Saturday, September 21, 2013

Here is David Penny’s New Confirmation of Evolution

The Phylogenetic Signal Myth

David Penny and co workers are out with another confirmation of evolution. In a Darwin’s God exclusive, Penny assures us that there is no question about the fact of evolution, but from his Popperian perspective, it is always important to put forward testable models. And the result, as usual, is that evolution wins yet again. One result, from Column 7 of Table 2 of the paper, shows that the probability that the proteins in question could have arisen by chance is 1.94 x 10^-19. And that is just one of their many tests. In other words, evolution is pretty much a done deal. As they conclude: “The analyses establish that some form of ancestral convergence is occurring.” There’s only one problem: This is all junk science.

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Penny’s new paper relies on an age-old evolutionary contrastive argument that goes like this. Either nature is random, or evolution is true. In this case, any relationship or pattern, that can be found between proteins in different species, proves that the proteins are not randomly designed. Therefore they must have evolved.

The reasoning here may seem to be upside down. After all, if the results show that the proteins could not have arisen by chance, then how can that prove evolution—the theory that says proteins (and everything else for that matter) arose from random events such as mutations? Would not that finding be a problem for evolution?

The answer is that, for evolutionists, such results falsify creation and design. As Kant explained three centuries ago in his theory of the solar system evolution:

Thus, God's choice, not having the slightest motive for tying them [planetary orbits] to one single arrangement, would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts of deviations and differences.

In other words, there should be no pattern to the planetary orbits if they were designed. Otherwise God is capricious, selecting certain designs for no reason.

Evolution is not about science. It’s about God.

175 comments:

  1. I think that this paragraph in the introduction of the paper answers many of Hunter's burning questions:

    "We use a non-evolutionary null model and develop a quantitative test of ancestral convergence, and apply it to a range of datasets that have diverged at deeper and deeper times. As a control we show that unrelated proteins do not show convergence. Furthermore, an excessive number of free parameters are required to account for the observed convergence by other processes. 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."

    Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:

      Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow.

      1. I've already done that. I tested creation and it came out unquestionably true. The probability of chance origins of a set of proteins was 1.94 x 10^-19. And that was just one test of many, all of which returned similar magnitude results (or worse).

      2. How do the evolutionists know that evolution is the only alternative to chance?

      Delete
    2. 1. What is your testable model? Can you state it here or link to it?

      2. See below.

      Delete
    3. What is your testable model?

      My point was that testing against chance can go both ways.

      Delete
    4. Evolution is not "sheer dumb luck," Cornelius. Those are two distinct hypotheses. The difference, in case you have forgotten, is that one of them has no feedback and the other has.

      So what is your testable model? I don't think you have one and I don't think you can even have one in principle. Bill Dembski had something to say about that. Google "pathetic level of detail."

      Delete
    5. I'll try again: The evolutionists claim their results show evolution to be beyond a reasonable doubt. They do indeed have astronomical probabilities to justify that claim. But those probabilities come from a computation where random protein sequences are the null hypothesis. IOW, their triumphant conclusion comes from the assumption that evolution is the only alternative to chance (see Column 7 of Table 2). There is no scientific justification for that assumption. It is a metaphysical assumption. Then they insist that anyone who doubts that the world arose spontaneously must provide a *scientific* testable model.

      Delete
    6. From the paper: "It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe."

      That's how science works, Cornelius. Welcome to the real world!

      In the same way, we don't know with absolute certainty that gravity works the way it does. Perhaps some joker of a demiurge is pulling wool over our eyes. No one is losing any amount of sleep over that, however.

      Thanks for your concern, however.

      Delete
    7. From the paper: "It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe."

      That's how science works, Cornelius. Welcome to the real world!


      Yes, you got it, that's how science works.

      Delete
    8. Oh, thanks for explaining that to me!

      Delete
    9. Oleg. You have required a lot of "schooling" over time, it has been observed.

      It has been said that nde starts off with the (philosophical, really) assumption (non-verifiable) that macro-evolution exists when it has never been unambiguously empirically demonstrated without highly unusual (from a real scientific pov) amount of speculation and conjecture.

      And that Darwinism is nothing more than a series of philosophical assumptions rather credible science.

      As such, to place such body of speculation in the realm of "science" de-legitimitizes a sound and "disciplined" concept of real scientific exploration.

      And cheapens and detracts severely what real scientifc endeavors can do to enhance social well being.

      All for the sake of your simpleton a-priori philosophical preferences? You degenerate fool. You do not even contemplate the social fallout your ill begotten philosophy has on, for example, the kids in the ghetto. You live, probably, in some sort of ivory tower comfort zone, potentially financed by many who are highly aware of the speculative nature of your masturabitorial philosophies.


      Delete
    10. Cornelius Hunter

      oleg: Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow.

      1. I've already done that. I tested creation and it came out unquestionably true.


      I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one CH. Where and when was this test and result published?

      You'll understand the skepticism since you've been caught telling so many bare-faced lies about this sort of thing before.

      So, where can this research by you be found?

      Delete
    11. Oleg,

      "Oh, thanks for explaining that to me!"

      Wow, Oleg, that's a classic example of something flying way over your head. Go back and read your exchange with Cornelius again. Maybe a second reading will trip a switch. At least I hope it will. If not, all I can do is repeat myself, Wow!

      Delete
    12. bpsychopathic drooled:

      "All for the sake of your simpleton a-priori philosophical preferences? "

      That's hilarious coming from an IDiot-creationist with an a priori simpleton 'God-did-it' philosophical preference.

      Delete
    13. "That's hilarious coming from an IDiot-creationist with an a priori simpleton 'God-did-it' philosophical preference."

      Bpragmatic responds:

      Where do you get that?

      Delete
    14. And what if one believes there is an intelligence of some kind behind biological processes?

      That does nothing to support nde claims.

      Delete
  2. "Until then, your protestations ring hollow"

    So do yours.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Until then, your protestations ring hollow"

    So do yours.

    ReplyDelete
  4. oleg:

    Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow.

    How do the evolutionists know that evolution is the only alternative to chance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't, Cornelius. Penny and coworkers state that right in the paragraph I quoted.

      Delete
    2. They don't, Cornelius. Penny and coworkers state that right in the paragraph I quoted.

      Actually they do. It is by comparing to the random chance hypothesis that they arrive at the astronomical probabilities for convergence of ancestral sequences (which they take to indicate common descent), which allows them to make their triumphant conclusion that “The analyses establish that some form of ancestral convergence is occurring.”

      Delete
    3. Exactly. They tested one specific model of protein evolution against another. If you don't like the null hypothesis the researchers used (and they admit it is not a good one), feel free to supply one.

      Delete
    4. The molecular convergence you referenced a few posts ago is blowing up some fundamental concepts of ancestral relatedness. Not to worry about people like Oleg. He's a die hard that will not tolerate the truth at any level that might imply a designer but Once the greater population understands the level of molecular convergence going on the more the Darwin Die hards will become marginalized.

      Delete
    5. Long time no see, Elijah. Do you have any estimates by when we "Darwin diehards" will be marginalized? IIRC, Discovery Institute promised that by 2018. You guys have got to hurry up if you want to make that happen!

      Delete
    6. Oleg says:
      Long time no see, Elijah. Do you have any estimates by when we "Darwin diehards" will be marginalized?



      Bpragmatic responds:
      No need to ask that question. Just observe. Nde is being marginalized on a day to day basis by real science. The "precious" (to the nde proponents) speculation that have been ultra liberally granted to the nde speculators, is now coming into "real scientificically driven" questioning regarding the deplete conjecture that is at it's basis. Now, it is only a matter of time before the a majority of minds in culture are able to atleast see the accurate measure of hypocrisy driving the nde philosophy.

      Delete
    7. "Long time no see, Elijah."

      Alzheimers setting in Oleg? We had exchanges just last week

      " Do you have any estimates by when we "Darwin diehards" will be marginalized? IIRC, Discovery Institute promised that by 2018. You guys have got to hurry up if you want to make that happen!"

      lol....Poor little soul. I'd say not being able to crack double digit atheism in most polls is pretty much marginalized but thats bound to sink even lower when the public sees the data thats been coming out of molecular convergence and the notable scientists questioning the efficacy of natural selection. For atheists such as yourself the evidence is pretty clear. Why hang out and troll on an ID blog if you did not feel marginalized? ;) You can practically smell the fear.

      Delete
    8. Oh, I am quaking in my boots at the mere sight of this Elijah warrior. :)

      He reminds me of that fearless fighter known as Baghdad Bob.

      Hey, Elijah, can you list any respectable universities where creationism is taught?

      Delete
    9. "Hey, Elijah, can you list any respectable universities where creationism is taught?"


      Can you list any "respectable" biological science departments in any university where nde has any prominence? Pardon the oxymoron.

      Delete
    10. Gladly, bpragmatic.

      Why don't we begin with Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics led by Martin Nowak?

      Delete
    11. Or how about Princeton? Its Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology has a core group of faculty working on evolution and genetics.

      I could continue, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

      Delete
    12. Oleg says:

      "Gladly, bpragmatic.

      Why don't we begin with Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics led by Martin Nowak?"


      Bpragmatic responds:

      Ok Oleg. Let us begin with what you suggest.

      So what is it that this particular (discipline? Can rehashing of banal conjecture and speculation without real empirical demonstration actually be described as a discipline? OK, I brought up the term "discipline". But, isn't that a requirement of real science?) subset of an organization called "Princeton" (Oooh, I am really impressed. Psuedo science being able to couch itself within an "institution" in this day and age is no suprise what so ever. After all, regardless of the level of deceit preying upon ignorance, wtf, there is MONEY TO BE MADE) have to do with being able to side step illigitimate levels of conjecture and demonstrate what real science requires in order to support the vacuous claims of nde?


      Oleg, I phrased my response as such because I know it will take you and your sympatriots more time to figure it out. Since I have to work for a living (unlike some people who apparently have more time on their hands than they know what to do with) I have to put the message across in a way that causes others to actually try and think vs. parrot pablum.


      Oleg mindlessly retorts:

      "I could continue, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel."

      Oleg, my friend, I believe you definitely, in the literal sense have the ability to situate yourself and circumstances (through processes virtually undescribable without huge amounts of speculation and conjecture) and would indeed be able to literally shoot fish in a barrel. So, hmm, let me know when you can scientically and empirically describe the necesary bio-chemical pathways that lead up to your body, your conciousness, the barrel making ability, the abiltiy to put water in the barrel, the development of the fish, the intellectual capablities required to fashion matter into a tubular relegator of matter intendend to penetrate a biostructure and kill. Plus the conceptualization of such.

      Oleg, you have a lot of homework on your hands. Get back to me when you can come up with some answers. You nde hack you.

      Delete
    13. That was some impressive meaningless verbal diarrhea from you bspasmatic. Might impressive indeed.

      Delete
    14. bpragmatic,

      You asked me to list any "respectable" biological science departments in any university where nde has any prominence.

      I gave you two biological science departments at two highly respectable universities. In fact, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the country by the US News and World Report.

      I could easily point out other departments at similarly prestigious places of higher education where evolutionary biology is prominent.

      Perhaps you should acknowledge this fact.

      In contrast, no forms of creationism, ID included, can be found at places like these.

      Delete
    15. Oleg,

      argument from authority. meaningless.

      Delete
    16. Take your complaint to bpragmatic, Steve.

      He asked me to list respectable university departments where evolutionary biology is prominent. I did.

      What's your problem, exactly?

      Delete
    17. "Take your complaint to bpragmatic, Steve. "

      Nah we can leave it with you. You tried to hand wave your way to creationism when talking about ID AND tried to detract from the cold hard fact that atheism IS marginalized to an extremely small minority of the population.

      At any rate you failed miserably since creationism was never the issue ID was. But please go for the usual retort that the are one in the same. You can always tell how lazy and uninformed your debater is when he falls back on the same crutch each time.

      Delete
    18. Elijah,

      Feel free to name a biology department at a respectable university where ID is prominent.

      Delete
    19. Feel free to name a poll where atheists hit 20% in the general population?

      :)

      Do you even know what the word marginalized means? lol

      Delete
    20. Elijah2012

      Do you even know what the word marginalized means?


      That would be the percentage of professional biologists and geneticists who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism. About 0.1%.

      Delete
    21. I have no problem with living in a mostly Christian country, Elijah. People on the East Coast are quite tolerant, so I don't feel marginalized.

      I hope you feel the same way about the lack of cdesign proponentsists at major universities.

      Delete
    22. As to atheists not even making 20 percent of the US population, I have no worries about that.

      This Pew poll, however, should make you concerned. It shows that in the last 40 years the fraction of the US population identifying themselves as Protestant Christians has shrunk by 11 percentage points. The fraction identifying with no religion has grown by the same 11 percentage points.

      Delete
    23. steve said:

      "argument from authority. meaningless."

      Your entire religious belief system and your attacks on evolutionary theory are based on an "argument from authority", as in the alleged authority of an imaginary sky daddy and your desire for authority as a self-appointed spokesman for that imaginary .sky daddy.

      You IDiot-creationists are just a bunch of theocratic, authoritarian dominionists who want to rule the world.

      Delete
    24. "This Pew poll, however, should make you concerned. It shows that in the last 40 years the fraction of the US population identifying themselves as Protestant Christians has shrunk by 11 percentage points. The fraction identifying with no religion has grown by the same 11 percentage points."

      I am concerned only with your lack of reading comprehension but not that much since it is already well known on these boards. I am concerned not al all with religious affiliations since your very own poll shows atheism stands at a staggering 2%

      You have to be awfully desperate to cite a poll that actually shows what an abject failure atheism has been in convincing the greater populace.

      but then what else can you do but try and hand wave away from the dismal numbers. ;)

      Delete
    25. Elijah,

      I don't care much for promoting atheism. (Many people can't handle that.) Therefore it does not concern me that the fraction of atheists and agnostics in the society are relatively low.

      Likewise, the Jews are not overly concerned about being underrepresented in the US. Your "logic" would suggest that they are marginalized in the society. So there.

      And of course you can whistle past the graveyard as the numbers of Protestants are dwindling. You're not fooling anyone.

      Delete
  5. The reasoning here may seem to be upside down. After all, if the results show that the proteins could not have arisen by chance, then how can that prove evolution—the theory that says proteins (and everything else for that matter) arose from random events such as mutations? Would not that finding be a problem for evolution?

    For your straw version of evolution, perhaps. For the real thing in biology, not so much.

    Evolution does not say everything arose by chance. It doesn't say anything about origins at all. It explains the diversity of life we see today as the outcome of a process of random variations constrained by natural laws and properties. The source of the variation are genetic mutations. They're random only in the sense that, while they are caused, they have no purpose as far as we can tell.

    The answer is that, for evolutionists, such results falsify creation and design.

    No, creationism and intelligent design fail as scientific explanations because there's no evidence and they're incoherent.

    As Kant explained three centuries ago in his theory of the solar system evolution:

    Thus, God's choice, not having the slightest motive for tying them [planetary orbits] to one single arrangement, would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts of deviations and differences.


    And what did Kant have to say about why an eternal, necessary being like the Christian God would bother to create anything at all?

    Evolution is not about science. It’s about God.

    The theory of evolution is science. Your campaign to discredit it is about your God and the threat you believe it poses to your faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Spedding, forget about someone proclaiming that "Godditit".

      Simply, empirically demonstrate that random mutation, "natural" selection (that is sure is a scientifically defined term), drift, horizontal gene transfer, "neutral" evolution, and all of the other related nde type of undemostrated conjecture are capable of the step by step (according to your speculations) processes that are necessary to arrive at living cells, tissues, organs, body plans, ecosystems etc. You lying murderer.

      Delete
    2. bpragmatic

      You lying murderer.


      Wow.

      You need to change your handle to "bpsychotic".

      Delete
    3. Thornton,

      Your perspective is very limited. You are extremely self centered.

      But, according to your philosophy, why not? Right?

      Delete
    4. bprag

      ...and all of the other related nde type of undemostrated conjecture...

      Here, let me Google that for you:

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+of+evolution

      See, it really wasn't so hard, was it? Looks like you've got quite a bit of reading to do.

      You lying murderer.

      This is why I could never be religious. The furious scorn that the religious mind slings at anyone who does not share in their delusion can is both sad and tragic.

      I simply don't have enough hate for others to be religious.

      But, according to your philosophy, why not? Right?

      What philosophy would that be? You do understand that evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral philosophy?

      ... right?

      Delete
    5. Ritchie says:

      "This is why I could never be religious. The furious scorn that the religious mind slings at anyone who does not share in their delusion can is both sad and tragic.

      I simply don't have enough hate for others to be religious."

      Bpragmatic says:

      My observation is that religious people, such as Jews or Christians, that are true and actually follow the creed of their beliefs are usually gracious, gentle, loving types of individuals. So I don't follow your reasoning. You clearly have a problem with something having to do with "religious" as you call it. That is your choice obviously.

      My concerns are when heavily funded (by taxpayer dollars) highly speculative psuedo-science gets promoted by the industry, media, culture in general as fact. The social fall out is so obvious and been shown over and again, no need to talk about it here other than to mention how "murderous" it has been. From my perspective, whether one is religious or not, one should not tolerate any body of speculative conjecture that promotes death and destruction. Let alone openly promoted. That is my feeling.

      Ritchie says:

      "What philosophy would that be? You do understand that evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral philosophy?

      ... right?

      Bpragmatic responds:

      Just keep repeating that to yourself over and over again Ritchie. You are free to believe that.

      Delete
    6. "This is why I could never be religious. The furious scorn that the religious mind slings at anyone who does not share in their delusion can is both sad and tragic."

      ROFL.....of course Ritchie because we all know with the likes of Thorton, TWT, Oleg, SPed and the rest of your company that they have never shown furious scorn because they are not religious. ;)

      Where you at thorton? Let rip and prove Ritchie wrong. Darwinists....their hypocrisy never ends.

      Delete
    7. bpsychotic barfed:

      "My observation is that religious people, such as Jews or Christians, that are true and actually follow the creed of their beliefs are usually gracious, gentle, loving types of individuals. So I don't follow your reasoning."

      You've never read the bible, have you? The "creed" of the christian god and bible is intolerance, bigotry, jealousy, conquest, rape, slavery, torture, lies, slaughter, destruction, oppression, brutality, domination, hypocrisy, hatred, greed, deadly plagues, arrogance, sanctimony, perversion, dashing babies against rocks, sadism, masochism, deception, coercion, ecocide, genocide, eternal punishment, etc.

      Delete
    8. bpragmatic -

      You literally just called Ian Spedding a lying murderer. For no reason (that I can see) other than he accepts evolutionary theory. I see nothing gracious, gentle or loving about that. Have you no objectivity? Isn't there even the slightest part of you that recoginises that as a hysterical and outrageous slander? Or are you so brimming with righteous zeal that you'll happily hurl absolutely any abuse as those who do not share your religious convictions?

      Delete
    9. It is very difficult to me to understand why anyone, in light of growing scientific evidence to the contrary, would stubbornly adhere to an archaic, destructive philosophy that has resulted in so much human pain and suffering in the world. It is hard to understand how, with that kind of knowledge, anybody other than a phsycopath would continue to defend nde.

      I mean, if there were real empirical evidence and demonstrable experimental results that added up to sufficient support for a "theory", then I can see where someone might take pause. But, absolutely unpermissible levels of assumptions, speculation and conjecture regarding the philosophy of nde that is utilize to build the case, particulary to the laymen public is totally inexcusable. So, yes, murder.

      Delete
    10. bpragmatic

      That is the worst attempt at a justification I have ever heard.

      For one thing, there is a vast deal of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory. I realise you are part of a fundamentalist religious movement Hell-bent on denying it, but that does not make it all go away.

      But more to the point, the blasé way in which you move from accusing someone of believing a (in your opinion) poorly-evidenced theory to them being a psychopath and a murderer is jaw-dropping. Why not throw in 'pedophile' and 'rapist' while you're at it?

      A murderer is someone who has committed a murder. A psychopath is a person with a limited or entirely absent sense of empathy and remorse. Neither label bares the slightest link to what scientific theories a person does or does not accept.

      Again, isn't there even a tiny part of you that realises you are being utterly hysterical?

      Delete
  6. Ritchie says:

    ...and all of the other related nde type of undemostrated conjecture...

    "Here, let me Google that for you:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+of+evolution

    See, it really wasn't so hard, was it? Looks like you've got quite a bit of reading to do."

    Bpragmatic says:
    Ritchie, I have done a lot of reading, viewing and listening to evolution related topics. One thing that comes to mind is the immense amount of money that has been thrown down the nde "rathole" for decades. In other words, doesn't matter the level of confirmation bias that obviously goes on in all of the nde "studies" there is a lot of money in it, and there are lots of people with anti-relious agendas and philosphies that gladly accept the money for pursuing their dream of somehow demonstrating mindless "natural processes" and time are all that are necessary for life as we can detect and observe.


    Kind of off topic, but found an interesting interchange in a review of "Darwin's Doubt" over at Amazon. Quite a few responses to a short review posted by a biology teacher named David Browning who has become sceptical of nde.

    A guy who identifies him/herself as T. Gardiner comes to the defense of the author of the reviewer who is responding to an array of ad-hominems, claims of quote mining and perhaps other logical fallacies.

    One of many comments Gardiner makes:

    "All the trees ever constructed to "demonstrate" common ancestry have been grounded on a presumption (not observation) that it actually exists. The notion of unguided micro-evolution accounting for novel traits over time is a myth, never been observed. It doesn't matter what new evolutionary theory is made up, there is NO observation NO demonstration that is water tight. Not.One. It doesn't matter what you say, there is NONE. It doesn't matter what list you present, you are just presuming they relate, never been demonstrated. Hardly science. And the fossil record has all but debunked the Darwinists attempts. You all won't admit it, like other scientists David quoted (no, it doesn't matter if the expert's conclusions are different, we are talking about the evidence here, the experts present the facts - insufficient fossil record). It is that simple. The fossil evidence is woefully lacking especially in the places (like the beginning!) where it matters most. It's arguable that Darwin himself would not be a Darwinists today.

    In the meantime, a new theory has been presented, using abductive reasoning, sound logic with real observations in real time. Yet, you all won't give it a second thought. It's crazy. As much as you accuse religion on others, you display all the signs of fundamentalism your selves. The irony is all to telling. You won't hear with objective ears the other side."

    You can see the review and comments at:

    www.amazon.com/review/R1HUJUDU21EXTT/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg7?ie=UTF8&asin=0062071475&cdForum=Fx3DKXEYUOXE8AI&cdPage=7&cdThread=Tx3DZKHZKN4CFKN&store=books#wasThisHelpful



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bpragmatic -

      Just because you can quote someone saying something, that doesn't mean it is true. Cornelius has written books, but he doesn't know squat about evolution either.

      Gardiner is wrong on many counts.

      - ancestry trees are not made up purely out of thin air. They are pieced together from evidence from genetics, morphology, biogeography, the fossil record and other fields - all of which independently indicate a branching 'tree' pattern. It is this *correlation* of evidence which is the strongest single piece of evidence for evolution.

      - micro-evolution has been directly observed many times. Not even Creationists are denying that any more.

      - no observation is EVER watertight in science. That is the nature of science. All theories are provisional.

      - the fossil record has done nothing but support Darwin's theories.

      - the idea that we will ever have a complete fossil record (ie, representatives from every species that has ever existed) is especially moronic and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of how fossilisation actually occurs.

      - the 'beginning' is the least likely era from which we will find fossils. Seriously, is this guy expecting us to find fossilized single-celled amoebas?

      - the assertion that Darwin wouldn't have been a Darwinist today is nothing but laughable hubris.

      - I assume the 'new theory' he is talking about is ID. In which case, it is simply not a scientific theory. It needs mechanisms, testable hypotheses, and demonstrable processes, otherwise it is not a theory.

      Really this endless whine of 'we have evidence - you just won't listen to it' from ID-ers really is too much. ID-ers have been asked over and over again to present anything that resembles evidence, and they have always come up totally empty-handed. ID-ers do nothing at all except whinge about evolution, working on the totally false notion that to discredit one theory is to automatically support an alternative. If ID-ers had even the slightest shred of evidence supporting their ideas then they would trumpet it from the rooftops. But they do not. Because their "theory" is purpose-built to stand apart from physical evidence. Can't have it both ways.

      Delete
    2. btw, all I see in the comments section you linked to is Gardiner getting his proverbial kicked.

      Delete
    3. Hello Ritchie,

      I think Gardiner is simply, perhaps roughly, pointing out that there is un unacceptible level of undemonstrated conjecture, lack of sufficient empirical evidence and vast amounts of unwarranted speculation behind the major claims by nde. Not to mention decades of consistent, repetitive, shameful amounts of confirmation biases that, in and of themselves, render the nde enterprise as an embarassment to real scientists.

      Whether or not Gardiner has all of the details straight.

      Also, based on your responses, I think you are misrepresenting what Gardiner says. For example, your comment of what Gardiner says regarding micro-evolution is merely an equivocation. I think, if you read what is said about that again, it is pretty clear what is being referred to is something well beyond what can be shown about micro-evolution within the context you are referring to.


      Ritchie, you said:

      "btw, all I see in the comments section you linked to is Gardiner getting his proverbial kicked".


      Bpragmatic says:

      That's not the only way to interpret the interchanges. Quite the reverse could be said if one goes through the entire interchange and gives some thought to it.

      Delete
    4. bpragmatic -

      I think Gardiner is simply, perhaps roughly, pointing out that there is un unacceptible level of undemonstrated conjecture, lack of sufficient empirical evidence and vast amounts of unwarranted speculation behind the major claims by nde.

      There is nothing new about that. That is exactly the same fallacious claim Creationists have made for decades. I see nothing in the link you gave which lends actual credence to this limp claim.

      Whether or not Gardiner has all of the details straight.

      See, it actually pretty important that he has all his details straight. Which he does not. This demonstrates a troubling ignorance in this field on his part.

      I think you are misrepresenting what Gardiner says. For example, your comment of what Gardiner says regarding micro-evolution is merely an equivocation. I think, if you read what is said about that again, it is pretty clear what is being referred to is something well beyond what can be shown about micro-evolution within the context you are referring to.

      b, the only distinguishing factor between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is one of scale. That's it. Actual biologists hardly ever bother to differentiate at all. It would be like calling the attraction of big objects like planets 'macrogravity' and attraction between small objects 'microgravity'. Whether big or small, gravity is gravity - it is still the same force. Likewise whether on a large or small timescale, evolution is still evolution. The entire notion that they are seperate forces with different mechanisms is entirely fallacious - though it is widely perpetuated in the Creationist world. And if Gardiner was any kind of biologist at all he would know that.

      That's not the only way to interpret the interchanges. Quite the reverse could be said if one goes through the entire interchange and gives some thought to it.

      You mean if someone read the interchange pre-emptively convinced that Gardiner was right? That's called confirmation bias.

      Delete
    5. Ritchie says:

      'See, it actually pretty important that he has all his details straight. Which he does not. This demonstrates a troubling ignorance in this field on his part."

      Bpragmatic responds:

      So details are important? Well let me ask you then, regarding nde. Where can I find peer reviewed literature that empirically demonstrates that random mutation, natural selection, drift etc. are capable of producing, oh, let's say, a mere bacterial flagellum?


      Ritchie says:


      "b, the only distinguishing factor between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is one of scale. That's it. Actual biologists hardly ever bother to differentiate at all. It would be like calling the attraction of big objects like planets 'macrogravity' and attraction between small objects 'microgravity'. Whether big or small, gravity is gravity - it is still the same force. Likewise whether on a large or small timescale, evolution is still evolution. The entire notion that they are seperate forces with different mechanisms is entirely fallacious - though it is widely perpetuated in the Creationist world. And if Gardiner was any kind of biologist at all he would know that."

      Bpragmatic responds:

      Ritchie, the term macro-evolution wasn't used above. But that is ok because my thought was, and I have read about this over and again, that given the kinds of "micro-evolution" that has been observed, given realistic mutation rates, and given the configuration space challenges etc., there is no way there has been enough time for living systems to have achieved present status through nde processes.


      Ritchie says:
      "You mean if someone read the interchange pre-emptively convinced that Gardiner was right? That's called confirmation bias."

      Bpragmatic responds:
      No Ritchie. I mean if someone has investegated nde critically and has been educated on it's presuppositions and level of unsubstantiated conjecture utilized as basis for it's assertions, the conclusions would be very different from what you have suggested.

      Seems to me, in general there has been huge confirmation bias unabashedly demonstrated by participants in the nde industry for decades. You get a sense of that in those kinds of interchanges.

      Delete
    6. b

      Where can I find peer reviewed literature that empirically demonstrates that random mutation, natural selection, drift etc. are capable of producing, oh, let's say, a mere bacterial flagellum?

      I can give you ample studies demonstrating the power of random mutation to affect and change a genome. And I can give you many demonstrating the power of natural selection to shape such genomes in a positive feedback loop. I can give you many experiments demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution. But I suspect you will not accept that. I suspect you will accept nothing less than a simple-celled organism being TURNED INTO a bacterial flagellum.

      In which case your demand is unreasonable. for one thing, such a structure would require orders of magnitude more time to evolve than any scientist could demonstrate in one lifetime. Like every organism on Earth, the bacterial flagellum has had over 3 billion years to evolve.

      The bacterial flagellum entered the lexicon of creationists when Behe claimed it was irreducibly complex. However, that claim has been blown out of the water. If you want to read up on THAT, then I suggest you try this:

      http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

      Ritchie, the term macro-evolution wasn't used above.

      The term 'microevolution' was. So clearly Gardiner draws the distinction.

      given the kinds of "micro-evolution" that has been observed, given realistic mutation rates, and given the configuration space challenges etc., there is no way there has been enough time for living systems to have achieved present status through nde processes.

      Based on whose calculations, exactly? Yours? Some Creationist's? Or those of a reputable biological institution?

      I mean if someone has investegated nde critically and has been educated on it's presuppositions and level of unsubstantiated conjecture...

      By which you mean 'If someone has had their head filled with creationist propaganda...'

      No scientific theory on Earth allows the supernatural into the lab. Every single scientific theory is provisional. Every single scientific theory insists on methodological naturalism. This is not from religious or philosophical bias - it is out of pure practical necessity. And yet for doing this - for behaving exactly as every other theory in science does and should and must behave - evolution gets flamed by creationists as being 'biased' and based on 'conjecture'.

      Would it help you to see the fallacy if I used Creationist reasoning to explain to you how the theory of gravity is 'biased' against the idea that it is angels who pull objects with mass towards each other? Because the analogy is quite apt.

      Delete
  7. Being able to sign for an Australian internet service provider makes me discover a lot of things. Science can really bring a lot of advantages but using it doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius:

    Let me see if I have this correctly:

    ID says that the odds against a protein coming into existence via random processes are astronomically high and can only be reduced through intelligent design; and now the Darwinists are arguing that the odds against a protein coming into existence via random processes are astronomically high, and so the only explanation for similar patterns across different lineages is that evolution brought them about?

    Have we entered the "Twilight Zone"? Pinch me! I want to wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lino:

      Ha, haa, but no, the Penny paper is doing something different. Rather than deal with the origin of a protein, which would present a rather significant problem for them, they just assume such proteins arose, somehow. Then, given that heroic assumption, they are dealing with the question of whether protein designs converge as you go back in time. If the answer is yes, then that's evidence for common descent. Of course they don't actually have any ancient proteins to use in making such an analysis (though others have tried that). They use an evolutionary model and they compare it to a random chance model. There are many moving parts here. The bottom line is their "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion is based on this test where they compare their model to the chance model. It's the usual contrastive reasoning with its embedded non scientific, "either-or" premise. It's either A or B, and if you choose a sufficiently unlikely B, then A looks great, no matter how lousy it actually fits the data. There's nothing wrong with evaluating against a null hypothesis, but all you can scientifically conclude is that the null hypothesis is (or is not) rejected. You can't then conclude evolution is true. It's the same old non scientific, metaphysics at work.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      oleg: Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow.

      1. I've already done that. I tested creation and it came out unquestionably true.


      How about it CH?

      Where and when was this test and result published?

      I'd hate to think you were telling yet another of your deliberate falsehoods.

      Of course your continued silence will tell me and the lurkers all we need about your so-called "test".

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I also want to see the creation test that cornelius said he has done. Show your work, cornelius.

      Delete
    4. Hmm, Little slow on the uptake huh TWT? Try reading the paper.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter

      Hmm, Little slow on the uptake huh TWT? Try reading the paper.


      I'd love to read the paper where you "tested creation and it came out unquestionably true."

      Sadly though, you have no such paper. I have no choice but to conclude you were lying about the whole thing.

      Delete
    6. Ooh, you're really getting serious now

      Delete
    7. In fairness, CH, you really did claim you had a testable model for creation.

      Is that something you can substantiate or isn't it?

      Delete
    8. Ritchie

      In fairness, CH, you really did claim you had a testable model for creation.

      Is that something you can substantiate or isn't it?


      Maybe we're too hard on CH. If he thinks the best way he can honor God is to quote-mine, slander honest scientists, and lie his butt off about work he claims but can't produce who are we to judge? After all, it's not like he's the only paid professional Creationist propagandist lying for his cause out there.

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

      Delete
    10. You are most definitely too hard on CH. His "claim" about having tested Creation and finding it "true" was not intended to be taken seriously. It was intended as ridicule, because CH's schtick is to paint evolutionary science as being as pointless as creation science.

      Delete
    11. Maybe it was just more Creationist "street theater". :D

      Delete
    12. cornelius said:

      "Hmm, Little slow on the uptake huh TWT? Try reading the paper."

      Since my comment was only about the creation test that you claim to have done, show your paper that explains/illustrates your test and I'll read it.

      Delete
    13. CH:

      It seems to me that they've given the house away. Isn't the Darwinist argument that IDists don't know a thing about probabilities and improbabilities, and that if they did, then they would know that the emergence of proteins is not all that improbable. Of course they're the ones who don't want to accept the facts as they are.

      But, now, they're conceding the astronomical improbabilities. This is, of course, only because they think they have an argument 'proving' evolution, and that argument needs the astronomical improbabilities they otherwise deny.

      Yet, this is typical Darwinism: deny the weaknesses connected to the theory unless you think that you can actually use what is a weakness to buttress another bogus argument 'proving' the theory.

      IOW, they're all over the map. "There's junk-DNA all over the genome;this proves ID is wrong." Then 'junk-DNA' is shown to have vital function; so, then, it's: "What do you mean, we never called it "junk-DNA." Obviously it had to have some utility."

      Or, "There's no Cambrian Explosion." But, then, use 'sleight of hand' molecular biology, they say: "Evolution took place at a fast rate in the Cambrian Explosion." And it goes on and on.

      One contradiction after another.

      Delete
    14. CH:

      Then, given that heroic assumption, they are dealing with the question of whether protein designs converge as you go back in time. If the answer is yes, then that's evidence for common descent. Of course they don't actually have any ancient proteins to use in making such an analysis (though others have tried that). They use an evolutionary model and they compare it to a random chance model.

      This is what I was basically saying. IOW, when they use the evolutionary model and compare it to a 'random chance' model, they're basically employing the astronomical unlikelihood of arriving at said protein via random processes to their advantage. (when, normally, they're in the business of telling everyone---i.e., IDists--that you can't calculate the odds that way because there could be some natural explanation for overcoming the improbabilities that we just don't know about.) They haven't given us a mechanism for how these convergences came about: "common descent" only tells you that protein sequences are handed down; not how they originated in the first place.

      It's all just a game---as I pointed out in my latest post.

      Delete
    15. pav-lino, you keep saying "they" this and "they" that as though every evolutionary scientist on Earth wrote the paper referred to in the OP and/or agrees completely with that paper. As shocking as this will be to you, not every scientist automatically agrees with every scientific paper that is written or published. Whether scientists other than the authors agree with the paper remains to b seen, and the authors didn't claim that the paper is the last word on the subject.

      Unlike your religious dogma, science is adjustable to fit the evidence, and scientific hypotheses are always open to legitimate scrutiny and criticism. Many hypotheses are rejected or modified, either quickly or ultimately, because they don't fit the evidence or aren't productive. ANYTHING presented in a scientific paper is open to legitimate scrutiny and criticism, but throwing religious fairy tale BS at science is NOT legitimate. And dishonestly trying to disguise religious fairy tale BS as 'ID-theory' doesn't change the fact that it's still BS. You god pushers are the ones playing games, and you obviously believe that cheating will enable you to 'win'. If you're so anxious to 'win' and live in a theocracy, why don't you convert to islam and move to Iran? The muslims believe in the same imaginary god as you (the so-called abrahamic god) but just believe in different fairy tale versions of it. I'm sure that you could adapt easily, and you could then be an even bigger a-hole than you are now. Just think, your a-holiness would be sanctioned and encouraged by the government! Yee Haa! Praise allah-yhwh! Rape, pillage, and burn!

      Delete
    16. cornelius said:

      "It's the usual contrastive reasoning with its embedded non scientific, "either-or" premise. It's either A or B, and if you choose a sufficiently unlikely B, then A looks great, no matter how lousy it actually fits the data. There's nothing wrong with evaluating against a null hypothesis, but all you can scientifically conclude is that the null hypothesis is (or is not) rejected. You can't then conclude evolution is true. It's the same old non scientific, metaphysics at work."

      Look who's talking. You god pushers are the ones with the "either-or" attitude, and you obviously believe that if you can eliminate evolutionary theory (by hook or by crook) then your particular version of your religious beliefs will automatically be universally accepted and worshiped as 100% true until the end of time. All of the vomit that you spew is just a projection of your own non-scientific, biased, reality hating insanity.

      Tell me, cornelius, exactly how do your religious beliefs fit "the data"?

      Delete
    17. Lino

      IOW, they're all over the map. "There's junk-DNA all over the genome;this proves ID is wrong." Then 'junk-DNA' is shown to have vital function; so, then, it's: "What do you mean, we never called it "junk-DNA." Obviously it had to have some utility."

      Or, "There's no Cambrian Explosion." But, then, use 'sleight of hand' molecular biology, they say: "Evolution took place at a fast rate in the Cambrian Explosion." And it goes on and on.


      When has any scientist actually said any of this? Quote a respectable scientific authority actually saying these things.

      Do a little research and you might find they are nothing more than ridiculous Creationist lies. You look rather foolish when you parrot them uncritically.

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

      Delete
    19. CH: Of course they don't actually have any ancient proteins to use in making such an analysis (though others have tried that). They use an evolutionary model and they compare it to a random chance model.

      We cannot calculate the probability that any particular theory in of itself is true. This is because probability calculations are only valid if you know all the possible outcomes. So, any calculus of probability is only useful for conclusions in the context that a particular theory is true, in reality.

      Delete
    20. Pedant: It was intended as ridicule, because CH's schtick is to paint evolutionary science as being as pointless as creation science.

      Right. According to Cornelius, we cannot make progress on the *origin* of biological adaptations.

      Supposedly, it represents a boundary where human reasoning and problems solving cannot pass. All we can do is make progress on discovering new adaptations.

      Delete
    21. Scott:

      All we can do is make progress on discovering new adaptations.

      Like stamp collecting. That is the Cornelius Hunter conception of how science ought to be done. That's why he disparages hypothesis-testing.

      Pitiful.

      Delete
    22. Scott: We cannot calculate the probability that any particular theory in of itself is true. This is because probability calculations are only valid if you know all the possible outcomes. So, any calculus of probability is only useful for conclusions in the context that a particular theory is true, in reality.

      J: What people can do is apply probability per the assumptions that claim-makers are willing to agree to. And by that approach, naturalistic UCA is mind-bogglingly improbable. And yet so is SA for some of the same reasons as well as other reasons, when limited to the same assumptions and data set. Which is to say, when limited to the data set chosen by biologists, there is NO theory that explains what we all agree were past, terrestrial, biological events. Thus, inductive evidential criteria are not even applicable to the question, yet.

      What you and yours are constantly trying to do is twist CH's words into saying there is over-whelming evidence of ID-style SA when all he's saying is that it is NOT the case that there is overwhelming POSITIVE evidence for naturalistic UCA. There isn't. And you agree there isn't. You just completely misrepresent CH, seemingly intentionally.

      Delete
    23. Scott: Right. According to Cornelius, we cannot make progress on the *origin* of biological adaptations.

      J: On the contrary. He acknowledges that the research by Axe etal has demonstrated that the polyanna assumption, grounded in nothing but prior ignorance, has rendered THAT assumption unwarranted. Research can indeed advance our understanding, so long as it isn't pathetically circular in nature, like cladistic tree-generation, etc.

      Delete
    24. Scott: We cannot calculate the probability that any particular theory in of itself is true. This is because probability calculations are only valid if you know all the possible outcomes.

      Jeff: What people can do is apply probability per the assumptions that claim-makers are willing to agree to. And by that approach, naturalistic UCA is mind-bogglingly improbable.

      Apparently, this went completely over your head.

      For example, if you assume that humans as they exist today was an intended outcome and that evolution is merely random, then yes. It would be very unlikely. But you can't calculate the probability of the former being true and the latter is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

      So, you're just making my point for me.

      Again, you are both attempting to depict UCA and SA as equally a-probable (as you defining it) to suggest we cannot make progress.

      This is exactly my point.

      Delete
    25. Scott: For example, if you assume that humans as they exist today was an intended outcome and that evolution is merely random, then yes. It would be very unlikely. But you can't calculate the probability of the former being true and the latter is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

      So, you're just making my point for me.

      Again, you are both attempting to depict UCA and SA as equally a-probable (as you defining it) to suggest we cannot make progress.

      This is exactly my point.

      J: How limited your imagination is, Scott? It doesn't follow at all from anything I've said that progress is impossible. It is being made as we speak. The research of Axe etal are examples. You assume that people freely posit that teleology is true. There is no evidence of that. The evidence is the other way around. Even many atheists admit to an "appearance of design" in biology. How is that explicable if the belief in teleology isn't intuitive to humans? That's a serious question. Please give me your answer.

      If teleology is intuitive, then the research of Axe etal is simply affirming the very rationality of those analogical inferences that we call an "impression" of "an appearance of design."

      If you read a chapter on induction, it all makes sense. If you deny that ANY belief is distinguishable from blind, uncaused beliefs, as you in fact do, then beliefs just are what they are, and there's nothing more to it than that (assuming beliefs even exist, which, per you, is itself unknowable). You love to throw around the phrase "if you take x seriously." But then you turn right around and deny you know whether are other minds, memories, or a valid LNC. Nothing you say, per your epistemology, is anything more than a completely bald pontification.

      Delete
  9. PaV Lino

    Let me see if I have this correctly:


    No PaV. As per your usual layman's ignorance and incompetence, you don't have it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Einstein was a patent office worker, you elitist snob.

      Delete
    2. LOL!

      Pssst...

      Hey PaV,

      here's a big hint...

      you're not Einstein.

      :D :D :D :D :D

      Delete
    3. Also, you know, Einstein had a doctorate in physics. He wasn't just some hobbyist.

      Delete
  10. Entertainment for Fun... Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Entertainment Pictures, Bollywood, Hollywood and Lollywood Pictures and Videos, Entertainment Latest updates, Hot Entertainment News and Pictures Funny Entertainment Pictures, lol Pictures, Funny Pictures and Much More Fun Only on 1 Current Affairs Network
    hotcurrentaffairs.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thorton said:

    "Maybe we're too hard on CH. If he thinks the best way he can honor God is to quote-mine, slander honest scientists, and lie his butt off about work he claims but can't produce who are we to judge? After all, it's not like he's the only paid professional Creationist propagandist lying for his cause out there."


    Bpragmatic says:



    So here is Thorton's own confirmation of nde evolution.

    Cornelius Hunter is a lying, slandering creationist.

    Therefore, there is sufficient empirical evidence to unambiguously claim nde to have been scientifically demonstrated.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, b, that is not what Thorton is saying at all.

      Cornelius has apparently been caught out in a lie. He said above that he actually has a testable working model for creation. An ambitious claim. But despite repeated requests, he completely fails to produce it. Quite transparently this is because he was lying about having one in the first place.

      Slander might be a bit of a stretch, although he has written posts in the past, quoting scientific authorities who have then commented personally on those articles explaining that he has misrepresented what they said, so maybe slander isn't that much of a stretch after all.

      And that he is a creationist is pretty self-evident.

      But no-one (and I repeat for emphasis), absolutely no-one - not Thorton, not me, not anyone at all - is making there claim that BECAUSE Cornelius is a "lying, slandering creationist", THEREFORE evolution has been demonstrated. That is an entirely bogus claim.

      Evolution HAS been demonstrated - that is true, and it is true because it has been scientifically demonstrated.

      No 'evolutionist' has ever followed the logic of "Not creation, therefore evolution."

      Conversely, every creationist follows the logic of "Not evolution, therefore creation."

      It is, of course, a fallacious false dichotomy. But it is one that creationists, not 'evolutionists', are guilty of.

      Delete
  12. "For one thing, there is a vast deal of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory."

    Ritchie, you are severly overstating the case. This is not just me saying that.


    Also, I really do not believe that Oleg or Ian are murders, pedophiles or rapists. I think that they are probably decent people that, for some reason, are a little over-exuberant in a belief system.

    However, there is no denying negative impact philosophies derived from nde have had on culture over the decades. Without a doubt contributing towards a mindset in some within society to commit murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. b

      Ritchie, you are severly overstating the case. This is not just me saying that.

      Oh I do not doubt that. But WHO is saying it?

      Creationists are certainly numerous. But that says nothing at all about whether creationism is likely to be true. Consider the possibility that, for example, the vast majority of these creationists are scientifically illiterate lay people who subscribe to creationism as a simple matter of religious faith. What makes you so convinced that this is not the case? After all, creationism is resoundingly rejected by every single secular scientific body and institution. And it is religious institutions that keep preaching creationism. How do you know that creationism is anything other than theological dogma?

      Also, I really do not believe that Oleg or Ian are murders, pedophiles or rapists. I think that they are probably decent people that, for some reason, are a little over-exuberant in a belief system.

      Hellelujah! Perhaps we can drag this discussion back into the vicinity of a rational exchange.

      However, there is no denying negative impact philosophies derived from nde have had on culture over the decades. Without a doubt contributing towards a mindset in some within society to commit murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.

      Atomic theory led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is everyone who merely accepts atomic theory culpable of genocide?

      Clearly not. As morally reprehensible as the atomic bomb was, that does not mean that atomic theory is factually incorrect.

      The same is true of eugenics. Morally reprehensible? Yes. Factually incorrect? No.

      Besides, we draw as many good philosophies from nde as bad ones. Is it not a wonderful thing to realise we share a real, literal kinship with other animals - indeed with all life on Earth? And as for genetics, it clearly shows that racial distinctions are a biological nonsense. Homo sapiens all belong to the same species - and a worrying genetically uniform species at that. And it is in our genetic interests to spread the genes apart and intermarry between the races for the good of the next generation.

      Despite the creationist propaganda that just wants to scare its flock away from evolution with emotive sensationalism, there is nothing at all about the theory of evolution which leads necessarily to condoning murder or any other atrocity.

      Delete
    2. "Atomic theory led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is everyone who merely accepts atomic theory culpable of genocide?"


      Jeez Ritchie. Do you really want me to use the limited time I have here to answer such a ridiculously non pertinent comparison? Please, use some intellectual restraint. I would like to continue to participate here, but if you are going to use these kinds of non-applicable comparisons, I simply do not have time to answer this kind of non pertinent argument. Please use constraint.

      Delete
    3. The comparison seems perfectly apt to me.

      Atomic theory is a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. Neither one leads to necessarily to any particular kind of moral philosophy. Those who accept evolution, like those who accept atomic theory, are widely found among people of all philosophical schools and religious faiths (and lack thereof).

      Anyone who accepts evolution are no more culpable for eugenics as people who accept atomic theory are for atomic bombs.

      The Creationist insinuation that 'Evolutionists are all Nazis' is a childish piece of slander-by-association that holds not the smallest drop of water when actually thought through.

      Delete
  13. Ritchie says:

    "But no-one (and I repeat for emphasis), absolutely no-one - not Thorton, not me, not anyone at all - is making there claim that BECAUSE Cornelius is a "lying, slandering creationist", THEREFORE evolution has been demonstrated. That is an entirely bogus claim.


    Bpragmatic says:

    That was my attempt at a bit of humor with perhaps a bit of sarcasm thrown in. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

    Generally, I prefer following comments that are directly related to the theme of the OP and it's relationship to the nde controversy.

    I guess, at times, some prefer to digress into personal accusations, whether accurate or not, instead of directing arguments toward the theme of the OP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. b

      That was my attempt at a bit of humor with perhaps a bit of sarcasm thrown in. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

      Oh, I see. It's hard to tell in written text.

      But just while I have you at an aside, what exactly do you mean by 'nde'? I mean I've pretty much gathered that you equate it to evolutionary theory (possibly common descent?) but why 'nde'?

      Delete


    2. Ritchie, last question first.

      nde = Neo-Darwinian Evolution.



      "Oh, I see. It's hard to tell in written text."


      Yes. Written text is an enemy to someone like, for example, Ken Miller, who relies on conventions of speech, verbal inflection, posturing, body language etc. in public forums, in an attempt to cover up his speculation that he tries to sell as legitimate science. Reminds me of a used car salesman. Or maybe a book salesman. Particularly when there is inventory to get rid of.

      Rumor has it, Miller took an order from judge Jones for a bunch of his ridiculous books after cajoling him into believing that a tye clip explained away Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.

      But after Jones figured out he was a victom of a dummied up scipt presented by predatory hitmen attorneys hired by the nde lobby (who have absolutely no allegiance to scientific truth) he cancelled his order with Miller.

      "Ah, move over Dover, let jimi take over" HA HA HA HA HA!

      Ritchie, I'll bet your are kind of cute, huh? I know a gal that just loves naive, cute guys.

      Delete
    3. I never object to being called cute, but if you think I am pretending to be naive in an effort to seduce you then I'm afraid I must disappoint you there.

      Delete
    4. Bp,
      But after Jones figured out he was a victom of a dummied up scipt presented by predatory hitmen attorneys hired by the nde lobby (who have absolutely no allegiance to scientific truth) he cancelled his order with Miller.


      Citation please

      Delete
  14. Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainment, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.
    lolsgag.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Twt says:

    "You've never read the bible, have you? The "creed" of the christian god and bible is intolerance, bigotry, jealousy, conquest, rape, slavery, torture, lies, slaughter, destruction, oppression, brutality, domination, hypocrisy, hatred, greed, deadly plagues, arrogance, sanctimony, perversion, dashing babies against rocks, sadism, masochism, deception, coercion, ecocide, genocide, eternal punishment, etc."


    Bpragmatic responds:

    Twt. I didn't anticipate getting into a "religious" (in the sense of God) type of discussion here at this point in time.

    But, if you insist. HA HA HA HA!!!

    First of all, let me communicate what I think about your reasoning capabilities beyond your conciousness of something other than your penis. I think you are, similarly described, a dick.

    Let us just say, there is a "God" who created, somehow supervises, and controls it's "arena of development" so to speak. Who t f are you to dictate what it's principles of behavior and values are? You puny self asserting arrogant a hole.

    You need to concentrate on coming up with SOME F-ING REAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL CONJECTURE PASSED OFF EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. YOU SELF SERVING A HOLE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me correct, if it really has any meaningful value:

      Let us just say, IF there is a "God" who created

      Delete
    2. Oh dear, looks like bpsychotic got onto his parents' liquor cabinet yet again.

      Here's something reall funny - you can judge his increasing level of intoxication by the growing length of his run-on sentences. :D

      Delete
    3. Who t f are you to dictate what it's principles of behavior and values are?

      A rather good question. If there was an ultimate, omniscient being, then it WOULD logically probably be so vastly beyond our comprehension that we mere limited mortals should never understand anything about it.

      That being the case, we cannot judge God to be cruel, sadistic or bad.

      Of course, it also logically follows that we cannot judge God to be kind, loving and good either.

      In fact, we must really conclude that we know absolutely nothing about the character of such a being at all. It would be a complete enigma. Which is pretty much deism.

      Delete
    4. "
      A rather good question. If there was an ultimate, omniscient being, then it WOULD logically probably be so vastly beyond our comprehension that we mere limited mortals should never understand anything about it."

      Good Lord you are silly. So in other words it is a logical necessitate that the Ultimate being would be incapable of creating mortals that would be able to understand anything about the being.

      straw anyone?

      Delete
    5. "Oh dear, looks like bpsychotic got onto his parents' liquor cabinet yet again."

      I dunno T.....sounds like you usually do only without the stanard drunken slur in pronouncing "asshat"

      Possibly got your second to last bottle of Jack Daniels?

      Delete
    6. bpsychotic puked:

      "You need to concentrate on coming up with SOME F-ING REAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL CONJECTURE PASSED OFF EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. YOU SELF SERVING A HOLE."

      Look at a mirror when you spew that, IDiot-creationist.

      Delete
    7. Elijah -

      I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. No-one seems to get all "Who are we to judge God" when it comes to talking about him being loving and good.

      Either we can judge Him or we cannot. If we cannot, then we cannot judge Him to be good OR bad, If we can, then He has a lot of morally outrageous deeds to account for (including genocide, infanticide, and condoning slavery and rape, among others) to account for.

      You simply cannot have it both ways.

      Delete
  16. To anybody from the "outside watching in". From a practical perspective, there just isn't (for some people such as myself) enough time to answer the pathetic level of ignorance promulgated by the nde proponents on this and other internet forums. The level of undemonstrated conjecture based upon unverified assumptions derived from a priori personal preferences just TOTALLY leads any reasonable thinking person to the conclusion that these individuals have had, and in spite of real scientific current evidence, continue to adhere to a personal philosophical position that has nothing to do with demonstrating sufficient scientific verification of the assertions!

    You can easily see who the culprits are.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Not many things funnier than a drunk teenaged Fundy Creationist with his new thesaurus. :D

      Delete
  17. Hunter:

    Is it me or are these a holes really just STUPID.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Upcoming Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
    WorldLatestVehicles.com

    ReplyDelete

  19. Oleg said:

    "bpragmatic,

    You asked me to list any "respectable" biological science departments in any university where nde has any prominence.

    I gave you two biological science departments at two highly respectable universities. In fact, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the country by the US News and World Report.

    I could easily point out other departments at similarly prestigious places of higher education where evolutionary biology is prominent.

    Perhaps you should acknowledge this fact."


    Bpragmatic responds:

    I can acknowledge "respectible" and "prestigious" are adjectives that have been used to describe many different kinds of institutions. And there may well be some sort of objective standards as a basis for such. But these kinds of descriptors of institutions of learning really have little bearing on the undelying systemic problems associated with the weakness of nde as an "empirical science" in the real sense of the word. Yes, the psuedo-science can use empircal methodology in a superficial sense lending a false sense of legitimacy. Yet that kind of thing over and over again just begs to questions of a deeply more fundamental sense when it comes to nde philosophy being passed off as legitimate science.

    Excellence by association is one of the biggest scams of our current age, what with the popular media and a rather profound looseness associated with the "money at all costs" mentality that has come of vogue over the last decades. Nde has liked to associate itself with legitimate biological science departments, and otherwise "prestigious" educational institutions. After all, one of the nde gurus once proclaimed, "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". Presumably nde. And the minions could only nod in agreement.




    Oleg continues to demonstrate his blind eye to reality:

    "In contrast, no forms of creationism, ID included, can be found at places like these."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    Forget the gratitously baggage ladened term "creationism" you nde hacks like to spray on the audience.

    It is pretty obvious though, isn't it Oleg, that if anyone working in a biology department even whispers the term ID in the class room, one way or another they are likely to be tarred and feathered in some sort of fashion? I mean, come on. There is no way to compete with an ideology that has entrenched itself into the status quo with the billions of funding and the mechanisms of defensiveness that has been built around the ideology. Get real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. b -

      Yet that kind of thing over and over again just begs to questions of a deeply more fundamental sense when it comes to nde philosophy being passed off as legitimate science.

      ToE really is legitimate science.

      If you think otherwise, you are, of course, welcome to point out exactly how it does not behave as one?

      After all, one of the nde gurus once proclaimed, "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution".

      That would have been Theodosius Dobzhansky. He wrote that in 1973. It is not an empty soundbite he tossed out without context to thoughtless masses - it is a quote from an entire essay on theistic evolution. He explains in detail that the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with religion (Dobzhansky himself was an Orthodox Christian) since religion and science operate in different spheres, and that despite Creationist propaganda, the theory of evolution is a perfectly valid scientific theory.

      It seems you may be in need of reading it yourself. Allow me to provide a handy link:

      http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

      It is pretty obvious though, isn't it Oleg, that if anyone working in a biology department even whispers the term ID in the class room, one way or another they are likely to be tarred and feathered in some sort of fashion?

      It's obvious, is it?

      Obvious to whom, I wonder? Michael Behe, perhaps, arguably the ID movement's foremost figurehead?

      Oh no, perhaps not - he hasn't been forced out of his job at the secular institution Lehigh University, has he?

      I mean, come on. There is no way to compete with an ideology that has entrenched itself into the status quo with the billions of funding and the mechanisms of defensiveness that has been built around the ideology. Get real.

      Yes there is - and science is purpose-built for it. It is to simply present your evidence. Publish.

      That is exactly how great scientists are made. They were the people who went against the received wisdom of the age, gave us a whole new way of looking at the world - and (most crucially here) had the evidence to back it up! Science LOVES people who challenge the status quo.

      It is merely a convenient excuse to cry that the powers that be are hushing up the Creationists. The evidence simply doesn't follow that at all. Behe has written books for laypeople about his brainchild, irreducible complexity, but he has never written an academic paper on it. And his scientific output in general has absolutely plummeted since he took up the banner of ID. Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer - two more great prophets of the ID movement - can each claim one paper in their whole careers, and they were published under extremely controversial circumstances.

      The bottom line is that the ID/Creationists cry foul that they aren't being listened to, but the actual fact of the matter is they are simply not doing the scientific legwork. They don't have a case - they don't have any evidence. Because Creationists aren't interested in evidence. They are only interested in preaching.

      And if we were in the slightest doubt about which side is actually doing the real science here, we only have to note that every major creationist institution has a statement of faith (including, let us not forget, Biola, at which Cornelius himself works). They all lay out the general message that the institution is dedicated to the notion that the Bible is right, and that evolution is wrong.

      But this is a conclusion. Real scientists do not make their conclusions BEFORE they do their science. They must always be allowed to go where the evidence leads. But staff at these institutes of creationism are not - they are obliged to support a conclusion no matter the evidence. This is unscientific to the very core.

      What objective person can honestly doubt which side is doing the real science here?

      Delete
  20. Ritchie asserts in a lazy man's citation bluff sort of way:


    "I can give you ample studies demonstrating the power of random mutation to affect and change a genome. And I can give you many demonstrating the power of natural selection to shape such genomes in a positive feedback loop. I can give you many experiments demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution. But I suspect you will not accept that. I suspect you will accept nothing less than a simple-celled organism being TURNED INTO a bacterial flagellum."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    There you go Ritchie, spitting at the tsunami again.

    You can't site anything of the sort that doesn't rely on sissy science, vastly unquantified speculation and laughable amounts of circular reasoning in order to even pretend to promote nde from it's psuedo-scientific, philophsycho mumbo jumbo status to real science. I admire your dedication to your cause, and your blind tenacity though.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey bpsychotic, if not "nde" or other types of evolutionary theory, then WHAT? What is your scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth? Along with your scientific theory, be sure to include plenty of verifiable evidence that directly relates to your theory.

      Like all of the other god pushing IDiot-creationists, all you do is bash evolutionary theory, and especially "nde", but you offer no scientific alternative. ID is just creationism in a very poor disguise.

      Delete
    2. b -

      Well that's just a lot of hot air, isn't it?

      The theory of evolution is supported and promoted by every credible scientific institution in the western world. The VAST majority of scientists recognise it as scientific fact - and that is saying something baring in mind what a quarrelsome lot scientists are.

      What exactly are your qualifications in this field that leads you to think you are better placed to recognise 'sissy science' and 'unquantified speculation' than this truly massive majority of education experts who have made this field of study their career?

      Delete
    3. "What exactly are your qualifications in this field that leads you to think you are better placed to recognise 'sissy science' and 'unquantified speculation' than this truly massive majority of education experts who have made this field of study their career?"

      A lot of education, reading, listening to and watching lectures and debates on the topics. Interpretation and critical thinking skills.

      No financial axe to grind regarding the success or failure of the "theory". No protecting and waiting around for tenure. No job to lose as the result of disagreeing with the darwinian lobby, etc etc.

      Delete
    4. "Like all of the other god pushing IDiot-creationists, all you do is bash evolutionary theory, and especially "nde", but you offer no scientific alternative. ID is just creationism in a very poor disguise."

      Something has to slow down the runaway freight train of psuedo-science called nde.

      This is a start:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/post_41077191.html

      Delete
    5. b

      A lot of education, reading, listening to and watching lectures and debates on the topics. Interpretation and critical thinking skills.

      So no actual qualifications, then? You've just read a lot of Creationist websites and rate yourself as a pretty clever guy, basically?

      No financial axe to grind regarding the success or failure of the "theory". No protecting and waiting around for tenure. No job to lose as the result of disagreeing with the darwinian lobby, etc etc.

      You are saying you are more likely to be well informed on biology than professional biologists BECAUSE you don't have a career of any kind in it?

      Delete
    6. b -

      Something has to slow down the runaway freight train of psuedo-science called nde.

      This is a start:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/post_41077191.html


      The one and only piece of evidence advanced behind that link of yours is that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.

      But as we know, this is wrong:

      http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

      By the way, the bacterial flagellum wouldn't have counted as an experiment anyway. It is merely an observation. To count as an experiment, you actually have to, well, run an experiment.

      Delete
  21. Bpragmatic says:

    Who t f are you to dictate what it's (some god's) principles of behavior and values are?

    Ritchie says:

    "A rather good question. If there was an ultimate, omniscient being, then it WOULD logically probably be so vastly beyond our comprehension that we mere limited mortals should never understand anything about it."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    Man, I guess that is possible. But you could be totally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. b -

      Man, I guess that is possible. But you could be totally wrong.

      I could be. But maybe I'm not.

      My point, which seems to have escaped you, is that, to quote from my response to Elijah above:

      "I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. No-one seems to get all "Who are we to judge God?" when it comes to talking about him being loving and good.

      "Either we can judge Him or we cannot. If we cannot, then we cannot judge Him to be good OR bad, If we can, then He has a lot of morally outrageous deeds to account for (including genocide, infanticide, and condoning slavery and rape, among others) to account for.

      "You simply cannot have it both ways."

      Delete
    2. "Either we can judge Him or we cannot. If we cannot, then we cannot judge Him to be good OR bad, If we can, then He has a lot of morally outrageous deeds to account for (including genocide, infanticide, and condoning slavery and rape, among others) to account for.

      "You simply cannot have it both ways."



      You may want to consult with a trained theologian to discuss your assertions regarding religion.

      Delete
    3. b -

      If my logic is in error, then please point out where.

      Otherwise your reply has the validity of 'I'm right and you're wrong, so there'.

      Delete
    4. bpsychotic upchucked:

      "You may want to consult with a trained theologian to discuss your assertions regarding religion."

      I laughed for a solid five minutes after reading that. A "trained theologian"? Really? As compared to what, a non-trained theologian? Who or what does the training, and who or what determines whether a theologian is trained properly? Does it depend on whether the "trained theologian" agrees with your religious fairy tale beliefs?

      The terms "theologian" or "trained theologian" are equivalent to the phrase 'someone with an opinion about religious fairy tales', and ANYONE with a grasp on reality is qualified to point out that every religion ever thought up is malarkey.

      Your response to Ritchie amply demonstrates the typical, arrogant attitude of you god pushers. You believe and assert that you know 'God' personally and that you can legitimately describe 'God', including 'his' thoughts, words, actions, moods, image, history, and future. But, when someone says anything against 'God' or even just points out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in YOUR words or actions, they don't know jack and need to consult a "trained theologian" or just take your delusional, arrogant word for it.

      You creobots are just narcissistic authoritarians with delusions of godhood.

      Delete


  22. Ritchie proclaims as he wistfully stares through the window down at the peasantry milling beneath his ivory tower:

    "The comparison seems perfectly apt to me.

    Atomic theory is a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. Neither one leads to necessarily to any particular kind of moral philosophy."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    Uh, sure Ritchie.



    Ritchie says:

    Anyone who accepts evolution are no more culpable for eugenics as people who accept atomic theory are for atomic bombs."

    Bpragmatic responds:

    But there is culpability, correct?

    Ritchie says:

    "The Creationist insinuation that 'Evolutionists are all Nazis' is a childish piece of slander-by-association that holds not the smallest drop of water when actually thought through."

    Bpragmatic says:

    I certainly agree with you there Ritchie. If that is something I said or implied, will gladly retract that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. b -

      Ritchie proclaims as he wistfully stares through the window down at the peasantry milling beneath his ivory tower

      Much as I enjoy reading you project your frustrations, ridicule is no refutation. If you think my arguments are flawed then please point out where and how. Otherwise it just looks like you're lashing out because you don't have a point.

      Uh, sure Ritchie.

      A perfect example of the above. Sarcasm is no refutation either.

      But there is culpability, correct?

      No, of course not. None at all. How can accepting a scientific theory make a person retrospectively responsible for the wrongs committed by people in the past which have only a tangental connection to that theory? The idea is nonsense.

      I certainly agree with you there Ritchie. If that is something I said or implied, will gladly retract that.

      Then I believe you will have to mull over the train of logic that led you to call Ian Spedding a murderer.

      To your credit, you did later explain that you did not consider it to be literally true, but even then you seemed to sulkily imply he has some indirect accountability:

      "However, there is no denying negative impact philosophies derived from nde have had on culture over the decades. Without a doubt contributing towards a mindset in some within society to commit murder, rape, pedophilia, etc."

      I assumed this was a reference to the human eugenics programme carried out by the Nazis, since it is a very common piece of propaganda peddled by Creationists.

      If not, then what on Earth is it a reference to, exactly? When has ToE ever led to such things?

      Delete
    2. "I assumed this was a reference to the human eugenics programme carried out by the Nazis"

      Much much more that this. Do a little research.

      Delete
    3. That is not at all insightful.

      Please be more specific.

      Delete
    4. bpsychotic just thinks that he can get away with pinning every bad thing that has ever occurred on non-christians or atheists.

      Hey bpsychopathic, a majority of the people of the world are religious, yet all kinds of crimes and other horrible things happen all the time. Why do you suppose that is? Should it all be blamed on atheists?

      Hitler was a christian. Predatory, child raping, thieving priests and ministers are christians. Most people in the USA are christians, so why is there so much crime and other horrible things going on?

      Delete
    5. "Hitler was a christian. Predatory, child raping, thieving priests and ministers are christians. Most people in the USA are christians, so why is there so much crime and other horrible things going on?"


      HItler was a "christian" etc. That does not sound right to me. But then again, seems like anyone can call themselves or anyone can call someone else as they like. Doesn't mean it's true.

      Why, I have seen where Neo-Darwinian evolutionists have been called scientists for crying out loud!




      Delete
    6. http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm

      http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

      http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

      http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/hitler-despised-atheism-as-much-as-pope-benedict-does/

      http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was%20Hitler%20a%20Darwinian.pdf

      Delete
  23. "So no actual qualifications, then? You've just read a lot of Creationist websites and rate yourself as a pretty clever guy, basically?"

    Pertinent research and study helps one to qualify as informed. Clever and informed enough to recognized psuedo-science (nde) when it presents itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bpsychotic

      Pertinent research and study helps one to qualify as informed. Clever and informed enough to recognized psuedo-science (nde) when it presents itself.


      LOL! Yep, zero scientific qualifications for Mr. Creationist here. Just a world class case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

      Delete
    2. b -

      Pertinent research and study helps one to qualify as informed. Clever and informed enough to recognized psuedo-science (nde) when it presents itself.

      So that's a yes then - no biological qualifications at all. Just so we know.

      And no, poring over Creationist propaganda for years does not qualify you as informed, no matter how long you spend at it nor how sincere your motives.

      The whole issue with pseudo-science is that people who have been suckered in THINK that they are well informed, when actually they are mistaken - they are merely well-entrenched in a deception.

      And you are a good example of this. You have spent so long enmeshed in Creationist nonsense that you THINK you are informed on the topic. But actually you are woefully misinformed. You demonstrably cannot recognise pseudo-science when you see it - Creationist ticks all the boxes on that score.

      That is why is it important to actually get some formal training in a topic from experts who have made the field their life's study. And if you don't agree with those experts, then maybe it's time to consider the possibility that you are simply wrong.

      But of course, we all know that you won't. The religious mind is incapable of even considering that possibility. Christians always mistake conviction with evidence - as though they can make things true just by believing hard enough. The entire ethos of faith is belief in things for which there is insufficient evidence - with is absolute anathema to the scientific mind.

      All of which means you never have to consider the possibility that you are wrong. And is exactly the reason that you always will be.

      Delete
    3. Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.

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

      Delete
    5. bpsychotic

      Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.


      OK, if you insist.

      The origin of bacterial flagella

      Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.

      Delete
    6. From the citation bluff referenced above:

      "Crucially, Miller
      pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in
      that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar
      protein export constitutes a functionally
      intact subsystem capable of performing a
      useful function (protein secretion) in the
      absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."


      Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.

      If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence
      Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).

      Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then:

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.

      Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".

      No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.

      Delete
    7. bpsychotic

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.


      OK, if you insist

      Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions

      What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?

      Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.

      Delete
  24. "That is not at all insightful.

    Please be more specific."

    I stopped wiping childrens butts for them when my kids out grew diapers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No-one's asking you to do that. All I'm asking you to do is provide a stronger case than: "Go and do some research and you'll see I'm right!"

      If you cannot see that that holds no water then there is no hope at all for you.

      Delete
    2. Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.

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

      Delete
    4. bpsychotic

      Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.


      OK, if you insist.

      The origin of bacterial flagella

      Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.

      Delete
    5. From the citation bluff referenced above:

      "Crucially, Miller
      pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in
      that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar
      protein export constitutes a functionally
      intact subsystem capable of performing a
      useful function (protein secretion) in the
      absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."


      Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.

      If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence
      Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).

      Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then:

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.

      Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".

      No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.

      Delete
    6. bpsychotic

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.


      OK, if you insist

      Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions

      What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?

      Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.

      Delete
  25. "Sarcasm is no refutation either."

    Just like lack of evidence is no support for nde conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How your mind jumps about. You really cannot stay focused, can you?

      I explained perfectly clearly that ToE behaves exactly as atomic theory does - they are both merely scientific theories and thus carry no moral imperatives. And all you gave me back is sarcasm and evasion.

      If you can refute the point, then please do so. Otherwise you are just making a lot of hot air.

      Delete
    2. Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.

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

      Delete
    4. bpsychotic

      Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.


      OK, if you insist.

      The origin of bacterial flagella

      Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.

      Delete
    5. From the citation bluff referenced above:

      "Crucially, Miller
      pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in
      that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar
      protein export constitutes a functionally
      intact subsystem capable of performing a
      useful function (protein secretion) in the
      absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."


      Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.

      If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence
      Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).

      Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then:

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.

      Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".

      No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.

      Delete
    6. bpsychotic

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.


      OK, if you insist

      Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions

      What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?

      Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.

      Delete
  26. "A "trained theologian"? Really? As compared to what, a non-trained theologian?"

    Twt, I am not going to bite on this one. Man, you got way too much time on your hands. Consider putting it to good use instead, and maybe do a little theological research like one a them trained theologians does. Ha Ha Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again with the 'Do some research and you'll see I'm right" dismissal.

      Don't you see that carries precisely zero weight?

      Either we can judge God or we cannot. It cannot be both. That is both logical and simple.

      Yet you apparently don't want to have it either way. You want us to be able to judge Him as good, yet unable to judge Him as bad. How on Earth does that work? You never explain.

      And no, "Do some research and you'll find I'm right" is not an explanation. It is, at best, empty hubris, and at worst an indirect admission that you simply refuse to think your own position through logically.

      But then it's easy to see why you don't wan to think your argument through logically - it doesn't actually make an ounce of sense.

      Delete
    2. Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.

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

      Delete
    4. bpsychotic

      Blah Blah Blah.......

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.


      OK, if you insist.

      The origin of bacterial flagella

      Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.

      Delete
    5. I bow to you on this, Thorton.

      Much more concise than my answer. :-)

      Delete
    6. From the citation bluff referenced above:

      "Crucially, Miller
      pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in
      that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar
      protein export constitutes a functionally
      intact subsystem capable of performing a
      useful function (protein secretion) in the
      absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."


      Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.

      If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence
      Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).

      Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then:

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.

      Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".

      No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.

      Delete
    7. Thornton, I am contemplating raiding my parents liquor cab pretty soon. I think that it has been pretty well depleted. I hope you and Kilo Papa havent slugged down all of Ma Thorntons reserves in your basement yet. I was thinking I would come over and share.

      Delete
    8. bpsychotic

      Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.


      OK, if you insist

      Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions

      What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?

      Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.

      BTW, you really aught to do something about your drunk stuttering.

      Delete
    9. Right on cue Thornty. Claiming reasonable demands to be demands for "infinite detail"? Ha Ha Ha! That is what you have to resort to now. No one I could observed requested "infinite detail".


      Well let me ask you this. Please demonstrate in "sufficient" (not necessarily infinite) detail now the above mentioned nde processes are capable of producing living systems observed today. Let alone describing the observational capabilities correlating to conclusional thinking of cause and effect the mind can process. You ignorant fool.
      You can not even fathom how much you take for granted. Thank god for the ability to recognize a scapegoat to "wipe the dog crap" off of your shoes onto. So you can continue to experience your conciousness in the way you prefer. Your mental positions are meaningless relative to reality, in my opinion. You fool.

      Delete
    10. Drunk stuttering? Talk about hypocrisy. I was the one who asked you and Papa KIlo to quit swigging down Ma Thortons basement stash. But now, I believe, the stash is gone. You and Kilo Papa drank it all. Even after my request to conserve. You have no restraint. That has been demostrated in many ways, over and over again. Thornty.

      Delete
    11. bpsychotic

      Please demonstrate in "sufficient" (not necessarily infinite) detail now the above mentioned nde processes are capable of producing living systems observed today.


      Sorry, no more scientific positive evidence for you until you start reciprocating.

      Now where's your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system?

      Delete
    12. After skimming parts of the study you provided above, couldn't find any detailed description let alone demonstration of the above mentioned nde mechanisms evolving a T3SS via nde processes.

      Is that the best you can come up with?

      Delete
  27. "LOL! Yep, zero scientific qualifications for Mr. Creationist here. Just a world class case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome."


    Did Ma Thorton let you out of the basement AGAIN?

    I going to have to give her a call and let her know you are loose again Thornty. Now, get back down in the basement immediately. You and Kilo better not have drank Ma's entire stash. I may be over there as soon as I wipe out my parents liquor cabinet.

    ReplyDelete