Monday, February 18, 2013

A “Sulfur-For-Phosphorus” Strategy

Why Aristotle Won’t Go Away

When a cyanobacterium was found in the Sargasso Sea with predominantly sulfur, rather than the usual phosphorus, in its membrane, evolutionists naturally concluded that evolution had caused a switch from phospholipids to sulfolipids in that particular organism. And naturally evolutionists described their hypothesis with the usual Aristotelian teleological language, using words such as “adaptation” and “strategy,” to hide the absurdity:

This biochemical adaptation by Prochlorococcus must be a significant benefit to these organisms, which compete against phospholipid-rich heterotrophic bacteria for [phosphate]. Thus, evolution of this “sulfur-for-phosphorus” strategy set the stage for the success of picocyanobacteria in oligotrophic environments and may have been a major event in Earth’s early history when the relative availability of sulfate and [phosphate] were significantly different from today’s ocean.

To say that there was a biochemical adaptation by an organism and that a strategy evolved sounds much better than saying that a whole bunch of random mutations must somehow have constructed new structural and regulatory proteins that just happened to result in a sulfolipid biosynthesis pathway and use of said sulfolipid in the membrane.

For remember, in evolution there must be no final causes. So every move is random and not in the direction of any structure or process that actually works, much less that works in a way that is helpful. And so for evolution to cause a switch from phospholipids to sulfolipids is a rather tall order.

But that is only the beginning. Remember, while this must have evolved in Prochlorococcus where it was helpful, it could not have evolved because it was helpful. It evolved simply because it happened to evolve.

That means it was just as likely to have evolved in all the other organisms on Earth. And if it just so happened to evolve in the rare case where it was really needed, it must not be a very rare event. So over all of evolutionary history, evolution must have caused a switch from phospholipids to sulfolipids a great many times, in a great many organisms. It is just that in those many other instances, it was useless and so did not survive.

But there is more.

For this same logic applies equally well to every other element. In addition to a switch from phosphorus to sulfur, evolution must have also been testing out every other entry that it could in the periodic table.

But there is even more.

For this same logic applies equally well to every other biosynthesis pathway. And this same logic applies equally well to every other type of pathway in the cell. And this same logic also applies equally well to, well, everything else in biology.

So you can see this rapidly becomes rather silly and it is much better for evolutionists simply to say that there was a biochemical “adaptation” and that a “strategy” evolved, and leave it at that.

It sounds better but it is at the cost of reducing Darwinism (in whatever version is current) to Aristotelianism. In Aristotle’s physics objects had natural motions. Smoke moved upward, apples moved downward and stars moved sideways. Such objects were active. They were seeking their natural place within the natural order.

In evolution, Aristotle’s motion of objects is replaced with the design of species. Just as motion had a predetermined target in Aristotle’s physics, the designs of species have predetermined targets in Darwin’s evolution.

And what are these predetermined targets in evolution? They are improvements in fitness, whatever that is, or is imagined to be, for the different organisms in their different environments. Once such a fitness improvement is identified, or imagined, then for evolutionists the design simply naturally arises, in the same way that for Aristotelians smoke naturally moved upward.

Consider, for example, Jonathan Amos piece from Sunday’s BBC entitled “Artificial finger tests evolutionary origin of prints.” Amos discusses research work at Dartmouth College but, in spite of the headline, Amos says precisely nothing about how finger prints did or might have evolved.

Rather, the discussion is about how fingerprints might be helpful in different situations. That is, how fingerprints might improve fitness.

And if they improve fitness then they will naturally arise. Amos concludes that the findings “could say something quite deep about the evolution of primates.” It is all merely Aristotelianism by another name.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

77 comments:

  1. Evolutionists insist that ID can't be science because it doesn't deal with repeatable event sequences. Amazingly enough, they don't realize they don't theorize that way either. It's teleology all the way. They speak of selection pressure as if pressure is guaranteed to cause adaptation rather than extinction. How could they possibly know that? Were all feedback mechanisms present in the UCA? What was the probability of that occurring a-teleologicallly, if so?

    ReplyDelete
  2. CH: For remember, in evolution there must be no final causes. So every move is random and not in the direction of any structure or process that actually works, much less that works in a way that is helpful. And so for evolution to cause a switch from phospholipids to sulfolipids is a rather tall order.

    Another lie by omission from Hunter. Ho hum.

    What he omits from this description is the non-random nature of selection pressure from the environment. Yes, mutations are random. A random mutation can increase or decrease the chances of survival. Advantageous mutations have a larger chance of spreading through the population than deleterious or neutral ones.

    This is similar to a random walk through a landscape. A purely random walk will never make it to the top. However, when a step upwards is accepted with a higher probability than a step down then the random walk becomes biased and takes the walker to the top.

    You deliberately distort theory of evolution, Cornelius. Again and again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What he omits from this description is the non-random nature of selection pressure from the environment."

      And yet,,,

      Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012
      Excerpt: In my dissertation on the incredibly abundant and well preserved fossil mammals of the Big Badlands of the High Plains, I had over 160 well-dated, well-sampled lineages of mammals, so I could evaluate the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis in an entire regional fauna. …
      it was clear that nearly every lineage showed stasis, with one minor example of gradual size reduction in the little oreodont Miniochoerus. I could point to this data set and make the case for the prevalence of stasis without any criticism of bias in my sampling. More importantly, the fossil mammals showed no sign of responding to the biggest climate change of the past 50 million years (the Eocene-Oligocene transition, when glaciers appeared in Antarctica after 200 million years). In North America, dense forests gave way to open scrublands, crocodiles and pond turtles were replaced by land tortoises, and the snails changed from those typical of Nicaragua to those of Baja California. Yet out of all the 160 lineages of mammals in this time interval, there was virtually no response.”,,,
      In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.
      http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature

      Delete
    2. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that the ability to use sulfur phosphorus instead of involves a very complex mechanism with numerous parts. I'm fairly confident that this is true because everything at the biochemical level is extremely complicated with numerous parts. That being the case, bacteria could not use sulfur until all the parts of the mechanism were in place. So there could be no fitness feedback loop until all the parts were there. In the meantime, it still needed the phosphorus system to be up and running, so it couldn't be modifying that. So how did it happen?

      Delete
    3. Moreover, microbes demonstrate an even more extreme conservation of morphology than mammals do, even though microbes should respond to environmental shifts far more rapidly than higher life forms do due to the fact that they replicate far more rapidly than higher life forms do:

      AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
      Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
      http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html

      Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
      Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
      http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330

      The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes:
      “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637

      “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
      http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=281961

      Delete
    4. Oleg you missed the big point. The question is not if there is a step upwards is accepted with a higher probability but why we do not find the nature trying new steps anymore. Why we do not find new hybrids phosphate-sulfur?

      Delete
    5. Another lie by omission from Oleg. Ho hum.

      What he omits from this description is the non-random nature of selection pressure from the environment. Yes, mutations are random. A random mutation can increase or decrease the chances of survival. Advantageous mutations have a larger chance of spreading through the population than deleterious or neutral ones.

      What utter BS. The number of deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by many orders of magnitude. Unless the organism first evolves an effective gene repair mechanism to eliminate bad mutations, it will not survive. Why? Because the very thing that is supposed to evolve the organism is the thing that kills it.

      But it gets worse. The repair mechanism must also evolve a way to distinguish between good and bad mutations and eliminate the bad ones before they can cause damage. If it eliminates all mutations, there can be no evolution. All of this must happen before the organism can even reproduce because reproduction is impossible unless bad mutations are repaired. Of course, mutations do not produce new genes. They only modify existing genes.

      Darwinian evolution is such a pile of stinking crap, one wonders if evolutionists have completely lost their sense of smell. The idiots are buried under their own shit.

      Question: Why are evolutionists so damn stupid? Whoever is paying you people to preach your BS everywhere should ask for their money back. You are stupid as shit. LOL.

      Delete
    6. oleg:

      What he omits from this description is the non-random nature of selection pressure from the environment. Yes, mutations are random. A random mutation can increase or decrease the chances of survival. Advantageous mutations have a larger chance of spreading through the population than deleterious or neutral ones.

      Oops, I forgot, natural selection designs sulfolipid biosynthesis pathways also. After all, it knows it is in a phosphorus-deficient environment so it preserves those useless random mutations that eventually will just happen to add-up to a sulfolipid biosynthesis pathway and its regulation.

      Only religion can drive people to this.

      Delete
    7. I don't think you forgot, Hunter. Deliberately omitted is a more apt description, by which I stand.

      Delete
    8. Deliberately omitted

      As if correcting the omission would somehow exonerate Darwinian evolution? Don't make me laugh. ahahaha...

      Delete
    9. Cornelius,

      "Painful to watch ..."

      If logical contortions were as painful to the body as they are to the mind, this nonsense would have ended long ago.

      Delete
    10. Oleg, an ant stepping up on a field stone isn't significant progress towards a mountain a mile away. The landscape is up and down and there is not long term strategy to get to the top of the mountain. Your giving out lots of free lunches.

      Delete
    11. Tell that to the inventors of the Monte Carlo algorithms, Neal. It uses the same principles as evolution: random changes coupled to feedback. No long-term strategy. Yet it reaches high peaks without any help from the designers.

      Delete
    12. Oleg, "inventors"... "algorithms".

      You make a strong comparison of evolution to design and then deny a designer!

      Do you not see your contradiction?

      Per evolution, who's the inventor? Where's the evolutionary algorithms?

      Delete
    13. "Yet it reaches high peaks without any help from the designers."

      Oleg I usually only read but I wanted to thank you for the laughter. Thats one of the funniest thing I have EVER read from an Evolutionist. Appealing to an intelligently designed algorithm in a defense of evolution is rich.

      Delete
    14. You, guys, are like a silly young dog that is distracted by a squirrel and is barking up the wrong tree.

      The question is not the origin of biological evolution or of Monte Carlo algorithms (both could be designed). The question is their capabilities.

      A physicist writes a code implementing the Monte Carlo method: random changes with feedback. Can such an algorithm optimize some function with no further help from the programmer? The answer is yes.

      The analog in biology would be God designing the first organism and then letting evolution proceed on its own, via a similar process: random mutations with environmental feedback. Can the resulting new organism reach higher fitness levels than the original ones? The answer is also yes.

      Delete
    15. Elijah2012

      Appealing to an intelligently designed algorithm in a defense of evolution is rich.


      I suppose you think since NASA sends deep space probes that use gravity assist trajectories, that is evidence gravity is intelligently designed too.

      Someday science may discover a creature more ignorant than your average Creationist, but not today.

      Delete
    16. "I suppose you think since NASA sends deep space probes that use gravity assist trajectories, that is evidence gravity is intelligently designed too."

      No its evidence that NASA has intelligence or do you think spaced probes evolved too?. Do Try and keep up. It seems we have a creature more ignorant on this blog all the time.

      Delete
    17. Elijah,

      Perhaps you should go back to lurking. You don't seem to understand Thorton's point.

      Delete
    18. "The question is not the origin of biological evolution or of Monte Carlo algorithms (both could be designed). The question is their capabilities."

      Oleg read what you were responding to with that (might help to be reminded you are on an ID blog as well). That is what sets what the questions was. You are the silly dog barking up the wrong tree. I know of no IDist that would argue about capabilities of an ID algo. You are merely assuming your philosophical bent into the your argument and trying to move the goal posts. There is zero evidence that an algorithm created by a Human being with intelligence is anagolous to what natural selection does without intelligence. Its just a baseless assumption offered as evidence for a baseless assumption.

      I will grant you though that your argument is less inane than your sidekick Thorton that in abject intellectual dishonesty supposes I think a strawman in order to level an insult thereby showing only his own deep ignorance.

      Delete
    19. "Perhaps you should go back to lurking. You don't seem to understand Thorton's point."

      Don't be ignorant any more than you already are. Thorton's "point" was to "suppose" what I thought which is never a good indication of intellectual honesty.

      Delete
    20. You tell 'em Elijah2012!

      Humans design sprinklers to water the lawn.

      Natural rainclouds water the lawn

      Therefore natural rain clouds were Intelligently Designed.

      You can't argue with ID-Creationist logic like that folks. You just can't.

      Delete
    21. "Humans design sprinklers to water the lawn.

      Natural rainclouds water the lawn

      Therefore natural rain clouds were Intelligently Designed."

      Are you usually this intellectually dishonest or just do it for kicks on blogs because as an atheist offline you are shouted down by the majority?

      BTW sprinklers would be more analogous to springs and geysers not rain clouds. A wider reading on the various ways water is moved around our planet and atmosphere might result in more intelligent analogies.

      Me? I would talk design wherever a code is employed like in DNA or do you see ancient language inscriptiosn on rock and think - sheesh look what lighning carved out naturally? lol

      Delete
    22. Elijah2012

      Me? I would talk design wherever a code is employed like in DNA


      Please define 'code' as you are using the term.

      Delete
    23. IF you need a definition for code as relates to DNA as if you are hearing the two connected for the first time then you are in junior high and the discussion is not worthy of being entertained further.

      Delete
    24. OK, Elijah2012 admits he can't provide a definition of 'code' and is obviously ignorant of how scientists use the term. He's just another garden variety ID-Creationist parroting back things he doesn't understand.

      Got it.

      Delete
    25. So junior high. I use it just as scientist use it in regard to genetic information and transcription. this is like your third demonstration of dishonesty in presuming and drawing conclusions based on presumption. IF you are trying to demonstrate how atheists have a lack of integrity due to no firm moral compass you have succeeded, Cheers!

      Delete
    26. But Elijah2012, you're the one throwing around terms you can't define.

      If you don't even know what the word means to scientists you'll look pretty stupid when called to explain your bluster, just like now.

      'Code' has more than one definition. Define the word 'code' as you are using it.

      Delete
    27. Your bluster is to continually presume something else is being said than what is which makes you look pretty silly and I might add deficient in intellectual honesty.

      But Ok I had no idea that anyone here would require a definition for code (and as far as I can tell no one else does). I use it use no special way and despite your nonsense I rarely ever see DNA and code referred to in anyway different than it is here

      http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html

      or here

      http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap05/Chapter05.html

      SO yes I would talk design where code in DNA is involved but your silly nonsense is to think that because I use say the word code it involves me using it in a different way than someone who would NOT talk design would use it. NO underlines are being made under the word code. Your failed crappy logic that tries to claim I equate sprinkler being designed to rainfall was merely being corrected with what I would talk design in regard to. I can't help that you are not intelligent enough to see that.

      Delete
  3. It's not enough to write volumes about how the bacteria works or the environment it lives within. The scientists must also fit the WHY of it into their world view.

    ReplyDelete
  4. CH: "Consider, for example, Jonathan Amos piece from Sunday’s BBC entitled “Artificial finger tests evolutionary origin of prints.” Amos discusses research work at Dartmouth College but, in spite of the headline, Amos says precisely nothing about how finger prints did or might have evolved."

    Interesting stuff. Maybe CH is right, and they won't learn how finger prints evolved. But through research and experimentation they are trying to discover new things. Undoubtedly they will learn something new, and sounds like they already have. That will in turn lead to new ideas, perhaps new hypotheses, new research. That's how science goes.

    What about Biola, CH? What post-grad biological research and experimentation are being conducted there? What new scientific hypotheses are being generated directrly from Biola? Given the interest in ID and addressing the concerns of evolution that you obviously have, one would expect it to be a hotbed of research to find alternative answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH likes to ridicule his various strawmen of the theory of evolution, but he never offers an alternative theory that explains more of the facts. I suspect because he is too afraid to be ridiculed himself or to be proven once again a fraud and a liar, as he has been in the past: enjoy.

      Delete
    2. troy, you and JDRick are effing idiots. Just shut the f^ck up.

      Delete
    3. Hey louis, your christianity is showing.

      Delete
    4. truthy:

      Hey louis, your christianity is showing.

      Eat shit, asshole.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Louis,

      "ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha..."

      Brilliant, Louis, just brilliant. My gosh you're embarrassing.

      Delete
  5. I'm certain CH writes for a Christian audience. And because of this he probably feels there is no need to propose an alternative. After all, his audience all ready have the certainty of an alternative. It's a faith-based one, and one that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny, but is enough. So it's not really surprising that CH does not seem interested in theories, hypotheses, experiments, research - all the normal work of science - because it isn't what this blog is about. Certainly, if this blog is intended as a vehicle to persuade evolutionists of the errors of their ways, it is and has not been effective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who wants to persuade a bunch of bozos of the error of their ways? Nobody cares if you're a bozo. We just don't want to see our education tax dollars promoting a chicken shit voodoo religion like Darwinian evolution. That is unconstitutional. Goddammit!

      Delete
    2. LS: "Who wants to persuade a bunch of bozos of the error of their ways? Nobody cares if you're a bozo."

      Well, what are you going to do about it Louis? One approach is to stomp your feet and hurl abuse and profanities at everybody who disagrees with you. Perhaps that works well in kindergarten, but in the adult world, people have a tendency to ignore you when you do that.

      Perhaps the name-calling makes you feel good about yourself. If you really have that level of rage and hate in your life (and who knows, could all be an act), then you should be pitied - and you should seek help. But as a way to make your case and have people take you even remotely seriously, it fails miserably.

      Or you could try an approach where your side lays out a clear hypothesis, backed-up with evidence, data, and a detailed supporting research plan.

      Delete
    3. We don't need no stinking hypothesis to point out that evolution is a pile of crap. If we do have a hypothesis, it is our prerogative to do with it whatever we see fit, including not sharing it with bozos like you.

      To sum up. We don't owe you no stinking hypothesis. And you don't call nobody out. You IS a nobody. LOL.

      Delete
    4. Our obscenity-spewing buddy Louis here is a certified fruit loop from way back.

      Here he is making an ass out of himself and getting kicked off a few other science blogs way back in 2008

      The return of Louis Savain

      Enjoy!

      Delete
    5. LS: "We don't need no stinking hypothesis to point out that evolution is a pile of crap."

      Who's the "we" Louis? I think you called me out on that one too, right? Do you speak for CH too?

      But you do need a hypothesis if you want to come up with a viable alternative to evolution. Unless of course you don't want to make it about science.

      As to the name-calling, is this just an Internet persona you like to try on, or is this really who you are? If so, does it work well for you in the non-virtual world?

      Delete
    6. Yo Throaton,

      You think reputation matters to me, jackass? By the way, what does PZ Myers' asteroid orifice smell like today? Or was it Dawkins'? LOL.

      Delete
    7. But you do need a hypothesis if you want to come up with a viable alternative to evolution. Unless of course you don't want to make it about science.

      Science is not just about formulating hypotheses, it is also about falsifying them. We falsified your crap and that is good enough for us. LOL.

      Besides, who wants to come up with an alternative to a mountain of crap? The thing to do is to ignore the crap as if it's not even there, as if it never existed. And then forge ahead.

      Delete
    8. JD

      Despite Louis's responses you make no good point. The name of the Blog is Darwin's God. There is no rule of the internet that every site has to offer counter proposals no more than political critiques have to propose alternate solutions to point out that a present policy is not working. Besides even someone new to this blog can see you are making things up. Its perfectly obvious that Cornelius see ID as the alternative. The fact that you are not disposed to entertain it does not take it away from being a counter proposal

      Delete
    9. Elijah: "Besides even someone new to this blog can see you are making things up. Its perfectly obvious that Cornelius see ID as the alternative. "

      No, it is absolutely no obvious at all. Despite being a Fellow of the DI, CH never once talks about ID, let alone CSI or IC. Or the latest research being done by ID scientists, or the latest version of the ID hypothesis, or how to interpret the scientific evidence that he likes to point to in the posts. Notice that when asked to respond with a hypothesis, or even some speculation, or what experiments should be done to further ID, CH has nothing to say. He has no new ideas.

      It is nothing either to do with rules of the Internet about presenting alternatives, but if ID is going to succeed as science (and CH still consider himself a scientist), at some point it is going to move beyond simple critique of evolution and put its money where its mouth is. I have yet to see CH even attempt this.

      But then this is a religiously inspired and religiously oriented blog written for a Christian audience, so presenting any real science here is not necessary. All that is needed are some nice scientifically sounding polemics and homilies.

      Delete
    10. JDRick

      It is nothing either to do with rules of the Internet about presenting alternatives, but if ID is going to succeed as science (and CH still consider himself a scientist), at some point it is going to move beyond simple critique of evolution and put its money where its mouth is. I have yet to see CH even attempt this.


      ID-Creationism has been as dead as a sack of doorknobs for over 7 years. Kitzmiller v. Dover stripped away any teeny bit of bogus credibility it may have had. The religious right has shifted to its new "demand academic freedom!" dishonest shell game.

      The main job of the DI now is to get propagandists like CH here to keep stirring the few remaining Fundy IDiots and keep those dwindling donations trickling in for as long as possible. But even that is going to end soon. When's the last time you heard anything new from Dembski or Behe or Marks or Wells? It's just recycle the same old BS until it doesn't sell anymore.

      Delete
    11. "ID-Creationism has been as dead as a sack of doorknobs for over 7 years. "

      what ever makes you feel good and soothes you to bed at night. Meanwhile in the real world

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

      Its dead I tell you dead. ;)



      Delete
    12. Elijah2012

      what ever makes you feel good and soothes you to bed at night. Meanwhile in the real world


      LOL! 50% of Americans believe in astrology too. That says gobs more about the pathetic state of US science education that the truth of astrology or Special Creation. You're example 1A.

      In the scientific world where it counts, ToE has a 97% support rate. Why don't you list five of the best scientific papers published in the last 5 years with positive evidence for Creation.

      Delete
    13. Throaton:

      In the scientific world where it counts, ToE has a 97% support rate.

      LOL. I seriously doubt your 97% figure but so what? It wouldn't be the first time that scientists are completely wrong about a field of science. It happened last century in the field of artificial intelligence. The entire AI scientific community was 100% wrong about the nature of intelligence. Based on ideas pioneered by their hero Alan Turing, they insisted for half a century that intelligence is about symbol manipulation, only to be proven wrong. Hell, they were not even in the ballpark of having a clue. As Wolfgang Pauli would say, there were "not even wrong". ahahaha...

      And yet, not a single "I am sorry" from the assholes. They claim they were misunderstood. ahahaha...

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
  6. LS: "Besides, who wants to come up with an alternative to a mountain of crap? The thing to do is to ignore the crap as if it's not even there, as if it never existed. And then forge ahead."

    Well, if you think evolution is wrong, we still need answers to the important questions it is trying to address, right? Or is your hope that everybody is converted to Christianity, so these questions are no longer important?

    What do you mean by forge ahead? How is that going to happen? Forge ahead to where?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Follow the evidence, consider the arguments of your critics.

      Delete
    2. "we still need answers to the important questions it is trying to address, right?"

      Why it is so important to answer that questions?

      Delete
    3. SR: "Follow the evidence, consider the arguments of your critics."

      What does that mean - follow the evidence? If we are using the scientific method, then we would interpret evidence in light of a proposed hypothesis? Sure evidence can falsify an existing theory too, but ultimately if we are saying ID is truly science, shouldn't there be a sound hypothesis that supports it? The only thing that comes close to a hypothesis from ID is something like CSI or IC - both of which have been closely examined by the scientific community and found wanting. IC seemed interesting to me, but there seems to be a dearth of examples.

      CH doesn't even mention them here, for whatever reason I can't imagine. Perhaps he's not convinced either.

      Delete
    4. Blas: "Why it is so important to answer that questions?"

      If you are asking why mankind is naturally curious and wants to learn, I'm sure there are any number of answers. Maybe it's something to do with our large, pattern-seeking brains that we can't help ourselves but wonder why things work the way they do.

      Delete
    5. No, I am asking Why are the answers important? not why we are looking for answers?
      By the way darwinism helps to understand why the things work the way they do?

      Delete
    6. Blas: "No, I am asking Why are the answers important? not why we are looking for answers?"

      Why is anything important? When we say something is important, isn't that really just saying we value something, that we see benefit from it? So scientific research is considered important because it can yield new information which in turn can better our lives. And of course it scratches our curiosity itch too.

      Delete
    7. JDRick said:

      "When we say something is important, isn't that really just saying we value something, that we see benefit from it? So scientific research is considered important because it can yield new information which in turn can better our lives."

      Ok, then which are the benefits we have obtained from the answers of darwinism?

      Delete
    8. Blas: "Ok, then which are the benefits we have obtained from the answers of darwinism?"

      This appears to be a good source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

      Delete
    9. JDR: "What does that mean - follow the evidence? If we are using the scientific method, then we would interpret evidence in light of a proposed hypothesis? Sure evidence can falsify an existing theory too ..." You'd hope so, however evolutionists don't want to entertain any such evidence.

      Delete
    10. Suivez Rreuves said:

      "You'd hope so, however evolutionists don't want to entertain any such evidence."

      Can you please present examples of this evidence that the "evolutionists" dont't want to consider. It could be an interesting discussion how the scientific method works on the basis of precise claims and not only on generic statements.

      Delete
    11. "Can you please present examples of this evidence that the "evolutionists" don't want to consider"

      Why here in blog comments when they have been detailed in many places? Bear in mind there are various ways of "not wanting to consider" and the chief way Evolutionist do this is by just so stories and thought experiments (known in other worlds as imagination) to counter.

      But a couple to suffice

      A) the amount of design similarities NOT based on ancestry grow each year. WHen Darwin walked the earth such similarities would have been taken as evidence against evolution instead as a just so story "convergent evolution" was invented. Mind you I would have taken it reasonable to accept some convergence but my goodness since first contrived to wave away a few similarities the examples of it have grown so exponentialy it just doesn;t jive anymore

      B) abiogenesis...Yes I know the standard refrain. Evolution is separate from abiogenesis but its a hollow contrived compartmentalization that is void of logic and frankly only is evoked to duck and run. No one seriously believes that if things were looking up for atheism in abiogenesis that it would not be put back squarely on the table by popularizers of Evolution. In no other field of study would the development of a system not affect its "evolution". Evolution is DNA driven and its total nonsense to claim that its code which gives clear indications of design and intelligent communication does not speak to a place for ID in the evolution of it.

      Delete
    12. Elijah2012: In no other field of study would the development of a system not affect its "evolution".

      That is clearly wrong. In atomic physics, no one is concerned with how electrons and nuclei came to be. One takes their existence for granted and works out how electrons interact with nuclei and among themselves.

      This is how science works, Elijah. It is compartmentalized. Chemistry and atomic physics are separate disciplines.

      So it is with the origin of life and evolution. One can, and does, study evolution of life without knowing how life originated.

      Delete
    13. No you are CLEARLY wrong. No one is asking how elements came to be as you keep trying to duck and run with. We are talking about organisms and how they evolve. Your analogy of particle physics is daft. Life is not a question of where the elements come from but how the SYSTEM originates. There is not a single biological system that is not later affected by its origin. What happens in development affects the creature and its offsprings for years to come and theres not a drop of evidence that should tomorrow we discover how life originated it would not open wide doors in showing us how it evolved.

      You either have to be tremendously challenged in IQ or just plain lying to not know that if tomorrow morning natural abiognesis was proven it would be integrated fully into Evolutionists arguments across the world. The only reason it is not and why people such as yourself insist one not be discussed with the other is that the facts are not in your favor.

      Delete
    14. I make simple arguments, Elijah. Simple, yet firmly grounded in the history of science. You don't get them. Too bad. Maybe science ain't your thing.

      Delete
    15. I'm thinking the same thing. Don't think the copious amounts of time you have to participate on an ID blog does not give you away. The fact that you cannot address the issues of how the origin of a organism's DNA would be related to its later development and evolution indicates logic might not be your thing either.

      Delete
    16. Elijah2012

      The fact that you cannot address the issues of how the origin of a organism's DNA would be related to its later development and evolution indicates logic might not be your thing either.


      You tell 'em Elijah2012!

      Everyone knows linguists can't study a thing about the evolutionary history of different written languages without a thorough knowledge of the earliest proto-language symbols scratched in the dirt by some paleolithic humans.

      Right?

      Delete
    17. JDRick said
      "This appears to be a good source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01"

      Interesting that it is important to have the hypotesis that every life "evolved" from an UCLA to understand viral and bacterial variabikity. Specially because Influenza A virus varies but is always influenza A, as E. Coli is always E. Coli. And more interesting is the case of insects, the non resistant insects beats the resistant in wild condition as if the resistance were a disadvantage in that conditions.
      Where is the important conection with darwinism in this cases?

      Delete
    18. "Everyone knows linguists can't study a thing about the evolutionary history of different written languages without a thorough knowledge of the earliest proto-language symbols scratched in the dirt by some paleolithic humans.

      Right?"

      Why of course because the the DNA of the first organism is in no way related to present DNA right? Do your analogies EVER get better?

      Delete
    19. Elijah2012

      Why of course because the the DNA of the first organism is in no way related to present DNA right? Do your analogies EVER get better?


      I've dumbed them down as much as I could. Sorry if they're still too much for you to understand.

      Creationists never get any smarter, that's for damn sure.

      Delete
  7. I think I just figured out that Thorton and foul-mouthed Jesus hater kilo papa are one and the same. ahahaha...

    Yo, Thorton, you hypocrite. How's the weather in Arkansas?

    ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, maybe I got the wrong kilo papa or the wrong Thorton. But it was fun thinking I caught Thorton red handed. I wouldn't put it past the asshole. ahahaha...

      Delete
    2. How's the weather in Arkansas, kilo papa?

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. love? Or just him, his personality? Or all mother of bride dresses of the people facing all this will do so choose: any hatred will tear up all, despite the soul dies, leaving behind only a wreckage, until the power of life spend

    ReplyDelete