tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1856865180292145430..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: How Evolutionists Stole the HistonesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81986369901003023612012-12-17T09:21:05.463-08:002012-12-17T09:21:05.463-08:00IOW Ritchie, supporting your position has NOTHING ...IOW Ritchie, supporting your position has NOTHING to do with the supernatural. Meaning you do NOT have to disprove it. You just need POSITIVE evidence that blind and undirected processes can do it. AND you have to demonstrate how you determined the processes were blind and undirected.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38159765250946085002012-12-17T09:19:25.476-08:002012-12-17T09:19:25.476-08:00Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and...<b>Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and new body parts.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>Speciation obviously brings great variety on existing body plans.</i><br /><br />Really? Look at the two different species of chimp. Look at all the different species of vole. All the same body plan and body parts.<br /><br />You cannot point to one case of speciation producing new body plans with new body parts.<br /><br /><b>It's impossible to support your position?</b><br /><br /><i>No, it is impossible to disprove the supernatural.</i><br /><br />What an ignorant coward you are. Supporting your position does NOT require disproving the supernatural.<br /><br /><i>There is a plethora of evidence which shows the mechanisms of evolution.</i><br /><br />Yes, but ID is not anti-evolution- and you are ignorant of what ID says and what is being debated.<br /><br /> <i>The only thing they cannot do is to show that the mechanisms are UNGUIDED (presumably by some supernatural force) which is what you are asking.</i><br /><br />That is just coawrdly ignorance. You have to demonstrate that the mutations are random/ chance/ happenstance events. You ahve to show that blind and undirected processes can actually construct new protein configurations.<br /><br />Yet you have nothing but your cowardly ignorance. If ID didn't exist you still couldn't support your position. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88759137361135571082012-12-17T09:11:46.572-08:002012-12-17T09:11:46.572-08:00Not unless there is intelligence around to make it...Not unless there is intelligence around to make it soJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8850037763901524282012-12-16T07:51:56.360-08:002012-12-16T07:51:56.360-08:00Joe -
So what? Speciation does NOT bring about n...Joe - <br /><br /><b>So what? Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and new body parts. </b><br /><br />Why not? Speciation obviously brings great variety on existing body plans. Look at the variation we see among dogs. And that's how new body parts come about - not by a sudden appearance, but by an accumulation of small and subtle changes over long periods of time until what you end up with is actually significantly different to what you started with.<br /><br /><b>"The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages."<br /><br />That doesn't stop one from evolving into the other.</b><br /><br />Yes it does. That absolutely does stop one evolving into the other.<br /><br /><b>Strange that I provided a reference that says it does. That is what "consit and contain" mean, dumbass.</b><br /><br />And the manx cat no longer sits within the species of domestic cat because it has lost it's tail? Blind cave fish no longer sit within the genus Astyanax because they have lost their eyes? Get a clue.<br /><br /><b>Nope it doesn't have to be an ancestor.</b><br /><br />How else could it contain features otherwise unique to two separate species?<br /><br /><b>The nested hierarchy demands 10 characteristics and this species doesn't have that.</b><br /><br />Wait, what are you saying, exactly? Are you saying:<br /><br />A) That a species needs to have 10 unique characteristics to be classed as a unique species in its own right,<br /><br />or <br /><br />B) That a species needs 10 unique characteristics to count as a species AT ALL?<br /><br />or <br /><br />C) Something else<br /><br />The only criteria of a species (an yes, it is an inexact measure) is whether it is genetically distinct - that is, a species is considered a species of its own if it cannot crossbreed with other species to produce fertile young.<br /><br /><b>It's impossible to support your position?</b><br /><br />No, it is impossible to disprove the supernatural. Because that is unscientific. And if your position requires even the possibility of the supernatural then it is unscientific too.<br /><br /><b>No dumbass, I am asking you to support YOUR position.</b><br /><br />There is a plethora of evidence which shows the mechanisms of evolution. The only thing they cannot do is to show that the mechanisms are UNGUIDED (presumably by some supernatural force) which is what you are asking. And that is impossible to show.<br /><br /><b>OK Ritchie, tell us where these human eye genes are- you know the genes that determine the type of eye the organism has.</b><br /><br />On the human genome. <br /><br />Ta-dah.<br /><br /><b>Good luck with that mr poopology.</b><br /><br />Ouch! Now that's embarrassing. I've got no response for this at all. You're really shown my up and made me look like an idiot by your brilliant mockery of my academic qualifications by swapping the root word with 'poop'. So intelligent and insightful of you. I guess my scientific credentials which are directly relevant to this discussion count for nothing now... :-(Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38167904574126263342012-12-16T06:57:14.494-08:002012-12-16T06:57:14.494-08:00Ritchie teh cowrad chokes again:
you are too cowa...Ritchie teh cowrad chokes again:<br /><br /><b>you are too cowardly to provide a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for unguided evolution.</b><br /><br /><i>As I have explained to you over and over, that is an impossible request.</i><br /><br />It's impossible to support your position?<br /><br /><i>You are asking me to disprove the supernatual.</i><br /><br />No dumbass, I am asking you to support YOUR position. But I understand that you can't so you have to make up some ignorant spewage.<br /><br /><b>No, that is false. Genes influence characteristics but they do not determine them.</b><br /><br /><i>What characteristics aren't determined by genes? </i><br /><br />OK Ritchie, tell us where these human eye genes are- you know the genes that determine the type of eye the organism has.<br /><br />Good luck with that mr poopology.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81956988333603451362012-12-16T06:52:37.762-08:002012-12-16T06:52:37.762-08:00As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give ris...<b>As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.</b><br /><br /><i>We observe speciation:</i><br /><br />So what? Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and new body parts. <br /><br /><br /><i>The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages.</i><br /><br />That doesn't stop one from evolving into the other.<br /><br /><b>The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated.</b><br /><br /><i>NO IT DOES NOT</i><br /><br />Strange that I provided a reference that says it does. That is what "consit and contain" mean, dumbass.<br /><br /><b>Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.<br /><br />Where do you put it?</b><br /><br /><i>Then you have a new species. What's more, that species has to be the ancestor species of your other two.</i><br /><br />Nope it doesn't have to be an ancestor. But where does it go in the nested hierarchy? The nested hierarchy demands 10 characteristics and this species doesn't have that.<br /><br />IOW you are proving that you don't understand nested hierarchies.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33566966679637594542012-12-15T21:40:02.015-08:002012-12-15T21:40:02.015-08:00The light from a distant star arrives at earth doe...The light from a distant star arrives at earth does it contain information?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57304007266692816602012-12-15T18:55:38.816-08:002012-12-15T18:55:38.816-08:00Joe G -
As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton ...Joe G - <br /><br /><b>As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton puts that to rest in his article in "Uncommon Dissent"</b><br /><br />The quote says: "There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype." But does not explain why. What is it about the phenotype that the genome is lacking? Does he explain elsewhere the book?<br /><br /><b>As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.</b><br /><br />We observe speciation: <br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html<br /><br />That is precisely the pattern common ancestry necessitates.<br /><br /><b>heck even you admit that evolution can't even evolve a cat from a dog- basically the same body plan, very little difference. Yet out of your ass you expect us to accept it can create totally new body plans with new body parts- all without any evidence. </b><br /><br />Oh dear Lord, this is pitiful...<br /><br />I thought we'd been over this. You've obviously learnt nothing. The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages. Evolution does not jump across from one branch to another. The pattern is BRANCHING.<br /><br />That isn't to say dogs cannot produce a great variety of body shapes though. Look at all the different breeds there are. Great danes, chihuahuas, terriers, dobermans and German Shepards all have distinct features, don't they? And yet they are all still dogs.<br /><br /><b>Retard gorge- that's your home!</b><br /><br />Good one. Have you ever thought about a career in stand-up comedy?<br /><br /><b>The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated.</b><br /><br />NO IT DOES NOT, twat-face.<br /><br />It only appears to have direction because you are looking at it from a certain perspective. Let's look at it from the level of the species now, shall we?<br /><br />A creature must have certain characteristics to be classified on the species level.<br /><br />The species taxon is nested inside the genus taxon. Creatures need FEWER characteristics to be admitted as a member of the relevant genus.<br /><br />Next up is family. Creatures need EVEN FEWER characteristics to be classified by their family.<br /><br />Does this imply any LOSS of features in the animals?<br /><br />No, of course it doesn't. It is just a certain way of looking at the model as a whole.<br /><br />When you look at animals which make up a 'species' they all share those species features. Now pull back and look at the animals which make up the whole genera. They have fewer features IN COMMON, but that says nothing about whether they will gain or lose features OVER TIME, does it? Losing features will not mean that that species no longer belongs within its genus.<br /><br /><b>But anyway, say that in order to be a certain species you need 10 unique characteristics- defining characteristics.</b><br /><br />Okay, I'll go with it.<br /><br /><b>Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.<br /><br />Where do you put it?</b><br /><br />Then you have a new species. What's more, that species has to be the ancestor species of your other two.<br /><br /><b>A nested hierarchy demands it. Otherwise you lose containment.</b><br /><br />Whales have lost their hind limbs (externally, anyway). They are still mammals. Blind cave fish have lost their eyes. They are still a species of the genus Astyanax. Manx cats have lost their tails. They are still a breed of domestic cat. <br /><br />Need I go on?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30207991763931422912012-12-15T18:54:52.181-08:002012-12-15T18:54:52.181-08:00Joe G -
Yes, they are. A common design is a very...Joe G - <br /><br /><b>Yes, they are. A common design is a very specific subset of the design hypothesis. You can have design without a common design.</b><br /><br />If you say so. Then please briefly define each and point out the relevent differences.<br /><br /><b>So archaeology and forensics are useless?</b><br /><br />Archaeology and forensics are not fields of biology. How are their principles applicable to the natural world?<br /><br /><b>It is all on my blog. You've been there. Search it for "supporting intelligent design"- read the first one that isn't a guest post.</b><br /><br />Thanks, Joe, I needed a good laugh. And my goodness I got one on your blog...<br /><br />You do actually give three 'predictions' for ID:<br /><br /><b>1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.</b><br /><br />Potentially falsified, apparently, by the observation that the universe is 'chaotic'.<br /><br />But these are relative terms. How chaotic is 'chaotic', exactly? What data would we expect to see if the universe was 'chaotic'? There are many physicists who will tell you the universe is a very chaotic place. It is a relative term - ie, useless.<br /><br />And it's especially hilarious coming from someone who believes that the one (common - whatever that might mean in this instance) set of parameters ARE violated occassionally - in the form of miracles.<br /><br /><b>2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.</b><br /><br />Who said anything about them being designed "for scientific discovery"? You are trying to establish whether or not it was designed, not speculating on what purpose it might have been designed for. By doing the latter, you are smuggling in the assumption of design. Invalid.<br /><br /><b>3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.</b><br /><br />Possibly the most hilarious since you attempt to verify this prediction with a rhetorical QUOTE from Eistein saying the universe's comprehensibility is incomprehensible. Science has moved on in the last half a century since Einstein. Quantum theory is pretty much in vogue now - that theory which is FAMOUS for being so maddeningly difficult to grasp.<br /><br />Here's a tip, Joe - predictions need to predict facts. They need to predict data that we can then possibly go and find. Your 'predictions' amount to nothing much because they do not actually predict any potential evidence.<br /><br />Points for effort, but no banana.<br /><br /><b>we do it the same way archaeology, SETI and forensics does it- we eliminate necessity and chance and we observe some specification, ie a function and/ or meaning or counterflow.</b><br /><br />Great. Give me an example of that in action please - FROM THE NATURAL WORLD.<br /><br /><b>you are too cowardly to provide a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for unguided evolution.</b><br /><br />As I have explained to you over and over, that is an impossible request. You are asking me to disprove the supernatual. Which cannot be done. You might as well ask me to scientifically prove 'justice' exists. It isn't science.<br /><br /><b>Cuz you say so? LoL!</b><br /><br />No, because it's demonstrably true.<br /><br /><b>No, that is false. Genes influence characteristics but they do not determine them.</b><br /><br />What characteristics aren't determined by genes? What determines them if not genes?<br /><br /><b>No one knows what makes an eye a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye- there aren't any "human eye genes".</b><br /><br />There are genes for eyes in the human genome. Those are human eyes.<br /><br /><b>In his book “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :</b><br /><br />I simply have no idea what point the quote (or you) is trying to make. Are you trying to simply TELL me that I do not know what makes a species? In which case you will have to explain explicitly why "Its genome" is an insufficient answer.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35989909479045674922012-12-15T16:51:39.329-08:002012-12-15T16:51:39.329-08:00The next level is the class. All classes have the ...<b>The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.<br /><br />This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.<br /><br />Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.</b><br /><br /><i>You weren't doing too badly right up until this point. Here is where your train of logic breaks from its rail and plummets of the Cliff of Reasoning into Retard Gorge.</i><br /><br />Retard gorge- that's your home!<br /><br /><i>Biological taxonomy classifies living species into separate groups known as taxa.</i><br /><br />Yes, I know.<br /><br /><i>Animalia is a taxon at the Kingdom level. After Kingdom comes, as you say, Phylum. And yes, Chordata is a Phylum within the Kingdom Animalia.<br /></i><br /><br />Yes, I know.<br /><br /><i>Then there is indeed, Class.</i><br /><br />Yes, I know<br /><br /><i> However, then you introduce a totally barking point about direction.</i><br /><br />No barking, it is very relevant if you understand nested hierarchies, which you do not.<br /><br /><i>In one sense, yes evolution DOES have a direction - towards increased fitness. Always towards increased fitness. That is a direction. Which is constant.</i><br /><br />What a dick! The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated. and also I stated evolution doesn't have that direction. Please TRY to follow along.<br /><br />But anyway, say that in order to be a certain species you need 10 unique characteristics- defining characteristics.<br /><br />Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.<br /><br />Where do you put it? And how does that transitional form nor destroy your nested hierarchy? Or does it just force you to reformulate the entire thing, causing you to use fewer and fewer diagnostic characteristics?<br /><br /><i>Yes, features can be lost, but Linnean taxonomy does not work on the presumption that features can only be accumulated.</i><br /><br />A nested hierarchy demands it. Otherwise you lose containment.<br /><br />As I said you are ignorant of nested hierarchies.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14824041591988937472012-12-15T16:41:34.152-08:002012-12-15T16:41:34.152-08:00As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton puts that ...As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton puts that to rest in his article in "Uncommon Dissent":<br /><br /><br /><b>To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.<br /><br /><br />Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.<br /><br /><br />Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.</b><br /><br />As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.<br /><br />Linne was right- common design rules- heck even you admit that evolution can't even evolve a cat from a dog- basically the same body plan, very little difference. Yet out of your ass you expect us to accept it can create totally new body plans with new body parts- all without any evidence. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38228351963185049932012-12-15T16:41:01.904-08:002012-12-15T16:41:01.904-08:00'Design' and 'Common Design' are n...<i>'Design' and 'Common Design' are not separate hypothesis.</i><br /><br />Yes, they are. A common design is a very specific subset of the design hypothesis. You can have design without a common design.<br /><br /><i>They are the same - the idea that everything is designed.</i><br /><br />Nope, neither says everything is designed.<br /><br /><i>A position which proposes no mechanisms, makes no predictions, cannot be inferred and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.</i><br /><br />So archaeology and forensics are useless?<br /><br /><i>I asked what evidence there was for design.</i><br /><br />And I told you but you refused to read it. It is all on my blog. You've been there. Search it for "supporting intelligent design"- read the first one that isn't a guest post.<br /><br /><i>How would we falsify design? How would we even detect it?</i><br /><br /><b>I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass.</b> <br /><br /><i>NO YOU HAVEN'T!!!</i><br /><br />Yes I did you moron- we do it the same way archaeology, SETI and forensics does it- we eliminate necessity and chance and we observe some specification, ie a function and/ or meaning or counterflow.<br /><br />That said, you will always take this cowardly position- "NO YOU HAVEN'T" because you are too cowardly to provide a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for unguided evolution.<br /><br /><b>That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.</b><br /><br /><i>It is in the case of animals,</i><br /><br />Cuz you say so? LoL!<br /><br />ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!<br /><br /><i>A creature's characteristics is determined by their genes!</i><br /><br />No, that is false. Genes influence characteristics but they do not determine them.<br /><br />No one knows what makes an eye a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye- there aren't any "human eye genes". <br /><br />What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :<br /> <br />Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)<br /><br /><br /><b>”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”</b><br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40810718139890443932012-12-15T16:08:20.017-08:002012-12-15T16:08:20.017-08:00Joe -
The next level is the class. All classes h...Joe - <br /><br /><b>The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.<br /><br />This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.<br /><br />Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.</b><br /><br />You weren't doing too badly right up until this point. Here is where your train of logic breaks from its rail and plummets of the Cliff of Reasoning into Retard Gorge.<br /><br />Biological taxonomy classifies living species into separate groups known as taxa.<br /><br />Animalia is a taxon at the Kingdom level. After Kingdom comes, as you say, Phylum. And yes, Chordata is a Phylum within the Kingdom Animalia.<br /><br />Then there is indeed, Class. However, then you introduce a totally barking point about direction.<br /><br />In one sense, yes evolution DOES have a direction - towards increased fitness. Always towards increased fitness. That is a direction. Which is constant.<br /><br />Yes, features can be lost, but Linnean taxonomy does not work on the presumption that features can only be accumulated. The order Cetacea (dolphins and whales) is characterised by, among other things, the loss of the back legs, but that does not stop it fitting into the class Mammalia, does it?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34672851385941252642012-12-15T15:53:29.423-08:002012-12-15T15:53:29.423-08:00Joe -
The word "common" should be a cl...Joe - <br /><br /><b>The word "common" should be a clue.</b><br /><br />Why can't you just answer a simple question? Actually, we both know the answer to that - you're handwaving. Again. Because there isn't a difference. 'Design' and 'Common Design' are not separate hypothesis. They are the same - the idea that everything is designed. A position which proposes no mechanisms, makes no predictions, cannot be inferred and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.<br /><br /><b>no Ritchie, basically evolutionists have to actually provide positive evidence for their position. And that is something they cannot do.</b><br /><br />There is ample evidence for evolution. Absolutely tonnes of it.<br /><br />What you are asking is for biologists to prove that this evidence came from <b>NATURAL AS OPPOSED TO NON-NATURAL</b> forces - ie, to discount the possibility of the supernatural. Which is an impossible demand. The supernatural can never be discounted. Which is why it has no place in science.<br /><br /><b>say you don't understand science.</b><br /><br />Can you just stop with the blind insults for just a moment, you total window-licking spazz? You've just said that design is inferred through the Blind Watchmaker. What the Hell does that even mean? The Blind Watchmaker is Dawkins' term for evolution. So design is inferred through evolution? What the Hell are you yapping on about?<br /><br /><b>Not even close. Ya see thorough investigation is required and if your position had any evidence, any at all, then we wouldn't infer design, duh.</b><br /><br />I asked what evidence there was for design. This has nothing to do with whether there is evidence for evolution (there is - plenty of it, but again, that is besides the point). How would we falsify design? How would we even detect it?<br /><br /><b>I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass. </b><br /><br />NO YOU HAVEN'T!!! I have asked you again and again and again, and all you do is evade. You have not shown me one study, one experiment, nor a single observation that suggests design. You have not produced a single mechanism by which design is supposed to work. You have not come up with a single hypothetical piece or pattern of evidence which could possibly disprove design. I have asked for these many times, and you have consistently come up with nothing at all.<br /><br /><b>That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.</b><br /><br />It is in the case of animals, mouth-breather!<br /><br /><b>"They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics,"<br /><br />Exactly! Based on characteristics, not relation.</b><br /><br />A creature's characteristics is determined by their genes! Genes which they inherit! FROM THEIR ANCESTORS!!!<br /><br />Seriously, do you fall down a lot?<br /><br /><b>"which are acquired through inheritance."<br /><br />LoL! THAT is what is being tested so you cannot just assume it.</b><br /><br />WHAT?!?!<br /><br />1) A creature's body is determined by its genes.<br />2) A creature inherits its genes from it parents via conception.<br /><br />Which of these two points are you having problems with? I realise the terminally pig-ignorant such as yourself might have an issue accepting then, but I assure you neither of these statements are in the slightest bit of scientific doubt.<br /><br /><b>No, the nested hierarchy is essentially a pattern of design, just as Linneas said.</b><br /><br />No, it is a pattern of FEATURES. Features which Linneas might have assumed were the result of design. And if so, he was wrong there. Features, we now know, are determined by GENES. Which are inherited from our ancestors. So the pattern is actually one of inheritance - of ancestry.<br /><br /><b>And Zachriel has eaten it on nested hierarchies.</b><br /><br />More like he realised you'd cracked.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7603042265733565952012-12-15T14:36:42.987-08:002012-12-15T14:36:42.987-08:00Revisiting Nested Hierarchies:
From A Summary of t...Revisiting Nested Hierarchies:<br><br />From <a href="http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm" rel="nofollow"><strong>A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory</strong></a>:<br><br /><b><br />Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.</b><br /><br><br />For example in the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the <a href="http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Animalia.html" rel="nofollow"><b>animal kingdom</b></a>.<br><br /><br><br />To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal. <br><br /><br><br />For example:<br><br /><br><br /><b><br />All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.<br><br /><br><br />Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions.</b><br /><br><br /><br><br /><br><br /><br><br />The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria. <br><br /><br><br />For example one phylum under the Kingdom Animalia, is <a href="http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chordata.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Chordata</b></a>.<br><br /><br><br />Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:<br><br /><br><br /><b><br />Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):<br><br /><br><br />bilateral symmetry <br><br />segmented body, including segmented muscles <br><br />three germ layers and a well-developed coelom. <br><br />single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain) <br><br />tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development <br><br />pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development <br><br />ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system <br><br />complete digestive system <br><br />bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.</b><br /><br><br /><br><br />The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.<br><br /><br><br />This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.<br><br /><br><br />Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.<br><br /><br />All that means is the theory of evolution would be OK regardless of any pattern observed.<br /><br />Not that the mental midget evos will understand that.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18022537470292578202012-12-15T14:31:33.561-08:002012-12-15T14:31:33.561-08:00There isn't any information without intelligen...There isn't any information without intelligence.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11401312359356394242012-12-15T14:30:16.921-08:002012-12-15T14:30:16.921-08:00And how, pray tell, is 'common design' sig...<i>And how, pray tell, is 'common design' significantly different from 'design'?</i><br /><br />The word "common" should be a clue.<br /><br /><b>Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.</b><br /><br /><i>Basically, 'evolutionists' have to disprove supernatural forces?</i><br /><br />Only a moron would say that, and here you are.<br /><br />no Ritchie, basically evolutionists have to actually provide positive evidence for their position. And that is something they cannot do.<br /><br /><b>the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker</b><br /><br /><i>Say what, now?</i><br /><br />say you don't understand science.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><i>Is yet again, just a fancy way of saying 'It looks designed, therefore design'.</i><br /><br />Not even close. Ya see thorough investigation is required and if your position had any evidence, any at all, then we wouldn't infer design, duh.<br /><br /><i>You have once again failed to provide what you claim to be able to:<br /><br />You cannot show how design is inferred.<br /><br />You cannot show how design is tested.</i><br /><br />I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass. Don't blame me for your ignorance, geez.<br /><br />The way I said is the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do it, dumbass.<br /><br /><i>Basically you are just showing your own position up to be as intellectually bankrupt as all serious scientists know it to be.</i><br /><br />Actually YOU are demonstrating that your position has nothing. The way to the design inference is through your position, dumbass. So if you had something, anything, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.<br /><br /><b>LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.</b><br /><br /><i>What the Hell are you flapping your gums about? You've just asked me to list every single genetic difference between a fish and an amphibian. Have you any idea what you're even asking?</i><br /><br />Yes I am asking you to support your claims with science as opposed to "It looks like common ancestry to me"<br /><br /><b>What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.</b><br /><br /><i>The REASON why the nested hierarchy in the army is not an example of common descent is that the army does not reproduce. New recruits are recruited externally. </i><br /><br />That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.<br /><br /><i>They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics,</i><br /><br />Exactly! Based on characteristics, not relation.<br /><br /> <i>which are acquired through inheritance.</i><br /><br />LoL! THAT is what is being tested so you cannot just assume it.<br /><br /><i>The nested hierarchy is essentially the pattern of that inheritance. So yes, it does show common ancestry.</i><br /><br />No, the nested hierarchy is essentially a pattern of design, just as Linneas said.<br /><br />Linnean taxonomy- ie the observed nested hierarchy- has NOTHING to do with ancestry. Nothing at all.<br /><br />And Zachriel has eaten it on nested hierarchies. He may have patince but he lacks knowledge.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59739239199156727872012-12-15T12:55:06.228-08:002012-12-15T12:55:06.228-08:00Thorton,
Chubby Joe isn't trying to deliberate...Thorton,<br /><b>Chubby Joe isn't trying to deliberately not understand. With him it's all natural talent - he really is so stupid he just can't get it.</b><br /><br />That is the kindest thing one could say about Joe(minus the editorializing about his physical appearance),alternative explanations paint a much less favorable picturevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81803728441240296212012-12-15T12:25:23.198-08:002012-12-15T12:25:23.198-08:00Is information and intelligence the same?Is information and intelligence the same?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31187470393699005532012-12-15T12:03:01.455-08:002012-12-15T12:03:01.455-08:00I miss Zachriel. Patience of a saint, that one. Se...I miss Zachriel. Patience of a saint, that one. Seriously, I've no idea how he did it. Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54798061026740986682012-12-15T11:13:31.127-08:002012-12-15T11:13:31.127-08:00Ritchie
Jeeze, it's painfully to watch someon...<i>Ritchie<br /><br />Jeeze, it's painfully to watch someone try SO HARD to deliberately not understand. This isn't difficult.</i><br /><br />Chubby Joe isn't trying to deliberately not understand. With him it's all natural talent - he really is so stupid he just can't get it.<br /><br />Chubs has been thoroughly schooled on nested hierarchies so many time it's not even funny anymore. Zachriel alone has worn through three pairs of kneecaps kicking Joe's ass on the topic.<br /><br />Fatboy Joe Gallien has his reputation for dumbest Creationist of them all for a good reason.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68628338697529632022012-12-15T10:48:44.437-08:002012-12-15T10:48:44.437-08:00COMMON DESIGN. I was talking about a COMMON DESIGN...<b>COMMON DESIGN. I was talking about a COMMON DESIGN.</b><br /><br />And how, pray tell, is 'common design' significantly different from 'design'?<br /><br />From your blog:<br /><br /><b>Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.</b><br /><br />Basically, 'evolutionists' have to disprove supernatural forces?<br /><br />You must surely be aware that this is simply an impossible demand?<br /><br /><b>the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker</b><br /><br />Say what, now?<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Is yet again, just a fancy way of saying 'It looks designed, therefore design'.<br /><br />You have once again failed to provide what you claim to be able to:<br /><br />You cannot show how design is inferred.<br /><br />You cannot show how design is tested.<br /><br />You cannot come up with a single hypothetical piece or pattern of evidence that could possible falsify design.<br /><br />Basically you are just showing your own position up to be as intellectually bankrupt as all serious scientists know it to be.<br /><br /><b>No, it doesn't. I am part of my father's family tree. I am also part of my mother's family tree. I am just one node in a huge net. And given sexual reproduction one person can never be the focal point on a family tree.</b><br /><br />But you are not including every living person in your family tree, are you? You have to cut off somewhere.<br /><br /><b>LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.</b><br /><br />What the Hell are you flapping your gums about? You've just asked me to list every single genetic difference between a fish and an amphibian. Have you any idea what you're even asking?<br /><br />Really, what do you think? That fish and amphibians are genetically identical? That there are no genetic similarities between fish and amphibians whatsoever?<br /><br />Stop trying so frickin' hard to not understand other people and state your own position once in a while.<br /><br /><b>What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.</b><br /><br />It really is literally painful to have a conversation with you. The sheer ignorance that drips of every word...<br /><br />The REASON why the nested hierarchy in the army is not an example of common descent is that the army does not reproduce. New recruits are recruited externally. Soldiers do not create new soldiers by reproducing, do they?<br /><br />In the natural world, animals DO reproduce. They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics, which are acquired through inheritance. The nested hierarchy is essentially the pattern of that inheritance. So yes, it does show common ancestry.<br /><br />You utter, utter fool.<br /><br />Now why don't you go and play with a ball and leave the science to the big boys?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82504198935835643212012-12-15T09:50:30.978-08:002012-12-15T09:50:30.978-08:00Ritchie spaz master:
If the fossil record goes fro...Ritchie spaz master:<br /><i>If the fossil record goes from simple to complex, design can account for that.<br /><br />If the fossil record goes from complex to simple, design can account for that.<br /><br />If the fossil record fluctuated massively between simple and complex, design could account for that.<br /><br />If a new mammal was discovered which had exclusively mammalian features, design could account for that.<br /><br />If a new mammal was discovered which also had exclusively avian or amphibious features, design could account for that.<br /><br />There is literally NOTHING that design predicts. It simply looks at the evidence NO MATTER WHAT THAT EVIDENCE COULD POSSIBLY BE and says "Designed". That is all.<br /><br />Thus it cannot be falsified. It makes no predictions. And (and here is the point that keep eluding ID-ers) thus no evidence actively SUPPORTS it either.</i><br /><br />loL! Nice non-sequitur rant.<br /><br />COMMON DESIGN. I was talking about a COMMON DESIGN.<br /><br />But anyway, <a href="http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-to-test-and-falsify-intelligent.html" rel="nofollow"><b>how to test and falsify Intelligent Design</b></a><br /><br /><br /><b>A family tree is not a branching tree. It is more of a mish-mosh of different families. More of a web/ net.</b><br /><br /><i>A family tree ends with just a single focal point - you.</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't. I am part of my father's family tree. I am also part of my mother's family tree. I am just one node in a huge net. And given sexual reproduction one person can never be the focal point on a family tree.<br /><br /><b>How many mutations and to what genes- you know SCIENCE as opposed to childrens' bedtime stories.</b><br /><br /><i>Look it up, lazy-ass. I'm not going to do all your leg-work for you.</i><br /><br />LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.<br /><br /><b>BTW an Army forms a nested hierarchy, ie that pattern and an Army has nothing to do with common ancestry.</b><br /><br /><i>That is because the army has nothing to do with reproduction. New army members are recruited from an external population - they are not spawned from existing members.</i><br /><br />What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.<br /><br />So please stop trying to use it as such.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58648912256626837972012-12-15T09:24:38.776-08:002012-12-15T09:24:38.776-08:00Joe -
A scenario in which there isn't any co...Joe - <br /><br /><b>A scenario in which there isn't any common design, ie everything is different.</b><br /><br />A truly pathetic evasion move.<br /><br />Give me an ACTUAL hypothetical piece or pattern of evidence.<br /><br />If the fossil record goes from simple to complex, design can account for that.<br /><br />If the fossil record goes from complex to simple, design can account for that.<br /><br />If the fossil record fluctuated massively between simple and complex, design could account for that.<br /><br />If a new mammal was discovered which had exclusively mammalian features, design could account for that.<br /><br />If a new mammal was discovered which also had exclusively avian or amphibious features, design could account for that.<br /><br />There is literally NOTHING that design predicts. It simply looks at the evidence NO MATTER WHAT THAT EVIDENCE COULD POSSIBLY BE and says "Designed". That is all.<br /><br />Thus it cannot be falsified. It makes no predictions. And (and here is the point that keep eluding ID-ers) thus no evidence actively SUPPORTS it either.<br /><br /><b>A family tree is not a branching tree. It is more of a mish-mosh of different families. More of a web/ net.</b><br /><br />A family tree ends with just a single focal point - you.<br /><br />If you drew up a huge family tree of every living person on the planet combined, well, for one thing it would be extremely unwieldy, but step back and the branching pattern will hold true.<br /><br /><b>How many mutations and to what genes- you know SCIENCE as opposed to childrens' bedtime stories.</b><br /><br />Look it up, lazy-ass. I'm not going to do all your leg-work for you.<br /><br /><b>BTW an Army forms a nested hierarchy, ie that pattern and an Army has nothing to do with common ancestry.</b><br /><br />That is because the army has nothing to do with reproduction. New army members are recruited from an external population - they are not spawned from existing members.<br /><br />Jeeze, it's painfully to watch someone try SO HARD to deliberately not understand. This isn't difficult.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31894008681865344832012-12-15T06:02:25.694-08:002012-12-15T06:02:25.694-08:00BTW an Army forms a nested hierarchy, ie that patt...BTW an Army forms a nested hierarchy, ie that pattern and an Army has nothing to do with common ancestry.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com