tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post574804851509635377..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same ProteinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69007029259472459562012-12-15T06:00:53.506-08:002012-12-15T06:00:53.506-08:00I guess I have to work harder to get it on your le...I guess I have to work harder to get it on your level that YOU are the one that insists on the last word. You just can't resist. And that's what's so funny about it. So here goes:<br /><br />"That's right Thorton, I forgot you're the guy with the 3rd grade maturity level who has to have the last word.<br /><br />Go ahead, respond to this post without defining evidence since it's all you know how to do. You'll still be an idiot and a scientifically illiterate philosophy student tomorrow, and the the scientific community will still be laughing at you, not with you."<br /><br />Does that help? BTW, by scientific community, I mean those who do science. You know, that which can actually be demarcated from the pseudo-science you fideists do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12363935972986750352012-12-08T15:04:29.422-08:002012-12-08T15:04:29.422-08:00That's right Jeff, I forgot you're the guy...That's right Jeff, I forgot you're the guy with the 3rd grade maturity level who has to have the last word.<br /><br />Go ahead, copy this post word for word since it's all you know how to do. You'll still be an idiot and a scientifically illiterate philosophy student tomorrow, and the scientific community will still be laughing <b>at</b> you, not with you.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58464303962320755402012-12-08T12:48:25.580-08:002012-12-08T12:48:25.580-08:00Let me try harder to get it on your level, Thorton...Let me try harder to get it on your level, Thorton. How's this? --<br /><br />Thorton the true believer who needs no evidence: Neener neener I know you are but what am I!!<br /><br />Q.E.D.<br /><br />-- Does that help, Thorton?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29698872972320733092012-12-08T07:50:34.134-08:002012-12-08T07:50:34.134-08:00Thorton: "Now watch the IDiot attempt his &q...<i>Thorton: "Now watch the IDiot attempt his "I'm rubber you're glue" childish retort a dozen more times."<br /><br />Jeff the IDior philosophy student: Neener neener I know you are but what am I!!"</i><br /><br />Q.E.D.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12573152713684360402012-12-07T21:54:22.922-08:002012-12-07T21:54:22.922-08:00Poor Jeff. Still too ignorant to understand phylog...Poor Jeff. Still too ignorant to understand phylogenetic analysis. Still no evidence for his claimed SA. Still an IDiot<br /><br />Now watch the IDiot attempt his "I'm rubber you're glue" childish retort a dozen more times.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4361427528209225142012-12-07T04:27:45.773-08:002012-12-07T04:27:45.773-08:00Poor thong-boy- too ignorant to understand that ph...Poor thong-boy- too ignorant to understand that phylogenetic analysis is not evidence for any UCA. Still an equivocating coward.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2794626394953545022012-12-06T21:27:11.788-08:002012-12-06T21:27:11.788-08:00Poor Jeff. Still too ignorant to understand phylo...Poor Jeff. Still too ignorant to understand phylogenetic analysis. Still no evidence for his claimed SA. Still an IDiot.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75529211415082067632012-12-05T16:51:38.036-08:002012-12-05T16:51:38.036-08:00Thorton, your last reply to me was so challenging ...Thorton, your last reply to me was so challenging that I had to really give some thought about my next reply. But I finally came up with something that someone with your level of intelligence might get:<br /><br />Thorton,<br /><br />blah blah blah inductive criteria blah blah blah libertarian causality blah blah blah metaphysics blah blah blah<br /><br />There's nothing quite so pathetic or boring as a clueless UCA'ist trying to BS his way through a scientific discussion.<br /><br />You have no scientific positive evidence for "UCA", period.<br /><br />Game over. You UCA'ist idiots lose. <br /><br />-- so tell me, could you understand that response, at least? Since it's on your intellectual level?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18229784630495268132012-12-05T08:47:33.084-08:002012-12-05T08:47:33.084-08:00queenie:
Evolutionary processes can and do produce...queenie:<br /><i>Evolutionary processes can and do produce new features when those features are beneficial to survival, and evolutionary processes can and do remove features, even complexity, when they no longer are "cost effective" for reproductive success.</i><br /><br />So more equivocation. You need to demonstrate that all evolutionary processes are blind and undirected chemical processes. You can't do that. So as far as you know evolutionary processes are DESIGN processes.<br /><br />It's amazing that you think that your ignorance means something.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66437845256608015452012-12-05T08:42:15.051-08:002012-12-05T08:42:15.051-08:00Chubby Joe G
So the "direction" is ever...<i>Chubby Joe G<br /><br />So the "direction" is every which way, including loose...</i><br /><br />That's right fatboy. Evolutionary processes can and do produce new features when those features are beneficial to survival, and evolutionary processes can and do remove features, even complexity, when they no longer are "cost effective" for reproductive success.<br /><br />Again that's Evolution 101, but since you're never studied the subject its no surprise you're so ignorant of it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27314678898460860132012-12-05T08:29:09.649-08:002012-12-05T08:29:09.649-08:00Can evolution make things less complicated?
Ins...<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853798/" rel="nofollow"><strong>Can evolution make things less complicated?</strong></a><br><br /><br><br /><br /><b><br />Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.<br><br /><br><br />Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.<br><br /><br><br />“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”</b><br /><br />So the "direction" is every which way, including loose...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83123315795204463652012-12-05T08:23:36.898-08:002012-12-05T08:23:36.898-08:00thorton:
Its direction is still determined by unc...thorton:<br /><i> Its direction is still determined by unconscious, unplanned environmental changes.</i><br /><br /><b>BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHHAHA</b><br /><br />That "direction" = whatever. Evolution does NOT have a "direction" other than "survival", which isn't a direction.<br /><br />Whatever survives and whatever is good enough survives (Mayr).<br /><br />Just how stupid are YOU, queenie? Mevermind, we already know that you are very stupid...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4531321751992873712012-12-05T08:19:32.100-08:002012-12-05T08:19:32.100-08:00Fatboy Joe G
and 38 Nobel laureates say:
Logical...<i>Fatboy Joe G<br /><br />and 38 Nobel laureates say:<br /><br />Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. </i><br /><br />Sorry idiot, they are saying evolution is not <b>CONSCIOUSLY</b> guided, which it isn't. Its direction is still determined by unconscious, unplanned environmental changes.<br /><br />Just how stupid are you Chubs?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14259940472170396812012-12-05T08:05:24.368-08:002012-12-05T08:05:24.368-08:00Chubby Joe G
It is quite obvious that you don'...<i>Chubby Joe G<br /><br />It is quite obvious that you don't know what "scientific positive evidence" is as you cannot provide any for unguided evolution.</i><br /><br />Evolution isn't unguided Chubs. It's a feedback system that responds to changes in the environment.<br /><br />Unless you wish to claim your Magic Designer is somehow consciously manipulating the environment to direct the evolution of specific species down consciously selected paths.<br /><br />Is that your latest assertion Chubs?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31733714645983650512012-12-05T05:48:55.709-08:002012-12-05T05:48:55.709-08:00Thorton: "Science doesn't have to model a...Thorton: "Science doesn't have to model and identify every last step taken 500 million years ago to have evidence of what happened. Your IDiot claim is like saying we find a pile of rocks at the bottom of a mountain, but unless we can identify the original position and pathway each rock took in falling that gravity wasn't the cause of them being there."<br /><br />No it is not when the pile of rocks falls in such a way as to spell a word. In the cell, we have much more than one word, we have volumes and volumes of information, codes, machines, software, design, life itself, etc. That is a far cry from "a pile of rocks." If the rocks spelled out a word or two, you might want to reevaluate your assumption that they fell in that pattern, eh?<br /><br />You overlooked the possibility that someone placed the rocks in a pile. That is the problem with materialism. you only allow certain explanations for the problem, even when the rocks spell out a long sentence, you only allow for naturalistic explanations.tokyojimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918507161827373905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39258480182746909712012-12-05T05:25:29.617-08:002012-12-05T05:25:29.617-08:00Well then, that settles it doesn't it?
This i...Well then, that settles it doesn't it?<br /><br />This is the kind of posts evolutionists post when they have no answers for the problem at hand.<br /><br />Materialists are willing to believe any miraculous thing as long as it doesn't involve the supernatural. tokyojimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918507161827373905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41442288260974062012-12-05T05:15:16.452-08:002012-12-05T05:15:16.452-08:00Who is George?! I guess "George" is bett...Who is George?! I guess "George" is better than something like dufus, but still the least you can do is show some respect and call the guy by his preferred name! tokyojimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918507161827373905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18668090392655279182012-12-05T04:01:02.260-08:002012-12-05T04:01:02.260-08:00dancing queen:
You have no scientific positive evi...dancing queen:<br /><i>You have no scientific positive evidence for "Separate Ancestry", period.<br /></i><br /><br />How would you know? It is quite obvious that you don't know what "scientific positive evidence" is as you cannot provide any for unguided evolution.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-916215225301854692012-12-05T03:59:34.612-08:002012-12-05T03:59:34.612-08:00dancing queen:
...and primates give rise to primat...dancing queen:<br /><i>...and primates give rise to primates, mammals give rise to mammals, vertebrates give rise to vertebrates, chordates give rise to chordates.</i><br /><br />And unguided evolution cannot account for primates, mammals, vertebrates nor chordates.<br /><br />Did you have a point other than to show your position is ignorant abd useless?<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58689970465071254292012-12-04T21:26:49.164-08:002012-12-04T21:26:49.164-08:00Chubby Joe G
Just every observation and experimen...<i>Chubby Joe G<br /><br />Just every observation and experiment ever conducted. Prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. Humans give rise to humans. Chimps give rise to chimps. Bats give rise to bats. Fish give rise to fish- and so on.</i><br /><br />...and primates give rise to primates, mammals give rise to mammals, vertebrates give rise to vertebrates, chordates give rise to chordates.<br /><br />Does your Creationist "after its kind" blithering have a point?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60823145786377736932012-12-04T21:18:58.164-08:002012-12-04T21:18:58.164-08:00Jeff
blah blah blah inductive criteria blah blah ...<i>Jeff<br /><br />blah blah blah inductive criteria blah blah blah libertarian causality blah blah blah metaphysics blah blah blah</i><br /><br />There's nothing quite so pathetic or boring as a clueless Creationist philosophy student trying to BS his way through a scientific discussion.<br /><br />You have <b>no</b> scientific positive evidence for "Separate Ancestry", <b>period.</b><br /><br />Game over. You Creationist idiots lose.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4745699984171427442012-12-04T19:14:57.302-08:002012-12-04T19:14:57.302-08:00thorton:
OK, so you don't have even one piece ...thorton:<br /><i>OK, so you don't have even one piece of positive scientific evidence for SA.</i><br /><br />Just every observation and experiment ever conducted. Prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. Humans give rise to humans. Chimps give rise to chimps. Bats give rise to bats. Fish give rise to fish- and so on.<br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70285073972271111092012-12-04T17:46:20.641-08:002012-12-04T17:46:20.641-08:00The only normative inductive criteria for two or m...The only normative inductive criteria for two or more hypotheses, that are not actually explanatory of the data/effects/etc their adherents believe is naturally caused as per those respective hypotheses, are such criteria as greater analogical relationality, smaller quantity of ad-hoc hypotheses required to render the original hypotheses coherent, etc.<br /><br />I'm sorry that you think induction can provide you such absurd criteria as, "there is no libertarianly-free causality," etc. This just means you're clueless. Court systems regularly apply inductive criteria to questions around the involvement or lack of involvement of self-control (i.e., libertarian causality). You'll never see such non-sense as what you UCA'ists believe in a logic book. It has nothing to do with logic.<br /><br />What you UCA'ists do is adopt a metaphysics which is not known to be possible or plausible and then try to force inductive criteria within that metaphysics. But logic doesn't function that arbitrarily. It deals with logical possibilities in terms of inductive criteria like parsimony, etc without imposing any such arbitrary constraints as UCA'ists impose on themselves.<br /><br />Sane people will never join you in your arbitrariness (i.e., irrationality). And, again, none of this implies that UCA is false. It just means it fares MUCH worse in terms of inductive criteria than does certain versions of SA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50975839997120797122012-12-04T17:42:50.017-08:002012-12-04T17:42:50.017-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8672028237890620092012-12-04T15:58:40.299-08:002012-12-04T15:58:40.299-08:00OK, so you don't have even one piece of positi...OK, so you don't have even one piece of positive scientific evidence for SA.<br /><br />Hopefully we'll be hearing no more about SA nonsense from you then.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com