A Complete Meltdown
You won’t believe this one. According to evolutionists, millions of years ago a retrovirus infected our ancestors’ genome causing disease, but then through the usual random events, which is to say the usual
unknown events, it somehow turned hero and now appears to be highly active and playing a crucial role in stem cells. As one evolutionist
admits:
The human genome is filled with retrovirus DNA thought to be no more than fossilized junk. Increasingly, there are indications that these sequences might not be junk. They might play a role in gene expression after all.
Amazing what those random mutations can do.
As one evolutionist admits...
ReplyDeleteSo much spin in a short phrase!
Translated, this should read "as one microbiologist, Dr Jeremy Luban, said in a press release published in "Science Daily".
Admits???
Whatever Alan- your position cannot even account for ERVs.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteWelcome to the club,you can't account for the designer.
The designer arose via random mutation/ natural selection. You're welcome to refute it.
Deletevel:
DeleteWelcome to the club,you can't account for the designer.
So what? ID is not about the designer. OTOH your position is suppoesed to be about biology and yet it cannot account for biology.
MSEE
DeleteThe designer arose via random mutation/ natural selection. You're welcome to refute it.
Gravity is caused by the invisible gravity pixies pushing down on objects. You're welcome to refute it.
Joe G's space aliens (the ones he thinks were contacted by the pyramid antenna) kidnapped all you D-Creationists and replaced your brains with rancid cat turds. You're welcome to refute it.
Science doesn't have to refute claims that you've provided zero evidence for.
thorton-
DeleteScience doesn't have to refute claims that you've provided zero evidence for.
And YOU have provided zero evidence for materialism and evolutionism.
MSEE,
DeleteThe designer arose via random mutation/ natural selection. You're welcome to refute it.
That is a reasonable assumption, therefore the need for a designer is unnecessary. If it happened once it can happen again given the same conditions,unless somehow you know something else about the designer.
Joe
DeleteSo what? ID is not about the designer. OTOH your position is suppoesed to be about biology and yet it cannot account for biology
It is not about the accounting for biology? How do you know that an unknown designer with unknown abilities with unknown goals can account for biology?
vel,
Deletethe theory of evolution starts with biology.
And we know the capabilities of the designers by what they left behind. Again your ignorance is getting in your way
You are assuming your conclusion, unless you know the designer is capable of creating life. As you said you can't even say that about the designer.
DeleteThe ToE starts with observed biology and observed mechanisms.
vel;
DeleteYou are assuming your conclusion
Prove it.
unless you know the designer is capable of creating life.
I just assume that designers are capable of designing the things they design.
And we already know tat blind and undirected processes are not up to the task.
As you said you can't even say that about the designer.
No, I said ID is NOT about the designer.
The ToE starts with observed biology and observed mechanisms.
LoL! Yet you don't know how that biology came to be nor do you know whether or not those observed mechanisms are design mechanisms or blind watchmaker mechanisms. YOU don't have any way of determining the difference.
Joe,
DeleteProve it
I just assume that designers are capable of designing the things they design
What did they design?
Joe,
DeleteAnd we already know tat blind and undirected processes are not up to the task.
Prove it
Joe,
DeleteNo, I said ID is NOT about the designer
Then what do you say about the designer? That he designs what he designs. Any evidence he designs living organisms? Has designed living organisms?
LoL! Yet you don't know how that biology came to be nor do you know whether or not those observed mechanisms are design mechanisms or blind watchmaker mechanisms. YOU don't have any way of determining the difference.
Welcome to the club,neither do you. Plus you need to provide a designer, nature ,on the other hand, is already present
LoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.
DeleteSo it is a GIVEN that there was something other than nature.
And we already know tat blind and undirected processes are not up to the task.
DeleteProve it
The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.
I just assume that designers are capable of designing the things they design
DeleteWhat did they design?
Many different things including DNA
Joe,
DeleteLoL! Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.
So it is a GIVEN that there was something other than nature.
So the designer is supernatural? Why didn't you just say so,why so coy?
The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.
Bait and switch? Does the validity of the ToE depend how life began? But if you can show any evidence in the scientific literature how life can be designed otherwise I'd be interested.
What did they design?
Many different things including DNA
Once? For every species? For every individual? Who is they and how did they do it,when did they do it. These are all question the ToE tries to answer, if your theory is better maybe you should be at least as ambitious.
vel:
DeleteSo the designer is supernatural?
Non-sequitur.
The scientific literature is my proof- it is completely void of blind and undirected chemical processes producing a living organism from non-living matter.
Does the validity of the ToE depend how life began?
Absolutely.
And the ToE doesn't try to answer anything. It can't answer anything. It is useless.
Dr. Sternberg used much the same line of evidence to refute the "ERV's are junk" mantra of Darwinists a few years ago:
ReplyDeleteRefutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119
Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116.
Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract.
Also of note:
Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012)
Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm
Darwinists have also held that ERV's are proof of common ancestry, yet,,
Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011
Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/
Some (inconsistencies) ERVs that don't fit into the naturalistic evolutionary assumption of common descent:
PTERV1 in chimpanzee, African great apes and old World monkeys but not in humans and asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
The Human Lineage Was Somehow “Purged” - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012
Excerpt: Another such feature is the lack of endemic infectious retroviruses in humans. The problem is that these viruses are present in the other primates, and so according to evolutionists these viruses must be present in their common ancestor which, again according to evolution, would be an ancestor of humans as well.,, In other words, when evolution spontaneously created humans our DNA must have been “purged.” We got a do-over! Hilarious.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/unbelievableevolution-in-complete-free.html
More Counterpoints on ERVs - JonathanM - May 2011
Excerpt: 'In the absence of a feasible naturalistic mechanism to account for how evolution from a common ancestor could have occurred, how can we be so sure that it did occur? In such a case, one ought to reasonably expect there to be some quite spectacular evidence for common ancestry. Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, the evidence for common ancestry is paper thin on the ground.'
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/more_points_on_ervs046761.html
Excellent article for addressing the ERV argument for human evolution.
http://evolutiondismantled.com/ervs
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVS) A Case for Common Descent or A Case for Incorrect Presupposition?
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html
Evolution or Creation - WHAT'S ERVs GOT TO DO WITH IT? - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zK81Zti9BM
The admission was that retrovirus DNA is not what it was once THOUGHT to be--i.e., junk. When someone is acknowledging an error in thought or action, it's typically called an admission. Because errors aren't anything to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteIn science, it's not so surprising since one can't so readily evade the "light of day" given the public nature of it. But given how slow some evolutionists are to admit erroneous conjecture or misrepresentation of one's thinking, it even applies in science.
Amazing what those random mutations can do.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it, just? (Nice pic of an explosion)
Jeff January 27, 2013 at 7:11 AM
ReplyDeleteThe admission was that retrovirus DNA is not what it was once THOUGHT to be--i.e., junk. When someone is acknowledging an error in thought or action, it's typically called an admission. Because errors aren't anything to be proud of.
Nor are honest errors anything to be ashamed of, providing they are acknowledged when pointed out. We can often learn more from when things go wrong than when they go right.
Karl Popper urged scientists to be bold in their conjectures, meaning, in part, don't be afraid of making mistakes.
And before anyone gets too self-righteous, maybe we don't hear similar admissions from the ID camp because they don't actually do much research - or even conjecturing.
Ian, your ignorance wrt ID is not a refutation.
DeleteI: Nor are honest errors anything to be ashamed of, providing they are acknowledged when pointed out. We can often learn more from when things go wrong than when they go right.
ReplyDeleteJ: No doubt. But for some reason, people who tend to deem their relative success in their professional field, as opposed to virtuous character, as their chief source of esteem and respect can't stand to lose even one competition to those they groundlessly despise. There are petty, vindictive people in all professions. And they tend to make it to the top, religious or no.
Scientists are human, no doubt. Within that population there will be those who behave as you describe but they are not the whole of the profession.
DeleteAs I see it, there are two checks on that behavior.
First, there is relatively little money, power and prestige to be made out of science. Most people enter the profession because they are genuinely curious about how the world works. They want to do their bit towards furthering our understanding of it. For them, the integrity of the scientific process and scientific knowledge is paramount.
While there will always be those who, for various reasons, fabricate results, there will also be those determined to expose and root out the cheats and frauds for the good of science as a whole. And they are in the majority, I believe.
The second is that the real fame and fortune in science goes not to those who prop up a failing theory but to those lucky few who come up with a viable successor.
There were many physicists who were well aware of the shortcomings of Newtonian mechanics but it was Einstein who got to the winning-post first in the race to find something better and it is his name we remember.
If the theory of evolution is fatally flawed then the kudos will will go to whoever puts something better on the table not to those who complain it is being kept in place out of petty self-interest.
You do not need a better explanation BEFORE you trash the explanation that is currently being used. And the "theory" of evolution is easily trashed because it can't even be tested. It cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified and it can't even muster a testable hypothesis based on its posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents.
DeleteThat said Intelligent Design is a better explanation and it is on the table. Ignoring it and being ignorant of it isn't going to make it go away.
Chubby Joke G
DeleteThat said MAGIC! is a better explanation and it is on the table. Ignoring it and being ignorant of it isn't going to make it go away.
Sorry Chubs, but IDC has all the explanatory power of magic, and exactly the same amount of positive evidence.
I know it appeals to you because you swallow any idiotic woo, but woo doesn't cut it in the scientific arena.
empty bluster boy:
Deletebut IDC has all the explanatory power of magic, and exactly the same amount of positive evidence.
That is because IDC only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant, like you.
OTOH Intelligent Design has plenty of positive, supporting evidence. However you are too stupid to understand what evidence is, and it shows.
And what is it about poeole's weight? Were you molested by a fat guy and you liked it?
I: The second is that the real fame and fortune in science goes not to those who prop up a failing theory but to those lucky few who come up with a viable successor.
ReplyDeleteJ: There are so many options that can be ruled out--multiple version of SA and multiple versions of UCA. How do you do any of it in terms of empirical falsifiability when all approaches require so many ad-hoc hypotheses in the first place?
I: There were many physicists who were well aware of the shortcomings of Newtonian mechanics but it was Einstein who got to the winning-post first in the race to find something better and it is his name we remember.
J: Lorentzian relativity is actually better though. For it uses the same math but doesn't eradicate the intuitive principle of individuation for 3-dimensionally extended entities. What do we replace it with? Nothing? Or just deny the reality of 3-dimensionally extended entities other than space itself?
I: If the theory of evolution is fatally flawed
J: What do you mean by the ToE? UCA? If the latter, how could you possibly falsify it?
I: then the kudos will will go to whoever puts something better on the table not to those who complain it is being kept in place out of petty self-interest.
J: If by the ToE you mean UCA, it's not "in place" in the first place. There is no naturalistic theory that explains a UCA tree. There isn't even any inductive evidence for it. A UCA tree is not an analogical extrapolation. It's never been observed. And no conceivable sequence of any of the known kinds of mutations is known to result in a UCA tree starting with any conceivable common ancestor. UCA is literally JUST a hypothesis, not a theory.
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteA UCA tree is not an analogical extrapolation. It's never been observed.
Yes dumbass, it has.
LoL! That isn't an observed UCS tree- that is someone's speculative notion- it cannot be tested, it cannot be measured and it cannot be quantified.
DeleteSimple logic tells us that we need not have an alternative to know there's no good reason to believe what's believed by some majority of believers. One can use an a-plausible hypothesis as a working hypothesis merely because it's perceived to be the easiest to "work with" and still realize there is nothing plausible about it per inductive plausibility criteria.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
DeleteSimple logic tells us that we need not have an alternative to know there's no good reason to believe what's believed by some majority of believers.
Then it is merely your opinion, based only on your judgement without an alternative. The evidence remains, an overwhelming majority just shows that to the most qualified to judge by dint of experience your opinion is false based on that evidence. Do you have any evidence except improbability?
One can use an a-plausible hypothesis as a working hypothesis merely because it's perceived to be the easiest to "work with" and still realize there is nothing plausible about it per inductive plausibility criteria.
Sure,but why would you when you have one that is plausible? Life is short. Can you explain how the ToE per inductive plausibility criteria is a - plausible , in other words impossible?
V: The evidence remains
DeleteJ: What evidence?
V: Can you explain how the ToE per inductive plausibility criteria is a - plausible , in other words impossible?
J: No one knows historical UCA is naturalistically impossible OR possible, V. That's why the only conceivable criteria by which to comparatively evaluate the relative plausibility of UCA and SA is the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required by each to come close to explaining. If you had positive evidence for naturalistic UCA, you would have articulated it by now. There IS NONE!
Jeff,
DeleteNo one knows historical UCA is naturalistically impossible OR possible
I thought there are " inductive plausibility criteria",
That's why the only conceivable criteria by which to comparatively evaluate the relative plausibility of UCA and SA is the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required by each to come close to explaining
If the hypothesis were equal in all ways, however, SA lacks any specificity ,it is impossible to determine the assumptions necessary for an unknown proposition.
If you had positive evidence for naturalistic UCA, you would have articulated it by now. There IS NONE!
Again, the mechanisms of common descent are observed and tested, they exist. The debate is whether they are sufficent to account for the diversity of life. And just putting words in all caps is not persuasive. Provide those mechanisms that cause species to rise de novo.
Vel,
DeleteThe mecahnisms of common descent have humans giving rise to humans, chimps giving rise to chimps- IOW nothing that supports evolutionism.
V: I thought there are " inductive plausibility criteria",
ReplyDeleteJ: Yes. So?
V: If the hypothesis were equal in all ways, however, SA lacks any specificity ,it is impossible to determine the assumptions necessary for an unknown proposition.
J: There are tons of trees one could draw for UCA. Thus, there is no specificity for it either.
V: Again, the mechanisms of common descent are observed and tested, they exist.
J: Some of them. We're learning all the time.
V: The debate is whether they are sufficent to account for the diversity of life.
J: That's not a debate, V. It's KNOWN that we do not NOT know that known mutational mechanisms can account for a UCA tree. That's the point.
Jeff ,
ReplyDeleteThat's not a debate, V. It's KNOWN that we do not NOT know that known mutational mechanisms can account for a UCA tree.
Wow, triple all caps. Did you mean that we do know? That double negative is a bit confusing. .
That is exactly the debate, we do not know for certain that the observed mechanisms can account for the effect, with SA we do not know for certain that unobserved unknown mechanisms can account for the an unknown effect. One has a chance to be supported by study and experiment,the other is merely a speculation. They are not equal.
V: I thought there are " inductive plausibility criteria",
J: Yes. So?
Are they demonstrable?
J: There are tons of trees one could draw for UCA. Thus, there is no specificity for it either.
One has specific observed mechanisms, the other has no specifics at all, timeline,mechanism. Only the improbability argument, which even if true does not support a hypothesis with an unknown mechanism that may be even more improbable.But there is no way to know because unlike the ToE there isn't even a way to figure the probability ,another way it is less specific.
Some of them. We're learning all the time
Too bad that the same cannot be said for SA.
V: That is exactly the debate, we do not know for certain that the observed mechanisms can account for the effect,
ReplyDeleteJ: What, then, is the evidence that a UCA tree can result from some sequence of such mechanisms in the posited time-frame? The fact that something is not known to be impossible doesn't amount to evidence for it.
V: One has a chance to be supported by study and experiment,the other is merely a speculation.
J: But as I've said multiple times, no mainstream ID'ist is opposing research on what kinds and degrees of variation are possible by discoverable mechanisms. So I have no idea why you and every one I debate keeps saying this. The debate is about whether there is currently evidence for naturalistic UCA. And if there is, what is meant by "evidence," in that context?
Jeff,
DeleteJ: But as I've said multiple times, no mainstream ID'ist is opposing research on what kinds and degrees of variation are possible by discoverable mechanisms.
For instance? ID studiously avoids any speculation on the Designer, lay out a way to discover what an unknown designer with unknown capabilities has done the past. It is literally impossible. How do you tell natural effects from designer effects, can they work in combo,does the designer olely use natural processes. Give me a line of research.
So I have no idea why you and every one I debate keeps saying this.
Because it is a fatal flaw in ID. It runs into all the problems studying the distant past ,plus an arbitrary unknown force
The debate is about whether there is currently evidence for naturalistic UCA. And if there is, what is meant by "evidence," in that context?
Try Theobald's evidences.
Theobald's evidences can be used to support a common design.
DeleteID studiously avoids any speculation on the Designer,
No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.
How do you tell natural effects from designer effects,
Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.
Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce what we say is designed. If you do that then we are refuted.
But you won't because that takes work
Chubby Joke G
DeleteV: "How do you tell natural effects from designer effects"
Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.
Both archaeology and forensics use the process of comparing the unknown to other known-to-be-human-designed objects.
What process does ID use to make the determination Chubs?
Joe,
DeleteNo, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.
Then how does ID know the designer is intelligent? Directed? Design in a way recognizable by humans in the 21st century? Wishes to leave evidence of design? Is more probable than naturally occurring design?
These are the assumptions about the unknown, what is the basis for these assumptions? The design? That assumes the conclusion,that the object is designed and then bestows on an unknown designer those capabilities to make it possible. Therefore a designer with those capabilities can design an object, therefore the object is designed. A perfect circle.
How do you tell natural effects from designer effects,
Both archaeology and forensics depend on doing just that.
Because unlike ID it is about the designer,his capabilities, other physical evidence of his presence other than the design, tool marks. If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done.
Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships
Your cause is unknown Joe. Without a mechanism there is no cause. Design alone is not a mechanism
If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce
I don't have to,thousands of scientists are busily doing it
what we say is designed.
For the record,exactly what specifically is designed? Two things that are impossible to have occurred naturally,that are solely the result of design
If you do that then we are refuted.
Do you not understand your own theory? With an unknown designer with unknown capabilities and unknown goals anything logically possible is possible. It is impossible to refute. Any thing can be the result of design. Nothing can be eliminated. Tell me one thing that cannot be the result of design?
But you won't because that takes work
I don't really care what you think, it is a free country. I just prefer a sound argument to a bad one.
doogie hoser:
DeleteBoth archaeology and forensics use the process of comparing the unknown to other known-to-be-human-designed objects.
That is part of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And they definitely need to heed Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.
Not every death is a murder.
What process does ID use to make the determination
I have told you many times already. Obvioulsy you have serious mental issues
No, ID is just not about the designer(s). That is because we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE determining design or not.
Deletevel:
Then how does ID know the designer is intelligent?
Gee, you don't know anything about ID. What are you even doing here?
Because unlike ID it is about the designer,his capabilities, other physical evidence of his presence other than the design, tool marks.
No- the way to the designers and processes is FIRST to DETERMINE DESIGN EXISTS AND THEN STUDY IT. And tat is exactly what ID is about
If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done.
Again with your ignorant spewage. Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really?
Again, vel, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships
Your cause is unknown Joe. Without a mechanism there is no cause. Design alone is not a mechanism
Design is a mechansim BY DEFINITION. So is agency involvement.
If you don't like the design inference tehn you can always just step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce
I don't have to,thousands of scientists are busily doing it
And yet they have NOTHING to show for all of their efforts.
And BTW, IDists have said exactly what would falsify ID.
And all you and your ilk can do is whine because it involves you morons producing positive evidence for your claims.
As for sound arguments- any time you want to ante up- so far you haven't posted any. However you have proven quite ignorant of ID and science.
V: How do you tell natural effects from designer effects, can they work in combo,does the designer olely use natural processes.
DeleteJ: Two things:
1) How does anyone ever do it in any case? How could courts proceed on your radical skepticism?
2) No one ever does it non-tentatively. It's always based on plausibility criteria or the fact that there is only one known logical possibility. And plausibility is ALWAYS based on current data and inductive inferences.
V: Because it is a fatal flaw in ID. It runs into all the problems studying the distant past ,plus an arbitrary unknown force
J: No, god-of-the-gaps inferring is fatally flawed. But no one is arguing that scientists shouldn't attempt to formulate naturalistic explanations for phenomena that seem to be regular. If such explanations can be reduced and extrapolated back in time to the same initial conditions, then they are also corroborated BACK to the same initial conditions. That's what we don't remotely have yet, though. And story-telling doesn't change that. There is no evidence for that kind of success YET.
V: Try Theobald's evidences.
J: Theobald's approach amounts to something like this:
1) He ad-hoc-ly assumes that tree-generation rules magically correlate to the phenotypic/morphological and extinction effects of mutational mechanisms if you start with a single-celled organism as the first organism.
2) He ad-hoc-ly rules out common design as an explanation of similarity even though common design is known to explain certain things.
3) He ad-hoc-ly assumes that both known stratigraphic ranges correlate well with actual stratigraphic ranges and actual stratigraphic ranges correlate well with existential ranges. Heck, they recently increased a known stratigraphic range of a phylum by over 200 million years if I remember correctly. The Cambrian explosion alone is a constant reminder of just how ad-hoc this assumption of Theobald's is.
4) He ad-hoc-ly assumes mutational rate estimates are soundly-inferred despite all the problems found with those over-simplistic inferences.
In short, Theobald's approach is this: Assume all the ad-hoc assumptions I make aren't really ad-hoc. But I know better, V. They are ad-hoc.
Chubby Joke G
DeleteThat is part of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And they definitely need to heed Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.
Fatboy regurgitates his normal evasive non-answers, pees his pants and waddles away. What a surprise.
joey puked up the usual chunks:
Delete"No- the way to the designers and processes is FIRST to DETERMINE DESIGN EXISTS AND THEN STUDY IT. And tat is exactly what ID is about"
Hey joey, why don't you IDiots actually do what you expect scientists to do? Determine if design exists and study it. Figure out exactly who or what the alleged 'designer' is and how, when, where, and why the alleged 'designer' did all of the alleged designing. And then determine and study the design of the alleged 'designer' and figure out who or what designed the 'designer' of the alleged 'designer' and all of its other antecedents, and how, when, where, and why all of the antecedents designed all of the other designers. Or did the alleged 'designer' just poof out of nothing and there are no antecedents?
Come on joey, show the world how smart you are and the evidence you can come up with in your state of the art basement lab.
joey insultingly spewed:
Delete"Why don't you ignorant morons step up and do something other than insulting and spewing your belligerent tirades?"
You first.
"I understand taht it bothers you that your position has nothing but lies and equivocations, but your ignorance isn't going to change the fact that you are cowards and your position has nothing."
Actually, you don't understand. I'm very comfortable with my "position" because my "position" is based on the legitimate scientific pursuit of knowledge about nature. Religious beliefs, such as yours, are a very poor substitute for reality, and being grossly dishonest about your beliefs and agenda is an invitation to the scorn that you deservedly get.
velikovskys said:
Delete"If IDist were archaeologists, they would look at Stonehedge and say " it looks designed" all done."
joey responded with:
"Again with your ignorant spewage. Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really?"
So, joey, what would you IDiots do after saying that Stonehenge looks designed? You can't say that you IDiots would try to figure out who the designer was, or how, when, where, or why the designer designed Stonehenge, or whether the designer found, quarried, carved, moved, and placed the stones of Stonehenge, or whether the designer designed the tools and methods for others to find, quarry, carve, move, and place the stones, because ID doesn't say anything about the designer, remember?
According to your own claims about ID, velikovskys is right. You IDiots would say that Stonehenge looks designed, all done.
The God of random mutations. Wow! What a Good Shepherd, always there with his crook, when they stray in the mountain mists, to stop them falling through the gaps and ravines.
ReplyDeletePaul
DeleteThe God of random mutations. Wow! What a Good Shepherd, always there with his crook, when they stray in the mountain mists, to stop them falling through the gaps and ravines.
No. The ones with the deleterious mutations (on average) fall through the gaps and ravines. The ones with neutral and beneficial mutations (on average) make it through the gaps and ravines, get to reproduce and pass on their beneficial traits.
Yes and "beneficial" is relative. What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next. Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation.
Deletejoey said:
Delete"Yes and "beneficial" is relative."
Yeah, "evolutionists" already know that.
"What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next."
It changes every day?
"Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation."
Explain how an oak tree could change its behavior every day.
twitty:
DeleteIt changes every day?
Even quicker.
Explain how an oak tree could change its behavior every day.
Non-sequitur.
joey: "What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next."
DeleteMe: It changes every day?
joey: Even quicker.
How much "quicker", exactly, joey?
"Non-sequitur."
So, oak trees aren't evolved/evolving organisms that had/have mutations? Just think, if oak trees would just change their behavior, especially "quicker", they wouldn't have to 'wait' for any mutations!
I never said oak trees could change their behaviour. Obvioulsy you are just a belligerent coward.
DeleteI didn't say that you said that oak trees could change their behavior.
DeleteSo, joey, are you saying that your assertions..
"What is beneficial one day is not beneficial the next."
And:
"Even quicker."
And:
"Not only that most times changing behaviour is the way to go, as opposed to waiting for some magical mutation."
..don't apply to oak trees?
Exactly which organisms do your assertions apply to and which don't they apply to?
Lenovoimportance mother of bride dresses by a country's customs, geography,faith,lifestyle.Precisely the same color,and will bebrought on bymany associations in people's minds.That is
ReplyDelete