tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7370176228647949364..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists: Larry Moran Still Correct!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15962272565879530412011-06-03T08:41:10.915-07:002011-06-03T08:41:10.915-07:00Shubee said...
No Sir Knight. I am simply ver...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> No Sir Knight. I am simply very content to leave you to your delusions.</i><br /><br />Here are the questions about your claims you cowardly avoided, in case you ever grow a pair:<br /><br /><b>How do you determine genetic robustness with no reference to the environment? <br /><br />How do you know genes were more robust in the past?<br /><br />If we present humans are so inadequate with our 'degrading' genome, why has the human population grown from about 50 million to over 6.9 billion in the last 2000 years? </b><br /><br />I'm content to let everyone see just how little of your made-up BS you can support.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55389489116935733322011-06-03T07:45:00.289-07:002011-06-03T07:45:00.289-07:00No Sir Knight. I am simply very content to leave y...No <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690" rel="nofollow">Sir Knight</a>. I am simply very content to leave you to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CLwxObfaNE" rel="nofollow">your delusions</a>.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84434180478145698512011-06-03T07:00:43.835-07:002011-06-03T07:00:43.835-07:00Looks like Shubee has buzzed away back to his own ...Looks like Shubee has buzzed away back to his own little fantasy world. Being confronted with reality often has that effect on Creationists.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54447327053069963242011-06-01T06:34:23.252-07:002011-06-01T06:34:23.252-07:00Shubee said...
Thorton: Tell us again how yo...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Thorton: Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us your clever way genius.<br /><br /> You have no need to be concerned about advanced topics Sir Knight. First try to master the concepts from elementary school that you have misunderstood repeatedly.</i><br /><br />Cowardly avoidance of important questions noted. You're an absolute ignoramus about actual evolutionary theory and mechanisms, you got called on it, and now all you can do is bluster to try and save your ego. Too funny!<br /><br /><i>There is nothing Sir Knight that prevents individuals from evolving or devolving if you can change their DNA.</i><br /><br /><b>Populations</b> evolve dummy, not individuals. That really is Biology 101. Individuals get the DNA they're born with. It's the allele distribution in <b>populations</b> that defines evolution. Your ignorance on the topic is truly amazing. Well, given your Fundy motives maybe not...<br /><br /><i>There is nothing in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem</i><br /><br />There we go...now it's back to being Sanford's theorem again. I'm talking about <b>your</b> 'improved' version, the one with <b>your</b> name on it. Suddenly you're too embarrassed to claim credit?<br /><br /><i>Let's see you prove that Adam and Eve didn't have APO-A1 Milano, </i><br /><br />Double LOL! Let's see you prove Adam and Eve were real people. Remember how dumb you looked on your 'Mitochondrial Eve' boner?<br /><br /><i>T: You claim mutations can only 'degrade'<br /><br />Where have I said that Sir Knight?</i><br /><br />It's in your Axiom 5, the idiotic one you made up that has no connection to reality, and in everything you've written so far.<br /><br />Let's recap. You claim the human genome has degraded and is inadequately robust, but you can't explain how to determine robustness. You also can't explain why, if the genome is so inadequate, why the population increased to 6.9 billion in the last two millennia.<br /><br />You're not doing too good here Bunky. You may want to rethink your strategy.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22401837087727366762011-06-01T03:20:45.749-07:002011-06-01T03:20:45.749-07:00Thorton said...
Tell us again how you determine ...Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us your clever way genius.</i><br /><br />You have no need to be concerned about advanced topics <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690" rel="nofollow">Sir Knight</a>. First try to master the concepts from elementary school that you have misunderstood repeatedly.<br /><br /><i>Populations evolve over time dummy, not individuals. </i> <br /><br />There is nothing Sir Knight that prevents individuals from evolving or devolving if you can change their DNA.<br /><br /><i>I can provide you right now with some know beneficial mutations, like APO-A1 Milano that provide natural protection from high cholesterol.</i><br /><br />There is nothing in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem that would prevent the occasional appearance of a beneficial mutation. Let's see you prove that Adam and Eve didn't have APO-A1 Milano, that this "mutation" didn't persist in mankind for thousands of years and that <a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/sights_n_sounds/index.html" rel="nofollow">other phenomenally healthy groups</a> don't have APO-A1 Milano. Admit your defeat Sir Knight. <br /><br /><i>You claim mutations can only 'degrade'</i><br /><br />Where have I said that Sir Knight? Please provide an exact quote with a working link. Once again you have demonstrated that you need to read and think more carefully and stop imagining what you have been programmed to believe.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28815365872033259112011-05-31T17:30:18.716-07:002011-05-31T17:30:18.716-07:00Shubee said...
Society in general has a very clea...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br />Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans. </i><br /><br />Shubee, if we present humans are so inadequate with our 'degrading' genome, why has the human population grown from about 50 million to over 6.9 <b>billion</b> in the last 2000 years?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80962842041716909672011-05-31T16:53:05.444-07:002011-05-31T16:53:05.444-07:00Shubee said...
Society in general has a very clea...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br />Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans. </i><br /><br />Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us <b>your</b> clever way genius.<br /><br /><i>Think of your DNA as an instruction manual. Mutate your DNA as often as you like in whatever continually changing environment you prefer. You would be extraordinarily foolish to think that you had a sensible chance of benefiting from the mutations, even in the most favorable environment. You should expect being irreparably harmed.</i><br /><br />Populations evolve over time dummy, not individuals. I can provide you right now with some know beneficial mutations, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_A1" rel="nofollow">APO-A1 Milano</a> that provide natural protection from high cholesterol. It was first seen in Italy and is currently spreading through and becoming fixed in the local population. <br /><br />You claim mutations can only 'degrade', I can show you beneficial ones. <b>You lose.</b><br /><br />BTW, you've convinced me that not only don't you know anything about evolutionary biology, you also are clueless when it comes to understanding logical arguments. A typical ignorant Fundy IDCer in other words.<br /><br />Your axiom is wrong, your premise is invalid, so your conclusion is worthless. All the rest is just you beating your gums.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80233420100417378912011-05-31T16:25:42.967-07:002011-05-31T16:25:42.967-07:00Thorton said...
Sorry to burst your happy lit...Thorton said...<br /><br /><i> Sorry to burst your happy little Fundy bubble but your "universally true" axiom #5 is flat out wrong.<br /><br /> "5. Whenever information or code is expressed in the alphabet of any language, successive random copying errors of that code will inevitably destroy the information beyond useful functionality after a limited number of iterations."<br /><br /> You axiom only applies in the very specific case of a single 100% optimized system that is imperfectly copied in a non-changing environment.</i><br /><br />Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans. http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?p=6413#p6413 Or do you believe that your body is a 100% optimized system in perfect health? Think of your DNA as an instruction manual. Mutate your DNA as often as you like in whatever continually changing environment you prefer. You would be extraordinarily foolish to think that you had a sensible chance of benefiting from the mutations, even in the most favorable environment. You should expect being irreparably harmed. Your accusation clearly reveals a faith in the most ridiculous fantasies of children (Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, etc).Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54291715939698464352011-05-30T22:21:52.940-07:002011-05-30T22:21:52.940-07:00Shubee said...
So do you think it's possible ...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br />So do you think it's possible that God is fulfilling His word in you (2 Thessalonians 2:11)?</i><br /><br />No. He sent you as an example of Proverbs 18:2.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27882493663182644822011-05-30T21:47:47.198-07:002011-05-30T21:47:47.198-07:00Shubee said...
Thorton: If you want to belie...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Thorton: If you want to believe that the scientific evidence for "the human genome is degrading" is "Noah …<br /><br /> You obviously didn't understand my claim that Sanford's proof is based on five empirically verifiable axioms.</i><br /><br />Sorry to burst your happy little Fundy bubble but your "universally true" axiom #5 is flat out wrong. <br /><br />"5. Whenever information or code is expressed in the alphabet of any language, successive random<br />copying errors of that code will inevitably destroy the information beyond useful functionality after a limited number of iterations."<br /><br />You axiom only applies in the very specific case of a single 100% optimized system that is imperfectly copied in a non-changing environment. But DNA and life don't work that way. Life functions as an adaptive feedback loop in a constantly changing environment. The iterative feedback works to keep the population at a 'good enough' level near the optimum.<br /><br />In the real world the environment changes, the DNA changes, and the feedback loop drives the functionality towards the new 'good enough' point. It doesn't matter one whit what the previous function was or if has 'degraded'. All that matters is that altered function in the new, current environment does the job.<br /><br />Since your axiom #5 is a load of non-applicable crap, the whole premise of the "theorem" collapses like a flimsy house of cards.<br /><br />Maybe learn a little evolutionary biology before next time so you won't make so many beginner's blunders.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2504519086246198872011-05-30T20:47:28.685-07:002011-05-30T20:47:28.685-07:00Thorton said...
If you want to believe that the ...Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>If you want to believe that the scientific evidence for "the human genome is degrading" is "Noah …</i><br /><br />You obviously didn't understand my claim that Sanford's proof is based on five empirically verifiable axioms. So do you think it's possible that God is fulfilling His word in you (2 Thessalonians 2:11)?Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39892245014612986962011-05-30T19:23:52.664-07:002011-05-30T19:23:52.664-07:00Shubee said...
If you want to delude yourself in ...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br />If you want to delude yourself in believing all five of Sanford's axioms were derived from the Bible, go ahead and believe anything you like. </i><br /><br />If you want to believe that the scientific evidence for "the human genome is degrading" is "Noah lived to be over 900 years old" go ahead and believe anything you like.<br /><br />I hope the peals of hysterical laughter don't drown out your PTL gospel shows.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76629613416155292782011-05-30T19:09:28.443-07:002011-05-30T19:09:28.443-07:00Shubee said...
I never claimed to have proven...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> I never claimed to have proven Sanford's theorem before I heard of Dr. Sanford. But I did shorten his proof: http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf<br /><br /> Here is my contribution to the theory of devolution: http://everythingimportant.org/devolution</i><br /><br />How did <b>you</b> determine in <b>your</b> version that robustness of a genome now is worse than the robustness of a genome 200K years ago with no regard to changes in its environment? Another "clever" method like Sanford's, so clever it can't be written down or explained?<br /><br /><b>All science so far!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40759599383282852942011-05-30T19:05:23.896-07:002011-05-30T19:05:23.896-07:00Thorton said...
Funny too that up above you c...Thorton said...<br /><br /> <i> Funny too that up above you claimed<br /><br /> Shubee: "Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which is based on empirically verifiable axioms..."<br /><br /> But it turns out that Sanford's theorem is actually based on unverified Biblical genealogies.</i><br /><br />If you want to delude yourself in believing all five of Sanford's axioms were derived from the Bible, go ahead and believe anything you like.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40580230982502163212011-05-30T19:01:11.322-07:002011-05-30T19:01:11.322-07:00Thorton said...
Shubee: Sanford's genomic de...Thorton said... <br /><br />Shubee: Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is so clever that it bypasses the need to define robustness and to model the environment. <br /><br /><i>Funny, before it was yours and Sanford's idea. Now it's just Sanford's.</i><br /><br />I never claimed to have proven Sanford's theorem before I heard of Dr. Sanford. But I did shorten his proof: http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf<br /><br />Here is my contribution to the theory of devolution: http://everythingimportant.org/devolutionShubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75882495394344136402011-05-30T18:48:30.818-07:002011-05-30T18:48:30.818-07:00Funny too that up above you claimed
Shubee: "...Funny too that up above you claimed<br /><br />Shubee: "Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which is based on <b>empirically verifiable axioms</b>..."<br /><br />But it turns out that Sanford's theorem is actually based on <b>unverified Biblical genealogies.</b><br /><br />Big LOL!<br /><br /><b>All science so far!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11189906322372822042011-05-30T18:24:45.111-07:002011-05-30T18:24:45.111-07:00Shubee said...
Thorton; LOL! Yeah, it's c...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Thorton; LOL! Yeah, it's clever all right.<br /><br /> Step 1. Claim genome is degrading.<br /><br /> You are being very persuasive that Dr. Sanford has a valid argument by insisting on misrepresenting him or by just being a fool, as if purposely refusing to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions.</i><br /><br />LOL! So you're now stating that Sanford <b>doesn't</b> say the genome is degrading??<br /><br />You really are a nutter, first class!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71177931657552306972011-05-30T18:20:48.588-07:002011-05-30T18:20:48.588-07:00Shubee said...
Sanford: "Is there any ev...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Sanford: "Is there any evidence of this?"<br /><br /> "The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!"<br /><br /> I do accept that argument as evidence in the sense that seemingly nonsensical histories and beliefs are later validated by undeniable arguments.</i><br /><br />Of course you accept "the Bible says" as evidence Bunky. But science doesn't. Too bad for you.<br /><br /><i>Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is so clever that it bypasses the need to define robustness and to model the environment. </i><br /><br />Funny, before it was <b>yours</b> and Sanford's idea. Now it's just <b>Sanford's.</b> Why the bail out? How does <b>your</b> "devolution" hypothesis, the one you've been pimping, determine robustness with no regard for environment?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52449869576407384592011-05-30T18:14:27.682-07:002011-05-30T18:14:27.682-07:00Thorton said...
LOL! Yeah, it's clever all r...Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>LOL! Yeah, it's clever all right.<br /><br />Step 1. Claim genome is degrading.</i><br /><br />You are being very persuasive that Dr. Sanford has a valid argument by insisting on misrepresenting him or by just being a fool, as if purposely refusing to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63581639048146151652011-05-30T18:03:41.035-07:002011-05-30T18:03:41.035-07:00Thorton said...
BTW Shubee, why didn't you q...Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>BTW Shubee, why didn't you quote Sanford's real claim in that chapetr?<br /><br />Sanford: "Genetic damage results in aging, and aging shortens lifespan."</i><br /><br />Are you claiming that there is proof of that from the Bible?<br /><br /><i>"Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true,…"</i><br /><br />Please note that Sanford is using a word that you refuse to understand: "conclude," as in "conclusion."<br /><br /><i>Sanford: "Is there any evidence of this?"<br /><br />"The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!"</i><br /><br />I do accept that argument as evidence in the sense that seemingly nonsensical histories and beliefs are later validated by undeniable arguments.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22512754187613143902011-05-30T17:35:26.549-07:002011-05-30T17:35:26.549-07:00Shubee said...
Thorton: I'll ask for the...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Thorton: I'll ask for the third time. How did you determine that robustness of a genome now is worse than the robustness of a genome then with no regard to changes in its environment?<br /><br /> Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is so clever that it bypasses the need to define robustness and to model the environment.</i><br /><br />LOL! Yeah, it's clever all right.<br /><br />Step 1. Claim genome is degrading.<br /><br />Step 2. ......<br /><br />Step 3. Jesus!<br /><br /><b>All science so far!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66365792469802236262011-05-30T17:28:29.453-07:002011-05-30T17:28:29.453-07:00Thorton said...
I'll ask for the third time....Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>I'll ask for the third time. How did you determine that robustness of a genome now is worse than the robustness of a genome then with no regard to changes in its environment?</i><br /><br />Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is so clever that it bypasses the need to define robustness and to model the environment.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84901838740743385072011-05-30T17:14:51.837-07:002011-05-30T17:14:51.837-07:00BTW Shubee, why didn't you quote Sanford's...BTW Shubee, why didn't you quote Sanford's <b>real</b> claim in that chapetr?<br /><br /><i>Sanford: "Genetic damage results in aging, and aging shortens lifespan. This is true for the individual and for the population. Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding. Is there any evidence of this? <br /><br /><b>The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!</b>"</i><br /><br />There you have it folks. That accurate scientific textbook The Bible tells us life spans have been shortening! This despite the well documented evidence that lifespans in industrialized countries have lengthened dramatically in the last 200 years.<br /><br />That's a good reason why both Sanford and you deserve to be thought of as nutters.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84853610581345046672011-05-30T17:02:46.414-07:002011-05-30T17:02:46.414-07:00Shubee said...
Dr. Sanford wrote:
"...<i>Shubee said...<br /><br /> Dr. Sanford wrote:<br /><br /> "Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding." pp. 148-149.</i><br /><br />According to your woeful misunderstanding of genetics, you think all life was created between 60K and 200K years ago, right?<br /><br />I'll ask for the third time. How did you determine that robustness of a genome <b>now</b> is worse than the robustness of a genome <b>then</b> with no regard to changes in its environment? We know for a fact the environment has changed tremendously over the last 200K years. Ice ages have come and gone, sea levels have risen and fallen, many potential predator and prey animal species (like almost all the large mammals in N. America) have gone extinct.<br /><br />Seems like you're ASSUMING a constant environment which kills your brain fart deader than dead.<br /><br />Where do you or Sannford account for environmental changes over time?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8329883591126306782011-05-30T16:39:34.001-07:002011-05-30T16:39:34.001-07:00Thorton said...
OK, I'll bite. How did you d...Thorton said... <br /><br /><i>OK, I'll bite. How did you determine the genome was created perfect? How do you determine the robustness of a genome with no regard to changes in its environment?</i><br /><br />I never said nor did Dr. Sanford say in his book that the genome was created perfect. That's what you said because your programming is set to auto-slander. <br /><br />Dr. Sanford wrote:<br /><br />"Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding." pp. 148-149.Shubeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971913148662608611noreply@blogger.com