tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6622665489398196271..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation MechanismsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger190125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54537990268742081232013-01-13T18:04:48.824-08:002013-01-13T18:04:48.824-08:00As it works out, every piece of data gathered sinc...<i>As it works out, every piece of data gathered since OOS was published supports the theory, and nothing has been found to contradict it. </i><br /><br />Except that natural selection has been shown to be impotent, genetic accidents do not construct anything and the <b>origin</b> of species still eludes us.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57521938326307930032013-01-13T14:58:27.659-08:002013-01-13T14:58:27.659-08:00All science so far- you would think that if evolut...All science so far- you would think that if evolutionism had some positive evidence torton would have posted it by now- as I have done with ID.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69044448305412362292013-01-12T15:46:23.397-08:002013-01-12T15:46:23.397-08:00Chubby Joe G
EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!
Hey Ch...<i>Chubby Joe G<br /><br />EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!</i><br /><br />Hey Chubs, these space aliens you say the pyramid antenna was built to contact, do they experience reincarnation after they die too? Do they have ghosts? <br /><br />What sound does the Fatboy Joke Gallien train whistle make?<br /><br /><b>WOO! WOO!</b><br /><br />:D :D :D<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90925713954044175902013-01-12T15:39:03.147-08:002013-01-12T15:39:03.147-08:00Natural selection exists- that is it.
And I know ...Natural selection exists- that is it.<br /><br />And I know many fully qualified scientists who reject the ToE do to the lack of supporting evidence.<br /><br />Just because you are a blind and ignorant follower doesn't mean the evidence is there to support the ToE. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54579268953697419602013-01-12T13:04:00.578-08:002013-01-12T13:04:00.578-08:00Nic
Volume of data does not equal accurate data. ...<i>Nic<br /><br />Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.</i><br /><br />But that's not what actually happened Nic. Scientists in the 1800's started with the idea that Biblical Creation was the truth. However, as more and more data was collected it became apparent to the chagrin and consternation of many that the evidence did <b>not</b> support the Biblical story of a young Earth and special Creation. New hypotheses were formed and tested that would explain the data, and from that ToE was born. As it works out, every piece of data gathered since OOS was published supports the theory, and nothing has been found to contradict it. Mistakes in small details have been discovered and corrected over the years, sure, but nothing at all has been found to contradict the major ideas.<br /><br /><i>What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation.</i><br /><br />I don't know of any fully qualified scientists who reject ToE based <b>solely</b> on the data and not due to their religious leanings. Do you?<br /><br />For one thing, not all interpretations are equally supported. There's only one explanation right now that explains <b>ALL</b> the evidence in a consilient, logically consistent manner and it <b>isn't</b> special Creation.<br /><br /><i>As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution?</i><br /><br />The processes of evolution can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in real time too. Specific results won't always be repeated due to the random component of genetic variation, but trends can be repeated.<br /><br />Are you still interested in a discussion of the part natural selection plays in evolutionary processes?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89849141122023395512013-01-12T09:22:54.312-08:002013-01-12T09:22:54.312-08:00Joe G
Nice sentence, but this is not helping my d...Joe G<br /><br />Nice sentence, but this is not helping my discussion with Nic.<br />The argument is that both recognise presence of data, but according to Nic this same set can support different points of view (interpretations)as well. <br />By the way when you say "we" what you are meaning? Are you speaking for you or also for which other (also for Nic?)?Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11220724387123621472013-01-12T09:22:31.434-08:002013-01-12T09:22:31.434-08:00Chubby Joe G
That is why we reject what your alle...<i>Chubby Joe G<br /><br />That is why we reject what your alleged 99% say.</i><br /><br />Who's "we" Chubs? You and your fat rolls?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82725951230608897222013-01-12T08:48:36.773-08:002013-01-12T08:48:36.773-08:00Germanicus-
"That which can be asserted with...Germanicus-<br /><br />"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens<br /><br />That is why we reject what your alleged 99% say.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34909603409142266112013-01-12T05:06:59.084-08:002013-01-12T05:06:59.084-08:00Nic
I find your post interesting, but the amount ...Nic<br /><br />I find your post interesting, but the amount of different questions that is you arising makes difficult an answer to the whole. To start on some points: <br />1) I agree with you that data alone are not worth without an underling explanatory framework (a theory in scientific language), but I don't agree in your absolute relativism that on the base of the data it is not possible at all to build a judgment among different theories. There are good and bad explanations.<br />2) This is maybe a little provocative. Why you don't apply your relativism also to the Bible? The conclusion can sound like:<br />< If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (i.e. that the Bible is the inerrant word of God) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. ><br />3) Do you frankly think that your level of knowledge in the field is enough to examine the proposed pieces of evidence (e.g. fossil records, comparative anatomy, molecular biology). Rejecting what is claimed by 99% of the people that are working in the field can be also defined pride.<br />Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53925281402304769472013-01-11T08:22:14.491-08:002013-01-11T08:22:14.491-08:00Thorton,
"Not to be too harsh Nic but you ha...Thorton,<br /><br />"Not to be too harsh Nic but you have no friggin' idea about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible."<br /><br />Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.<br /><br />What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation. <br /><br />As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution? <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35987650041700304332013-01-11T04:28:24.874-08:002013-01-11T04:28:24.874-08:00Liar pinhead:
How many Tweedo's double-cheese ...Liar pinhead:<br /><i>How many Tweedo's double-cheese pizzas did it take to get you over 350lbs?</i><br /><br />I still only weigh 210 lbs- go figure. thorton has to lie to make itself feel big- too bad it is nothing but a pencil-neck liar.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89946908719418106162013-01-11T03:55:38.663-08:002013-01-11T03:55:38.663-08:00vel:
I agree, but mutations do happen.
And tehre ...vel:<br /><i>I agree, but mutations do happen.</i><br /><br />And tehre isn't any evidence they all happen by chance.<br /><br /><i>Are all mutations due to these algorithms which apparently do not reside in the physical structure of the organisms? </i><br /><br />What does that even mean? IOW unpack your useless word salad and repost it.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80113322309409703992013-01-11T03:53:57.211-08:002013-01-11T03:53:57.211-08:00Liar for liars thorton:
No, it's for you. You&...Liar for liars thorton:<br /><i>No, it's for you. You're the one claiming there's this magic barrier that can never be crossed. Tell me what the limits are.</i><br /><br />Nope:<br /><br /><b>OK so according to the resident evolutionitwits, dogs can't evolve into cats because cats already exist. But if cats didn't exist then dogs could evolve into cats.<br /><br />Can any evoTARD tell us about this magical barrier and how it works?</b><br /><br />STILL WAITING<br /><br /><i>Because we've got all this fossil evidence that shows the gradual change and the common ancestry</i><br /><br />No, it only looks like that to you. There isn't any way to verufy what you see.<br /><br /><i>We've got all this genetic evidence that shows the identical common ancestor relationship between extant species.</i><br /><br />You don't have any genetic evidence that explains the physical DIFFERENCES observed. And that means you have nothing.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60644506264201941052013-01-10T23:02:00.660-08:002013-01-10T23:02:00.660-08:00Joe,
"It just happened" ain't scien...Joe,<br /><br /><b>"It just happened" ain't science, vel. And as I told you above wholy artificial ribosomes DO NOT FUNCTION, which tells us there is more at play than just its physical components.</b><br /><br />I agree, but mutations do happen. Are all mutations due to these algorithms which apparently do not reside in the physical structure of the organisms? velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69697397816513841292013-01-10T21:33:32.518-08:002013-01-10T21:33:32.518-08:00breath ==> breadthbreath ==> breadthGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41198215959510680582013-01-10T21:28:44.529-08:002013-01-10T21:28:44.529-08:00Nic
Thorton: "How long have "dogs been ...<i>Nic<br /><br />Thorton: "How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"<br /><br />For as long as we know.</i><br /><br />How long is that Nic? Give me a number.<br /><br /><i>"How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?"<br /><br />That's for you to answer. </i><br /><br />No, it's for you. You're the one claiming there's this magic barrier that can never be crossed. Tell me what the limits are.<br /><br /><i>Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?</i><br /><br />Because we've got all this fossil evidence that shows the gradual change and the common ancestry, between canidae and ursidae for instance. We've got all this genetic evidence that shows the identical common ancestor relationship between extant species. <b>THAT'S</b> why Nic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/vertebrate-paleontology/staff-biographies/wang/research-fossil-canids" rel="nofollow">The Origin and Evolution of the Dog Family</a><br /><br />You guys can yell "different interpretation" all you want but the evidence is still going to be there bearing testimony to your LA LA LA approach.<br /><br /><i>Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.</i><br /><br />You stay with the program. We are talking about changes within a single lineage over time, not how two separate lineages have evolved far enough apart to be no longer interfertile.<br /><br /><i>Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise.</i><br /><br />Not to be too harsh Nic but <b>you have no friggin' idea</b> about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible. Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91597922616258292072013-01-10T20:40:04.656-08:002013-01-10T20:40:04.656-08:00Thorton,
"Context matters Nic, especially to...Thorton,<br /><br />"Context matters Nic, especially to intellectually honest folks."<br /><br />Yes it does. So tell me, what's the context of Invisible Gravity Fairies? Be honest.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26890416250115065322013-01-10T20:32:14.794-08:002013-01-10T20:32:14.794-08:00Thorton,
"How long have "dogs been dogs...Thorton,<br /><br />"How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"<br /><br />For as long as we know. It's simply presumptive conjecture that they came from a non-canine ancestor. <br /><br />"How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?" <br /><br />That's for you to answer. You assume that change happened in the past and led to dogs and will happen in the future and lead to some yet unknown creature. It is precisely this for which you have nothing but conjecture based on assumption of the truth of evolution.<br /><br />"Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?"<br /><br />Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?<br /><br />"Ligers and mules aren't examples of evolution. They're individual animal hybrids born of closely related species."<br /><br />I know they are not examples of evolution. I don't accept evolution, remember? Please stay with the program. Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.<br /><br />"We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time."<br /><br />Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise. You're the one making claims based on groundless conjecture. I at least have observable events in present time to support my view. You have nothing but story telling to support yours. <br /><br />"Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects."<br /><br />You use the term 'natural' as if it, in and of itself, refutes the existence of God. Do you suppose nature needs an origin?<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86072141491448713412013-01-10T18:45:23.502-08:002013-01-10T18:45:23.502-08:00Fatboy Joke Gallien
How many mutations does it ta...<i>Fatboy Joke Gallien<br /><br />How many mutations does it take to get a new body part?</i><br /><br />How many Tweedo's double-cheese pizzas did it take to get you over 350lbs?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50270176473581098512013-01-10T18:15:23.172-08:002013-01-10T18:15:23.172-08:00Liar for liars thorton:
Science has shown natural ...Liar for liars thorton:<br /><i>Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects.</i><br /><br />Liar. <br /><br /><i>It's the Invisible Gravity Pixies all over again.</i><br /><br />And your position STILL can't explain gravity's existence.<br /><br /><i>You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time.</i><br /><br />There isn't anything in those small changes that we can take to equal the large changes required.<br /><br />Slightly altering an existing organism doesn't get you new body plans with new body parts. Heck we don't even know what makes organisms what they are, so how can you say anything about it?<br /><br />How many mutations does it take to get a new body part?<br /><br /><b>OK so according to the resident evolutionitwits, dogs can't evolve into cats because cats already exist. But if cats didn't exist then dogs could evolve into cats.<br /><br />Can any evoTARD tell us about this magical barrier and how it works?</b><br /><br />thorton, the pathetic lying wussy- anytime you want to come shut me up momma's boy- Tweedo's awaits your cowardly arrival.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22541490396904398172013-01-10T17:01:59.849-08:002013-01-10T17:01:59.849-08:00J: What do you think the "appearance of desig...J: What do you think the "appearance of design" amounts to?<br /><br />V: Control<br /><br />J: Control is what free agents do when they act freely. But what is it that causes the directed effects of free-will to APPEAR to be effects of free-will?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15680863427527222552013-01-10T16:52:42.817-08:002013-01-10T16:52:42.817-08:00Chubby Joke G
blah blah blah
Fatboy, why don'...<i>Chubby Joke G<br /><br />blah blah blah</i><br /><br />Fatboy, why don't you shut the hell up and let the adults talk.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17761861748160637562013-01-10T16:51:16.986-08:002013-01-10T16:51:16.986-08:00Nic
That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that d...<i>Nic<br /><br />That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that difficulty does not mean there are no limits when it comes to variation. </i><br /><br />Then what are the limits, and what causes them? We keep asking you guys but all we've ever gotten is "dogs are still dogs", or something equally stupid. How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years? How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?<br /><br />Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?<br /><br /><i>Ligers, Mules, etc., would testify to that.</i><br /><br />Ligers and mules aren't examples of evolution. They're individual animal hybrids born of closely related species.<br /><br /><i>You cannot however, limit your steps to 3' from your starting point and still walk 3,000 miles.</i><br /><br />What barrier limits me to 3' from my starting point? What barrier makes it impossible for small morphological micro-changes to add up to larger morphological macro-change? "We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time.<br /><br /><i>You seem to miss the point. Even if the two processes were indistinguishable, upon which I disagree, it would not mean evolution was true.</i><br /><br />Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects. You add an additional external factor, this "Intelligent Designer" no one's got the slightest bit of evidence for, and claim this imaginary Entity caused the same effects. It's the Invisible Gravity Pixies all over again.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9489870602598771262013-01-10T15:57:53.236-08:002013-01-10T15:57:53.236-08:00So the laws of nature were designed. ok . therefor...<i>So the laws of nature were designed. ok . therefore anything that happens according to those laws, necessity and chance,is undesigned or designed?</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Cars are designed but accidents still happen, vel.<br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1564993027657002013-01-10T15:55:52.896-08:002013-01-10T15:55:52.896-08:00vel:
That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE ...vel:<br /><i>That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE says random mutations etc, where is algorithm stored, how is it stored,how does it " know" it is time to activate,does it create mutations etc. Until you come up with those you are just speculating, with less evidence than the ToE? </i><br /><br />"It just happened" ain't science, vel. And as I told you above wholy artificial ribosomes DO NOT FUNCTION, which tells us there is more at play than just its physical components.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com