tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5166209736388779103..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: When Evidence for Evolution is Actually Evolution of EvidenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35240999217627778782010-06-24T07:57:24.103-07:002010-06-24T07:57:24.103-07:00My mother died in 1984 you sick freak...My mother died in 1984 you sick freak...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73661221382689535932010-06-22T07:39:13.869-07:002010-06-22T07:39:13.869-07:00Weird, because I am without clothes next to your m...Weird, because I am without clothes next to your mother. What she told me about you during pillow-talk, man...troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49121644154560981832010-06-22T05:57:06.476-07:002010-06-22T05:57:06.476-07:00troy,
Your mommy is calling- it is time for your ...troy,<br /><br />Your mommy is calling- it is time for your diaper change....Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39339769743883529762010-06-21T15:31:52.780-07:002010-06-21T15:31:52.780-07:00Haha. Joe G is so dumb he doesn't even know it...Haha. Joe G is so dumb he doesn't even know it. What happened Joe, didn't get any oxygen for half an hour when your poor mother delivered you?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90771490612419205712010-06-21T13:49:58.078-07:002010-06-21T13:49:58.078-07:00Smokey,
There aren't any intelligent discussi...Smokey,<br /><br />There aren't any intelligent discussions when you are involved...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-475307004357361382010-06-21T12:59:57.063-07:002010-06-21T12:59:57.063-07:00Neal wrote:
"Ten chromosomes form chains duri...Neal wrote:<br />"Ten chromosomes form chains during the cell division that make sperm or eggs."<br /><br />Chains, Neal? How can you discuss this intelligently when you employ a lower-than-junior-high-level vocabulary?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34058874876295192362010-06-21T12:21:36.259-07:002010-06-21T12:21:36.259-07:00Neal Tedford said...
Platypus,
Apparentl...<i>Neal Tedford said...<br /><br /> Platypus,<br /><br /> Apparently chromosomal sex determination is a combination of mammals and birds in the Platypus.</i><br /><br />No it isn't you idiot. That particular bit of stupidity is dealt with <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/wasp-evolution-forgot.html?showComment=1277146727174#c5711372202708882203" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />Why did you post that particular bit of tard in two separate threads? Were you that proud of it?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63834398224721844452010-06-21T08:56:16.281-07:002010-06-21T08:56:16.281-07:00Neal Tedford: you'll find more than 10 skeptic...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>you'll find more than 10 skeptics of Darwinism on http://www.discovery.org/ website. </i><br /><br />How many are named <a href="http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve" rel="nofollow">Steve</a>? <br /><br />Of note is the ambiguity of the signing statement. <br /><br /><i>We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.</i><br /><br />Lots of evolutionary biologists are skeptical of such a simplistic reduction of evolutionary processes. Gee whiz, <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-im-not-darwinist.html" rel="nofollow">Larry Moran</a> is a skeptic of "Darwinism"!Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82063147800897889292010-06-21T08:19:24.854-07:002010-06-21T08:19:24.854-07:00Platypus,
Apparently chromosomal sex determinatio...Platypus,<br /><br />Apparently chromosomal sex determination is a combination of mammals and birds in the Platypus. Ten chromosomes form chains during the cell division that make sperm or eggs. The chromosomes at one end of the chromosome chain are similar to mammalian sex chromosomes and the other end has characteristics of bird sex chromosomes.<br /><br />The platypus X1 chromosome has 11 genes found on all mammalian X chromosomes and the X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds. <br /><br />I did not see a bird in the lineage of the monotreme you linked to. I'm sure one can be drawn into history if evolutionists thought it would make the story line sound better.<br /><br />Also, the Platypus bill has a highly tuned receptor that picks up very weak electric fields of shrimp and worms. The bill skin has 100,000 innervated mechanoreceptors and electroreceptors. What ancestor had this ability? A fish? Another example of evolution developing independent functions over again?<br /><br />From all the fuss from evolutionists about the Platypus perhaps it warrants a lot more attention. I've seemed to have struck a nerve. Here's a creature with genes and/or features of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. <br /><br />Mosaic creatures are not a good selling point for evolutionists. Trying to fit monotremes into a so-called nested hiearchy is contrived and like putting a square peg in a round hole... you can do it with a hammer while ignoring the contrary evidence. Monotremes appear in the fossil record as monotremes and little has changed except for some degeneration in size and trivial aspects. I guess that confirms that all of life descended from a warm little pond that was struck by lightning according to evolutionists.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24513671444840847192010-06-21T06:52:17.310-07:002010-06-21T06:52:17.310-07:00David, you'll find more than 10 skeptics of Da...David, you'll find more than 10 skeptics of Darwinism on http://www.discovery.org/ website. Lot's of PhD's in that group. But, of course, your next post will somehow disparage the site or those listed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24055962585497950252010-06-21T06:13:55.215-07:002010-06-21T06:13:55.215-07:00diaper boy:
There is absolutely zero controversy i...diaper boy:<br /><i>There is absolutely zero controversy in the scientific community - NONE - over the established fact of common descent.</i><br /><br />There isn't any way to objectively test the premise of Universal Common Descent.<br /><br />Therefor it isn't science.<br /><br />Heck you clowns can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.<br /><br />So instead of ignorantly attacking ID the better idea would be to actually try to support your position.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74087980920995625032010-06-20T21:42:39.861-07:002010-06-20T21:42:39.861-07:00Thorton: having this goofy idea that proficiency ...<i>Thorton: having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas.<br /><br />MSEE: The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such.</i><br /><br />No, the alternative is to demonstrate at least a bit of competence in the subject, something you have failed at miserably. Your sum contributions so far are to make an incredibly stupid demand to see every last step in a process that happened hundreds of millions years ago, and to brag about what a well educated genius you are.<br /><br />Sorry, that kind of bluster may work well with your fellow IDiots but it doesn't cut the muster in the real scientific world.<br /><br />You still refuse to discuss any of the papers I've posted, or tell me why the scientific conclusions in them are wrong. You insist of clinging to the same stupid canard that if science doesn't hold your hand and explain everything then it doesn't know anything. There are lots of things science is still investigating - binocular vision for example is closely tied with the evolution of bilateral symmetry - but that doesn't somehow negate all that <b>is</b> known.<br /><br /> All in all, the phrase "arrogant young jerk" seems to be a most appropriate description.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66033674914772558442010-06-20T20:51:41.701-07:002010-06-20T20:51:41.701-07:00True, Smokey. It seems that Behe did make some con...True, Smokey. It seems that Behe did make some contributions to science until about 1995, according to Web of Science. Even a paper in PNAS with 80-odd citations. Way below par for a tenured professor in his field, but still. After 1995 it went all down hill. Is that when he "saw the light"?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6647138487663071512010-06-20T17:28:40.106-07:002010-06-20T17:28:40.106-07:00MSEE tried the straw man fallacy because he's ...MSEE tried the straw man fallacy because he's afraid to discuss any evidence:<br />"The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such. You're telling me I would have to get a degree in something falling out of favor in order to laugh at it. Truly goofy."<br /><br />Absolutely, but no one has expressed that idea. For you to have an INFORMED opinion on the science, you have to make yourself familiar with the relevant evidence.<br /><br />Not what anyone says about it, but with the actual evidence. Are you intellectually capable of distinguishing between those things?<br /><br />No advanced degree is needed. Note that Dr. Hunter has an advanced degree, but all of his posts are about what people say, not about the evidence.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55170515042075595132010-06-20T17:23:16.995-07:002010-06-20T17:23:16.995-07:00MSEE:
"Bragging about what? Me telling you th...MSEE:<br />"Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics?"<br /><br />Aside from the fact that a major branch of evolutionary biology, population biology, is largely based on mathematics, I'm wondering why you are specifying evolutionary biology.<br /><br />Do you think that the rest of biology (genetics, cell biology, neuroscience, physiology, pharmacology) is populated with evolution denialists, or evolution doubters, or even people who are indifferent?<br /><br />"How is that bragging?"<br /><br />Because you don't know what you are talking about. <br /><br />How about if you consider this paper?<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682556/<br /><br />Does it have enough math for your tastes?<br /><br />Troy:<br />"Dr Dembski comes to mind. So does Dr Hunter, and so does Dr Behe. All of them losers who couldn't hack it in real science."<br /><br />In fairness to Behe, we should note that he used to be a staid biochemist who did make real contributions to the primary literature. Of course, when he embraced ID, his productivity fell to zero and has been there ever since.<br /><br />Also, consistent with Behe's former status as a productive scientist who generates new data, he accepts common descent unlike the others.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40748652124898323882010-06-20T16:39:06.190-07:002010-06-20T16:39:06.190-07:00MSEE:
"Bragging about what? Me telling you t...MSEE:<br /><br />"Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics? How is that bragging? I'll tell you what. I've never ever heard of anyone getting a Ph.D. in engineering, hard sciences or math and then deciding to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life, or science. To say that many of them do is a bunch of bluster."<br /><br />That you have never heard of such people demonstrates your ignorance.<br /><br />I have heard of people with a PhD in maths or science that decided to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life [sic], or science. Dr Dembski comes to mind. So does Dr Hunter, and so does Dr Behe. All of them losers who couldn't hack it in real science.<br /><br />I also know plenty of people with a PhD in maths or physics or engineering that went into evolutionary biology and made major contributions to science. Such as Robert May and John Maynard Smith. Google them. <br /><br />The snotty little engineering student continues:<br /><br />"And I've never heard of calculus described as "high school calculus" ---more bluster. Nobody considers calculus a typical high school subject even though most high schools offer it to the advanced college bound. The prep school from which I graduated is in the top 4 in the south and when I was there offered 2 semesters and the 1st semester was analytic geometry. "<br /><br />You know, "I have never heard of" is not a good way to enter a discussion about a subject you haven't studied very well. Where I come from vector calculus is in high school. But then I'm from old Europe. I'm not too surprised that you didn't get calculus in high school in the southern US. Having said that, I have worked at the UT at Austin, an excellent center of learning and science, an island in a sea of ignorance.<br /><br />What is the most advanced theorem in your basic statistics text?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52568538044611011102010-06-20T15:01:53.436-07:002010-06-20T15:01:53.436-07:00Hi, MSEE,
Do you have that list of Ph.D's who...Hi, MSEE,<br /><br />Do you have that list of Ph.D's who know that modern evolutionary theory is a bluff?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9808949404046163852010-06-20T14:57:38.497-07:002010-06-20T14:57:38.497-07:00Thornton says: Then why did you bring the book up...Thornton says: <i> Then why did you bring the book up at all? </i> <br /><br />Well if you ask a question about what I say, you should read what I say before asking. I will synopsize : Someone "accuses"<br /> me of being "ignorant" of biology. Maybe it was you, I don't have time to re-read your posts. I reply my specialization in grad school was in bioengineering, with all coursework life sciences related, (taught in my department e.g. Guyton's "Human Physiology"). The only 2 exceptions being 2 statistics courses, one upper division and one graduate level. As an ASIDE I MENTION ONE OF THE TEXTS IS ON MY TABLE. <br /><i>You come across as an arrogant young jerk, crowing because you just graduated and ... </i> <br /><br />This for me mentioning that one of the books is in use by me right now? You are getting out of control and it shows as it always does by you guys witnessing the majority of this country disrespecting your fairy tale paradigm.<br /><br /> <i>having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas. </i><br /><br />The alternative is the truly goofy idea that in order for me to have a correct opinion on a science or pseudoscience, I have to get an advanced degree in such. You're telling me I would have to get a degree in something falling out of favor in order to laugh at it. Truly goofy. <br /><br /><i>I've posted numerous scientific papers here outlining evidence for evolution and common descent, three in this thread alone. </i><br /><br />In this thread I mention the interest I have in the "evolution" of vision. I mention monocular vs. binocular vision. Did you cite papers that have this one nailed? Which creature had monocular vision which started growing binocular vision? When was this animal discovered? You never address how this funtional structure just happens to be selected. You're more interested in name-calling i.e. "arrogant young jerk". Ever notice on these threads that is people in your camp that just can't resist the pejoratives? Every time? I mean one could comment for days on the level of maturity here.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45365314585338705002010-06-20T14:27:31.205-07:002010-06-20T14:27:31.205-07:00Troy says: "MSEE brags"
Bragging about ...Troy says: "MSEE brags"<br /><br />Bragging about what? Me telling you that its not very likley people in evolutionary "science" have much interest in higher mathematics? How is that bragging? I'll tell you what. I've never ever heard of anyone getting a Ph.D. in engineering, hard sciences or math and then deciding to go into a field that has contributed nothing to modern life, or science. To say that many of them do is a bunch of bluster. And I've never heard of calculus described as "high school calculus" ---more bluster. Nobody considers calculus a typical high school subject even though most high schools offer it to the advanced college bound. The prep school from which I graduated is in the top 4 in the south and when I was there offered 2 semesters and the 1st semester was analytic geometry.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28763009535189765472010-06-20T14:18:31.532-07:002010-06-20T14:18:31.532-07:00MSEE:
"I'm well aware of the overwhelming...MSEE:<br />"I'm well aware of the overwhelming mass of literature in the various branches of the life sciences since my master's studies (bioengineering) and thesis were concerning cardiovascular mechanics, including the function of myocardium and its innervation."<br /><br />Thesis? Was any of your thesis publishable in the primary scientific literature?<br /><br />"For you to say that the literature on eye function, morphology, and various types of intracellular organization, does what I expressed above is laughable."<br /><br />Really? Then cite 10 papers from the primary literature on eye function, morphology, and intracellular organization that you've read and understood.<br /><br />"I have read enough in the life sciences to know how this literature pays homage to Darwinian evolution."<br /><br />I doubt it. We'll see if you can point to 10 papers.<br /><br />"Such references are invariably marked by the phrases "just may have been" "could be" etc. There is typically no reference to how these evolutionary musings will ever be proven with direct evidence."<br /><br />You've already flunked scientific epistemology 101. Nothing in science is ever considered to be formally proven, every conclusion is provisional. But pick the papers and we'll see. Mostly we'll see that you won't pick any papers.<br /><br />"You can just pick one of the musings, say from 30 years ago. Then try as you might, nobody has contributed anything since then to answer the specific evolutionary musing in the subsequent 30 years."<br /><br />You haven't tried. For example, what contributions have alleged nobodies (at least relative to Your Highness) made to understand the evolution of the crystallins?<br /><br />"Such is science, that brilliant researchers are constrained by "normal science" to sing the praises of the materialist saint from the nineteenth century."<br /><br />What about the ones who discover and study non-Darwinian mechanisms? Doesn't that demonstrate that your premise is false?<br /><br />"And the whole thing about the inverted retina is just a joke. You guys still can't admit that the ID community predicted many years ago that the inverted retina would be seen to have spectacular functional advantages over the "Kenneth Miller Ideal" retina."<br /><br />"Would be seen to have advantages" isn't a scientific prediction, you goof. Scientific predictions are about empirical findings, not how we interpret them. Such is real science.<br /><br />"Again I direct you to this link…"<br /><br />Direct us to 10 papers from the primary literature on eye function, morphology, and intracellular organization that you've read and understood. Preferably ones with plenty of math.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6027259584435737232010-06-19T19:26:28.823-07:002010-06-19T19:26:28.823-07:00By the way, I'd like to thank Cornelius Hunter...By the way, I'd like to thank Cornelius Hunter for his policy of allowing free debate on his blog. It's quite telling that Dr Hunter's identical blogs on UD attract far fewer comments; the reason being, of course, that UD actively discourages debate. Clive, you're a coward and a liar! You will go to hell.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17684629700569361202010-06-19T19:04:18.388-07:002010-06-19T19:04:18.388-07:00MSEE brags:
"So far as R. Dawkins and his pe...MSEE brags:<br /><br />"So far as R. Dawkins and his peers having doctorates or even much coursework in the hard sciences or math give me a break. I think it likely most of them could not get through Walpole and Myers, it's an upper division text with the full calculus sequence prerequisite."<br /><br />Bwahaha. W&M is an introductory text that doesn't go beyond high school calculus. You obviously have no idea of the mathematical sophistication it takes to understand the models of modern evolutionary theory. Here's a little hint: one of the architects of the "Modern Synthesis" (not so modern anymore) of evolutionary theory, R.A. Fisher, pretty much invented frequentist statistics. Did you get around to the F-test already? Guess what the F stands for.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33853491049115828102010-06-19T14:39:17.952-07:002010-06-19T14:39:17.952-07:00MSEE said...
So far as R. Dawkins and his peers ...<i>MSEE said... <br /><br />So far as R. Dawkins and his peers having doctorates or even much coursework in the hard sciences or math give me a break. I think it likely most of them could not get through Walpole and Myers, it's an upper division text with the full calculus sequence prerequisite. My citing this book obviously has nothing to do with claiming a particular expertise in the life sciences, so truly weird seeing someone making an issue of my using this book in my thesis work having nothing to do with the life sciences.</i><br /><br />Then why did you bring the book up at all? You come across as an arrogant young jerk, crowing because you just graduated and having this goofy idea that proficiency in one area somehow makes you an expert in other unrelated areas.<br /><br />I've posted numerous scientific papers here outlining evidence for evolution and common descent, three in this thread alone. You won't touch them with a ten foot pole, but you'll play the attention whore and tell us what a genius engineer you are. Not very impressive, ya know?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45241844847753814712010-06-19T14:33:17.163-07:002010-06-19T14:33:17.163-07:00And, by the way, MSEE, I trust that those Ph.D'...And, by the way, MSEE, I trust that those Ph.D's are not authorities.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23345960348756092302010-06-19T14:18:32.718-07:002010-06-19T14:18:32.718-07:00MSEE:
I mean you guys just can't get over the...MSEE:<br /><br /><i>I mean you guys just can't get over the arguing from authority because your position is so precarious, and there are plenty of Ph.D's who know it.</i><br /><br />How many is "plenty"?<br /><br />Name 10, and we'll check out their contributions to science.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.com