're already unemployed your making physical threats to people won't get you fired like it did the last time.

    Hey Chubs,…

    As always you're an empty windbag.

    Then do the CSI calculations for us Fatboy.

    You can't do it. All you IDiots do is change the ignorance-based subjective "this looks designed to me" to the equally ignorance-based and equally subjective "this looks to have gobs of CSI to me".

    He does his usual ID-Creationists tap dance, waves his pudgy hands and throws out the same undefined and meaningless IDiot buzzterms he always uses. Another day, another FAIL for the IDiot Creationist.

    You're a lying IDiot trying to bluff your way through. AGAIN. Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

    Another sad example of compulsive liar doing what he does best.

    Looks like compulsive liar roly poly Joey was lying again.


    Chubby Joke G:
    - I once got a summer job as a land fill.
    - When I take a shower my feet stay dry
    - When I sit around a room, I sit AROUND a room.


    Good old one-note Fatboy Gallien


    Thorton is a good reminder of why atheism is dangerous to our country. No respect for others, no qualms about ridicule, derogatory name-calling, rudeness, condescension, meanness, or insulting others. Imagine if he ruled our country as a dictator! You know where our rights would go - right down the toilet!

    For an atheist, morals are completely arbitrary so whenever you want to call someone a name, you can. And you don't have to feel bad about it because hey, there is no such thing as sin or real right and wrong. All you have to do to appease your conscience is come up with a reason to justify it and that is easy for anyone to do.

    I'm sure he treats people he likes and agrees with better and I'm sure he can be a very nice guy, but this is the danger. If he doesn't want to be nice, he doesn't have to be. Love your enemies? Hardly! He would love to get rid of them. He feels free to treat people like this because he doesn't think he is responsible for what he says, but I'm afraid that is a mistaken belief.

    Matthew 12
    34b How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

    36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

    Jesus

    ReplyDelete
  17. And Joe, you are no better. You are a good example of what can happen when we allow our emotions to guide our words.

    "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."

    Here is a list of doozies that came from your mouth in this thread:

    I see thorton responded with its usual lie-filled flacid cowardice. Quick, go run to mommy for protection, thorton.

    LoL! Little flaccid coward spews more lies. Nice job, pricklick.


    That is how ID works, moron.

    LoL! TWiT, your ignorance means nothing. You are a pathetic loser.

    here is thorton, the cowardly freak, spewing CSI!

    Biggest. Liar. Ever

    You have to pull your head out of you butt before you can see anything! Another fine example of thorton's willful ignorance.

    brown nose thorton:
    Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, I give you Thorton, the amazing EvoTard and its incredible math/ information formulation: …That is so wrong it is pathetic. tardtard is proud to be an ignorant piece of shit liar. Give it up moron, you are out of your league

    Choke on this, coward:

    you are a dishonest freak.

    If you had pictures of little boys thorton would be very interested.



    Joe, I certainly hope that if you are a follower of Jesus that you NEVER NEVER tell anyone. Please keep it a secret or re-evaluate your claim.


    I don't see why you feel a need to stoop to his level. Don't let him drag you into sin along with him. If he wants to act like that, that's his choice. Let's show the world that there is a better way!

    When you return insult for insult, you look just as childish as he does. Let him look childish. His words speak volumes! Let his words do the talking. You don't need to return insult for insult for us to know what he is like. His words reveal his heart.

    Jesus' words apply to you as well:

    "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

    Show us how God has changed your heart, not how you were before you met Jesus.

    Even if you are not a follower of Jesus, I think you know deep down that the sort of talk you are engaging in here is not right - am I right?


    OK, please forgive me if this comes across as "holier than thou" type thing. I'm not trying to make anyone angry.

    Confession: I am not perfect here either. You can probably go back and look at old posts of mine and accuse me of the same thing. I try to be gracious, but I have gotten carried away at times as well. If brought to light, I will apologize and admit I was wrong.

    I just get tired of this "who can think up the better insult" game! It's no fun to read the posts here when you guys start going back and forth at each other.


    Anyone else tired of this childishness? I need some support!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "For an atheist, morals are completely arbitrary so whenever you want to call someone a name, you can. And you don't have to feel bad about it because hey, there is no such thing as sin or real right and wrong. All you have to do to appease your conscience is come up with a reason to justify it and that is easy for anyone to do."

    What a load of erroneous, arrogant crap.

    "I don't see why you feel a need to stoop to his level. Don't let him drag you into sin along with him. If he wants to act like that, that's his choice."

    Nobody but joey drags joey into anything. joey is the one who always stoops to the lowest level no matter which website he posts on. He makes it impossible to have a civil discussion and in his delusional mind he's never wrong about anything, even though he's wrong about pretty much everything. He has no respect for anyone who disagrees with him in any way, and he has been soiling websites with his anger and insanity for years. He's an incorrigible, malignant narcissist.

    Have you ever considered that the reason you god zombies get flak from people like me is because you put yourselves on a pedestal, portray yourselves as special, exceptional and vastly superior, sanctimoniously talk down to anyone who doesn't eagerly bow down your insane, impossible, monstrous sky daddy fairy tales, lie to yourselves and others, brainwash children, use every trick in the book to try to stifle science and progress, con gullible people out of their money, condone destruction of the environment, and many other horrible things?


    ReplyDelete
  19. Whole Truth,

    I am not trying to put myself on a pedestal at all.

    Am I wrong here?

    Do you think these kinds of posts are good positive moral type posts?

    How does an atheist decide what is right and wrong in this case?

    Please enlighten us! I'd love to hear how you decide.

    And, while you are at it, please tell me why it is important that you follow your own arbitrary standards.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you're wrong and you do come across as "holier than thou". You're not just complaining about certain posts, you're sanctimoniously portraying yourself and other christians as morally superior to atheists.

      Atheists have arbitrary morals? Yeah, like christians have morals that are any less arbitrary than anyone else. You 'ground' your morals in an imaginary sky daddy and the monstrous fairy tales associated with it. I 'ground' my morals in my upbringing and what I've learned in my life. You, like most god pushers, obviously believe that it's just fine for you to talk down to atheists and denigrate them about their morals and a lot of other things even though christianity and other religions have graphically demonstrated that belief in an imaginary sky daddy doesn't produce or 'ground' good morals. If anything, christianity gives amoral/immoral people an easy, convenient way out of having a conscience, with all of the forgiveness from "God" crap. It's not some imaginary god that you should seek forgiveness from or convince yourself that you're getting it from. It's the people that you selfishly hurt that get to decide whether you're forgiven or not. For example, do you really believe that when a catholic priest who has molested children asks "God" for forgiveness and convinces himself that he has gotten it, it somehow makes everything hunky dory for the molested victims?

      Religious beliefs are arbitrary. They're all made up and are 'adjusted' to fit whatever the 'believer' wants to believe and are subject to change with no notice for no apparent reason. Religions and the 'followers' have lots and lots of versions, including versions of and convenient adjustments of morality. Religious beliefs, and especially ones like christianity and islam, are 'grounded' in fear, lies, denial of reality, arrogance, sanctimony, dominance, threats, greed, and narcissism, and the perpetuation of those things by parents and others who brainwash and indoctrinate children and gullible adults. Especially the 'fear' part. 'Fear God or you will burn in Hell forever' and other monstrous threats. That doesn't sound 'moral' to me.

      In my entire life no atheist has ever come up to me or knocked on my door and tried to get me to not believe in a god but lots of god zombies have tried to cram their religious insanity down my throat and everywhere I turn I'm confronted by religious mumbo jumbo and religious wackos who want to dominate my every thought and action with asinine laws and other methods of control.

      Delete