Thursday, August 29, 2013

Podcast: The Inexorable Rise of Serendipity in Evolutionary Theory

From Darwin to the New Synthesis to Today

90 comments:

  1. Nde proponents have no basis to proclaim "scientific" support for the vast array of undemomstrated assertions supporting the ridiculous level conjecture behind their proclaimed "science", that is really only philosophy. One might ask, "why is this such a concern?" The answer is probably, these jackasses have a "hair up their asses" regarding "religion" of some sort. What the fuck does that have to do with "real science"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius, feel free to eliminate my response above, based on certain language used. I understand you have certain "standards" you want to maintain here. Must say though, not sure what is worse. The overthetop exagerations or lies from the nde crowd or the nasty language from someone who smells bullshit passed off as "science" from the status quo assholes who make a living off of the unsuspecting public who pays these assholes.

      Delete
    2. Wow, a scientifically ignorant teenaged Creationist with Dunning-Kruger and Tourette's.

      That's pretty sad.

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

      Delete
  2. Serendipitous events are just events that can't be accounted for inductively (i.e., evidentially). The reason why naturalistic UCA'ists can't see the non-existence of inductive evidence for their view is that they have never appreciated how many NON-analogically-accounted-for events have to be posited just to render their other accounts of certain DNA sequences seemingly plausible. And when we look at the history of how poorly even those simplistic and seemingly plausible assumptions have fared, the dogmatism entailed in claims of "over-whelming evidence" is totally unwarranted. Inductive criteria never warranted any of those claims. It was always the assumption that a non-intelligently-designed mind had some inexplicable epistemological warrant for beliefs that gave them inexplicable confidence in assuming that relatively arbitrary religious arguments alone rendered their other HUGE explanatory debt irrelevant to inductive criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The ID'ist can account for warranted belief. But it's quite hard, if attempting to account for events in terms of causal capacity inhering in stuff supposedly objectively "out there," to find inductive evidence for either SA or UCA when limited to the data set used by science. But accounting for warranted belief via a number of hypotheses enumerable by humans is no small matter. And once we have to posit libertarian causality for that (which is the only way to render the number of hypotheses humanly enumerable), we can't arbitrarily rule out libertarian causality for pre-human world events without also being IRRATIONAL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Hunter,
    The countless examples of "serendipity" in relation to the proclaimed "mechanisms" of nde are everywhere you look in the scientific literature these days. My question is this: why do the nde proponents refuse to realize and embrace what real science is demonstrating over and over again regarding their bankrupt philosophy?




    I mean, even a child, with proper education regarding the facts is going to come to the conclusion that the nde proclomations are insufficient from a reasonable definition of "science".

    Can you do some research on that question and present your findings here?

    I am getting a little bit tired of responding to these hyper repetitive, scientifically deplete proclaimers of pseudoscience on your forum who seem incapable of grasping even the simplest ideas presented here that severely challenge the basis of their beloved conjecture.

    I am driven, by the shear stupidness of their apparent bullheaded ignorance to use language I would not normally use in normal debate or discourse. Please help me understand the mind set of these individuals who seem to be incapable of understanding basic science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bpragmatic

      Please help me understand the mind set of these individuals who seem to be incapable of understanding basic science.


      Here's a huge clue.

      If you go out in the morning and meet an a-hole, then you met an a-hole.

      If you go through the day and every person you meet is an a-hole, then you're the a-hole.

      Delete
    2. Not sure what you are saying here Thorton. But what if you go through the day and every person you meet is an a-hole. How does that make the observer an a-hole? Is there some sort of "gene transfer" mechanism that eventually mutates the non-a-hole observer into an a-hole via mutation and selection? Or does neutral evolution kind of "poof" the non-ahole observer into an ahole by some sort of law of association? Maybe being an a-hole has significant selection advantages on yet to be discovered molecular transformational processes that correlate to the macro-physical levels expressing the ahole characteristics observed at the macro level.

      Thorton, these are deep scientific questions that, I think, you may be qualified to research and come to real scientific conclusions regarding.

      However, I am afraid that you, being an a-hole will prevent real scientific motivation to influence you behavior.

      Now get back down into the basement and continue your chants.

      Delete
  5. If chance events occur at all in nature - meaning events that are random with respect to any particular phenomenon that might be under discussion - then some are likely to be favorable. In other words, we can expect serendipity. We just can't predict it.

    As for the argument that, because we can't explain everything, we can't explain anything which is what Jeff's case reduces to, it's nonsense.

    In the case of epilepsy, for example, we can now explain the seizures as the result of a disturbance of the normal electrical activity in a region of the brain. This doesn't mean we can predict the exact firinq sequence of very single neuron in the affected area but it's still a whole lot better than the religious explanation of demonic possession.

    The evidence is there. It doesn't go away if you don't look it it for long enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If chance events occur at all in nature - meaning events that are random with respect to any particular phenomenon that might be under discussion - then some are likely to be favorable. In other words, we can expect serendipity. We just can't predict it."


      Jeez, another gem of tripe from an nde loyalist!

      The trite, meaningless generalizations used here by these people to argue the case for nde is completely out of control! These boneheads apparently have had such a "long leash" (funding for no good reason, public ignorance to tolerate the illegitimate level of conjecture, etc.} that they are OBLIVIOUS to the level of stupidity their philosophy has achieved and IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE for crying out loud.

      Spedding, have you no shame? You should be ashamed of yourself. I take it, you are a reasonably intelligent adult who is capable of following science as it's processes continue to uncover more and more regarding what is involved with living organisms and systems?

      You appear to be an arrogant, stubborn throw-back holdout who is unwilling to follow scientific evidence where it leads. Based on some outdated concept that caught cultural favor years ago.

      You need to "double click the refresh button" in your brain my friend.

      And while you are at it, give Thorton a visit in his mother's basement and try and talk some sense to him.

      Delete
    2. bpragmaticSeptember 1, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      [...]

      You appear to be an arrogant, stubborn throw-back holdout who is unwilling to follow scientific evidence where it leads. Based on some outdated concept that caught cultural favor years ago.


      Just a suggestion, but to take down the theory of evolution you're going to need something stronger than ad hominem. An alternative testable theory of 'how' would be a good start.

      Delete
    3. There isn't any theory of evolution.

      Delete
    4. Awwww, poor fatboy Joke Gallien is ronery again!

      He's sooooo ronery!

      Delete
    5. And nice to see that thorton is still a lying coward.

      Delete
    6. He's so ronery, sooooooo ronery!

      Delete
    7. And still no "theory" of evolution.

      BTW Lizzie Liddle has admitted that unguided evolution is NOT science...

      Delete
    8. Spedding belched:

      "Just a suggestion, but to take down the theory of evolution you're going to need something stronger than ad hominem. An alternative testable theory of 'how' would be a good start."

      Bpragmatic responsds:

      Somthing stronger that ad hominem?

      How about: decades of unabated freedom to speculate and conjecture free from any significant rigorous legitimate scientific
      criticism? How about billions upon billions of dollars in funds confiscated from tax payers, and dedicated to pursue the development of bastions of philophical tripe passed of as "science", that, (as far as any one can tell even to this day), is so full of holes you can't even see where the holes begin or end. And it ain't getting better. It is getting far worse.

      This describes what nde and it's related offshoots has had the benefit of.

      On the other hand, something like ID as science is in it's fledgling stages without all of the above undue resources thrown at nde for all these years.
      And anybody with half a brain can see that it's explanatory power is far superior to that of nde. And, as has been pointed out so many times before, it IS testable. It would be very interesting to see all that could come out of something like ID if it had all of the resouces behind it that nde has had.

      Delete
    9. bpragmatic

      And anybody with half a brain can see that it's explanatory power is far superior to that of nde.


      That's exactly the folks who think that, the ones with half a brain.

      The rest of us with full brains know that "POOF! GAWD, er, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DID IT!! doesn't explain a single thing.

      Delete
    10. Even Lizzie Liddle admits unguided evolution is not science. And nothing thortard can say will ever change taht and that makes him very upset.

      Delete
    11. And BTW, saying an intelligent designer designed and built Stonehnege says quite a bit. IOW thanks for once again proving that you are nothing but an ignorant punk.

      Delete
  6. I: If chance events occur at all in nature - meaning events that are random with respect to any particular phenomenon that might be under discussion - then some are likely to be favorable. In other words, we can expect serendipity. We just can't predict it.

    J: This is not taking into account all the conceivable options. If all you mean be "nature" is reality, then it's conceivable that random events occur without being favorable to anything. To even say "favorable" is to say "favorable FOR something." Some future instantiation, sentient preference, etc. But pure randomness doesn't imply any such state of affairs.

    I: As for the argument that, because we can't explain everything, we can't explain anything which is what Jeff's case reduces to, it's nonsense.

    J: But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if there is no finality to explanation or need of explanation (in the case that events are uncaused), then inductive criteria are not relevant to any causal inference. And then the question is, what does "evidence" even mean?

    I: In the case of epilepsy, for example, we can now explain the seizures as the result of a disturbance of the normal electrical activity in a region of the brain. This doesn't mean we can predict the exact firinq sequence of very single neuron in the affected area but it's still a whole lot better than the religious explanation of demonic possession.

    J: It's better for observed cases. But take ADD. I have no doubt that some is due to inherited biochemical issues. But I also have no doubt that some may be due to a lack of discipline for excessively-impulsive children that, in other families, are addressed in the old-fashioned way, prompting an effort to self-discipline that goes a long way towards developing an ability to focus.

    In other words, it's not obvious that similar phenomena are ALWAYS explained by ONLY one set of conditions. But obviously we need evidence for multiple causes if we're going to posit them. But there's plenty of cases of putative paranormal phenomena that seem to be difficult to explain naturally. These may be ultimately explicable by weird coincidences of "normal" causes. But there's nothing per se implausible by the notion that other non-observed entities are intentional. E.g., no one has a clue how to conceive of libertarian causality in terms of a single self materialistically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I should say that no one can make sense of a single self/entity with free-will in terms of the standard model.

      Delete
    2. Jeff September 1, 2013 at 9:33 AM

      [...]

      J: This is not taking into account all the conceivable options. If all you mean be "nature" is reality, then it's conceivable that random events occur without being favorable to anything. To even say "favorable" is to say "favorable FOR something." Some future instantiation, sentient preference, etc. But pure randomness doesn't imply any such state of affairs.


      I thought that's what I was saying pretty much.

      I believe we exist in an objective reality comprised of matter, energy and anything in between. In that sense, I prefer to be thought of as a physicalist rather than a materialist, although both work. Objective reality or the cosmos or Nature has a nature and is comprised of things or phenomena which all have their own individual natures. The rigorous and methodical study of those natures is methodical naturalism.

      For any event, as you say, their is likely to be multiple chains of causation leading to it. On the other side, there will be multiple chains of consequences following from it. Events, if you like, are nodes in a vast network of causal strands. And I agree that whether a particular consequence of a particular event is judged favorable or unfavorable depends entirely on the interests or preferences of the judge. Since there's no reason to think the cosmos cares one way or the other and if there is no God then it's all down to us.

      Genetic mutations can be viewed as an illustration of that view. The great majority are largely neutral with respect to a specific outcome, a smaller number are adverse and a much smaller number still are favorable. Which is which depends entirely on your prespective.

      I: As for the argument that, because we can't explain everything, we can't explain anything which is what Jeff's case reduces to, it's nonsense.

      J: But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if there is no finality to explanation or need of explanation (in the case that events are uncaused), then inductive criteria are not relevant to any causal inference. And then the question is, what does "evidence" even mean?


      Supposing, as I believe, that we find ourselves in the midst of a universe that just is. It has no ultimate purpose as conceived in the mind of some ultimate creator but it does have order and regularities which we can observe. Since, as sentient beings, we prefer continued existence to the alternative, trying to make sense of the world as we experience it seems to be a good idea. Creating models or explanation which we can test against what we actually observe is one way of doing it and we'll use anything that comes to hand to help construct them: guesses, hunches, intuition, speculation, conjecture and yes, induction. Evidence is just observational data that can be fitted into an explanatory framework and thereby becomes support for it.

      [Continued...]

      Delete
    3. [...continued]

      I: In the case of epilepsy, for example, we can now explain the seizures as the result of a disturbance of the normal electrical activity in a region of the brain. This doesn't mean we can predict the exact firinq sequence of very single neuron in the affected area but it's still a whole lot better than the religious explanation of demonic possession.

      J: It's better for observed cases. But take ADD. I have no doubt that some is due to inherited biochemical issues. But I also have no doubt that some may be due to a lack of discipline for excessively-impulsive children that, in other families, are addressed in the old-fashioned way, prompting an effort to self-discipline that goes a long way towards developing an ability to focus.


      As we've said, causation is a more complex issue than people think. In the case of epilepsy, explaining it as disturbances in the normal electrical activity in a part of the brain is better than demonic possession becaue it is a better description of what we are now able to observe. But it isn't the whole story. We still need to find what causes thsoe disturbances. Is it some sort of biochemical imbalance in the neurons which affects their firing rate or an inability to detect chemical or electrical signals from their neighbors? If there is some sort of deficiency like that is it a consequence of some genetic defect? And so on.

      Thinking in terms of First and Final Causes may be a useful exercise for philosophers and theologians but science, being a more pragmatic enterprise, has to start with where we find ourselves and work outwards from there. It's not much use for answering questions of meaning and purpose or providing comfort for those in trouble but it does have its uses. The thing I'm typing on and watching or the medical treatments I've received are just a few pieces of evidence for that.

      Delete
    4. I: Thinking in terms of First and Final Causes may be a useful exercise for philosophers and theologians but science, being a more pragmatic enterprise, has to start with where we find ourselves and work outwards from there.

      J: The problem is that there are too many conceivable ways that what we think we know about "where we find ourselves" could be radically wrong. We are CONSTANTLY voluntarily imposing inductive criteria, conditioned by our categories, on our raw, subjective, conscious experience.

      The only way we can call this imposition objective and be accurate is if induction just IS valid. And an a-teleological origin of beings and/or states of affairs renders the validity of induction unknowable merely because it would then be unintelligible. Parsimony, as a criteria, has no conceivable relevance if either of the following are true:

      1) We have no idea whether events are caused or not (this would be the case if the principle of causality is false QUA a principle),

      2) Events are caused, but no events are libertarianly-caused, rendering all explanations void of finality.

      This is why Scott is where he's at. He wants to be part of a consensi that isn't committed to either the principle of causality or the reality of libertarian causality. And that's why Scott has to ultimately admit that the claim that 1) such a consensi exists is no more or less knowably probable than the claim that 2) such a consensi does NOT exist. But it's worse. For only if the law of non-contradiction is self-evidently true can we know there are only those 2 possibilities. And Scott claims we can't know anything self-evidently. Thus, for all he knows, there is an infinite set of illogical possibilities by those 2.

      Competent/benevolent theism is entailed in the very conceivability of the validity of rationality when it's analyzed down enough. This seems to imply that we will be held accountable. But we'll be alright. Benevolence only requires accountability as a motivator unto the greater good, not for petty vindictiveness. You and I will one day be free from this libertarian project and live in total harmony and bliss. Unless of course rationality doesn't have the validity we think it does! ;)

      Delete
    5. J: Benevolence only requires accountability as a motivator unto the greater good, not for petty vindictiveness.

      M: Yes, this is pretty much how I came to my current Christian Universalism position. Punishment (even in the sense of "that act X which you did was bad, shame on you") is only meaningful if there's a "now go and change your behavior" implied; otherwise it's just sadism.

      J: ... live in total harmony and bliss.

      M: On the other hand, this I doubt. I think it would be boring and a boring heaven seems to me to be a contradiction, not to mention a waste (we're learning a lot of stuff in this life in order to... NOT use it?).

      Delete
    6. J: ... live in total harmony and bliss.

      M: On the other hand, this I doubt. I think it would be boring

      J: You say you're a Christian universalist. The Christian tradition claims that Jesus existed with God prior to creation. Presumably, that social existence was characterized by harmony and bliss, right? And if so, was it therefore boring? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

      Delete
    7. Jeff: The problem is that there are too many conceivable ways that what we think we know about "where we find ourselves" could be radically wrong.

      So, we start out knowing all of our ideas start out as essentially educated guesss. Check.

      Jeff: We are CONSTANTLY voluntarily imposing inductive criteria, conditioned by our categories, on our raw, subjective, conscious experience.

      No one has actually formulated a "principle" of induction" that actually works in practice. So, the idea that we actually use induction, which includes the idea that we can get theories from data, doesn't withstand rational criticism.

      Jeff: The only way we can call this imposition objective and be accurate is if induction just IS valid.

      We're mistaken, Jeff. it's that simple. I don't deny that you have the subjective experience of using induction. However, as you just pointed out, there are many ways that what we think we find ourselves doing, including using induction, can be wrong.

      Furthermore, what you just described is compatible with conjecture and criticism. You just keep calling it induction as a means to defend it.

      Jeff: Parsimony, as a criteria, has no conceivable relevance if either of the following are true

      Jeff: 1) We have no idea whether events are caused or not (this would be the case if the principle of causality is false QUA a principle),

      Jeff: 2) Events are caused, but no events are libertarianly-caused, rendering all explanations void of finality.

      Can you point out what definition of science requires all explanations be reductionist in nature? Nor can we observe causes.

      Furthermore, parsimony falls under the umbrella of a good explanation. That is, a good explanations are hard to vary without significantly reducing its ability to explain the phenomena in question. On the other hand, bad explanations can be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question.

      Jeff: This is why Scott is where he's at. He wants to be part of a consensi that isn't committed to either the principle of causality or the reality of libertarian causality.

      Of course, what Jeff has left out is the option of having discarded justificationism all together and replacing it with trial and error, which is what I've explained over and over again. The thing is, Jeff keeps reframing the issue as if he cannot recognize his conception of knowledge as being an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      Why do you think that might be, Jeff?

      Delete
    8. Scott: So, we start out knowing all of our ideas start out as essentially educated guesss. Check.

      J: Uh, not by your view, Scott. By your view, education doesn't exist.

      Scott: No one has actually formulated a "principle" of induction" that actually works in practice.

      J: First, why are you not arguing against Ian, Scott? He agrees that induction is used in science. Are you just a pathetic bigot such that fellow atheists are great merely because they're atheists, no matter how radically you disagree with them about all else? I can't think of another explanation for that, Scott. Can you help me?

      Second, what would it mean, to YOU, for induction to WORK?

      Scott: Furthermore, what you just described is compatible with conjecture and criticism. You just keep calling it induction as a means to defend it.

      J: No, Scott. LOGIC BOOKS call it induction. Why don't you read one.

      Scott: Can you point out what definition of science requires all explanations be reductionist in nature?

      J: What do you mean by a "reductionist" explanation? And give examples of both subclasses so I'll no what you're talking about.

      Scott: Nor can we observe causes.

      J: You really DON'T remember! You've already said that we don't know we observe. So what possible difference could it make? You REALLY don't get that claiming all propositions are equally a-probable is just what sane people MEAN by radical skepticism.

      Scott: Furthermore, parsimony falls under the umbrella of a good explanation.

      J: That is certainly not knowable if all propositions are equally a-probable. You really DON'T remember!

      Scott: That is, a good explanations are hard to vary without significantly reducing its ability to explain the phenomena in question.

      J: Scott, I know you can't remember, but you have already said MULTIPLE times now that any proposition you assert is NO MORE probable than any proposition that contradicts it. Thus, I can say parsimony is a criteria of the worst explanations, and you couldn't know I was more likely wrong than you.

      Scott: On the other hand, bad explanations can be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question.

      J: No, Scott. If you don't have a clue whether you remember, you CERTAINLY don't have a clue about whether any KIND of explanation has ever been conceived of, much less evaluated normatively. You are UTTERLY confused!

      Delete
  7. Hey IDiot-creationists, take a look at these:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069924

    http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/discoveroids-reject-reality-its-not-nice/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great catch, TWT!

      You validated my 10 seconds of perusing this cesspool today.

      Delete
    2. "As a control we show that unrelated proteins do not show convergence. … This clearly does not ‘prove’ that yet unknown models are impossible, but the theory of evolution leads to extremely strong predictions, and so the onus is now on others to propose testable alternatives."



      Oh my goodness! The shame train just keeps on a-rollin all night long.

      An idiot can look at a statement like this (taken from the "study" twt listed above} and list unverified and perhaps unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS the whole sticking paradign of nde rests upon.


      Now twt, I think, can be somewhat excused for his ignorance, as I think he is relatively young, naive and still delusional about "life" and a realistic perspective regarding such.

      But Pedant goes on to say "That's a great catch" and some arrogant judgement about "cesspool today".

      Pedant, I take it, is older than twt and should know better. His arrogance is only exceeded by his willfull ignorance.


      Delete
    3. bp, what is your testable alternative (with no "unverified and perhaps unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS") to the theory of evolution? Surely you must have an alternative theory? Don't skimp on the details.

      By the way, I'm 61 years old.


      Delete
    4. Hi Pedant, I'm kind of leery of press releases but you may find this interesting too:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130828144800.htm

      The paper itself is behind a paywall here:

      http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/88/20130614

      Delete
    5. bpragmatic

      An idiot can look at a statement like this (taken from the "study" twt listed above} and list unverified and perhaps unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS the whole sticking paradign of nde rests upon.


      You seem to meet the qualification. Go ahead and list all the ASSUMPTIONS along with your evidence that they are wrong.

      Delete
    6. TWT:

      An author's preprint is available here:

      https://files.nyu.edu/jj1006/public/papers/gc_distribution.pdf

      I haven't read it yet.

      Delete
    7. Thornton says:

      "You seem to meet the qualification. Go ahead and list all the ASSUMPTIONS along with your evidence that they are wrong."

      Bpragmatic responds:

      Ha Ha Ha! The old standard nde bonehead blogger line of crap. What is pathetic is that the assumptions have been presented ad-nauseum to you freaks by Dr. Hunter on his blog alone. Let alone all of the other sources available on the internet as well as peer reviewed papers and books, journal articles etc.

      Apparently you are unable to read or listen with comprehension. Or maybe your chronic denialism is the result of some sort of disease that has spreads through the brains of certain individuals who espouse nde with mindless enthusiam reminiscent of the large crowd mentality. Hip Hip Hooray! We gots a hair up the arse regarding religion! We gonna kill it dead!

      Kinda like you and Kilo Papa sitting in your mothers basement watching the same kind of crowd mentality in action during a football game, while scratching each others balls, by the way! Not to mention raiding your mom's basement stash of beer. (see Kilo's incoherent babbling below.)

      Delete
    8. LOL! Clueless teenaged Creationist bpragmatic can't list a single one of those unverified ASSUMPTIONS he claims. What a surprise.

      Poor bp. He desperately wants to be taken seriously by the adults but with his pitiful scientific ignorance and juvenile whining it just isn't happening.

      Delete
    9. Hey dipshits, ID is not anti-evolution and the paper doesn't say anything wrt unguided evolution.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joke G. Still fat, stupid, and so very very ronery!

      It was hilarious watching Alan Fox drive you into another hissy-fit meltdown at UD though!

      Delete
    11. Cowardly thorton cupcake- still upset that I have exposed its ignorance on many occasions.

      Life is good

      Delete
    12. What's the matter Chubs - too embarrassed to post at UD after that beatdown Alan Fox gave you? Need to hide here and fling poo for a while to feel like the Internet Tough Guy again?

      Delete
    13. Umm asshole, I exposed Alan as the ignorant ass that he is. And now I am here to continue to expose your cowardice and ignorance.

      But nice to see that you are still delusional...

      Delete
    14. LOL! Good old Chubby Joke Gallien. Always a legend in his own mind.

      Delete
    15. I can support what I say. OTOH you are also nothing but a blowhard coward.

      Heck Alan is choking on the fact that silent mutations- genetic changes that don't change amino acid coded for (and yes DNA is used as a symbol to represent amino acids)- cause the expected protein to be misfolded, which in turn causes problems for the organism.

      So say what you will. You are a known cowardly blowhard who is still upset because you were kicked out of chuck-e-cheese

      Delete
    16. Sooooooo ronery! Fat Joke is sooooo ronery!

      Delete
    17. LoL! thorton gets handed his ass once again and can only sit by the keyboard and drool.

      Delete
  8. "Football is here! Time for some serious beer drinking and ball scratching!!

    Goddamn but I love this time of year!!"

    Jesus H. Christ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Kilo,

      How is it down in that basement with Thorton?

      Whose balls are you scratchin?

      Delete
    2. "Universe rejoice! My beloved son, kilo papa has done good. I'm creating a chorus of singing donkey anuses to sing for him till the end of time!"

      Da Lord

      Delete
    3. -kilo papa, kilo papa come in, over

      -this is kilo papa, go ahead, over

      -kilo papa, you are mike oscar romeo oscar november, over

      Delete
  9. Thorton said:
    "LOL! Clueless teenaged Creationist bpragmatic can't list a single one of those unverified ASSUMPTIONS he claims. What a surprise."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    The assumptions might be so numerous it seems to me a complete list could take an enormous amount of time and effort to compile if it were even possible.

    But one general assumption, that is empiricaly, scientifically unverified and perhaps unverifiable is something I believe Cornelius discussed in the audio above, is that all of the different, integal, participating molecular components required to "run" the protein synthesis processes "evolved" by nde mechanisms. And the processes themselves. This can only be an assertion based on assumptions.

    Another nde concept that comes to mind that was mentioned above is convergence.
    This was a term nde proponents made up to sound scientific enough so the term would become a sort of proof in itself when discussing one of the many phenomena of nde that is undemonstrable. Basically, I believe, it is a term to describe more or less the same phylogenitic feature that provides the same function in non related organisms. Meaning, the feature would have had to evolved independently within the different lineages. I have seen it argued, that to the extent convergence is observed in living organisms, (it is seen many many times} it is unlikely nde is capable of such serendipity, as Dr. Hunter might describe it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! You were supposed to list the unverified assumptions and your evidence the assumptions were wrong.

      All you could come up with is "evolution!!" which isn't an assumption - it's been verified with 150+ years of positive evidence.

      Also, convergence isn't an assumption. It's an empirical observation. Evolution often hits on the same solution in different lineages because there are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems animals face. Fish and seals are both streamlined because that's the most efficient shape for moving rapidly through water. It has nothing to do with CH's ridiculous claims of "serendipity".

      Delete
    2. thortard the cowardly equivocator strikes again

      Delete
  10. "LOL! You were supposed to list the unverified assumptions and your evidence the assumptions were wrong."

    You have been asked to provide envidence that has sufficiently, empirically demonstrated that nde processes are capable of what the claims are. And you haven't.


    "All you could come up with is "evolution!!" which isn't an assumption - it's been verified with 150+ years of positive evidence."


    Oh brother, here is that old fall back chant that Thorton resorts to after his vacous anecdotal rants. 150 years of circular reasoning, begging the question, confirmation bias, dissing off the contrary, hand waving, story telling, etc etc etc


    "Evolution (I assume you mean nde) often hits on the same solution in different lineages because there are only a finite number of solutions to the physics problems animals face."

    Sure it did Thornton, Why dontcha provide some peer reviewed papers that empirically demonstrates your assertions. Solutions to what? when? where? why? And how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BP, if you plug your ears and squeeze shut your eyes and go LA! LA! LA! I bet you can make all those millions of studies on biology and genetics and paleontology, all those college, university, and professional research labs, all those natural history museums just go away!




      Well, maybe not.

      Delete
    2. Here's a recent paper on convergence in cave-dwelling spiders.

      Repeated and Time-Correlated Morphological Convergence in Cave-Dwelling Harvestmen (Opiliones, Laniatores) from Montane Western North America

      Abstract: Many cave-dwelling animal species display similar morphologies (troglomorphism) that have evolved convergent within and among lineages under the similar selective pressures imposed by cave habitats. Here we study such ecomorphological evolution in cave-dwelling Sclerobuninae harvestmen (Opiliones) from the western United States, providing general insights into morphological homoplasy, rates of morphological change, and the temporal context of cave evolution.

      Let me know if you need help with the big sciency words.

      Delete
    3. Here's another one on convergence in aquatic snakes, with emphasis on the physics issues of water flow around the head

      Morphological convergence as a consequence of extreme functional demands: examples from the feeding system of natricine snakes

      Abstract: Despite repeated acquisitions of aquatic or semi-aquatic lifestyles revolving around piscivory, snakes have not evolved suction feeding. Instead, snakes use frontally or laterally directed strikes to capture prey under water. If the aquatic medium constrains strike performance because of its physical properties, we predict morphological and functional convergence in snakes that use similar strike behaviours. Here we use natricine snakes to test for such patterns of convergence in morphology and function. Our data show that frontal strikers have converged on a similar morphology characterized by narrow elongate heads with a reduced projected frontal surface area. Moreover, simple computational fluid dynamics models show that the observed morphological differences are likely biologically relevant as they affect the flow of water around the head. In general, our data suggest that the direction of evolution may be predictable if constraints are strong and evolutionary solutions limited.

      Let me know when you've read those studies, there are only a few hundred thousand more.

      Delete
    4. Nothing in those articles about accumulations of genetic accidents.

      thortard is just another cowardly equivocator...

      Delete
    5. Cowardly thortard, so ignorant

      Delete
    6. Fat Joe, sooooo ronery!

      Wipe the donut crumbs off your 17 chins Chubs, you're a mess.

      Delete
    7. Cowardly throtard, still upset because its ignorance is exposed once again.

      Delete
    8. You missed some crumbs on chins 7, 12, and 14. Try again.

      Delete
    9. YOU missed the sperm on your chins. Please wipe it off.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joke Gallien has splooge all over his many chins? What a surprise.

      Whatever makes you happy Chubs.

      Delete
    11. Exposing your ignorance makes me happy. And that means I am one very happy dude.

      Thank you

      Delete
    12. Thorton says:

      "BP, if you plug your ears and squeeze shut your eyes and go LA! LA! LA! I bet you can make all those millions of studies on biology and genetics and paleontology, all those college, university, and professional research labs, all those natural history museums just go away!"


      Bpragmatic responds:

      Thorton, consider this. "Millions of studies......" really is not the issue.

      I mean, a majestic castle can be built upon sand. But when the innevitable shift of tide occurs {additional evidence to the contrary} that particular structure comes tumbling down. Doesn't matter how tall or how many inhabitants dwell within. It just falls over regardless of wishing it doesn't. And regardless of rhetorical efforts to prop it up.

      This is, what one might claim, reality.




      Delete
    13. bpragmatic

      (plugs his ears, squeezes shut his eyes and goes LA! LA! LA!)


      I see you didn't have the intelligence or the sack to read the papers you asked for.

      I can link to some Flintstones cartoons or Chick tracks if they're more your speed.

      Delete
    14. Thorton quotes a "study":

      " Many cave-dwelling animal species display similar morphologies (troglomorphism) that have evolved convergent within and among lineages under the similar selective pressures imposed by cave habitats."

      Well, ok, similar morpholgies are observed. So how does that demonstrate the assertion that these morphologies have "evolved" via nde processes, etc.

      Again, this is nothing more than unsubsantiated conjecture.

      It is hilarious: look at the term
      "troglomorphism".

      Another attempt to coin some kind of term that can be later used as "evidence" entirely based upon the term, to be an alledged support that nde has been demonstrated as to have occured.

      What a pathetic and destructive philosophy.

      Delete
    15. "Troglomorphism"

      Man, that reminds me of a type of something "trog" like from the music world. Some of you old farts might enjoy this blast from the past. Musical conjecture on parallel with philosophical conjecture. But it makes a lot more sense. HA HA HA HA!


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzHpGjvRgTc

      Delete
    16. The willfully ignorant teenaged Creationist can't be bothered to read or learn about the scientific terminology...

      TROGLOMORPHIC ADAPTATIONS

      Adaptations to the cave environment, particularly for species living in the dark zone e.g. lengthening of appendages; loss of pigment; modification of eyes; modified olfactory sensory organs (for "sniffing" out prey and mates etc.); extra sensory structures e.g. elongated legs used as feelers and sometimes modified chelicerae (the grasping organs used to hold prey foods etc.; and reduced metabolic rate are all considered adaptations to the dark zone of caves.

      ...so he turns to his usual class clown act to hide the embarrassment.

      He'll go far in life with that approach I'm sure.

      Delete
    17. My friend Thorton. {Before I commence kicking your ass) Let me complete a process of historical thoughts that tie into the modern sythesis, of dawkinian conjecture.

      First of all, I just gotta say that, I believe that R Dawkins was hugely influenced by the Troggs and their song that was posted above. From what I understand, Dawkins, the self proclaimed "
      master of universal understanding has said that free will does not exist. Well, in my opinion he has leached off of the original idea of the Troggs, who, as far as I can tell, came up with the original concept of "I can't control myself". I think the asshole needs to come forth and give credit where credit is due, and admit the Troggs were ahead of their time and contributed to the philosophy that the son of a bitch has cashed in on.





      Delete
    18. Clueless teenage Creationist bpragmatic back to being drunk and stupid again, instead of just stupid.

      Oh well.

      Delete
  11. Ok. Now I will focus a bit on KICKING THORTONS ASS. (which is in the proverbial scense, of course, too easy. I mean it is like taking candy from a shelf that mom left open to anyone who can see.}


    Thorton cites an alledged "scientific" study:

    "Adaptations to the cave environment, particularly for species living in the dark zone e.g. lengthening of appendages; loss of pigment; modification of eyes; modified olfactory sensory organs (for "sniffing" out prey and mates etc.); extra sensory structures e.g. elongated legs used as feelers and sometimes modified chelicerae (the grasping organs used to hold prey foods etc.; and reduced metabolic rate are all considered adaptations to the dark zone of caves.

    ...so he turns to his usual class clown act to hide the embarrassment."



    Bpragmatic responds:

    So how do these "scientists" demonstrate they have isolated the relevant sequential progressions of related organisms they cite as evidence for claiming alledged nde caused progressions in structure?

    Thornty cant say. Maybe there is some bullshit extrapolation expressed is the "study" he is so sure demonstrates, beyond question that nde can expain it all. HA HA HA HA!

    How do the "scientists" in the "study" that Thornty cites explain the actual development of appendages that, apparently have been observed to merely "lengthen" apparently from a shorter appendage to the same appendage that is merely longer.

    Then there is talk about "loss of pigment". Fine. But this merely begs the question:How the fuck did did the "pigment" come about in the first place to be eventually lost? Well of course Thornties answer is nde did it. Sure, asshole. Other than conjecture based multitudes of assumptions, show how that it has been demostrated "scientifically" to have occured. Of course no way in hell you can.

    Then you cite the "modification" of something that "real science" has no fucking clue as to how it came about, from an nde approach. The prospect of the required systems involved being developed by nde mechanisms totally "scientifically" undemonstrated. But what the fuck. The fuckers in hollywood have told us it is the truth, in the "movies" and
    "tv" (as shown on tv) HA HA HA! So, obviously, unsupported conjecture surely becomes "truth" when that happens. HA HA HA HA!


    ReplyDelete
  12. I'd like to know why Cornelius allows people to use such foul language on his blog. Although Cornelius has interesting things to say, I can't recommend this site to friends and family because it is frequented by some of the most foul-mouthed, uncivil people on the planet.

    What is it about Darwinism that brings out the worst in people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most "foul language" isn't coming from people that you god pushers label as 'Darwinists'. It's coming from your fellow thumpers bpragmatic and joe g.

      Delete
    2. @TWT: I guess you haven't read many of Thorton's posts. I'd ban him and bpragmatic from my own blog, if they were ever to make an appearance there.

      Delete
    3. Alethinon61 says:

      "Although Cornelius has interesting things to say, I can't recommend this site to friends and family because it is frequented by some of the most foul-mouthed, uncivil people on the planet."

      Bpragmatic responds:

      First of all, what do you mean by "uncivil people"? What are your standards and where do the standards come from?

      Then,
      I suggest you recommend to your "friends and family" they read Dr. Hunters articles and strongly consider avoiding the comments section. If they insist on reading the comments section, explain to them that there has been decades of speculation passed of as "science" in the form of nde. It has had MURDEROUS consequences in it's application to culture. And their is virtually NO REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the conjecture of nde. And some people are pissed off enough to use strong language.

      As an alternative, suggest they watch the popular TV shows. Or maybe take in a movie or five. Out of hollywood. Or turn on their favorite Rap station. Or maybe watch a football game and learn how important it is to dominate the other guy. Yea, that's it. Then they can more easily be called to arms, with that attitude, to blow the brains out of a fellow human being in the name of "justice".

      I think I smell hypocrisy, therefore I am.

      Delete
    4. The whole thruth says:

      "The most "foul language" isn't coming from people that you god pushers label as 'Darwinists'. It's coming from your fellow thumpers bpragmatic and joe g."


      Bpragmatic responds:

      So what. where it (foul language} comes from? Also, please define what a "god pusher" is. It has already been pointed out that nde nazis have a "hair up their asses" regarding some kind of "religion". Personally, (no offense to the multitude of alethinon61's friends and family who are surely looking in on this discussion with huge interest and likely to be damaged phsycologically because they chose to view this instead of the pop-culture shit they are probably looking at anyway) I believe there are many "thinking" people who see the irrelevance of twt's make believe dichotomy that he puports to define the argument. That is his imagined argument he thinks is between "religion" and nde.

      What a fucking jack-ass.

      Delete
  13. bp, you keep saying "nde" as though it encompasses all of evolutionary theory and as though everyone who accepts and/or studies evolution considers themselves a neo-Darwinist.

    You also said:

    "Well, ok, similar morpholgies are observed. So how does that demonstrate the assertion that these morphologies have "evolved" via nde processes, etc."

    If not natural evolutionary processes, then what? Creation/intervention/front-loading/magic-spells or something else by allah-vishnu-yhwh-satan-odin-jesus-shiva-holy-ghost-angels-demons or...?

    What are the ID-creationism processes that brought about morphologies and "similar morphologies" in cave dwelling critters? Don't skimp on the evidence and details.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If not natural evolutionary processes, then what? Creation/intervention/front-loading/magic-spells or something else by allah-vishnu-yhwh-satan-odin-jesus-shiva-holy-ghost-angels-demons or...?"


    Don't know. Maybe the flying lasagna monster? About as likely as nde.


    Your comment is a reminder of a joke you all may have heard.

    A man is walking down a street late at night. Across the street and under a street light he observes a drunk guy walking around zig zagging and in circles under the street light staring at the ground. This continues for some time. So, being curious, he goes across the street and asks the drunk guy what he is doing. The drunk guy tells him he is looking for his keys. The man says "well, you have been looking in the same place for a long time now. Are you sure you lost your keys in this area?" The drunk replies, "no, I lost them about a quarter of a mile from here." Astonished, the man asks, "well why do you keep looking around here when it is obvious the keys are nowhere around here?" The drunk guy replies, "because there is a street light here, and it is dark where I lost the keys."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Latest Mp3 Tunes, Mp3 Musics, Mp3 Songs Tunes, Mp3 Music Tunes, Funny Tunes, Funny Mp3 Music, Indian Tunes, Lol Tunes, Music of Songs, Bollywood Tunes, Latest Bollywood Music Tunes, Entertainment Pictures, Entertainment Fun Mania, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment Latest updates, Bollywood News updates, Hollywood News updates and all Hot Current Affairs in only one Social Website
    hotcurrentaffairs.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. If we're going to have religious jokes I've always been partial to this one:

    God looks down and notices that Adam is all alone while all the animals have companions, so he decides to create a companion for man as well. He comes to see Adam and says to him, "Adam, you are my greatest creation and therefore, I am going to create for you the ultimate companion. She will worship the very ground you walk on, she will long for you and no other, she will be highly intelligent, she will wait on you hand and foot and obey your every command, she will be beautiful, and all it will cost you is an arm and a leg." Thinking for a few moments, Adam replies, "What could I get for a rib?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Spedding farted:
    "If we're going to have religious jokes I've always been partial to this one:"



    Spedding. Gotta admit, might of missed a "religious joke" you referred to above. Can you please point the religious joke out?

    On the other hand, and correct me if wrong, seems you are referring to the analogy presented above regarding the drunk looking for a solution to being able to open a car door and start the engine of the vehicle, allowing him to navigate the automobile to the desired destination.

    That was a simple metaphor to help some people to understand, as far as a real scientist can tell, the "science of the day" can't "find" anywhere near the required evidence that a reasonable individual would consider sufficient empirical evidence to make the proclamations made regarding the "origins" and "progressions" to living systems observed today, via nde processes.

    You are a hyper assertive, psuedo-intellectual clown, who has some sort of "hair up your ass" regarding "religion" with severely insufficient evidence to make a case for nde, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RELIGION YOU HATE IS CORRECT OR NOT!!!!

    Look, I am sure you can find mental physicians who might be able to help you work out your personal problems through counselling and therapy. But, please, stop mixing your personal metaphysics with what actual science needs to demonstrate to make a legitimate claim for nde as an explanation for what it purports to explain.


    Other than that, you are one stupid ass.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian

    looks like you are a stupid, farting clown. I didn't know we are so similar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,

      Ha Ha Ha!

      The blurb above to Ian is a bit rough. The image of a "stupid farting clown" is hilarious.

      Would bet the lad doesn't take the name calling too seriously. Atleast I hope not.

      Delete
    2. bpragmatic,

      few years ago I thought atheists are satanists. Doesn't seem like that but it would be nice to bring them to our side of the fence.
      OK maybe just Thorton is a satanist.
      :D

      Delete