Nada
The problem with epigenetic mechanisms is that they respond to future, unforeseen, environmental challenges. They don’t work in the present, and so even if random mutations somehow created such mechanisms, they would not be selected for. In other words, epigenetic mechanisms contradict evolutionary theory—there is no fitness improvement at the time of origin by random mutations, so there is no selection. Nor do evolutionists have an explanation for this—they don’t even try. Consider a paper discussing a particular epigenetic mechanism subtitled: “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.”The paper discusses a complicated cellular process in which different segments of DNA are copied (creating RNA transcripts). The RNAs work together to methylate the DNA at a particular location. The methylation “mark” helps to regulate gene expression. But how did this epigenetic mechanism evolve?
This epigenetic mechanism involves a small army of molecular machines. For instance, the different RNAs are transcribed, from the DNA, by different copying machines. These copying machines consist of a dozen protein subunits. The paper states that two of the copying machines—which are central to the epigenetic mechanism—each evolved from a third copying machine. Why?
The idea of the two copying machines evolving from the third copying machine is problematic because there are significant differences between them. The paper gives no justification for such an unlikely event. It gives no justification because there is none, save for the presupposition that evolution is true. Under evolutionary theory it must have occurred.
In other words, there is no empirical evidence that the two copying machines evolved from the third copying machine and there are enormous problems with the idea. But it is taken as a given because evolution is assumed to begin with.
The point here is that in attempting to explain the evolution of a complex epigenetic pathway the paper presupposed evolution a priori.
Similarly, the paper states that the two copying machines “are evolving rapidly.” Again, where did this come from? Does the science actually show this to be true? Does the science even merely provide any evidence at all for this astonishing claim?
Again, no and no.
Nowhere does the science demonstrate or prove that the two copying machines “are evolving rapidly.” In fact, the science doesn’t even provide any evidence at all for this.
Nada.
What the science shows is that the proteins in the two copying machines have significant differences compared to the corresponding proteins in the third copying machine. The two copying machines are more different from the third copying machine, than would normally be expected if they had evolved from that third copying machine.
But since evolution is assumed to be true to begin with, then those two copying machines must be “evolving rapidly.”
Again, the claim is driven by the belief that evolution is true. There is no empirical evidence that the two copying machines are evolving rapidly, let alone that they even evolved at all.
This is all dogma. There is no science here.
The paper then spends considerable effort attempting to reckon with the various problems that arise when their evolutionary history is assumed. There are duplication events and introns are mysteriously inserted. There are fusion events to explain unexpected differences, and other cases are simply unknown. There must have been a complex series of evolutionary events the reasons for which “remain obscure,” and the evolutionary origin of one gene is “a mystery.”
It is a long sequence of just-so stories. A long sequence of special events just happened to happen, which luckily produced this new epigenetic mechanism.
And then, after all of this, it would not be selected for. All of these events, and the resulting epigenetic mechanism would not improve the evolutionary fitness.
This evolutionary tale is not supported by the empirical evidence. Instead, it is supported by the prior assumption that evolution occurred.
It's going to be hard to comment on this because they want $32.00 to read the full text.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: The problem with epigenetic mechanisms is that they respond to future, unforeseen, environmental challenges.
ReplyDeleteEpigenetic inheritance represents historical knowledge, knowledge of situations that often repeat themselves. For instance, epigenetics is involved in insect metamorphosis which can allow an organism to adapt to seasonal variations.
Yes, epigenetics is evidence for Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"
DeleteZachriel the dirt worshipper:
DeleteEpigenetic inheritance represents historical knowledge, knowledge of situations that often repeat themselves.
How lame can these evotards get? The whole point of epigenetic adaptation is to respond quickly to environmental pressures, otherwise the organism dies. No repetition is possible. Get your head out of your asteroid, psycho-man.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Zachriel,
Delete"Epigenetic inheritance represents historical knowledge, knowledge of situations that often repeat themselves."
Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?
Nic: Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?
DeleteNo. Evolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions for the range of that environment. In other words, while it may be cold (or acidic) in the present, the memory of warmth (or alkalinity) may remain in the genome, meaning the organism can more readily adapt when the environment changes in the future.
Zachriel
Delete"Evolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions"
Wow! And this is all done thru natural selection working on random mutations? Evolution must be REALLY intelligent!
What psycho-evotard Zachriel declined to mention is that evolutionary algorithms use puny genomes compared to nature. This is how they stay below the combinatorial explosion that would kill any stochastic search method that used natural sequence sizes.
DeleteIf the same Darwinist algorithm were used by natural organisms, they would all be extinct eons before any advantageous mutations could be found.
Beware of Zachriel. He's one of the most devious dirt-worshipping evotards on the planet. AFAICT, he is possessed by at least two malefic alien entities, which is why he refers to himself as a "we". He's an accomplished weaver of lies and deception.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Zachriel,
DeleteNic: "Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?"
Zachriel: "No. Evolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions for the range of that environment. In other words, while it may be cold (or acidic) in the present, the memory of warmth (or alkalinity) may remain in the genome, meaning the organism can more readily adapt when the environment changes in the future."
Really, Zachriel, give your head a shake! It requires intelligence to create, retain and retrieve memories in the sense you are talking about.
You ridicule Christians for believing in miracles and then come up with an argument like this?
Nic: It requires intelligence to create, retain and retrieve memories in the sense you are talking about.
DeleteYou are assuming your conclusion because it seems obvious to you. It's like saying "Of course the Earth is fixed!"
A very simple example of genomic memory is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Once evolved, the bacteria retain this capability over many generations, even when they are no longer in an antibiotic environment. That is, there is a "memory" of the past.
Zachriel,
Delete"A very simple example of genomic memory is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria."
The capability has always been there. My, you are out of touch. Years ago they found viable bacteria within the bodies of men who died with the Franklin Expedition in the mid 1800's in Canada's Arctic. The bacteria were found to be resistant to antibiotics which were not developed until over 100 years later. So, obviously, the resistance could not be the result of a past evolutionary 'memory'.
Really, Zachriel, you must try harder to keep up. This discovery dates back to the 1980's.
Alien-possessed, psycho-evotard Zachriel:
DeleteA very simple example of genomic memory is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Once evolved, the bacteria retain this capability over many generations, even when they are no longer in an antibiotic environment. That is, there is a "memory" of the past.
LOL
Do you know how many base pairs there is in the average bacterium, Mr. Evotard? Millions, that's how many. But even if, for the sake of argument, we assumed a super simple bacterium with only 1000 base pairs, it would mean that the search space for this impossibly simple bacterium is 2^1000.
2^1000!!!!!
Do you get it? You could not search through this space even if the entire universe were filled with mutating bacteria. You hear me, maggot? The bacteria would all croak before anything significant happens.
If bacteria somehow evolved to become resistant to antibiotics, it's obviously because the actual mutation search space is genetically limited to a very small subset of the full genomic space. This means that, whatever occurred in the bacteria to give it resistance to antibiotics could not have been the result of some brain-dead, Darwinist evotard scheme like RM+NS. Why? Because RM+NS acts on the entire genome, not just a small part of it.
Now go find some dirt and worship it, you alien-possessed, gutless worm.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha
Nic: The capability has always been there.
DeleteAntibiotics are naturally occurring, so resistance is probably as old as mold. You must try harder to keep up. In any case, this has nothing to do with our statement.
We have a strain of bacteria with no antibiotic resistance. It is exposed to antibiotics, and evolves resistance to antibiotics. We now remove the antibiotics. Does the bacteria "remember"? Or does it have to evolve the resistance all over again? It turns out that the resistance lingers in the populations for a long time. The experience is "remembered" in the genome.
Nic: It requires intelligence to create, retain and retrieve memories in the sense you are talking about.
DeleteFossils are "memories" stored in the rocks.
http://blog.s126907.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/WH_Feathered_Dinosaur_lg.jpg
Zachriel,
DeleteNic: "It requires intelligence to create, retain and retrieve memories in the sense you are talking about."
Zachriel: "Fossils are "memories" stored in the rocks.
http://blog.s126907.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/WH_Feathered_Dinosaur_lg.jpg."
Do you have any idea at all what equivocation means? This is a dictionary example.
ZAchriel,
Delete"Antibiotics are naturally occurring, so resistance is probably as old as mold."
I suppose your argument is that the antibiotic developed 100 years after those men died evolved some time in the distant past and these bacteria had already evolved a resistance? Now that is pure fantasy and desperation of the highest order.
"It is exposed to antibiotics, and evolves resistance to antibiotics."
Bacteria does not evolve anything, it shuts down ports which prevent the antibiotic from entering the cell. It is a loss of function, not a gain.
Nic: Do you have any idea at all what equivocation means?
DeleteSure. That's what you are inadvertently doing. If memory doesn't fit your concept of human memory, then it doesn't count. Genomes do not have the same kind of memory as humans do.
Nic: I suppose your argument is that the antibiotic developed 100 years after those men died evolved some time in the distant past and these bacteria had already evolved a resistance?
No. The antibiotics tested were cefoxitin and clindamycin. Cefoxitin is very similar to antibiotics originally derived from the fungus, Acremonium. Clindamycin is a semisynthetic of a natural antibiotic produced by Streptomyces.
Nic: Bacteria does not evolve anything, it shuts down ports which prevent the antibiotic from entering the cell. It is a loss of function, not a gain.
Scientists call that process "evolution". You can quibble over well-established terminology, but the point remains. The response of bacteria previously exposed to antibiotics is different than the response of bacteria never exposed to antibiotics. The "memory" of the exposure is stored in the genome of the bacteria.
Zachriel,
Delete"Sure. That's what you are inadvertently doing. If memory doesn't fit your concept of human memory, then it doesn't count. Genomes do not have the same kind of memory as humans do."
No, Zachriel, it is you who is equivocating when it comes to memory, not I. The 'memory' preserved in a fossil is not equivalent to the 'memory' preserved in the genome. I never equated human memory with genomic memory, that is strictly a straw man you put up to attack. It won't fly, so give it a rest.
Nic: "I suppose your argument is that the antibiotic developed 100 years after those men died evolved some time in the distant past and these bacteria had already evolved a resistance?"
Zachriel: "No. The antibiotics tested were cefoxitin and clindamycin. Cefoxitin is very similar to antibiotics originally derived from the fungus, Acremonium. Clindamycin is a semisynthetic of a natural antibiotic produced by Streptomyces."
So, that 'no' is actually a 'yes' to the fact you're going to try to argue the antibiotics evolved earlier and the bacteria had already evolved a resistance to them. Truly pathetic. Dead men really do bleed after all.
"Scientists call that process "evolution". You can quibble over well-established terminology, but the point remains. The response of bacteria previously exposed to antibiotics is different than the response of bacteria never exposed to antibiotics. The "memory" of the exposure is stored in the genome of the bacteria."
They can call it whatever they wish, that does not make it evolution in the sense you're trying to argue. It is a loss of information and function, not a gain as required by evolution due to common descent. When it comes to evolution the scientific community is forever equivocating with the term in order to sustain the narrative.
"The response of bacteria previously exposed to antibiotics is different than the response of bacteria never exposed to antibiotics. The "memory" of the exposure is stored in the genome of the bacteria."
Well, Zachriel, the onus is squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate this 'memory' is the result of prior exposure and not built in adaptation abilities. That you cannot do, you can only assert it to be so. As you have been doing for a while now. Actually that is all you ever do, assert.
Nic: I never equated human memory with genomic memory
DeletePerhaps you could define how you are using the term "memory".
Nic: So, that 'no' is actually a 'yes' to the fact you're going to try to argue the antibiotics evolved earlier and the bacteria had already evolved a resistance to them.
Simply ignoring our point doesn't constitute an argument.
Cefoxitin and clindamycin are structurally similar to naturally occurring antibiotics, so it's quite possible that broad antibiotic resistance evolved, especially given the heavy metal environment, which often involves similar metabolic pathways.
Nic: the onus is squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate this 'memory' is the result of prior exposure and not built in adaptation abilities.
The demonstration of the evolution of antibiotic resistance is a standard experiment, which also demonstrates short term persistence. See Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952.
As for longer term persistence, the phenomenon is well-known, but if you want a citation, see the review article Andersson & Hughes, Persistence of antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations, FEMS Microbiology Reviews 2011: "Unfortunately for mankind, it is very likely that the antibiotic resistance problem we have generated during the last 60 years due to the extensive use and misuse of antibiotics is here to stay for the foreseeable future."
LoL! Zachriel with its continued cowardly equivocation is too funny. The Lederbergs don't know and did not show that antibiotic resistance occurred via happenstance changes. And that is what is being debated.
DeleteEvolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions for the range of that environment.
DeleteEvolutionary algorithms exemplify evolution via intelligent design.
Zachriel,
Delete"Perhaps you could define how you are using the term "memory".
I think that falls on your plate as you seem to be the one equivocating here.
"Simply ignoring our point doesn't constitute an argument."
Hello!, you didn't make a point as my reply pointed out.
"Cefoxitin and clindamycin are structurally similar to naturally occurring antibiotics, so it's quite possible that broad antibiotic resistance evolved, especially given the heavy metal environment, which often involves similar metabolic pathways."
Which is exactly what I said you would argue, that bacteria encountered thew antibiotic in the past and had therefore already evolved resistance to it. Are you awake, or are you replying simply by rote?
"The demonstration of the evolution of antibiotic resistance,..."
What occurs when bacteria 'evolve' a resistance to an antibiotic?
Nic: Which is exactly what I said you would argue, that bacteria encountered thew antibiotic in the past and had therefore already evolved resistance to it.
DeleteNo. They had experienced *similar* dangers in the past.
Nic: What occurs when bacteria 'evolve' a resistance to an antibiotic?
It depends. With clindamycin, resistance has a number of mechanisms, including modification of the ribosomal binding site, efflux of the antibiotic, or by binding and inactivation of the antibiotic.
Nic: I think that falls on your plate as you seem to be the one equivocating here.
You could start with this one:
Merriam-Webster: the store of things learned and retained from an organism's activity or experience as evidenced by modification of structure or behavior or by recall and recognition
And more equivocation from the master. Nice job, Zacho
DeleteZachriel,
DeleteNic: "Which is exactly what I said you would argue, that bacteria encountered thew antibiotic in the past and had therefore already evolved resistance to it."
Zachriel: "No. They had experienced *similar* dangers in the past."
So, your answer is no, they did not evolve a resistance due to a past encounter, but yes, they evolved a resistance because they had experienced 'similar' dangers in the past. And you seriously see no contradiction in these statements?
"You could start with this one:"
As you are the one equivocating over the meaning of memory it is up to you to pick one. Don't tell me what I should start with when you're the one who is confused.
"Merriam-Webster: the store of things learned and retained from an organism's activity or experience as evidenced by modification of structure or behavior or by recall and recognition."
And you think this would apply in your reference to 'memory' in regards to fossils?
Antibiotic resistance is a great example of evolution via a loss of function and information:
DeleteIs Bacterial Resistance
To Antibiotics An Appropriate Example Of Evolutionary Change?
Enjoy
Oh joy! Fat Joke shows his scientific knowledge by linking to a YEC website with a YEC "explanation". But ID has nothing to do with religion, Fat Joke swears it.
DeleteNic: So, your answer is no, they did not evolve a resistance due to a past encounter, but yes, they evolved a resistance because they had experienced 'similar' dangers in the past.
DeleteDid you forget your own words?
N: I suppose your argument is that the antibiotic developed 100 years after those men died evolved some time in the distant past and these bacteria had already evolved a resistance?
The answer is no. The specific antibiotic did not evolve. They are synthetic. However, they are structurally similar to natural antibiotics, and bacteria often develop broad resistance, especially in heavy metal environments thought to induce the evolution of resistance.
So you have rephrased your comment to "past encounter", and the answer is yes. They presumably evolved resistance due to their environment.
Nic: And you think this would apply in your reference to 'memory' in regards to fossils?
No, but we decided to use the more limited definition to move the discussion forward, though "memory" can also refer to a material having "a capacity for showing effects as the result of past treatment".
Zachriel,
Delete"The answer is no. The specific antibiotic did not evolve. They are synthetic. However, they are structurally similar to natural antibiotics, and bacteria often develop broad resistance, especially in heavy metal environments thought to induce the evolution of resistance."
So, your answer is 'yes' they had already evolved a resistance to the later synthetic antibiotic through earlier encounters with a similar natural antibiotic.
Have you any clue what you're talking about? It certainly seems you do not.
"So you have rephrased your comment to "past encounter", and the answer is yes. They presumably evolved resistance due to their environment."
No, it was the same comment, it only went over your head, that's all.
Okay, if you think that is what has happened demonstrate your scenario to be the case.
"No, but we decided to use the more limited definition to move the discussion forward, though "memory" can also refer to a material having "a capacity for showing effects as the result of past treatment"."
No, what? You still have not shown how 'memory' regards fossils is in any way analogous to 'memory' regards genetics which was the parallel you were trying to draw.
LoL!@ Timmy- leave it to an evoTARD to not be able to understand a simple explanation and the science behind it.
DeleteWait a minute. If the bacteria had antibiotic resistance all along, then when we saw it evolve in recent times, maybe it didn't really evolve at all, rather it was there all the time. It was created that way.
DeleteFurther more, if antibiotic resistance is the result of the lose or destruction of a structure or function, then you can't prove from there that the gain of a structure or function can evolve.
Nic: they had already evolved a resistance to the later synthetic antibiotic through earlier encounters with a similar natural antibiotic.
DeleteThat is correct.
Nic: if you think that is what has happened demonstrate your scenario to be the case.
It's consistent with what we know of antibiotic resistance, though reconstructing the exact sequence of events in the guts of people who died a century or more ago might be rather difficult.
Let's return to your original contention.
Nic: Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?
The answer is still no, antibiotic resistance being a simple example. Bacteria whose ancestors were exposed to antibiotics do not have to re-evolve the capability. Even if we treat resistance as a simple switch, it represents one bit of knowledge the bacteria didn't have before.
Bacteria are intelligent agencies. So that means the answer is yes, the retention of knowledge implies the presence of intelligence.
DeleteZachriel,
DeleteNic: "they had already evolved a resistance to the later synthetic antibiotic through earlier encounters with a similar natural antibiotic."
Zachriel: "That is correct."
FINALLY!, a straight answer. Okay, now demonstrate that this is actually the case and not just wishful thinking on your part.
"It's consistent with what we know of antibiotic resistance, though reconstructing the exact sequence of events in the guts of people who died a century or more ago might be rather difficult."
Might be rather difficult? Really? Then why are you so sure this is what happened. You seem to believe the evidence for evolution is so clear and concise why would you expect to have any difficulty demonstrating the events?
Zachriel: "Let's return to your original contention."
Nic: "Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?"
"The answer is still no, antibiotic resistance being a simple example. Bacteria whose ancestors were exposed to antibiotics do not have to re-evolve the capability. Even if we treat resistance as a simple switch, it represents one bit of knowledge the bacteria didn't have before."
You're like a dog with a bone, no logic, no thought, just hang onto the bone with everything you've got. It would be funny it it were not so sad.
Nic: FINALLY!, a straight answer.
DeleteActually, your straight answer was provided several times previous.
Z: The antibiotics tested were cefoxitin and clindamycin. Cefoxitin is very similar to antibiotics originally derived from the fungus, Acremonium. Clindamycin is a semisynthetic of a natural antibiotic produced by Streptomyces.
Z: Cefoxitin and clindamycin are structurally similar to naturally occurring antibiotics, so it's quite possible that broad antibiotic resistance evolved, especially given the heavy metal environment, which often involves similar metabolic pathways.
Z: No. They had experienced *similar* dangers in the past.
Z: The answer is no. The specific antibiotic did not evolve. They are synthetic. However, they are structurally similar to natural antibiotics, and bacteria often develop broad resistance, especially in heavy metal environments thought to induce the evolution of resistance.
Nic: Okay, now demonstrate that this is actually the case and not just wishful thinking on your part.
Try rereading our posts again. We indicated that such evolution is plausible, and consistent with what we know of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, especially in the presence of heavy metals.
Nic: You seem to believe the evidence for evolution is so clear and concise why would you expect to have any difficulty demonstrating the events?
You don't have to personally observe the birth of Abraham Lincoln to have a general idea of how it happened.
Nic: You're like a dog with a bone
Not an argument. You diverted with a discussion of bacteria found in a gut of people who died a century or more ago. We were happy to discuss that, but it doesn't mean you have supported your original claim.
Nic: Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?
Consider again simple antibiotic resistance.
We have a bacteria that is apparently resistant to penicillin. We look at its history and see that it was previously exposed to penicillin. In other words, the strain has retained a "memory" of that history.
But if bacteria had antibiotic resistance in the past, then maybe we never actually saw it evolve. It's always been there. Maybe they were designed with anti-biotic resistance.
DeleteBacteria were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt. And that includes finding a way to resist antibiotics.
DeleteZachriel,
Delete"We have a bacteria that is apparently resistant to penicillin. We look at its history and see that it was previously exposed to penicillin. In other words, the strain has retained a "memory" of that history."
Really, Zachriel, you are so clueless sometimes.
No one is arguing the point that bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure. What is being discussed here is the bacteria found in the Franklin Expedition. You cannot in any way shape or form conclude, via observable evidence that those bacteria were ever exposed to the antibiotics in question. In other words, you cannot look at the history of these bacteria and see what they were or were not exposed to in the past. You are simply asserting they must have been in contact with something similar in the past due to them presently possessing immunity to the antibiotics despite the fact these antibiotics did not come into existence until 120 years later. You are arguing in a very small circle and are totally clueless to the fact.
However, this is not surprising as evolutionary thought is one big circular argument from beginning to end.
natschuster: But if bacteria had antibiotic resistance in the past, then maybe we never actually saw it evolve.
DeleteIt's a standard experiment. Take a bacterial strain without resistance, clone it, then expose it to antibiotics. Some of those bacteria will develop resistance consistent with random mutation. The offspring of those bacteria will have the resistance trait. They will have stored within their genomes the memory of their ancestors.
Nic: No one is arguing the point that bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure.
DeleteYour question was "Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?" As you now admit, random mutation and population genetics explains the memory of antibiotic resistance in a population.
Nic: What is being discussed here is the bacteria found in the Franklin Expedition.
No. That was a sidebar to the original discussion.
Nic: In other words, you cannot look at the history of these bacteria and see what they were or were not exposed to in the past.
That is incorrect. They were exposed to a heavy metal environment. There is evidence that heavy metal exposure induces resistance because the efflux of heavy metals requires many of the same facilities as the efflux of antibiotics.
In any case, we have resolved the original question.
Zachriel,
Delete"Your question was "Does not the retention of knowledge imply the presence of intelligence?" As you now admit, random mutation and population genetics explains the memory of antibiotic resistance in a population."
Wow!, you have a real vivid imagination. Where do you get the idea I believe random mutation can produce 'memory'. I said 'memory' required intelligence, that has less than zero to do with the claim 'memory' occurs via random mutation. You are the king when it comes to the construction of straw man arguments.
"That is incorrect. They were exposed to a heavy metal environment. There is evidence that heavy metal exposure induces resistance because the efflux of heavy metals requires many of the same facilities as the efflux of antibiotics."
No, it is not incorrect. Your whole argument is 100% conjecture and circular reasoning. You're concluding these bacteria were exposed to a 'similar' antibiotic and as such had earlier evolved a resistance to the new antibiotics which were developed over 100 years later. From what do you draw your conclusion? The fact they were resistant to an antibiotic developed over a hundred years later. That is a classic circular argument. Why can you not see that? It's simply mind boggling that you're so blind to the obvious.
"In any case, we have resolved the original question."
No, we have not. You have yet to answer whether 'memory' implies the presence of intelligence? Yes or no?
Zachriel,
Deletenatschuster: "But if bacteria had antibiotic resistance in the past, then maybe we never actually saw it evolve."
Zachriel: "It's a standard experiment. Take a bacterial strain without resistance, clone it, then expose it to antibiotics. Some of those bacteria will develop resistance consistent with random mutation."
Good grief, Zachriel, that is the question under discussion. Is the resistance the result of random mutation or a designed system of adaptation? All you're doing is asserting it is the result of random mutation without providing one iota of evidence to support your claim.
Zachriel;
DeleteMaybe some of the bacteria already had the resistance before the exepriment even started. They survived and passed it on.
Nic: Where do you get the idea I believe random mutation can produce 'memory'.
Delete"Bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We can show resistance is due to random mutations and selection acting to fix the resulting resistant bacteria.
Nic: No, it is not incorrect.
See Chen et al., Heavy Metal Induced Antibiotic Resistance in Bacterium LSJC7, International Journal of
Molecular Sciences 2015: " Overall, this study implies that heavy metal induced antibiotic resistance might be ubiquitous among various microbial species and suggests that it might play a role in the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance in metal and antibiotic co-contaminated environments." We have mentioned this up many times already.
Nic: You have yet to answer whether 'memory' implies the presence of intelligence? Yes or no?
Gee whiz. See our comment from April 25, 2016 at 6:09 AM, which started this discussion.
Nic: Is the resistance the result of random mutation or a designed system of adaptation?
See Lederberg & Lederberg, Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants, Journal of Bacteriology 1952. This very elegant experiment shows that the mutations are random with respect to fitness. You might also look at Luria & Delbrück, Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance, Genetics 1943, which uses statistical means to show that the occurrence of resistance is consistent with random mutation.
natschuster: Maybe some of the bacteria already had the resistance before the experiment even started.
If you took a look at Lederberg & Lederberg you would know that is not the case. They're clones of non-resistant bacteria.
DeleteNic: "Where do you get the idea I believe random mutation can produce 'memory'."
Zachriel: "Bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We can show resistance is due to random mutations and selection acting to fix the resulting resistant bacteria."
Really, you're beyond obtuse. Again you simply assert the 'memory' arises from random mutation without providing any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion.
Sure, I said bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure, but no where did I say that resistance 'memory was due to random mutation. So, again, you simply erect a straw man to knock down. That is simply intellectual dishonesty on your part.
"Overall, this study implies that heavy metal induced antibiotic resistance might be ubiquitous among various microbial species,..."
The study 'implies'and 'suggests' this 'might play a role' and Zachriel immediately states that is in fact what happens. You're priceless, really.
"which uses statistical means to show that the occurrence of resistance is consistent with random mutation."
And random mutation is assumed in the study. Again, circular reasoning. You just never get that, do you?
Nic: Again you simply assert the 'memory' arises from random mutation without providing any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion.
DeleteUm, Lederberg & Lederberg, Luria & Delbrück.
Nic: no where did I say that resistance 'memory was due to random mutation.
You did say it required intelligence. We can show the mechanism by which the experience is stored is due to random mutation and natural selection.
Nic: The study 'implies'and 'suggests' this 'might play a role' and Zachriel immediately states that is in fact what happens. You're priceless, really.
Z: There is evidence that heavy metal exposure induces resistance because the efflux of heavy metals requires many of the same facilities as the efflux of antibiotics.
Z: However, they are structurally similar to natural antibiotics, and bacteria often develop broad resistance, especially in heavy metal environments thought to induce the evolution of resistance.
Nonetheless, some evidence is far more persuasive than "Is not! Is not!"
Nic: And random mutation is assumed in the study.
Huh? Lederberg won the Nobel Prize for research into bacteria. Take another look at Lederberg & Lederberg. Here's a simplified description of the experiment:
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml
The Lederberg experiment did not establish that mutations are random, as in happenstance occurrences. Zachriel is lying again.
DeleteAnd if exposure induces resistance then that fits Dr Spetner's hypothesis and not Darwin's.
Zachriel,
Delete"Gee whiz. See our comment from April 25, 2016 at 6:09 AM, which started this discussion."
You mean this one?
Zachriel, April 25th: "No. Evolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions for the range of that environment."
The one where you say the genome encodes solutions? How does the encoding of solutions not require intelligence at some stage?
"We can show the mechanism by which the experience is stored is due to random mutation and natural selection."
Really? How about you do that.
"There is evidence that heavy metal exposure induces resistance because the efflux of heavy metals requires many of the same facilities as the efflux of antibiotics."
Yes, and the researchers found that evidence so convincing they could only muster words like 'implies', 'suggests' and 'might play a role' to describe this overwhelming evidence.
"Huh? Lederberg won the Nobel Prize for research into bacteria."
Sorry to burst your bubble, Zachriel, but so what!
Nic: You mean this one?
DeleteYes, the comment that starts with a single word followed by a period, "No," the Yes or No answer you say was never provided.
Nic: How does the encoding of solutions not require intelligence at some stage?
When it evolves through random mutation and natural selection.
Nic: How about you do that.
The evidence has already been provided. See Luria & Delbrück.
Nic: Yes, and the researchers found that evidence so convincing they could only muster words like 'implies', 'suggests' and 'might play a role' to describe this overwhelming evidence.
Again, some evidence (which you denied was provided) is more convincing than waving your hands and saying "Is not."
Nic: Sorry to burst your bubble, Zachriel, but so what!
It means that waving your hands and saying the experts in the field aren't merely wrong, but making elementary errors, while you don't bother to address the specifics of their work, is not a valid argument.
Zachriel,
Delete"Yes, the comment that starts with a single word followed by a period, "No," the Yes or No answer you say was never provided."
Oh you provided an answer, that's true, but you have yet to explain how memory or the encoding of memory does not require intelligence at some point of the process.
"When it evolves through random mutation and natural selection."
This is not an answer nor an explanation, it is simply a baseless assertion.
"The evidence has already been provided. See Luria & Delbrück."
How is this evidence for the lack of intelligence in the memory creation process?
"Again, some evidence (which you denied was provided) is more convincing than waving your hands and saying "Is not."
Again, you have failed to provide any kind of an explanation other than to assert it to be true.
"It means that waving your hands and saying the experts in the field aren't merely wrong, but making elementary errors, while you don't bother to address the specifics of their work, is not a valid argument."
I'm not waving my hands and saying they are wrong. I'm saying their research does not support your argument that intelligence is not involved in the encoding of memories.
Nic: you have yet to explain how memory or the encoding of memory does not require intelligence at some point of the process.
DeleteWe not only explained it, but provided an example; antibiotic resistance as in the Luria & Delbrück fluctuation test for which, in part, they won the Nobel Prize.
Nic: How is this evidence for the lack of intelligence in the memory creation process?
It shows that the "memory" is due to a random mutation that becomes predominant in the population through selection.
Nic: Again, you have failed to provide any kind of an explanation other than to assert it to be true.
DeleteWe have cited scientific research. In response, you have simply rejected it without commenting on the specifics. It's called handwaving because your response would have the same effect if we cited Prof. Einstein or Dr. Seuss.
Zachriel,
Delete"We have cited scientific research."
None of which supports your claim that the formation and storage of 'memory' does not require intelligence.
"It's called handwaving,...."
No, Zachriel, it's called refuting the efficacy of your argument. You have not provided one iota of evidence showing intelligence is not required for the production and retention of memory.
"It shows that the "memory" is due to a random mutation that becomes predominant in the population through selection."
It shows nothing of the kind. How does a 'memory' originate via random processes?
Nic: it's called refuting the efficacy of your argument.
DeleteYou haven't refuted anything. You have rejected it without argument.
You have agreed that "bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We have provided evidence of how that 'memory' is made. To refute that you have to address that evidence.
Zachriel,
Delete"You haven't refuted anything. You have rejected it without argument."
In your little world, you are never refuted. I pointed out clearly the arguments you presented did not support your position. That is what is known in the real world as being refuted.
"You have agreed that "bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We have provided evidence of how that 'memory' is made."
Yes, I agree bacteria exposed to penicillin
can develop a 'memory' of that experience.
No, you most certainly did not demonstrate how that occurs, you simply asserted it was via random mutation and selection. That is not evidence which I have repeatedly pointed out. However, you simply continue to make the same assertion, and it has become truly tiresome. So, if you have some evidence, please present it. Otherwise, I'm ready to move on.
Zachriel's deep deceptive nature is only surpassed by his mule-headed stupidity. Yet the dirt-worshipping evotard thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
DeleteThe superiority complex of an evotard can never be underestimated.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Again:
DeleteThe Lederberg experiment did not establish that mutations are random, as in happenstance occurrences. Zachriel is lying again.
And if exposure induces resistance then that fits Dr Spetner's hypothesis and not Darwin's.
Nic: In your little world, you are never refuted.
DeleteSome people attempt to address argument, but you have yet to do so. As pointed out above, it's easy to see that you have never addressed the content of any of the scientific citations provided.
Nic: I pointed out clearly the arguments you presented did not support your position.
Yes. That's what you said, but never bothered to show. You can only do that by addressing the contents of the argument, which included scientific citations.
Nic: you most certainly did not demonstrate how that occurs, you simply asserted it was via random mutation and selection.
No. Citations to repeatable scientific tests is not mere assertion, but an appeal to evidence. To refute that you have to grapple with that evidence, something you continue to avoid.
Don't be silly, Zach.
DeleteNic hasn't shown that he knows how to grapple with evidence.
It's so much easier to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Zach:
DeleteHow do thye know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started? Did they test every single bacteria?
natschuster: How do thye know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started?
DeleteAs noted the last time you asked, they're all clones of a non-resistant bacterium.
Take a course in biology, nat.
DeleteOr logic.
Or both.
You're pitiful.
Pedant:
DeleteTake a course in biology, nat.
LOL! Another evotard heard from. The insufferable pomposity of dirt worshippers is now legendary. This one calls himself Pedant to boot. How apropos?
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
LoL! @ pedant- all evoTARDs are pitiful and every evolutionist is an evoTARD
DeleteZachriel is willfully ignorant and never addresses any arguments:
DeleteThe Lederberg experiment did not establish that mutations are random, as in happenstance occurrences. Zachriel is lying again.
natschuster: How do they know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started?
DeleteNowadays, of course, we can sequence their genomes. But for the basic experiment, use a strain that is known to be non-resistant by testing its reaction to antibiotics.
We know that over generations the bacteria will develop resistance. The question is whether it develops resistance due to exposure to the antibiotics, or whether the mutations are random.
natschuster: Did they test every single bacteria?
DeleteEvery single bacterium could be a single bacterium. (If you're not sure it is non-resistant, clone it several times for testing.)
Now, we know that if you allow the bacteria to reproduce, the ancestors will eventually develop antibiotic resistance. The question is whether they are developing that resistance in response to antibiotics, or whether the are mutations random.
natschuster: Did they test every single bacteria?
DeleteEvery single bacterium could be a single bacterium. (If you're not sure it is non-resistant, clone it several times for testing.)
Now, we know that if you allow the bacteria to reproduce, the ancestors will eventually develop antibiotic resistance. The question is whether they are developing that resistance in response to antibiotics, or whether the are mutations random.
Very strange. Our previous posts weren't showing, then they showed, now they aren't showing again.
DeleteNow, they're showing again.
DeleteThis evolutionary tale is not supported by the empirical evidence. Instead, it is supported by the prior assumption that evolution occurred.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way NASA and ESA assume the Earth is a globe and not flat every time they launch a satellite into orbit.
What were those dumb space scientists and engineers thinking using assumptions??
LoL! Your position is all assumptions and no substance. If it had substance then someone would be collecting the ten million dollars
DeleteEvotard Horton:
DeleteIn the same way NASA and ESA assume the Earth is a globe and not flat every time they launch a satellite into orbit.
Moron. You're so stupid, you can't even come up with a correct metaphor. The fact that the earth is a globe is not a theory. It's an observation. Get your evotard head out of your asteroid.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
I have to side with Louis on this one. The shape of the earth is observed by measurements. Even if it were an assumption, each test of that assumption would validate it. If I read correctly, the OP states that mechanisms for epigenetics offer no direct benefit to an organism. Zero. Why would a mutation that offers no benefit be retained by selection? Luck?
DeleteHow many lucky selections are required to become a miracle?
ohandy1
DeleteI have to side with Louis on this one. The shape of the earth is observed by measurements.
The process of evolution by genetic variations and selection is is empirically observed too.
If I read correctly, the OP states that mechanisms for epigenetics offer no direct benefit to an organism.
It doesn't need to be a direct benefit. An indirect one is good enough to be selected for. See the paper I posted below.
Why would a mutation that offers no benefit be retained by selection? Luck?
It's called neutral drift
It reads like most papers on this topic do. (paraphrasing) "it must have happened this way because it evolved"
DeleteNeutral drift appears to rely completely on luck. changes that are neither good nor bad but just stick around, and just happen to then produce a mechanism that can trigger more rapid mutations and even pick the ones likely to benefit some future unforseen stressor.
Yup. Reads like luck to me. How many lucky breaks does it take to make a miracle?
ohandy1
DeleteIt reads like most papers on this topic do. (paraphrasing) "it must have happened this way because it evolved
OK, you aren't interested in learning anything about actual evolutionary theory, just flinging mud at things you don't understand. Enjoy your willful ignorance.
ghostrider
DeleteNo. The paper you cited didn't establish how anything happened, it told a story of how something might happen. Are you really incapable of seeing the difference?
Seriously ohandy1, I really don't care if you want to stay a willfully ignorant lump your whole life. Knock yourself out.
DeleteI don't think anybody other than brain-dead dirt worshippers gives a rat's ass that Timothy Horton (aka ghostrider) is a frustrated Christophobic closet homosexual who just pretends to be interested in science while being obsessed with destroying Christianity.
DeleteI got news for you, Mr. Closet Homosexual Atheist. Christianity will be around long after you're dead and returned to the dirt that you worship.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
I'll offer one hundred million dollars to the first person to prove IDiots aren't just Creationists trying to circumvent the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead Chubs.
LoL! You don't have any money, loser. As for the establishment clause, well that holds for atheism too, moron.
DeleteLoL! Chubs your ID-Creationsm position is all assumptions and no substance. If it had substance then someone would be collecting the hundred million dollars.
DeleteID-Creationism exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. As for ID, unlike your position ID has a scientific methodology
DeleteOne hundred million dollars would buy you lots of donuts and double cheeseburgers Chubs. Why are so hesitant to try and answer the challenge?
DeleteYou can't pay up. You are a known loser and a pathological liar.
DeleteHeck I can offer one hundred million dollars to anyone who can prove ID is just Creationism in disguise to get around the est clause.
LoL! Timmy the pathological liar strikes again! Prove tat you have the money or admit that you are a liar.
DeleteThe money's in the same bank you keep that ten million dollar Creationist challenge. Not my problem you're too stupid to understand the issue. Chubby Joke the toaster repairman fails again. :D
DeleteHomosexual atheist evotard Timothy Horton:
DeleteI'll offer one hundred million dollars to the first person to prove IDiots aren't just Creationists trying to circumvent the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
We should first kick the Darwinist religionist out of our schools and the government. The dirt worshippers are already breaking the law of the land by circumventing Constitution's Establishment Clause. They should all be rounded up, fined and jailed.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
And, strangely, Canada and all of the European countries don't have an establishment clause in their constitutions and none of them teach ID in their schools either.
DeleteEvotard Billy the whiner:
DeleteAnd, strangely, Canada and all of the European countries don't have an establishment clause in their constitutions and none of them teach ID in their schools either.
So what? What is your stupid point? Come out with it.
Man, pack it up your asteroid. The only truly ignorant jackasses here are the dirt worshippers.
DeleteOops! I forgot to laugh again.
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
School curriculum have adopted the tenets of Secular Humanism. Why doesn't the "Establishment Clause" get applied there?
DeleteSee that first word secular? That means not involving religion. That means the Establishment Clause doesn't apply.
DeleteDirt worshipping evotard Timothy Horton:
DeleteSee that first word secular? That means not involving religion. That means the Establishment Clause doesn't apply.
This is precisely why the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster must not be supported with our tax dollars. It's time to kick out the thieves and pretenders.
Spineless maggot.
ghostrider, shame on you for that. Getting secular humanism listed as a religion was considered a major victory by the American Humanist Society http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/03/3587801/district-court-declares-secular-humanism-a-religion/ .
Delete“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.
Shame on you Ohandy1. That is a local ruling that only applies to Oregon and then only specifically to a case where a prisoner wanted to discuss Secular Humanism in a prison group. There is nowhere in the country that Secular Humanism is part of a public school curriculum.
Deleteghostrider, you changed your objection to suit the new argument. Secular humanism is recognized as a religion legally. You know full well the weight of that decision given the weight of precedent in our legal system. Local case makes it meaningless? ...nonsense.
DeleteYou first argued that it's ok for secular humanism to be in schools (because it's "secular"), now you argue that it isn't there (are you still a proponent?). You went from agreeing with the premise (of SH in schools) to denying it.
If you articulate the beliefs that define secular humanism you will find those beliefs are the bedrock of most school curricula.
In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:
. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .
Do you really believe the stuff you spew or do you merely spout whatever you think might antagonize the most at the moment? You deny the truth and call it a lie while calling a lie the truth. Does that make you a liar or a fool?
I'd like to think you're just misguided...
LOL! Watch out for that windmill Don Quixote Ohandy1. Wouldn't want to see a Mighty Warrior For Jesus like you injure yourself.
DeleteKevin:
DeleteAnd, strangely, Canada and all of the European countries don't have an establishment clause in their constitutions and none of them teach ID in their schools either.
What do they teach? Can you post the evidence that supports the claims that are taught? For example post the evidence that shows unguided evolution can produce ATP synthase.
Timmy the Liar:
DeleteThe money's in the same bank you keep that ten million dollar Creationist challenge.
Liar, but we understand that lying is all you have.
I see Fat Joke is back with his usual content-free vomiting.
DeleteCarry on Joke. You and Louis are wonderful spokesmen for IDiot-Creationism.
LoL! I see that Timmy TuTu is still a cowardly projectionist.
Delete"I'll offer one hundred million dollars to the first person to prove Idiots aren't just Creationists trying to circumvent the Constitution's Establishment Clause."
ReplyDeleteDo you think everyone who is interested in the design argument has the same motive?
Well said, Cornelius, as usual. Excellent points all the way through, but I especially like the last paragraph. Well worth re-reading:
ReplyDelete"This evolutionary tale is not supported by the empirical evidence. Instead, it is supported by the prior assumption that evolution occurred."
Another sad day for the lost primates. Another pummeling. When will the pummeling end? No time soon. The desperate clingers to Darwinism know the game is over, but they will continue to fight for their secular religion, becoming more and more desperate and irrational in the process. I'm loving every second of it.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteNowhere does the science demonstrate or prove that the two copying machines “are evolving rapidly.” In fact, the science doesn’t even provide any evidence at all for this.
It is obvious that evolutionary biology is sitting on a mountain of crap that is supported by incessant propaganda and religious indoctrination.
OP author
ReplyDeleteAnd then, after all of this, it would not be selected for. All of these events, and the resulting epigenetic mechanism would not improve the evolutionary fitness.
This is demonstrably false. Researchers using genetic algorithms (GAs) have determined that adding an epigenetic layer increases fitness and leads to viable solutions being achieved more quickly. Epigenetics therefore is a selectable trait.
Epigenetics & Genetic Algorithms for Inverse Kinematics
Abstract: This paper exploits a recent biological discovery of a popular evolutionary concept. The well-known genetic algorithm methodology mimics organic life through gene reproduction and mutation. However, recent research has pointed out that additional information embedded alongside individual chromosomes transmits data onto future offspring. This additional transmission of information onto child generations outside DNA is known as epigenetics. We incorporate this cutting-edge concept into a genetic algorithm to steer and improve the evolutionary development of the solution (i.e., achieving an optimal result sooner). We investigate the epigenetic principle of data that persists over multiple-generation (i.e., multiple generation inheritance or family tree analogy). Since epigenetics supports an important role in the evolutionary process and provides an additional mechanism to help model and solve complex problems more efficiently. We apply the enhanced genetic algorithm to solving inverse kinematic (IK) problems (e.g., linked kinematic chains). Solving inverse kinematic problems is important and challenging in multiple disciplines, such as, robotics and animation (e.g., virtual animated character control) and is difficult to obtain an optimal solution using transitional methods (e.g., geometric, algebraic, or iterative). We demonstrate the viability of our approach compared to a classical genetic algorithm. We also incorporate engineering enhancements (i.e., a non-linear mutation probability) to achieve a higher precision solution in fewer generation while avoiding prematurely converging on local minimums.
Another thing the Creationist got wrong.
Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution via intelligent design. Nice own goal, moron.
DeleteLOL! Whatever you say Fat Joke. Your opinion means so much to the professional scientific community.
DeleteYes, I understand that facts mean nothing to you. Genetic algorithms actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. Unguided evolution isn't a search and isn't actively searching for solutions.
DeleteBut then again you are too stupid to understand that
Evotard Horton once again puts both feet squarely in his mouth:
ReplyDeleteThis is demonstrably false. Researchers using genetic algorithms (GAs) have determined that adding an epigenetic layer increases fitness and leads to viable solutions being achieved more quickly. Epigenetics therefore is a selectable trait.
LOL. So they add an epigenetic layer and noticed that the algorithm performs better and this somehow proves that the epigenetic mechanisms found in nature evolved via RM+NS?
You dirt worshippers need to find a different kind of dirt to worship. The old dirt is not dirty enough. Do you morons realize that the genomic search space used by genetic algorithms is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the typical genomic search space found in nature. This is the only way your toy genetic algorithm can get around the combinatorial explosion and not spend an eternity searching an impossibly huge search space. It would not matter if you had a parallel computer the size of multiple universes. The organism would not survive long enough.
When are you evotards going to pull your puny reptilian craniums out of your asteroids?
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Fruit loop
DeleteLOL. So they add an epigenetic layer and noticed that the algorithm performs better and this somehow proves that the epigenetic mechanisms found in nature evolved via RM+NS?
Try reading for comprehension you pea-brained drug addict moron. The OP asserted epigenetic effects wouldn't increase fitness and therefore wouldn't be selected for. The research in the paper directly refutes that claim.
Homosexual atheist evotard Timothy Horton:
DeleteThe OP asserted epigenetic effects wouldn't increase fitness and therefore wouldn't be selected for. The research in the paper directly refutes that claim.
LOL.
You're the one who needs a remedial class in reading comprehension, moron. How can the OP claim that epigenetic effects do not increase fitness when he is actually claiming the opposite. Epigenetics is not only essential for survival, it makes RM+NS useless for survival. Furthermore, this proves that RM+NS cannot account for epigenetics. Quick adaptation cannot wait eons for an impotent and brain-dead Darwinist mechanism to discover it. The organism would become extinct.
Wake up, you tree-dwelling, small-cranium primitive.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
LOL. I know you can't help it, Horton, but your closet homosexuality is surfacing again. You carry it on your sleeve. You can't help it, you Christophobic mental midget.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
You can't fool me, Timothy. I know what you are and I know why you hate Christians so much. Not unlike that other Christophobic atheist Richard Dawkins, I'm sure. It's a disease, some kind of neurological disorder. It's OK. I understand.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
I think that the problem is not that epigenetic increase fitness, but that they can't evolve by a Darwinian process. All the article says is that, once added from an outside source they improve fitness. That's obvious. The problem is that they can't evolve via a Darwinian process. That's because they have to evolve under conditions where they are not needed to provide a benefit when they are. But there is no fitness benefit when they do evolve.
DeleteHappy Wistar Conference Day!
ReplyDeleteGreat! The 50 year anniversary of a bunch of life-sciences-ignorant mathematicians trying to convince evolutionary biologists that everything about evolutionary theory was wrong.
DeleteGuess who lost and who won? :)
I know evolutionists have no mathematical equation to back up their theory. So it is just a philosophy because science demands math to prove theories. All the math I've seen reveals the utter impossibility of life starting on it's own.
DeletePhillyMike
DeleteSo it is just a philosophy because science demands math to prove theories.
Since when? Show me the math that proves the germ theory of disease, or proves the theory of plate tectonics.
I won't hold my breath.
When the math shows the impossibility of an event happening I'll go with the math not the philosophical theory.
DeleteOK then, show the impossibility of abiogenesis happening. Not improbability, impossibility. Be sure you can back up any assumptions you make, not just regurgitate the same bogus math claims you get from Discovery IDiots On Parade.
Delete"not just regurgitate the same bogus math claims you get from Discovery IDiots On Parade."
DeleteAny claim or any math or any science that contradicts the imperial theory is not accepted by you. So what is the purpose?
Just calling your bluff because I knew you'd fold. We both know there's no defending the horsecrap that passes for "mathematical evidence" from the IDiots.
Delete"the horsecrap that passes for "mathematical evidence"'
DeleteMath is math and doesn't need anyone else to speak for it.
But apparently you can't present any of this math or defend it, right?
DeleteGood math done on crappy dishonest assumptions produces crappy dishonest results.
"But apparently you can't present any of this math or defend it, right?"
DeleteIt's already been presented to you and you rejected it. What could I say to convince you?
It was rejected for the crappy dishonest assumptions the IDiots use. You could try to justify those assumptions but we both know you'd fail miserably.
DeleteWho gives a rat's ass what a bunch of evotards reject? The ID movement needs to grow a backbone and stop acting like the evotards are actual scientists that need to be shown the error of their ways. The dirt worshippers can eat their own feces for all we should care.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
ghostrider,
Delete"OK then, show the impossibility of abiogenesis happening. Not improbability, impossibility. Be sure you can back up any assumptions you make, not just regurgitate the same bogus math claims you get from Discovery IDiots On Parade."
OK then, show the impossibility of intelligent design being the explanation. Not improbability, impossibility. Be sure you can back up any assumptions you make, not just regurgitate the same bogus evolutionary story telling, unfounded extrapolation and equivocation.
No one ever said intelligent design of life is impossible Nic. Science doesn't consider it now because it has zero positive supporting evidence. It's not science's problem the IDiots can't produce any .
DeleteAbiogenesis is a dirt worshipper's wet dream. It is impossible for the same reason that it is impossible for the air in a sealed box to bunch up in one tiny corner of the box.
DeleteIt is called the principle of chaos and order. The principle simply says that order cannot rise out of chaos. On the contrary, chaos destroys order as soon as it begins to form. Order necessitates an ordering mechanism, i.e., a non-stochastic search system.
Timothy Horton, aka ghostrider, like all brain-dead dirt worshippers like him, is pursuing a superstitious wet dream driven purely by the their hatred of Christianity, at least the strawman Christianity that they love to believe in. They belong to a cretinous cult of mental midgets, which is where they should all stay. They deserve their self-deception.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
ghostrider,
Delete"No one ever said intelligent design of life is impossible Nic. Science doesn't consider it now because it has zero positive supporting evidence. It's not science's problem the IDiots can't produce any."
As always, ghostrider, it comes down to a case of what one is willing to accept as evidence. I see a whole lot of evidence for design and obviously so have billions of people throughout history. It's also evident that many professional scientists, both in the past and today have seen such evidence.
So, ghostrider, what makes your claim there is no evidence to support design the definitive position and when did you become the de facto arbiter of what does or does not constitute scientific evidence? :)
Timmy TuTu:
DeleteScience doesn't consider it now because it has zero positive supporting evidence.
How would you know? You have proven to be too stupid to assess evidence. But do tell what positive evidence your position has for the OoL.
Nic
DeleteAs always, ghostrider, it comes down to a case of what one is willing to accept as evidence. I see a whole lot of evidence for design and obviously so have billions of people throughout history. It's also evident that many professional scientists, both in the past and today have seen such evidence.
Sorry Nic but those claiming to see "design" in nature have failed to make their case. The arbiter is the professional scientific community. Over 99% of professionals in the life sciences accept evolution over deep time as the process which produced the variety of life on Earth. Those are the people ID-Creationists have to convince, not just ignorant layman like you.
Timmy TuTu:
DeleteSorry Nic but those claiming to see "design" in nature have failed to make their case.
Tat is your uneducated opinion, anyway. However reality refutes you. And your alleged 99% can't support the claims of unguided evolution. Most don't even try.
LOL! Whatever you say Fat Joke. Your opinion means so much to the professional scientific community.
DeleteThe facts speak for themselves, Timmy. If your 99% could find evidentiary support for their claims then ID would be a non-starter. Yet ID is started and going strong.
DeleteBut then again you are too stupid to understand science and evuidence
Timothy Horton, the dirt worshipper:
DeleteSorry Nic but those claiming to see "design" in nature have failed to make their case. The arbiter is the professional scientific community.
LOL. What the evotard really mean by the "professional scientific community" is the self-appointed priesthood that has taken over the scientific community and continually oppresses the public via fascist propaganda and forced indoctrination? Sure.
Over 99% of professionals in the life sciences accept evolution over deep time as the process which produced the variety of life on Earth. Those are the people ID-Creationists have to convince, not just ignorant layman like you.
Why would the ID community want to convince a bunch of a-holes and usurpers? We should instead build our own community and go directly to the people. We need to show the people that they are being taken to the cleaners by a pseudoscientific mafia. The dirt worshippers will eventually disappear. But first, we need to use the courts to prevent the thieving a-holes from stealing the taxpayer's money and using it to indoctrinate us with their lies.
Spineless maggots.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
ghostrider,
Delete"Sorry Nic but those claiming to see "design" in nature have failed to make their case. The arbiter is the professional scientific community. Over 99% of professionals in the life sciences accept evolution over deep time as the process which produced the variety of life on Earth. Those are the people ID-Creationists have to convince, not just ignorant layman like you."
Sorry, ghostrider, this response simply does not cut the muster. It is basically saying evolution over deep time is true because most people say it is true. Just not good enough for me. Maybe it is good enough for you, but not me, sorry.
If evolutionary theory was an 18 wheeler what you have now is the tractor unit vainly trying to drag a trailer without wheels. It will be able to do so for a while but eventually the wheels will fall off the tractor as well. Scoff if you like, and I know you do :), but it is inevitable. I know it and I think you realize it as well.
I know I will now receive the standard response where you say something like this; 'Oh yes, the death of evolution is just around the next corner, or the next, wait maybe the one after. If not that one for sure the next one." Am I right? ;)
Nic
DeleteIt is basically saying evolution over deep time is true because most people say it is true.
Don't be stupid Nic. No one is saying evolution over deep time is true simply because the scientists accept it. Scientist accept it as true because of the overwhelming amount of positive supporting evidence it has.
What evidence? Please be specific. To date no one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolutionary processes produced ATP synthase.
DeleteI heard Nature and Science are going to put out a special joint issue:
DeleteThe ID-Creation Wisdom Of Fat Joke Gallien
It will have all the favorites like "there is no theory of evolution!", "ID isn't anti-evolution!", "the Earth is young but made of old materials!" and "the evidence supports Biblical Baraminology!"
Look for it to turn the scientific community upside down! :D :D :D
As predicted, Timmy TuTu can only attack with its ignorance and will never try to support its claims.
DeleteLife is good...
It really is unfortunate that Timmy won't be testifying for evolutionism during the next Court case. Timmy would prove ID's points over and over again.
DeleteGo ahead Joke. Tell us again how the Earth is really young and how all the evidence supports Noah's Ark baraminology. :D
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Don't be stupid Nic. No one is saying evolution over deep time is true simply because the scientists accept it. Scientist accept it as true because of the overwhelming amount of positive supporting evidence it has."
But that again begs the question, if the evidence is so overwhelming why do such a significant number of scientists throughout history hold to a design scenario?
Evolution really does not possess the overwhelming evidence claimed for it. Evolution is assumed as true and as such all evidence is interpreted in that light.
Fat Joke G the liar
DeleteAnd I have never said anything about supporting Noah's Ark baraminology.
Joe G at UD
"Joe G: "So far all the evidence supports baraminology in that there is a definite limit to the phenotype that changes to the genotype can produce."
Baraminolgy is the study of the Biblical "kinds" from Noah's Ark.
Fat Joke Gallien caught in another lie.
LoL! What a moron. Baraminology exists regardless of Noah's Ark. So no, baraminology is not "the study of the Biblical "kinds" from Noah's Ark".
DeleteBut then again Timmy Horton is too stupid to understand that
Nic
DeleteBut that again begs the question, if the evidence is so overwhelming why do such a significant number of scientists throughout history hold to a design scenario?
Less that 1% isn't a significant number Nic. The few who reject evolution do so for religious reasons, not any scientific ones. Just like you do. :)
And more lies from Timmy Horton. Not one of Timmy's 99% can support unguided evolution. Not one can model it. Not one can tell us what it predicts.
DeleteThey must all be losers
Fat Joke G the liar
DeleteBaraminology exists regardless of Noah's Ark. So no, baraminology is not "the study of the Biblical "kinds" from Noah's Ark".
"Baraminology is a creationist system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another. Creation science has been criticized for its pseudoscientific characteristics by the US National Academy of Science and numerous other scientific and scholarly organizations.
The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). This combined word is not found in Hebrew; instead, it is in reference to the use of the word kind in the Bible, particularly in the Genesis creation narrative and the saving of animals in Noah's Ark, and the division between clean and unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy."
Fat Joke Gallien caught in another lie.
Only a desperate imp would use Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
DeleteBaraminology exists regardless of Noah's Ark. The Created Kinds existed before Noah, moron
There you have it. Joke G is a YEC who believes in Biblical created "kinds" and Noah's Ark. But ID has nothing to do with religion, no siree. :D
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Less that 1% isn't a significant number Nic. The few who reject evolution do so for religious reasons, not any scientific ones. Just like you do. :)"
We already know 1% is not accurate but let's not quibble, I'll accept your number for now. According to one source there are approximately 7 million scientists practicing in the world today. If that is an accurate number that would mean your 1% of all scientists who reject evolution would number 70,000 practicing scientists. That is indeed a significant number.
That being said, it is irrelevant whether it is 1% or .1%, if evolution is false it matters not how many think it is true. And the simple truth of the matter is if evolution was not declared true a priori it would not stand the test of the evidence. That is clearly seen in all the manipulation which is necessary to keep the narrative on track.
As for my rejection of evolution it is based on scientific reasons. I used to accept evolution even after becoming a Christian. It was when I started to look at the scientific evidence for creation that I changed my mind. :)
Nic
DeleteAnd the simple truth of the matter is if evolution was not declared true a priori it would not stand the test of the evidence.
You're being stupid again Nic. Evolutionary theory was never accepted a priori. What Darwin proposed in OOS was a hypothesis along with supporting evidence. Other scientists then began researching and coming up with more and more and more positive evidence. One key piece was the discovery of genetics which provided the physical mechanism for inheritance of traits. Only after all that evidence was available did evolution earn the status of scientific theory.
As for my rejection of evolution it is based on scientific reasons.
Sure it is. That's why you can't provide a single piece of "evolution killing" evidence that can withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"Evolutionary theory was never accepted a priori."
No, it wasn't then, but it is now. It waged a very successful propaganda plan during its early days to climb to the status it has now. If you're a student of history it will not be lost on you that the work of Darwin dove tailed very nicely with the rising humanist movement in the early 19th century.
"What Darwin proposed in OOS was a hypothesis along with supporting evidence."
The evidence is only evidence for evolution if one chooses to interpret it that way. Evidence is neutral, interpretation is not.
"One key piece was the discovery of genetics which provided the physical mechanism for inheritance of traits."
And ironically genetics is going to be its death knell. Ah, the beauty of it.:)
"Sure it is. That's why you can't provide a single piece of "evolution killing" evidence that can withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. :)"
You're right, I can't provide you with anything which would kill your faith in evolution. After all, dead men do indeed bleed.
Nic
DeleteNo, it wasn't then, but it is now.
Well duh! Of course it's accepted now since it earned its status as scientific theory. Just like every other currently accepted scientific theory.
It waged a very successful propaganda plan during its early days to climb to the status it has now. If you're a student of history it will not be lost on you that the work of Darwin dove tailed very nicely with the rising humanist movement in the early 19th century.
For Pete's sake, don't you start in with the Baghdad Bob "let's rewrite history!" stupidity too.
I can't provide you with anything which would kill your faith in evolution.
Theoretically you could quite easily. In actually you can't because such evidence doesn't exist.
ghostrider,
Delete"Well duh! Of course it's accepted now since it earned its status as scientific theory. Just like every other currently accepted scientific theory."
Well duh, no!, it did not earn its status as a scientific theory and that was my whole point. It earned its status as a tool for humanistic thought. The eagerness to do away with God thrust evolutionary thought into the fray as humanism's explanation as to how life originated via naturalism. It was never about the science, and is still not to this day. It is and always has been about the philosophy.
"For Pete's sake, don't you start in with the Baghdad Bob "let's rewrite history!" stupidity too."
It's not a re-writing of history, it is simply a fact of history, easily observed if you wish to make the effort. Huxley was a humanist, Darwin's Grandfather was a humanist, as was Haeckel. Humanism's fingerprints are all over evolutionary history.
"In actually you can't because such evidence doesn't exist."
No, not to you it doesn't. Which was my point exactly.:)
What Darwin proposed in OOS was a hypothesis along with supporting evidence.
DeleteExcept he didn't have any evidence. He didn't know about genetics.
Well duh! Of course it's accepted now since it earned its status as scientific theory.
It makes untestable claims so how can it be a scientific theory?
That's why you can't provide a single piece of "evolution killing" evidence that can withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The genetic code; ATP synthase; bacterial flagella; cilia; basic bacteria reproduction; meiosis- and there are thousands more where those came from.
Nic
DeleteIt's not a re-writing of history, it is simply a fact of history, easily observed if you wish to make the effort.
Nic it's a complete fantasy that evolutionary theory is accepted for anything other than the solid scientific work done which supports it so well. Did you get into Louis' stash? :0
LOL!!! A dirt worshipper has defecated in his pullups again.
DeleteThere is absolutely ZERO evidence for Darwinian evolution. NADA, ZILCH. NIENTE.
All the so-called "evidence" the evotards come up with can easily be explained by an intelligent design hypothesis occurring over millions of years.
In fact, almost all of the evidence claimed by the evotards is overwhelming against Darwinian evolution.
Darwinists are the pseudoscientific mafia of the world. A bunch of accomplished crooks and deceivers. That's all. It's time to kick the jackasses out.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Timmy the gullible geek:
Deleteit's a complete fantasy that evolutionary theory is accepted for anything other than the solid scientific work done which supports it so well.
Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory, nor can anyone point to any models, testable hypotheses nor predictions borne from unguided evolution.
All evos have are personal attacks and sad attempts of bullying
LOL! Whatever you say Fat Joke. Your opinion means so much to the professional scientific community.
DeleteTell us more about Biblical created "kinds" and Noah's Ark. :)
LoL! Look, Timmy, it isn't my opinion. If it was you would be able to refute it instead you have to try to attack me.
DeleteYou are the best evidence that your position has nothing.
Joe Gallien the YEC. Tell us more about Biblical created "kinds" and Noah's Flood. Was the Tower of Babel literal too?
DeleteTimmy must define YEC as one who can best assess the science and the evidence.
DeleteThanks Timmy
LOL! Poor Joe Gallien the YEC. Just got caught in a blatant lie that he never argued for Biblical baraminolgy. In true Joke fashion he'll now scream and fling poo to try to cover his YEC beliefs.
DeleteHow about it Joke, any more Biblical "ID" evidence for us? :D
All I have said is that the science and genetics supports baraminology. That isn't my fault. And it isn't my fault that little coward Timmy is forced to attack me rather than try to support the lies he spews.
DeleteBut that is par for the course with evos- all cowards all of the time.
Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory, nor can anyone point to any models, testable hypotheses nor predictions borne from unguided evolution.
Eat that, loser.
Joke Gallien the YEC. Thinks ID is about Biblical "kinds". Thinks the world was created 6000 years ago and destroyed in Noah's Flood.
DeleteDon't worry Joke. You can always lie and pretend to be a Muslim like you did before to hide your ID-YEC connection.
LOL! Joke Gallien's new book:
DeleteThe Toaster Repairman's Guide to Biblical ID-Young Earth Creationism.
:D :D :D
Mapou, are you feeling OK? I am concerned about you. You have not called anyone a homosexual for a couple days.
DeleteDid your homosexual partner finally sit you down and tell you about the birds and the bees? It was probably over due.
He must be down to seeds and stems again. :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJoe's Toasters
DeleteJoe At Home
DeleteTimmy Horton, doing his thing
DeleteWait for Joe G to post his "tunie" porn pictures again. I bet that would finally get Cornelius to do something about the obscenities.
DeleteLoL! Timmy Horton, lying douchebag coward, dishes it out but cries like a baby when it is sent back at him
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Nic it's a complete fantasy that evolutionary theory is accepted for anything other than the solid scientific work done which supports it so well. Did you get into Louis' stash? :0"
From your viewpoint that is undoubtedly true. Now, if you would like to demonstrate that to be the case scientifically that would be interesting. ;)
The simple truth is evolutionary thought, as Darwin presented it, would not have made it far beyond the doors of the printers had it not been for the philosophical climate of the time which was seeing a shift to humanistic and naturalistic thinking. As Darwin's imaginings fit perfectly with this philosophical trend it gained quick and easy acceptance among those who wished to remove a deity from the equation.
Evolutionary thought is nothing more than a narrative and as with any narrative its course can be directed. The science does not support the theory and that fact has been obvious for many decades. It is only the need to remove God from the equation which has resulted in its acceptance and aggressive promotion by many in the scientific community.
The simple question is, if evolutionary thought is so well supported by the scientific evidence why is there such fear among its adherents to even allow anyone to question its validity? Should it not be able to stand on its own merits without the necessity to silence dissent?
Nic
DeleteThe simple question is, if evolutionary thought is so well supported by the scientific evidence why is there such fear among its adherents to even allow anyone to question its validity?
Anyone is free to question as much as the want and to submit their anti-evolution evidence for publication in the relevant scientific journals. The problem is the ID-Creationists don't do this. They consistently try to make end runs around proper scientific process by pushing lies and disinformation directly through the popular press and internet to ignorant laymen. That's what pisses off real scientists so much.
ID-Creation is a political movement, not a scientific one. Its stated goal is to get Christian Biblical Creationism forced back into public school classrooms. The movement is led by dishonest scumbags who have no hesitation is lying their asses off for their Holy Righteous Cause. The term Liars For Jesus wasn't coined for nothing.
ID-Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. And ID has more science going for it than evolutionism will ever have. All evolutionism has are dishonest scumbags like Timmy Horton.
DeleteAs for ends runs around science, again that is evolutionism. It looks like projection is all poor little cowardly Timmy has to offer.
LOL! You tell 'em Chubs! Evolution just can't compete with ID Toaster Repair science. From them we learn the OOL violates the 2nd law of thermo and that Biblical created "kinds" carried on Noah's Ark were real.
DeleteChubby Joke Gallien the amazing Toaster Repair scientist!
ghostrider,
Delete"ID-Creation is a political movement, not a scientific one. Its stated goal is to get Christian Biblical Creationism forced back into public school classrooms. The movement is led by dishonest scumbags who have no hesitation is lying their asses off for their Holy Righteous Cause. The term Liars For Jesus wasn't coined for nothing."
Now you're just ranting and making accusations you can't support.
Nic
DeleteNow you're just ranting and making accusations you can't support.
See the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document.
Of course there's also the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial which exposed ID's breathtaking inanity and willful dishonesty.
As an interesting sidenote, the company that published the infamout Creation turned ID book Of Pandas and People just went bankrupt and was purchased by the DI. Why do you suppose they'd do that?
The wedge document is good. Materialism is a failed philosophy and needs to be taken out. The Kitzmiller trial proved that evolutionists are dishonest and judges have no place in deciding what is and isn't science.
DeleteWhy would the DI purchase the rights of books published by FTE? To make money
"ID-Creation is a political movement, not a scientific one. Its stated goal is to get Christian Biblical Creationism forced back into public school classrooms. The movement is led by dishonest scumbags who have no hesitation is lying their asses off for their Holy Righteous Cause. The term Liars For Jesus wasn't coined for nothing."
DeleteYou are the pot calling the kettle black on this one. The only grounds for neo darwinianism right now is the advocation of secular organizations like the NCSE.
ghostrider,
Delete"See the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document."
What's the problem with the Wedge Document? It simply lays out a plan of action to promote the idea of Intelligent Design, how is that dishonest?
"Of course there's also the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial which exposed ID's breathtaking inanity and willful dishonesty."
You mean the trial where the totally incompetent Judge Jones said he understood the question before him because he had seen the movie Inherit the Wind? Yeah, that's one brilliant jurist.
Is that the same trial where the overly arrogant and pompous Kenneth Miller so eloquently showed all those ignorant IDiots how the left over evolutionary junk known as the beta-globin pseudogene was broken and functionless across three species and was, therefore, irrefutable proof of common ancestry? Is that the same trial?
How did that broken and useless gene argument work out?
"As an interesting sidenote, the company that published the infamout Creation turned ID book Of Pandas and People just went bankrupt and was purchased by the DI. Why do you suppose they'd do that?"
I see the situation as completely irrelevant, but if you wish to know why Discovery Institute purchased a bankrupt publisher, I would suggest you ask them.
LOL! Between Fruit Loop Louis, Chubs Gallien, ohandjob1, and TWSYF we have a regular Baghdad Bob convention! :D
ReplyDeleteSays the closet homosexual atheist dirt worshipper who's here only because he has a bone to pick with Christianity.
ReplyDeleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
ReplyDeleteI return after a couple days and notice that Cornelius is still providing asylum to the mentally and emotionally challenged. Well, I guess even Mapou needs a home.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing you came back, dirt worshipper. I was beginning to tired of pummeling your buddy, that cretinous jackass Horton. It gets boring after a while.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Keep coming back, Spearshake. Brings joy to my heart to read your Darwinist drivel. Shows how weak the opposition is.
DeleteKevin:
DeleteI return after a couple days and notice that Cornelius is still providing asylum to the mentally and emotionally challenged.
Yes, you and ghostrider are welcome here.
Bill Shakespear
Delete"I return after a couple days and notice that Cornelius is still providing asylum to the mentally and emotionally challenged."
This is rich coming from you and your side. The history of Cornelius forum comments has your side utilizing far worse content than these poster. And by the way, I agree, I wish this comment section didn't have such conduct, but that appears to be the nature of this subject and those who champion it. Atheistic/Agnostic forums dealing with the subject Evolionary theory are cesspit sewers on steroids compared to Cornelius blog comments section and you know that.
Which brings up your side's need for cowardly anonymity and avatars from your side including you. At least with these charaters you are hypocitically trying to comdemn, everyone knows who they are in real life.
Brave Sockpuppets on the Net, but Cowards in Real Life
Crackpot atheist philosopher Neil deGrasse Tyson is not as dumb as I thought he was. Still behind the curve, but at least he's making progress. Here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/neil_degrasse_t_1102801.html