tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4136848742940802467..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here is David Penny’s New Confirmation of EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63373747402073887682013-10-03T19:22:48.765-07:002013-10-03T19:22:48.765-07:00After skimming parts of the study you provided abo...After skimming parts of the study you provided above, couldn't find any detailed description let alone demonstration of the above mentioned nde mechanisms evolving a T3SS via nde processes.<br /><br />Is that the best you can come up with? bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80271177581269365672013-10-03T16:24:15.400-07:002013-10-03T16:24:15.400-07:00Scott: For example, if you assume that humans as t...Scott: For example, if you assume that humans as they exist today was an intended outcome and that evolution is merely random, then yes. It would be very unlikely. But you can't calculate the probability of the former being true and the latter is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.<br /><br />So, you're just making my point for me.<br /><br />Again, you are both attempting to depict UCA and SA as equally a-probable (as you defining it) to suggest we cannot make progress.<br /><br />This is exactly my point. <br /><br />J: How limited your imagination is, Scott? It doesn't follow at all from anything I've said that progress is impossible. It is being made as we speak. The research of Axe etal are examples. You assume that people freely posit that teleology is true. There is no evidence of that. The evidence is the other way around. Even many atheists admit to an "appearance of design" in biology. How is that explicable if the belief in teleology isn't intuitive to humans? That's a serious question. Please give me your answer.<br /><br />If teleology is intuitive, then the research of Axe etal is simply affirming the very rationality of those analogical inferences that we call an "impression" of "an appearance of design." <br /><br />If you read a chapter on induction, it all makes sense. If you deny that ANY belief is distinguishable from blind, uncaused beliefs, as you in fact do, then beliefs just are what they are, and there's nothing more to it than that (assuming beliefs even exist, which, per you, is itself unknowable). You love to throw around the phrase "if you take x seriously." But then you turn right around and deny you know whether are other minds, memories, or a valid LNC. Nothing you say, per your epistemology, is anything more than a completely bald pontification.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90670450987789489122013-10-02T21:57:50.878-07:002013-10-02T21:57:50.878-07:00bpsychotic
Please demonstrate in "sufficien...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br /> Please demonstrate in "sufficient" (not necessarily infinite) detail now the above mentioned nde processes are capable of producing living systems observed today.</i><br /><br />Sorry, no more scientific positive evidence for you until you start reciprocating.<br /><br />Now where's your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38240402024731429662013-10-02T21:39:17.570-07:002013-10-02T21:39:17.570-07:00Drunk stuttering? Talk about hypocrisy. I was t...Drunk stuttering? Talk about hypocrisy. I was the one who asked you and Papa KIlo to quit swigging down Ma Thortons basement stash. But now, I believe, the stash is gone. You and Kilo Papa drank it all. Even after my request to conserve. You have no restraint. That has been demostrated in many ways, over and over again. Thornty.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4727319542631172872013-10-02T21:33:09.112-07:002013-10-02T21:33:09.112-07:00Right on cue Thornty. Claiming reasonable demands...Right on cue Thornty. Claiming reasonable demands to be demands for "infinite detail"? Ha Ha Ha! That is what you have to resort to now. No one I could observed requested "infinite detail".<br /><br /><br />Well let me ask you this. Please demonstrate in "sufficient" (not necessarily infinite) detail now the above mentioned nde processes are capable of producing living systems observed today. Let alone describing the observational capabilities correlating to conclusional thinking of cause and effect the mind can process. You ignorant fool. <br />You can not even fathom how much you take for granted. Thank god for the ability to recognize a scapegoat to "wipe the dog crap" off of your shoes onto. So you can continue to experience your conciousness in the way you prefer. Your mental positions are meaningless relative to reality, in my opinion. You fool.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86140393401741043622013-10-02T20:48:39.310-07:002013-10-02T20:48:39.310-07:00bpsychotic
Just point to where it has been demons...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist<br /><br /><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02293.x/pdf" rel="nofollow">Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions</a><br /><br />What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?<br /><br />Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.<br /><br />BTW, you really aught to do something about your drunk stuttering.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13355095856338464842013-10-02T20:46:56.789-07:002013-10-02T20:46:56.789-07:00bpsychotic
Just point to where it has been demons...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist<br /><br /><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02293.x/pdf" rel="nofollow">Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions</a><br /><br />What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?<br /><br />Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34982308292863990582013-10-02T20:46:28.698-07:002013-10-02T20:46:28.698-07:00bpsychotic
Just point to where it has been demons...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist<br /><br /><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02293.x/pdf" rel="nofollow">Evolution of the type III secretion system and its effectors in plant–microbe interactions</a><br /><br />What's next in your asinine demands for infinite detail? A demand that I show you the individual atoms?<br /><br />Let's see your positive evidence for the *Design* of the Type III secretion system. Fair is fair.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68432975459587921452013-10-02T18:27:43.306-07:002013-10-02T18:27:43.306-07:00Thornton, I am contemplating raiding my parents l...Thornton, I am contemplating raiding my parents liquor cab pretty soon. I think that it has been pretty well depleted. I hope you and Kilo Papa havent slugged down all of Ma Thorntons reserves in your basement yet. I was thinking I would come over and share.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1494673493858675782013-10-02T18:24:42.213-07:002013-10-02T18:24:42.213-07:00From the citation bluff referenced above:
"C...From the citation bluff referenced above:<br /><br />"Crucially, Miller<br />pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in<br />that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar<br />protein export constitutes a functionally<br />intact subsystem capable of performing a<br />useful function (protein secretion) in the<br />absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."<br /><br /><br />Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.<br /><br />If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence <br />Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).<br /><br />Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then: <br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.<br /><br />Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".<br /><br />No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21800501011445652782013-10-02T18:23:08.251-07:002013-10-02T18:23:08.251-07:00From the citation bluff referenced above:
"C...From the citation bluff referenced above:<br /><br />"Crucially, Miller<br />pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in<br />that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar<br />protein export constitutes a functionally<br />intact subsystem capable of performing a<br />useful function (protein secretion) in the<br />absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."<br /><br /><br />Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.<br /><br />If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence <br />Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).<br /><br />Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then: <br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.<br /><br />Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".<br /><br />No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54821604527349365662013-10-02T18:21:56.940-07:002013-10-02T18:21:56.940-07:00From the citation bluff referenced above:
"C...From the citation bluff referenced above:<br /><br />"Crucially, Miller<br />pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in<br />that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar<br />protein export constitutes a functionally<br />intact subsystem capable of performing a<br />useful function (protein secretion) in the<br />absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."<br /><br /><br />Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.<br /><br />If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence <br />Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).<br /><br />Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then: <br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.<br /><br />Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".<br /><br />No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47337107989183303992013-10-02T18:18:21.749-07:002013-10-02T18:18:21.749-07:00From the citation bluff referenced above:
"C...From the citation bluff referenced above:<br /><br />"Crucially, Miller<br />pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in<br />that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar<br />protein export constitutes a functionally<br />intact subsystem capable of performing a<br />useful function (protein secretion) in the<br />absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus."<br /><br /><br />Can't read and comment on all aspects of the article right now because of a lack of time. But scanned part of it and randomly noticed the above statement.<br /><br />If the above is an example of the overwhelming evidence <br />Thorton keeps describing as something like "150 years of positive support for nde" or something like that, then no wonder you nde hacks have to hang around and harrass people's (like Dr. Hunter) freedom of speech (admittedly exercising your freedom of speech in a naive way) to defend of your beloved conjecture (without adequate scientific refutation).<br /><br />Ok. Let me rephrase my question above then: <br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection, drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a type three secretory system.<br /><br />Keep in mind, with my comment, I am not addressing the concept of "irreducible complexity".<br /><br />No matter. The question raised above needs to be scientifically addressed to support their position.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46303125410554340722013-10-02T07:34:28.869-07:002013-10-02T07:34:28.869-07:00Scott: We cannot calculate the probability that an...Scott: We cannot calculate the probability that any particular theory in of itself is true. This is because probability calculations are only valid if you know all the possible outcomes. <br /><br />Jeff: What people can do is apply probability per the assumptions that claim-makers are willing to agree to. And by that approach, naturalistic UCA is mind-bogglingly improbable.<br /><br />Apparently, this went completely over your head. <br /><br />For example, if you assume that humans as they exist today was an intended outcome and that evolution is merely random, then yes. It would be very unlikely. But you can't calculate the probability of the former being true and the latter is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. <br /><br />So, you're just making my point for me. <br /><br />Again, you are both attempting to depict UCA and SA as equally a-probable (as you defining it) to suggest we cannot make progress. <br /><br />This is exactly my point. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32252685520917155082013-10-01T22:47:22.105-07:002013-10-01T22:47:22.105-07:00Elijah,
I don't care much for promoting athe...Elijah, <br /><br />I don't care much for promoting atheism. (Many people can't handle that.) Therefore it does not concern me that the fraction of atheists and agnostics in the society are relatively low.<br /><br />Likewise, the Jews are not overly concerned about being underrepresented in the US. Your "logic" would suggest that they are marginalized in the society. So there. <br /><br />And of course you can whistle past the graveyard as the numbers of Protestants are dwindling. You're <a href="http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume24/TM024155.html" rel="nofollow">not fooling anyone</a>.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51884896621109351862013-10-01T19:48:33.945-07:002013-10-01T19:48:33.945-07:00I bow to you on this, Thorton.
Much more concise ...I bow to you on this, Thorton.<br /><br />Much more concise than my answer. :-)Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63415730109965932532013-10-01T19:45:17.114-07:002013-10-01T19:45:17.114-07:00bpsychotic
Blah Blah Blah.......
Just point to w...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Blah Blah Blah.......<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf" rel="nofollow"> The origin of bacterial flagella</a><br /><br />Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9294249146869426032013-10-01T19:43:41.084-07:002013-10-01T19:43:41.084-07:00bpsychotic
Blah Blah Blah.......
Just point to w...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Blah Blah Blah.......<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf" rel="nofollow"> The origin of bacterial flagella</a><br /><br />Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49211888964380626702013-10-01T19:42:42.798-07:002013-10-01T19:42:42.798-07:00bpsychotic
Blah Blah Blah.......
Just point to w...<i>bpsychotic<br /><br />Blah Blah Blah.......<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.</i><br /><br />OK, if you insist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~matzke/matzke_cv/_pubs/Pallen_Matzke_2006_NRM_origin_flagella.pdf" rel="nofollow"> The origin of bacterial flagella</a><br /><br />Feel free to explain what the paper got wrong, along with your reasons and evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5224496135660731052013-10-01T19:41:46.668-07:002013-10-01T19:41:46.668-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61531898098810978862013-10-01T19:41:25.704-07:002013-10-01T19:41:25.704-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70025595092948884792013-10-01T19:41:01.506-07:002013-10-01T19:41:01.506-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41158680457214993842013-10-01T19:40:41.735-07:002013-10-01T19:40:41.735-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83639907100156935182013-10-01T19:15:03.505-07:002013-10-01T19:15:03.505-07:00Blah Blah Blah.......
Just point to where it has ...Blah Blah Blah.......<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20864983028661178282013-10-01T19:13:47.855-07:002013-10-01T19:13:47.855-07:00Blah Blah Blah.......
Just point to where it has ...Blah Blah Blah.......<br /><br />Just point to where it has been demonstrated that random mutation, natural selection. drift, hgt, neutral evolution etc etc is capable of building a bacterial flagellum.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.com