tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7704473736098392720..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Extrachromosomal Transmission of Information: How Evolution Created LarmarckismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59138191009087160202011-12-26T14:02:02.382-08:002011-12-26T14:02:02.382-08:00Pav Lino the sockpuppet said...
Thorton: &quo...<i>Pav Lino the sockpuppet said...<br /><br /> Thorton: "I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up."<br /><br /> Thank you for your self-description. Won't don't you back up this list of posts to where I take you to task for a number of whoppers on your part? </i><br /><br />All the lies you've been caught in are well documented in this and other threads PaV.<br /><br /><i>And, if you're so interested in "technical details", then all you have to do is to specifically point out where I am guilty of "quote-mining". Just point it out. Let's have a discussion about it.</i><br /><br />Already been done multiple times. All that's left is your gasbag ego that's keeping you running your mouth.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58373941761495968182011-12-26T13:41:45.597-08:002011-12-26T13:41:45.597-08:00Thorton:
I recognize you're caught in a vicio...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up.</i><br /><br />Thank you for your self-description. Won't don't you back up this list of posts to where I take you to task for a number of whoppers on your part? And, if you're so interested in "technical details", then all you have to do is to specifically point out where I am guilty of "quote-mining". Just point it out. Let's have a discussion about it.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61519083968702704202011-12-25T21:11:55.306-08:002011-12-25T21:11:55.306-08:00LOL!
Keep yapping PaV. You make yourself look mo...LOL!<br /><br />Keep yapping PaV. You make yourself look more childish with every post.<br /><br />I recognize you're caught in a vicious circle here PaV. You're an ignoramus who can't discuss any technical details of evolutionary theory without sticking your foot in your mouth, and yet your fat-headed ego won't let you shut up. Whatever will the Liar for Jesus do?<br /><br />Go ahead and post a few more lies and quote-mined snippets PaV. Show us again what a dishonest moron you are.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16229905280982717972011-12-25T11:25:39.181-08:002011-12-25T11:25:39.181-08:00Thorton:
Shall I point out how you said (and the ...Thorton:<br /><br />Shall I point out how you said (and the quote is right here on this blog) that Dursten and Schmidt spent the "second half" of their article pointing out how wrong Behe was? Remember I pointed out that in an eight page paper, they spent less than one page on Behe. Shall I go get the quote?Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42285289896330441382011-12-25T11:22:42.424-08:002011-12-25T11:22:42.424-08:00Thorton:
Now go on, post some more quote-mined Cr...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Now go on, post some more quote-mined Creationist stupidity so I can embarrass you further.</i><br /><br />The best I can see, "quote-mining" was invented by Darwinist to smear those who disagree with them when they use quotes that---given the literal meaning---contradicts what Darwinism holds.<br /><br />Now, again, either demonstrate what you mean by "quote-mining", or shut-up about it. Demonstrate exactly how I have interpreted something wrongly. Point it out. If you can't, then quit the whining and the sniveling.<br /><br />Poor old Dursten and Schmidt (and Thorton, too), one of those nasty IDers "quote-mined" them again! Oh, whatever shall we do! Put up, or shut-up.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75331851108885362552011-12-25T11:18:32.126-08:002011-12-25T11:18:32.126-08:00Thorton:
Give it up PaV. No one is paying the sli...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Give it up PaV. No one is paying the slightest bit of attention to your infantile whining.</i><br /><br />Where's the quote Thorton? Either come up with the quote, or admit that you're either ignorant or lying. No quote. No credibility. Simple as that.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23552621733069735482011-12-25T11:17:01.451-08:002011-12-25T11:17:01.451-08:00the whole truth:
Elizabeth Liddle, Mathgrrl, DrRe...the whole truth:<br /><br /><i>Elizabeth Liddle, Mathgrrl, DrRec, and many others have been treated like s**t at UD and NO ONE there ever apologizes or stands up for common decency. You UD IDiots EXPECT and DEMAND that you be treated like royalty but you act like the lowest lowlifes imaginable. Your hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and malignant narcissism gushes out of you, and you're sniveling COWARDS too. </i><br /><br />Show me one place on all of UD where anyone made a comment to someone like you just made to me. Show me.<br /><br />And, if you can't, then maybe you should be judiciously silent on that point.<br /><br />I just googled some of your phraseology and "uncommondescent". Guess what I got? Two links.<br /><br />Both to the "theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot" Is reality that difficult for you? Oh, I forgot, you're after the "the whole truth". It appears you haven't made it there yet.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69394097984358482192011-12-25T11:09:47.782-08:002011-12-25T11:09:47.782-08:00Thorton:
I knew you'd be too slimy to apologi...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>I knew you'd be too slimy to apologize to Dr. Liddle for dishonestly misrepresenting her views.</i><br /><br />After the comments you've made here, how can you even begin to accuse someone else of being "slimy"? You've cornered the market on that one.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72489988587980086022011-12-25T10:04:12.677-08:002011-12-25T10:04:12.677-08:00PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...
I can't even...<i>PaV Lino the sockpuppet said... <br /><br />I can't even tell the truth! Lying for Jesus is the way I think arguments ought to be won!</i><br /><br />Give it up PaV. No one is paying the slightest bit of attention to your infantile whining.<br /><br />You made yourself look foolish with your blustering ignorance, and your bawling for others to be banned just highlighted your immaturity.<br /><br />Now go on, post some more quote-mined Creationist stupidity so I can embarrass you further.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45226456576724789942011-12-25T09:05:13.046-08:002011-12-25T09:05:13.046-08:00Thorton (gorn):
Like Archeopteryx is the oldest k...Thorton (gorn):<br /><br /><i>Like Archeopteryx is the oldest know example of feathers. Or that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation. That was a classic too!</i><br /><br />The oldest example of "flight feathers". You just love to misquote and misrepresent, don't you?<br /><br />And where did I say that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation?<br /><br />Can't you even tell the truth? Is this the way you think arguments ought to be won?<br /><br />You still haven't responded the my rather extended post demonstrating how you made error after error in thinking. Are you going to get around to that, or are you just hoping people will forget? I haven't forgotten.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64917390124892279722011-12-25T01:00:56.307-08:002011-12-25T01:00:56.307-08:00pavlino,
I didn't say that they block and ban...pavlino,<br /><br />I didn't say that they block and ban ALL people. They DO block and/or ban most people who disagree with them. They allow a FEW people to disagree just to make it LOOK like they "welcome open and honest discussion", and those who disagree have to be careful of what they say or they will be blocked and/or banned too. <br /><br />The few people who disagree, who are allowed to post there, are regularly insulted, and regularly accused of lying and other rotten deeds. Just take a look at the way joe g talks to people who disagree with him. And he's far from the only one who insults, name-calls, accuses, and just plain attacks people who question or oppose him and/or the ID party line. <br /><br />UD is nothing more than an attack site. It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", atheists, naturalists, evolutionary materialists, science, scientists, science supporters, evolutionary theory, agnostics, theistic evolutionists, evolutionists, certain speakers and journalists, and anyone else who isn't a member of the UD/ID cult. <br /><br />Show me an article by "News" (o'leary) that isn't a snide, insulting attack. That's ALL she does. Show me an article by kairosfocus that isn't a snide, insulting attack. That's ALL he does. And many more of you IDiots do the same thing, including comparing non-IDiots to Hitler, Marx, Pol Pot, and other tyrannical monsters. UD is absolutely overflowing with vicious attacks on anyone who doesn't kiss your sanctimonious asses and worship your imaginary god. <br /><br />Elizabeth Liddle, Mathgrrl, DrRec, and many others have been treated like s**t at UD and NO ONE there ever apologizes or stands up for common decency. You UD IDiots EXPECT and DEMAND that you be treated like royalty but you act like the lowest lowlifes imaginable. Your hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and malignant narcissism gushes out of you, and you're sniveling COWARDS too. <br /><br />To give credit where it is due though, at least Cornelius is willing to allow open debate. That's more than can be said about UD and many (or most?) other ID sites. <br /><br />You godbots (especially at UD) are the ones who go on and on about how you're the only ones with 'morals' but you sure don't live up to your claims. You set as poor an example of christianity as could be demonstrated. <br /><br />I'd tell you what I really think of you but it wouldn't pass the rules here. <br /><br />Do you really believe that UD is accomplishing anything productive? How often do you see new ID supporting people posting there? How often do new people stick around? It's almost always just the same old pack of attack IDiots spewing the same old projectile vomit about 'evil Darwinists/evolutionists'. <br /><br />And what exactly has UD accomplished in regard to getting science to throw out naturalistic evolutionary theory and any other naturalistic theories, and to accept ID and your non-scientific, non-evidential, fairy tale religious beliefs in their place? <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"When someone gets insulting, I think most people feel that at that point they've probably lost their case."<br /><br />If that's true, then you IDiots, and especially those of you at UD, lost your case long ago. When are you ever going to make a POSITIVE case for ID instead of just attacking the strawman "Darwinism"? Scientists work hard every day to find, study, verify, and explain POSITIVE evidence of how nature works. What have you IDiots ever POSITIVELY contributed to science? ALL you IDiots ever do is denigrate and attack science and the people who do it. Yeah, they're not perfect and haven't figured everything out but they're accomplishing a helluva lot more POSITIVE things than you ever will. <br /><br />You religious zombies should be a lot more "gracious" to the intelligent, scientifically minded people who have made your lives a LOT more healthy, comfortable, enjoyable, and informed.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15551927633612796492011-12-24T14:45:38.564-08:002011-12-24T14:45:38.564-08:00PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...
I'm just ...<i>PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...<br /><br /> I'm just a very sick person. And very wrong about most everything.</i><br /><br />I knew you'd be too slimy to apologize to Dr. Liddle for dishonestly misrepresenting her views.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38184474763246250172011-12-24T14:36:28.367-08:002011-12-24T14:36:28.367-08:00Thorton:
I bet it will take you weeks to clean up...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>I bet it will take you weeks to clean up all the flying spittle stains from you screaming at your monitor and pounding your keyboard. Just count yourself lucky all those bodily fluids you sprayed didn't short them out.</i><br /><br />You're just a very sick person. And very wrong about most everything.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1473983323601663132011-12-24T10:48:31.548-08:002011-12-24T10:48:31.548-08:00PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...
You contradic...<i>PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...<br /><br /> You contradict yourself in the very next sentence when you complain about Elizabeth Liddle.</i><br /><br />PaV, speaking of common decency and Dr. Liddle, I still haven't seen you apologize to her for the dishonest and despicable way you misrepresented her position <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/where-are-the-neutral-genomes-with-these-mutations/" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />But then again you've shown repeatedly that you think any lie for Jesus is a good lie.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72554617684916754952011-12-24T10:38:56.375-08:002011-12-24T10:38:56.375-08:00PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...
You get banned at...<i>PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...<br /><br />You get banned at UD for being needlessly confrontational and rude. </i><br /><br />Where "needlessly confrontational" is defined as any post that points out the huge scientific, mathematical, and logical errors in the IDC arguments. "Rude" is defined as pointing out the overtly dishonest quote-mining and outright lying of the IDC pushers.<br /><br />You UD clowns are always screaming about being EXPELLED!, but you guys ban more posters and and censor more posts that all other Creation/Evolution boards combined.<br /><br /><i>Common decency goes a long way. </i><br /><br />Maybe you should try some for a change.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71003148930075010032011-12-24T09:34:56.241-08:002011-12-24T09:34:56.241-08:00the whole truth:
Is it "fair" for UD to...the whole truth:<br /><br /><i>Is it "fair" for UD to severely restrict who posts there? Is it "fair" for UD to block and ban people just because they question or oppose ID or belief in the ID god? </i><br /><br />You contradict yourself in the very next sentence when you complain about Elizabeth Liddle. She has a Darwinian, non-ID view, for the most part. But she isn't banned because she's always gracious. And MathGrrl, an ardently anti-ID person, was even allowed to put up a post.<br /><br />You get banned at UD for being needlessly confrontational and rude. <br /><br />Give and take is one thing; but phrasing such as:<br />"you ungrateful, hypocritical, dishonest, arrogant, sanctimonious UD IDiots . . . " well, this won't get you very far at UD.<br /><br />Why Dr. Hunter abides that here, that I don't get. But it's his blog, and his rules apply. I would certainly run things differently. But I suppose he has his own reasons.<br /><br />Common decency goes a long way. When someone gets insulting, I think most people feel that at that point they've probably lost their case.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84783379220976432042011-12-24T07:49:10.810-08:002011-12-24T07:49:10.810-08:00Eugen said...
Lino
Think of Thorton as n...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> Lino<br /><br /> Think of Thorton as natural selection. Weak arguments will not go past him, they will die, good ones will survive. In the long run it's healthy</i><br /><br />Problem is that PaVLino doesn't believe in natural selection. In his view his God has to constantly intervene and make both individual animals and species be a success or failure.<br /><br />That's why he can't understand why his God won't intervene here and cause the banning of all those evil Evos. It must be God's will that so many people show up PaVLino to be an ignorant chump.<br /><br />Being on the heavily censored UD for so long PaVLino never learned how to think for himself, or how to properly respond to challenges to his IDC propaganda. The whole idea of a fair and open competition between ideas is both alien and frightening to him.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2346489262789272062011-12-24T05:45:10.089-08:002011-12-24T05:45:10.089-08:00Lino
Think of Thorton as natural selection. Weak ...Lino<br /><br />Think of Thorton as natural selection. Weak arguments will not go past him, they will die, good ones will survive. In the long run it's healthyEugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66176011154094771462011-12-23T19:44:09.823-08:002011-12-23T19:44:09.823-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
I believe that would...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> I believe that would be a mistake. You have to let people have their say, so long as they can express it without foul language and the like.</i><br /><br />Thank you Dr. Hunter. We don't see eye to eye on too many things, but with that simple act alone you have earned more respect that all the rest of the IDCers put together.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1915919312988186912011-12-23T19:41:10.874-08:002011-12-23T19:41:10.874-08:00PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...
Waaaah! Waaaaah!...<i>PaV Lino the sockpuppet said...<br /><br />Waaaah! Waaaaah!<br /><br />Please please please won't somebody <b>ban</b> the evil Evo meanie! He's making me look terrible! <b>Make the liberal God-hating Evo stop!!"</b></i><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHA!!<br /><br />Thanks PaV! That was an absolute classic <b>tard meltdown</b>, one of the best I've ever seen!<br /><br />I bet it will take you weeks to clean up all the flying spittle stains from you screaming at your monitor and pounding your keyboard. Just count yourself lucky all those bodily fluids you sprayed didn't short them out.<br /><br />After you cool down and get someone to change your nappy, please get back to demonstrating your "Creation Science" knowledge. Like Archeopteryx is the oldest know example of feathers. Or that humans have only one germ-line cell per individual per generation. That was a classic too!<br /><br />I keep telling you - this isn't UD. You can't get by with just quote-mining and bluster and girlish cries for censorship like you do over there. If you want to stop looking like an illiterate idiot you need to read and learn this evolutionary biology stuff.<br /><br />I bet you must be real proud, knowing that you're getting laughed at by scientists in at least eight different time zones.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91698470939276138372011-12-23T16:42:54.945-08:002011-12-23T16:42:54.945-08:00pavlino,
Is it "fair" for UD to severe...pavlino, <br /><br />Is it "fair" for UD to severely restrict who posts there? Is it "fair" for UD to block and ban people just because they question or oppose ID or belief in the ID god? <br /><br />Is it "fair" for IDiots like you and the gang of hypocritical godbots at UD to attack people like Elizabeth Liddle and accuse her of lying and other rotten deeds even though she has always been decent, honest, and extremely tolerant, in addition to trying to give you IDiots free lessons in evolutionary theory and how science is done? <br /><br />And she's far from the only one you ungrateful, hypocritical, dishonest, arrogant, sanctimonious UD IDiots have attacked, accused, quote-mined, blocked, and/or banned for no good reason. <br /><br />If you're so concerned about what's "fair", tell the mods and the other IDiots (like yourself) at UD to live up to their claim of 'welcoming open and honest discussion'. And while you're at it, tell ENV and all other ID/religious sites to open up to honest discussion too. <br /><br />I disagree with much of what Cornelius says but at least he doesn't block or ban people for no good reason. The rest of you cowardly IDiots should follow in his footsteps and let the chips fall where they may, especially if you're so 'confident in your position'. What are you really afraid of?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22316723090513433562011-12-23T14:25:49.965-08:002011-12-23T14:25:49.965-08:00Lino D'Ischia:
But these putative "comme...Lino D'Ischia:<br /><br /><i>But these putative "commentators" have nothing of substance to add, and through their world-class incivility act as a deterrent to those who oppose Darwinian thought. They harass and harangue those they disagree with. How is that good?</i><br /><br />Well it illustrates a tendency within evolutionary thought. But keep in mind, they really believe that evolution is a fact, and that any skepticism cannot come from rational thought, but must be driven by ulterior motives. Given that as the starting point / premise, it is understandable that they would be a bit upset.<br /><br /><br /><i>I've looked over the majority of Thorton's posts here, and none of them have any value. The one post containing some shred of science, turned out to be entirely misinterpreted by him.</i><br /><br />You’ll probably find that you have a good impedance match with some commentators but not others.<br /><br /><br /><i>There should be some ground rules for civility here, or you'll run the certainty of reproducing the high decibel vitriol that was a hallmark of Pandas Thumb. What happens here is not conducive to dialogue, but harangue.</i><br /><br />Outlawing foul language works wonders. Beyond that, the greatest risk to civility comes from naïve skepticism, not from the evolutionists directly. Naïve skepticism fuels harsh and sometimes uncivil response. Is there some uncivility even in the absence of naïve skepticism? Sure, but you don’t have to respond to every message. Furthermore, I don’t think there is a big risk of the “high decibel vitriol.” We didn’t just start here last week.<br /><br /><br /><i>You should reflect on this, and issue some guidelines that will then be imposed.</i><br /><br />I believe that would be a mistake. You have to let people have their say, so long as they can express it without foul language and the like.<br /><br /><br /><i>Ban me if you have to,</i><br /><br />Foul language is the criterion.<br /><br /><br /><i>but stop the nonsense. It's not fair to others.</i><br /><br />Again, you need not respond to every comment. Think of the comment section as having multiple threads.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41137082387973661932011-12-23T13:25:37.729-08:002011-12-23T13:25:37.729-08:00To those who are interested--part three:
Thorton ...To those who are interested--part three:<br /><br />Thorton then dutifully plows ahead:<br /><br /><i> Thorton:<br /><br />"The second half of the paper is devoted to exposing Behe's boneheaded errors in both biology and math in getting his "Edge of Evolution" bogus numbers. The 31.6 million generations (not years Lino) is not their claim: it's what you get if you plug Behe's made up BS numbers into the proper formula:"</i><br /><br />He's misspoken. I point that out to him:<br /><br /><i>Not only are you uncritical in your thinking, you're dishonest. They devote less than one-half of a page in an eight page paper discussing Behe's calculation.</i><br /><br />Thorton, completely unresponsive to the fact that he'd misspoken (should I say he lied? If the shoe were on the other foot, we know exactly what the big T would have said), he goes on the offensive :<br /><br /><i>No Lino, the paper didn't say that at all. The 31.6 million was from Behe's hypothetical '5000 species with 1 generation per year' mammal example. It shows Behe screwed up his calculations. That's another reason I know you didn't read the paper.</i><br /><br />But poor Thorton doesn't realize that Behe was trying to put the best face on neo-Darwinian processes, and that if he hadn't included the 5,000 mammalian species, with only one year generation time (for elephants it's twenty five years, e.g.) the amount of time would have been even higher. So, all of this goes right over the head of Thorton once again.<br /><br />Thorton, you have not distinguished yourself well at all.<br /><br />You've misunderstood, misapplied, and distorted and were just plain wrong time and time again. <br /><br />You can apologize to me anytime you like.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51434059561693525862011-12-23T13:24:09.479-08:002011-12-23T13:24:09.479-08:00To all who are interested--part two:
As to Thort...To all who are interested--part two:<br /><br /><br />As to Thorton's "quote mining" claim, here's the history.<br /><br />When I spoke of the Durnett and Schmidt paper, Thorton asked for a reference. (which I could not at first found, but that Thorton did find and linked to)<br /><br />Before having found the paper on my own, not realizing Thorton had already located it (he, of course, accused me of lying about this. One can only wonder what purpose I would have in lying about something like this), here's what I wrote:<br /><br /><i>As to a reference, kindly look for it yourself. I've read portions of the paper, and their concluding section. And with a straight face they say they've refuted Behe's claims; it only will take 31.6 million years for the two amino acids to change.</i><br /><br />And the fun begins:<br /><br />Thorton provides the full quote:<br /><br /><i>"Indeed Behe's error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 10^6 and μ1 = μ2 = 10^−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with Formula having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600."</i><br /><br />But, of course, while casting specious allegations of "error" onto Behe, when everything they have to say depends on the trustworthiness (not yet established) of their theorems, they have nevertheless admitted that even given their new theorems, it would take 31.6 million generations to arrive at what Behe calls a CCC---which really amounts to two very specific amino acid changes. <br /><br />And I respond:<br /><br /><i>Do you see the inanity here? "Oh Behe was wrong. It wouldn't take 200 million years, it would only take 31.6 million years." How blind can people be? Humans haven't even exited for 31.6 million years. Pure inanity.</i><br /><br />Thorton now has his turn:<br /><br /><i> Of course neither the 200 million or the 31.6 million is the correct number for having any two-mutation binding site change.</i><br /><br />And then:<br /><br /><i>That's for <b>two prespecified changes</b>. But the paper points out life doesn't need those prespecified changes, that there are many more that work just as well.</i><br /><br />But here's the title of the paper were talking about:<br /><br />"Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution" <br /><br />Where does it say anything about "prespecified" mutations? <br /><br />If a human being, during reproduction, produces 175 mutations, then obviously it only takes ONE generation to come up with TWO mutations. So to talk about "mutations" in general, and not to restrict ourselves to "specific" mutations, is utterly vacuous---a complete non-starter. <br /><br />And you, Thorton, have, at every turn, failed to recognize this. These kinds of mistakes are elementary. And you continue to peddle them.<br /><br />[Final installment ensues]Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31602660567055643322011-12-23T13:06:05.424-08:002011-12-23T13:06:05.424-08:00To all who are interested:
Let's recap the ex...To all who are interested:<br /><br />Let's recap the exchange that's taken place between Thorton and myself on this post. It all begins when he says to Unknown:<br /><br /><i>Unknown said...<br /><br />The truth is that populations don't evolve; individuals do....<br /><br />Thorton: <br />Oh man, you went and did it now...</i><br /><br />Thorton then cites an article, to which I then respond:<br /><br /><i>L: . . . this is what they end up saying in the <br />abstract of the paper you then cite.<br /><br /><b>No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. . . . and . . . We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations.</b><br /><br />This is proof that Darwinism CAN'T work! This is why any conversation with you is impossible. You should be running and hiding from this experimental result, and, instead, you trumpet it. Pathetic.</i><br /><br />To which Thorton then replies in his most engaging of styles:<br /><br /><i>Oh goody! Not only is Lino an ignorant poseur, he's your common garden variety Creationist liar and quote-miner too!<br /><br />Why didn't you post the whole abstract Lino?</i><br /><br />He then goes on to quote the ENTIRE abstract, which changes nothing of substance (except, I suppose, in his mind somehow).<br /><br />Next, responding to another part of my earlier post, which is: <br /><br /><i>Let's apply this to humans. Let's generously assume 8 children per generation, or about one descendant every three years (25 yrs/gen./8 descendants/gen.) It would take 25 trillion years to produce enough human <br />replicants equivalent to the 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells produced by the E. Coli.</i><br /><br />Thorton responds thusly:<br /><br /><i>No you moron. You stupidly overlooked the fact that every human has approx. 10^13 cells in their body, so you get actually that many cells with just one single human.<br /><br />Estimates are that every human born has about 175 mutations in their genome.</i><br /><br />But, of course, somatic cells are not inherited. <br /><br />And so Thorton made a big blunder. I naturally point this out to him:<br /><br /><i>There is a difference between meiosis and mitosis. ONLY the germinal cell line is inherited. What happens in any human outside of its germinal cell line is completely immaterial to common descent.</i><br /><br /><br />But before Thorton could reply, he had to, of course, resort to his style-ized form of insult.<br /><br /><i>Oops, I forgot one of Lino's gems: "It takes 31.6 million years for ANY amino acid to have ANY two mutation change"</i><br /><br />Here's what I actually wrote (found on a previous thread):<br /><br /><i> . . . it only will take 31.6 million years for <br />the two amino acids to change.</i><br /><br />Should I call you a liar? Are you ready to apologize and correct your mistake? <br /><br />[As to quotes, Thorton, here's what an Purdue Online Writing Lab has to say:<br />"Direct quotations involve incorporating another person's exact words into your own writing." Maybe you should learn something about writing style here . . . and ethics. Direct quotations aren't used for "emphasis".]<br /><br />Back to Thorton's attempt at a rebuttal: <br /><br />Thorton, how did you make such a mistake in the first place? Amino acids don't mutate---DNA mutates, and this causes changes in the a.a. sequence. How could you even compose what amounts to a senseless sentence?Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.com