Monday, November 6, 2017

Blindness in Cave Fish is Due to Epigenetics

Evolutionists Say “We See”

A recent paper out of Brant Weinstein’s and William Jeffery’s laboratories on eye development, or the lack thereof, in blind cave fish has important implications for evolutionary theory (paper discussed here). The study finds that the loss of eyes in fish living in dark Mexican caves is not due to genetic mutations, as evolutionists have vigorously argued for many years, but due to genetic regulation. Specifically, methylation of key development genes represses their expression and with it eye development in this venerable icon of evolution. But the finding is causing yet more problems for evolutionary theory.

Darwin appealed to the blind cave fish in his one long argument for evolution. It is a curious argument in many ways, and the first sign of problems was in Darwin’s presentation where he flipped between two different explanations. At one point he explained the loss of vision in the cave fish as an example of evolutionary change not due to his key mechanism, natural selection. Instead, the Sage of Kent resorted to using the Lamarckian mechanism or law of “use and disuse.” Privately Darwin despised and harshly criticized Lamarck, but when needed he occasionally employed his French forerunner’s ideas.

Elsewhere Darwin hit upon a natural selection-based mechanism for the blind cave fish, explaining that elimination of the costly and unneeded vision system would surely raise the fitness of the hapless creatures.

This latter explanation would become a staple amongst latter day evolutionary apologists, convinced that it mandates the fact of evolution. Anyone who has discussed or debated evolutionary theory with today’s Epicureans has likely encountered this curious argument that because blind cave fish lost their eyes, therefore the world must have arisen by itself.

Huh?

To understand the evolutionary logic, or lack thereof, one must understand the history of ideas, and in particular the idea of fixity, or immutability, of species. According to evolutionists, species are either absolutely fixed in their designs, or otherwise there are no limits to their evolutionary changes and the biological world, and everything else for that matter, spontaneously originated.

Any evidence, for any kind of change, no matter how minor, is immediately yet another proof text for evolution, in all that the word implies.

Of course, from a scientific perspective, the evidence provides precisely zero evidence for evolution. Evolution requires the spontaneous (i.e., by natural processes without external input) creation of an unending parade of profound designs. The cave fish evidence shows the removal, not creation, of such a design.

The celebration of such evidence and argument by Darwin and his disciples reveals more about evolutionists than evolution. That they would find this argument persuasive reveals their underlying metaphysics and the heavy lifting it performs. It is all about religion.

We are reminded of all this with the news of Weinstein’s new study. But we also see something new: The insertion, yet again, of Lamarck into the story. The irony is that the epigenetics, now revealed as the cause of repressed eye development in the cave fish, hearkens back to Lamarck.

Darwin despised Lamarck and later evolutionists made him the third rail in biology. Likewise they have pushed back hard against the scientific findings of epigenetics and their implications.

The environment must not drive biological change.

False.

Well such biological change must not be transgenerational.

False.

Well such inheritance must not be long lasting, or otherwise robust.

False again.

This last failure is revealed yet again in the new blind cave fish findings.

False predictions count. A theory that is repeatedly wrong, over and over, in all of its fundamental expectations, will eventually be seen for what it is.

The rise of epigenetics is yet another such major failure. Evolutionists pushed back against it because it makes no sense on the theory, and that means it cannot now be easily accommodated.

One problem is that epigenetics is complex. The levels of coordination and intricacy of mechanism are far beyond evolution’s meager resources.

It’s not going to happen.

Another problem is the implied serendipity. For instance, one epigenetic mechanism involves the molecular tags places on the tails of the DNA packing proteins called histones. While barcoding often seems to be an apt metaphor for epigenetics, the tagging of histone tails can influence the histone three dimensional structures. It is not merely an information-bearing barcode. Like the tiny rudder causing the huge ship to change course, the tiny molecular tag can cause the much larger packing proteins to undergo conformational change, resulting in important changes in gene accessibility and expression.

This is all possible because of the special, peculiar, structure and properties of the histone protein and its interaction with DNA. With evolution we must believe this just happened to evolve for no reason, and thus fortuitously enabled the rise of epigenetics.

Another problem with epigenetics is that it is worthless, in evolutionary terms that is. The various mechanisms that sense environmental shifts and challenges, attach or remove one of the many different molecular tags to one of the many different DNA or histone locations, propagate these messages across generations, and so forth, do not produce the much needed fitness gain upon which natural selection operates.

The incredible epigenetics mechanisms are helpful only at some yet to be announced future epoch when the associated environmental challenge presents itself. In the meantime, selection is powerless and according to evolution the incredible system of epigenetics, that somehow just happened to arise from a long, long series or random mutations, would wither away with evolution none the wiser.

These are the general problems with epigenetics. In the case of the blind cave fish, however, there is possible explanation. It is a longshot, but since this case specifically involves the loss of a stage of the embryonic development, evolutionists can say that genetic mutations caused changes in the methylating proteins, causing them to be overactive.

This explanation relies on the preexistence of the various epigenetic mechanisms, so does not help to resolve the question of how they could have evolved. What the explanation does provide is a way for evolutionists to dodge the bullet presented by the specter of the cave fish intelligently responding to an environmental shift.

Such teleology in the natural world is not allowed.

So the evolutionary prediction is that these proteins will be found to have particular random changes causing an increase in their methylation function, in particular at key locations in key genes (i.e., the genes associated eye development).

That’s a long shot, and an incredible violation of Occam’s Razor.

My predictions are that (i) this evolutionary prediction will fail just as the hundreds that came before, and (ii) as with those earlier failures, this failure will do nothing to open the evolutionist’s eyes.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

88 comments:

  1. "Evolution requires the spontaneous (i.e., by natural processes without external input) creation of an unending parade of profound designs."

    Who has said that evolution occurs without external input? Evolution as we currently know it involves all sorts of inputs and feedback.

    "The cave fish evidence shows the removal, not creation, of such a design."

    Falling back on Joke's 'selection is eliminative' trope? You are smarter than that.

    "The irony is that the epigenetics, now revealed as the cause of repressed eye development in the cave fish, hearkens back to Lamarck."

    No it doesn't. At least not back to it as Lamarck posited. (i.e., things like, the son of a blacksmith will have stronger arms because of this acquired characteristic of the father). When Darwin published his book, nobody knew how inheritance worked. And he did not rule out the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

    Epigenetics simply results in two (or more) phenotypic expressions of the same gene, each of which can be affected by natural selection. If the methylation that results in the loss of the eye in cave fish was seriously detrimental, it would be removed by selection.

    The existence of epigenetics has been known for over half a century. That the phenotype is the result of the interaction of the genotype and the environment is as close to being a fact as science allows.

    The use of epigenetic by IDists is best summarized by Wiki:

    "Misuse of the scientific term by quack authors has created misinformation and controversy in the public.["

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WS:

      Who has said that evolution occurs without external input? Evolution as we currently know it involves all sorts of inputs and feedback.

      Feedback is not external input. So please explain what was the external input?

      OP: "Likewise they have pushed back hard against the scientific findings of epigenetics and their implications. The environment must not drive biological change. ... Well such biological change must not be transgenerational. ... Well such inheritance must not be long lasting, or otherwise robust."

      WS: "The use of epigenetic by IDists is best summarized by Wiki: 'Misuse of the scientific term by quack authors has created misinformation and controversy in the public. [Guardian citation]'"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics


      Guardian: "If the changes are permanent, then we’ve got big news. But given that in mice they have at best only lasted a few generations, the effects are intriguing but not revolutionary. Creationists cite epigenetics to assert that Darwin was wrong, and that epigenetics may show Lamarckian evolution – that is, acquired during life. It doesn’t ..."
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/19/epigenetics-dna--darwin-adam-rutherford

      That is quite an own goal.

      Delete
    2. willie:
      Falling back on Joke's 'selection is eliminative' trope?

      Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is" page 117:

      "What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination."

      Ernst Mayr was one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis.

      But I digress. What Dr Hunter was referring to when he said:

      "The cave fish evidence shows the removal, not creation, of such a design."

      Is that losing something is not the same as creating it in the first place. If the only thing your proposed mechanisms can do is remove traits and features that doesn't bode well for you.

      Natural selection being eliminative means the removal of the less fit from a population over time. See "What Evolution Is".

      Or does willie really think he knows more about the subject than one of the people who created it?

      Delete
    3. Third time's the charm.

      "Feedback is not external input. So please explain what was the external input?"

      I didn't say that the feedback was external. Not that there aren't plenty of examples of feedback being external. Environment is an external input. Many organisms modify the environment. Therefore this input is also feedback.

      "OP: "Likewise they have pushed back hard against the scientific findings of epigenetics and their implications. The environment must not drive biological change. ... Well such biological change must not be transgenerational. ... Well such inheritance must not be long lasting, or otherwise robust.""

      Epigenetics has been known for over half a century. What researchers have been doing since then is identifying the mechanisms and the extent of their impact. But, the bottom line is that researchers have always known that the expressed phenotype is the result of both genetics and the environment. There is nothing new here. We are just gaining a better understanding of it.

      What we know is that methylation in metazoans does not persist more than a few generations once the environmental trigger is removed. However, if the environmental trigger is constant, the methylation will persist.

      But IDists see epigenetic as something that is outside of evolution and natural selection, which is not true. If the epigenetic expression of a specific allele results in greater fitness, the frequency of that specific allele will increase. If it is detrimental, the frequency will decrease in favour of another allele. Or the species will become extinct in areas where the environmental trigger exists.

      Delete
    4. wiliie:
      But IDists see epigenetic as something that is outside of evolution and natural selection,

      That is incorrect and demonstrates ignorance on your part. IDists see epigenetics as a type of built-in response to environmental cues- Spetner, 1997

      Delete
    5. Joke: “IDists see epigenetics as a type of built-in response to environmental cues- Spetner, 1997“

      Built by way? Designer or by natural selection?

      Delete
    6. Wee:
      Designer or by natural selection?

      We have experience with intelligent designers and built-in capabilities in their designs. How could we test the capability of natural selection producing built-in responses to environmental cues?

      How can we test the claim that natural selection produced living organisms?

      Delete
    7. joke: "We have experience with intelligent designers and built-in capabilities in their designs."

      Yes. We have extensive experience with human design. Extrapolating from a single data point is a fools game.

      "How could we test the capability of natural selection producing built-in responses to environmental cues?"

      Nobody has suggested that natural selection produced built in responses? That would imply that natural selection is goal oriented, which it isn't.

      "How can we test the claim that natural selection produced living organisms?"

      Natural selection didn't produce living organisms.

      Delete
    8. Wee:
      Extrapolating from a single data point is a fools game.

      It isn't a single data point as there are many instances of us doing so. And you don't have anything to extrapolate from.

      Nobody has suggested that natural selection produced built in responses?

      Nobody has.

      That would imply that natural selection is goal oriented, which it isn't.

      No, it would not imply any such thing. Well no more than natural selection producing vision systems.

      Natural selection didn't produce living organisms.

      Then why your original question?:

      Designer or by natural selection?

      Clearly it wasn't natural selection by your own admittance.

      Delete
    9. Joke: "It isn't a single data point as there are many instances of us doing so."

      Artifact: Stonehenge.
      Designer: Human.

      Artifact: Pyramids.
      Designer: Humans.

      Artifact: Chichen itza
      Designer: Humans.

      Artifact: Flagellum.
      Designer:

      Feel free to extrapolate.

      Delete
    10. An intelligent designer other than humans. Easy- peasy. Mother nature doesn't magically get the ability just cuz we weren't around. We have been over this before, willie. Are you still incapable of learning?

      Feel free to demonstrate natural selection producing any flagella. Feel free to tell us how to test such a thing.

      Flagellum- meets the ID criteria:

      "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr Behe

      We take that positive criteria and add to that the fact that you and yours have nothing, and we safely infer Intelligent Design.

      Delete
    11. "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr Behe

      He forgot to mention that this has only been clearly demonstrated for artifacts made by humans. Extrapolating to the flagellum is just an unjustified leap of FAITH. But I guess that is to be expected of a religiously based theory.

      Delete
    12. Look, willie, you and yours have nothing but your FAITH. You don't have any evidence and you don't have a testable methodology. You have nothing to extrapolate from.

      If you and yours actually had something then ID would be a non-starter. You have all of the power to put ID down and yet all you can do is drool like the fools you are.

      But I guess that is to be expected from scientifically illiterate losers.

      Delete
    13. LoL! You don't have anything to extrapolate from which makes yours entirely based on FAITH.

      Nice own goal...

      Delete
    14. Falling back on Joke's 'selection is eliminative' trope? You are smarter than that

      Apparently not.

      Anyone else catch the fact this epigenetic change is specific to this species of cave fish and that other lost their eyes the usual evolutionary way? From the article:

      "It was assumed that these fish became blind because mutations disabled key genes involved in eye development. This has been shown to be the case for some other underground species that have lost their eyes."

      As CH would say, nice own goal Creationists!

      Delete
    15. Wow. Reading evos diss Ernst Mayr is entertaining but still sad.

      ghostie:
      Anyone else catch the fact this epigenetic change is specific to this species of cave fish and that other lost their eyes the usual evolutionary way?

      LoL! Still confused. No one says that organisms cannot lose something due to genetic accidents. And that seems to be the only type of change that genetic accidents can produce.

      Nice own goal, ghostie.

      BTW you still need a mechanism that can produce vision systems.

      Delete
    16. Joke, you seem to be more than willing to extrapolate from human design of human made artifacts to "intelligently" designed biological structures, with zero evidence to support it. Yet unwilling to extrapolate from the thousands of examples of random mutation and natural selection resulting in new function over a short time frame to what the same mechanism could produce over thousands and millions of years. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Joe Gallien.

      Delete
    17. willie:
      you seem to be more than willing to extrapolate from human design of human made artifacts to "intelligently" designed biological structures, with zero evidence to support it.

      Wrong again as we have presented the evidence. That you choke on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Yet unwilling to extrapolate from the thousands of examples of random mutation and natural selection resulting in new function over a short time frame to what the same mechanism could produce over thousands and millions of years.

      Now you are just lying. For one you don't have any methodology to test the claim that all mutations are genetic accidents, errors and/ or mistakes. For another no one has ever observed genetic accidents, errors and/ or mistakes actually accumulating in a way as to create a multi-protein complex. No one even knows how to test the claim.

      So clearly you are just a deluded troll.

      Delete
  2. Very interesting. It is obvious that the brain (nervous system) has a direct connection to a gene modification mechanism. The brain can modify certain genes at the base-pair level. It does so in response to direct environmental pressure. This capability seems to be very pronounced during the formative years and mostly disappears at the organism ages.

    I hereby posit that homosexuality is an epigenetic effect caused by bad/abusive parenting at an early age.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very interesting way of thinking: if epigenetics is involved in eye underdevelopment/loss in some particular cave fish species, then evolution is false and all species appeared out of nowhere by magical means.

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Showing how faulty your own logic is constitutes an own goal.

      Delete
    2. This is hilarious. ROTFLOL.
      I love "futbol".

      Delete
  4. Joke: "If you and yours actually had something then ID would be a non-starter."

    When was ID ever a starter? I must have missed all of those ID papers in peer reviewed journals. Toaster Repair Weekly doesn't count.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Unlike your position ID makes testable claims. And there isn't any peer-reviewed papers that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Clearly you are still willfully ignorant and proud of it.

      Delete
    2. Joke: "Unlike your position ID makes testable claims."

      Could you point me to the peer reviewed papers that have tested these claims? I would be very interested in reading them. As I am sure all others here would.

      Delete
    3. Any and all peer-reviewed papers that deal with multi-protein functional complexes, like ATP synthase. They all meet Behe's ID criteria and no one knows how blind and mindless processes could have done it.

      That said you cannot point us to any peer-reviewed papers that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And because of that ID is safe from falsification.

      Delete
    4. Joke: "Any and all peer-reviewed papers that deal with multi-protein functional complexes, like ATP synthase."

      By that argument, those papers also support my pet theory that all life was the by-product of the defecation of an inter dimensional toaster repairman. If ID wants to have the same level of scientific rigour as my theory, you are free to argue that these papers are tests of ID.

      Delete
    5. wee:
      By that argument,...

      That wasn't the argument. You ignored the argument as if your ignorance refutes it.

      those papers also support my pet theory that all life was the by-product of the defecation of an inter dimensional toaster repairman.

      Good luck making your case.

      If ID wants to have the same level of scientific rigour as my theory,...


      You don't have a theory and ID exceeds what already exists

      you are free to argue that these papers are tests of ID.

      They are tests for ID for the reasons provided. Your continued willful ignorance will never refute those reasons.

      Delete
    6. Joke: "That wasn't the argument. You ignored the argument as if your ignorance refutes it."

      You argued that all of these papers tested ID's testable claims. I simply said that the same papers were just as effective at testing the claim that all life was the result of the defecation of an inter dimensional toaster repairman. Which is true.

      Delete
    7. wee willie:
      You argued that all of these papers tested ID's testable claims.

      You don't seem to understand the argument.

      I simply said that the same papers were just as effective at testing the claim that all life was the result of the defecation of an inter dimensional toaster repairman.

      Right, you don't have an argument, ie any reasoning behind your claim. You just simply say things because that is what simple minded people do. They just simply say things and think that is an argument.

      That stupidity may work on Judge Jones but it isn't working in the real world.

      Which is true.

      Exactly. Thank you.

      Delete
    8. You can’t blame Judge Jones for the incompetence of the creationist witnesses.

      Delete
    9. LoL! Judge Jones was fooled by a literature bluff! He didn't even listen to the ID experts and was totally fooled by the anti-ID BS.

      Not only that is overstepped his bounds- as if a judge can say what is and isn't science. As if science is decided in a Court of Law. As if someone who is fooled by a literature bluff is qualified to be a judge.

      As I said- your stupidity may work on Judge Jones- because he is totally clueless when it comes to science and the details of this debate (well, hey you two have that in common)- but it doesn't make it in the real world.

      Delete
    10. The mistake ID made was trying to claim that ID wasn’t just a repackaging of creationism. The fact that an earlier draft of “Of Pandas” showed that the editors did a find-and-replace to exchange creationism for ID didn’t help. And then there is the Wedge document. What genius thought it was a good idea to write that document?

      Delete
    11. Only willfully ignorant morons on an agenda think that ID is just a repackaging of Creationism. And here you are.

      The fact that the publishers of "Of Pandas and people" were not allowed to defend there book speaks volumes.

      Wedge document? The "Wedge Document"- So what?

      Grow up, loser. I see that you cannot defend Judge Jones. Typical.

      Delete
    12. Joke: “Wedge document? The "Wedge Document"- So what?“

      Backpedaling at its finest.

      The fact that the publishers of "Of Pandas and people" were not allowed to defend there book speaks volumes.“

      What’s to defend? They wrote a book about creationism and then changed creationism to ID before publication. ID is just repackaged creationism. That’s why ID absolutely refuses to propose mechanisms for how ID works, when it occurred, and who the designer is.

      Delete
    13. What’s to defend?

      The facts.

      They wrote a book about creationism

      No, they didn't

      and then changed creationism to ID before publication.

      OK, say you are writing a book about X but don't yet have a name for X. Is it OK to use something else as a placeholder for X until you come up with the proper name?

      And what about the authors of the book who had made it clear in previous works that their ideas were different than Creationism?

      ID is just repackaged creationism.

      Wrong. Creation is a SUBSET of ID.

      That’s why ID absolutely refuses to propose mechanisms for how ID works, when it occurred, and who the designer is.

      And yet IDists have proposed mechanisms for how ID works. When it occurred is a separate question from ID as is who the designer is.

      We don't have to know how, when nor who before we can detect and study intelligent design. As a matter of science those questions come AFTER.

      And your position is supposed to be all about the how yet it is silent. Your proposed mechanisms have never been shown to be capable of producing any multi-protein functional complexes and they can't even get you beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

      Delete
    14. Joke: “OK, say you are writing a book about X but don't yet have a name for X. Is it OK to use something else as a placeholder for X until you come up with the proper name?“

      I haven’t seen dancing like this since Fred Astair. I hope you warmed up before starting this two-step. You don’t want to pull something.

      Delete
    15. “Pandas” was originally written as a different way to package creationism. When court cases started going against creationism, they decided to rebrand it. It’s the oldest trick in the book.

      Rebranding is a marketing trick as old as dirt. It does not mean that the product or service has changed. It is intended to give the perception that it has.

      Something like when “Evolution News and Views” changed its name to “Evolution News”. The cast of characters and nature of the site did not change. It was, and remains, a propaganda site for creationism.

      Delete
    16. Pandas” was originally written as a different way to package creationism.

      Nope. The evidence says otherwise.

      When court cases started going against creationism, they decided to rebrand it.

      Nope. Courts cannot decide what is and isn't science. Plus the fact that evolutionism is just atheism in disguise and anyone can see it would fail the Court test wrt the establishment clause.

      Why is it that only willfully ignorant trolls try to make the argument that ID is just rebranded Creationism?


      Delete
    17. Joke: "Nope. The evidence says otherwise."

      Then you don't know what the word "evidence" means.

      "Nope. Courts cannot decide what is and isn't science. "

      When it pertains to what is taught in the science class, of course they can. And they did. The fact that you don't like it does not mean that they overstepped their authority.

      "Plus the fact that evolutionism is just atheism in disguise and anyone can see it would fail the Court test wrt the establishment clause."

      Talk to me about it again after you take them to court.

      "Why is it that only willfully ignorant trolls try to make the argument that ID is just rebranded Creationism?"

      When all of the facts support that ID is a repackaging of creationism, the conclusion comes easy. On another note, why is it that the "Scientific Creationism" fad died out when ID was fabricated? Coincidence?

      Delete
    18. Then you don't know what the word "evidence" means.

      I know more about it than you ever will.

      When it pertains to what is taught in the science class, of course they can

      No, they cannot. Science cannot legislated nor adudicated

      When all of the facts support that ID is a repackaging of creationism,

      None of the facts support that claim. Only losers on an agenda make that claim.

      Scientific Creationism is still going. See AiG, CRS, and ICR.

      It's as if you think your willful ignorance is an argument.

      Creation is a SUBSET of ID. I see that you are too stupid to understand what that means. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

      Delete
    19. Joke: “No, they cannot. Science cannot legislated nor adudicated.”

      It is legislated and adjudicated all of the time. There are many people who want the courts to rule that a fertilized ovum is entitled to all of the rights of a breathing human being, in spite of what science has demonstrated.

      Some try to have the courts ban SSM using their idea of science to support their views

      Some try to ban stem cell research, in spite of the scientific advances that it affords.

      Some want to use the courts to deny the science of climate change.

      Some have tried to use the courts to promote creationism in spite of the science.

      Thankfully, the courts have sided with the science in most cases. Go figure.

      Delete
    20. It is legislated and adjudicated all of the time.

      It can't be. That is the question of what is and isn't science can neither be legislated nor adjudicated. What people do with science can be.

      Some have tried to use the courts to promote creationism in spite of the science.

      And some people have fooled the courts into allowing their non-science BS to pass as science. That is why courts are no place to settle it because it is clear they don't have a clue and clearly they don't want one.

      Evolutionism science for the simple reason it doesn't make testable claims. You can try to deny that fact been when pressed all you do is lie and bluff. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

      Delete
    21. Joke: “It can't be. That is the question of what is and isn't science can neither be legislated nor adjudicated. What people do with science can be.”

      And that’s what they did at Dover. Thank you for admitting that they were acting within their authority.

      Delete
    22. At Dover Judge Jones over stepped not only his authority but the mandate of the trial. And seeing that he was fooled by lies and a literature bluff, he shouldn't be ruling on science.

      Thank you for admitting that they were acting within their authority.

      I said the opposite so thank you for admitting that you are too stupid to understand what is posted.

      Delete
    23. Joke: “I said the opposite so thank you for admitting that you are too stupid to understand what is posted.“

      No. You said that the courts can’t decide what is science, which I agree with, but that they can decide how it is used. Which I also agree with. And they decided that ID can’t be taught as science in the schools. Well within the authority that even you have ascribed to them.

      If they decided that unguided evolution can’t be taught, that would also be within their authority. Something tells me that you wouldn’t be arguing against them if they made that decision. Hypocrite, thy name is Joe. Or ET, or Frankie, or Virgil...

      Delete
    24. Wow, Judge Jones ruled the ID is not science. And teaching ID in a classroom has nothing to do with how science is used.

      Unguided evolution doesn't qualify as science because it makes untestable claims. Only the uneducated would allow it to be taught in schools.

      ID makes testable claims so it is scientific. Unguided evolution doesn't make testable claims so it isn't.

      And that means only an uneducated troll could call me a hypocrite.

      Delete
    25. Joke: “Unguided evolution doesn't qualify as science because it makes untestable claims.“

      Except for the hundreds of claims that are tested and published every year. The publication record for ID research? One paper in BioComplexity in 2017, authored by one of the editors and employees of the “journal”.

      Only the uneducated would allow it to be taught in schools.“

      Take that up with the thousands of uneducated teachers who teach it in the thousands of uneducated schools in the hundreds of uneducated countries throughout the world. Maybe when you launch that law suit that you have been promising for at least a decade, things will me made right.

      And that means only an uneducated troll could call me a hypocrite.”

      No. Anyone who reads your comments would come to that conclusion.

      Delete
    26. Except for the hundreds of claims that are tested and published every year.

      And yet you can't name one.

      Take that up with the thousands of uneducated teachers who teach it in the thousands of uneducated schools in the hundreds of uneducated countries throughout the world.

      What do they teach? If they teach unguided evolution produced the diversity of life then they teach lies.

      Anyone who reads your comments would come to that conclusion.

      And yet you have proven incapable of reading and you cannot make a case against me that I am a hypocrite. And that means you are just a cry-baby loser and a willfully ignorant troll.

      Delete
    27. Joke: “And yet you can't name one.

      Google is a wonderful thing. You should try using it.

      What do they teach? If they teach unguided evolution produced the diversity of life then they teach lies.

      References please. Please limit them to reputable peer reviewed journals.

      And yet you have proven incapable of reading and you cannot make a case against me that I am a hypocrite. And that means you are just a cry-baby loser and a willfully ignorant troll.

      You are a hypocrite for criticizing others of being serial socks when you (Joe, ET, Virgil, Frankie, etc.) are guilty of the same.

      Delete
    28. OK wee willie's bluff is duly noted.

      References please.

      For what? That they teach unguided evolution produced the diversity of life? Start with Darwin, 1859.

      You are a hypocrite for criticizing others of being serial socks

      I don't criticize anyone for being serial socks. I just point out that their previous socks have used the same arguments and they have been answered. Merely changing socks doesn't change that

      Delete
    29. Google is a wonderful thing.

      Yes, it is. However even google can't help you make a case for unguided evolution- not when it comes to published claims.

      Delete
    30. Joke: “For what? That they teach unguided evolution produced the diversity of life?

      No, that they are teaching lies.

      I don’t criticize anyone for being a serial sock”

      Except that you did that to JVL over at UD.

      Delete
    31. No, that they are teaching lies.

      It is a lie to say unguided evolution produced the diversity of life. Unguided evolution can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes, given starting populations of prokaryotes.

      Except that you did that to JVL over at UD.

      Doubtful.

      Delete
    32. The lie is that unguided evolution produced the diversity of life. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

      And it is doubtful that I did what you said. It is telling that you didn't provide any evidence.

      Delete
    33. Joke: And it is doubtful that I did what you said.”

      Really?

      Pointing out that you are an obtuse troll isn’t anger. How many times do you have to be told? How many socks are you wearing out trying to pretend you haven’t already had these discussions?“

      I will let the readers be the judge.

      Delete
    34. Wow- what a quote-mining loser you are:

      I don't criticize anyone for being serial socks. I just point out that their previous socks have used the same arguments and they have been answered. Merely changing socks doesn't change that.

      I didn't criticize him for being a serial sock. I just pointed out that his socks have already been washed, rinsed, and repeated. Merely ramping up the cycle under yet another sock is childish at best. It isn't a criticism of being a serial sock puppet. It's a criticism of misusing it and being a dick about it.

      It's always the same unsupported, refuted and obtuse tripe.

      Now if he had any real arguments then that would be a different story.

      Delete
    35. Joke: "I don't criticize anyone for being serial socks."

      Joke to JVL: "How many socks are you wearing out trying to pretend you haven’t already had these discussions?“"

      By any definition, that is a criticism of using multiple socks. Which, needless to say, is something that you also do. It only takes a couple of comments by one of your socks for people to know who the commenter actually is (Joe Gallien, toaster repairman from Mass,).

      Delete
    36. So more quote-mining from the cowardly wee willie.

      By any definition what I said to JVL was a criticism of what he is doing with those multiple socks and has nothing to do with the fact he uses multiple socks.

      Anyone who can read for comprehension sees that I am right and you are the joke.

      Delete
    37. Joke: “Anyone who can read for comprehension sees that I am right and you are the joke.“

      I am comfortable leaving the judgment up to the readers.

      Delete
    38. LoL! You are comfortable with being a quote-mining, bluffing, internet troll.

      I am comfortable with the fact I actually made my case and you just spewed your normal bald assertions.

      Delete
    39. Joke: “LoL! You are comfortable with being a quote-mining, bluffing, internet troll.“

      Yup. Nothing but finely tuned arguments here.

      Delete
    40. That wasn't the argument. That was an observation.

      Delete
    41. Joke: "That wasn't the argument. That was an observation."

      And just as valid as your observations that there are watermelon eating ticks, that ice isn't water and that Frequency = Wavelength.

      Delete
  5. BIG LOL!

    Almost 12 years since the IDiots ate it at Dover and Joke is still whining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How am I whining? By pointing out that evos got away with lying and bluffing?

      It is all there for all to see, Timmy.

      Delete
    2. Joke: “How am I whining? By pointing out that evos got away with lying and bluffing?“

      Yup. That sounds like whining to me.

      Delete
    3. Of course it would. You are a liar and a bluffer who doesn't care for the facts.

      Delete
    4. Naturally. Given your aversion to the facts and reality you couldn't say anything else.

      Delete
  6. Off topic, but I think everyone would be interested in the discussion going on between JVL and ET over at UD.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sean-carroll-and-brute-facts/#comment-643196

    JVL is asking the same thing that I have here about ID’s refusal to address the nature of the designer and the possible mechanisms used by it. In an attempt to justify this, ET is spewing rationale that would not fool a three year old. But it is apparent that ET’s intelligence level is only at the two and a half year level. Sad, but highly entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm, ID is not about the designer nor the mechanisms used. That said IDists have provided possible mechanisms.

      As for rationale, it is clear that willie doesn't even know what that word means as it has never demonstrated any at any time.

      Delete
    2. Hi Will,

      I think those guys at UD are unaware that their pseudo-phylosophy, does not constitute the alpha-and-omega of philosophy.

      The opening comment says that Carroll "gives up" on the "law" of sufficient reason as if that thing was some real unavoidable fact. As if it was obviously ridiculous to "give up" on it. They're unaware of their own assumptions, and unaware of their own acceptance of brute facts.

      You'll find the very same attitude in the comment section of the podcast with Carroll and that other guy. People who mistake their pseudo-philosophical assumptions for the alpha-and-omega of philosophy. Oh, and they'll call anybody who doesn't accept those "principles" an ignorant of philosophy.

      Anyway, not an enjoyable read.

      Delete
    3. Please spell out this alleged "pseudo-philosophy".

      Delete
    4. Joke: “Please spell out this alleged "pseudo-philosophy".“

      ID. See, that was easy.

      Delete
    5. Good answer, for a two year old.

      Delete
    6. Joke: "Good answer, for a two year old."

      I always find it best to taylor my comments for the maturity level of the person I am talking to.

      Delete
    7. You tailor your comments to your own intellectual level.

      Delete
  7. But it is apparent that ET’s intelligence level is only at the two and a half year level.

    And yet I am much smarter than you will ever be. Nice own goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joke: “And yet I am much smarter than you will ever be. Nice own goal.“

      Well, this came out of left field. I was criticizing the intelligence of ET over at UD and Joke takes it personally. Surely Joke and ET are not one and the same. Especially given that ET accused JVL of being one in a long line of sock trolls.

      Delete
    2. I didn't take it personally. I was just pointing out that I understand the rationale and logic of what is being discussed. What ET posted falls in line with everything we know- design detection first and then study it to try to answer any follow-up questions.

      Only people with a low double-digit IQ would question that and that is where you and JVL come in.

      Nice own goal.

      Delete
    3. Does this mean that you are ET the serial sock?

      Joe = JoeG = Joey = ET = Virgil Caine = Frankie = Wavelength = Frequency.

      Delete
    4. Does this mean that you are ET the serial sock?

      What is "this"? The fact that ET, myself and millions of other educated people understand what science demands?

      That "this"?

      Delete
    5. So, I take that as a yes, your intelligence is below a two and half year old level.

      Delete
    6. Joke: “So, I take that as a yes, your intelligence is below a two and half year old level.“

      A classic example of the “I know your are but what am I?” school of debating techniques.

      Delete
    7. I love it when evos throw a hissy fit when their tactics are used against them.

      Entertainment at its finest.

      Delete