Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Where and What Is the Alleged ID-refuting Research?

-
I am being lied to, again. I have been told that there is actual research that refutes ID's concepts but no one has been able to link to it. I am also told that there are labs working on blind watchmaker research and again no one can point to them nor what work is being done in the name of the blind watchmaker.

So here is your chance to point it all out- it would be great if you could start with testable hypotheses for the blind watchmaker thesis. Thanks.

posted by Joe G @ 1:15 PM  

56 Comments:

  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology#Current_research_topics

    That took about 5 seconds. But I guess Joe can't be bothered.

    Here's only one of the sub-topics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_genetics

    And this is just from Wikipedia. Go check out some real research journals. It's easy. Go to your nearest university and go to the library and look at the biological research journals instead of asking the whole world to come to you.

    OMG, look, here's a whole journal that's just called Evolution.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1558-5646

    OMG here's one called Journal of Evolutionary Biology

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1420-9101

    Oh dear, this is a decade old but it's some software you can download to analyse phylogenetic regression

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/phylo/index.html

    Joe, have you even bothered to look?

    Here's a research facility at the University of Idaho that studies evolutionary aspect of adaptive radiation (I'll let you look that up)

    http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~lukeh/

    Here's the website of a particular researcher who does work in statistical methods of evolutionary biology

    http://www.evolutionarystatistics.org/

    Again, I'm not working hard here, I'm just going on Wikipedia links which anyone could do it they really wanted to find out. But, you know Joe, if you don't force feed it to him he won't believe you.

    I like this site: COMPARE analyzes interspecific data in an evolutionary context. It applies several Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (e.g., independent contrasts, spatial autocorrelation, phylogenetic GLS, phylogenetic mixed model), and can conduct phylogenetic randomization tests (i.e., to generate random phylogenies, branch lengths, or interspecific data on a phylogeny).

    http://www.indiana.edu/~martinsl/compare/

    (Someone volunteer to explain this to Joe 'cause I'm sure he won't understand it)

    The overall point is: there is mountains and mountains of research being done. Everyday. All over the world. Joe can't be bothered to look or try and understand it. So he says it doesn't exist. He's wrong. And it's stupidly easy to show that.

     

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! BLIND WATCHMAKER research you equivocating coward. ID is not anti-evolution.

    It's as if you are proud to be a willfully ignorant ass.

     

  • At 12:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! BLIND WATCHMAKER research you equivocating coward. ID is not anti-evolution.

    It's as if you are proud to be a willfully ignorant ass.

    It's all 'blind watchmaker' research. No one thinks it's anything but that.

    Did you even look at any of the research? You ask for examples, you don't look at the stuff that's presented and then you say it's not what you asked for. Do you know what adaptive radiation is? Do you not think that statistical methods can help determine that mutations are random and therefore might nullify Dr Sptener's contention?

    (Did you ever even think: well, if mutations aren't random that still doesn't explain why the designer took billions of years to come up with human beings.)

    You're just dancing and ducking and diving, trying hard to avoid acknowledging that you do not understand the work that is ongoing. Trying desperately hard to sound like you know what you're talking about when you can't even be bothered to look things up yourself.

    Aside from having read Drs Behe and Stepner's books what else have you got? You repeat the claims THEY make but you can't address the research on your own. Which is why I think you won't even look at it.

    You can't understand how global temperature anomalies are calculated when the researchers clearly state how they do it. You didn't understand a conditional probability until I forced you to look it up to defend your position. You didn't know what LASER stood for, couldn't be bothered to look it up until you had a rant about it and then, after you were proved wrong, you said your 'definition' meant the same thing so you weren't really wrong. You never did get some pretty common undergraduate mathematics that's not controversial at all. You swear and abuse and bluff and refuse to answer some questions about your position. You're a hollow man. And not even a big hollow man.

    And you have no idea why or how the designer came up with trilobites. You (and your position) have no process (and no counter-flow), no model and no explanations.

     

  • At 6:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! No, it isn't blind watchmaker research you ignorant ass.

    You didn't even look at the research. You are just a gullible and blind follower.

    You can't understand how global temperature anomalies are calculated when the researchers clearly state how they do it.

    Liar- you are too stupid to grasp my point.

    You didn't understand a conditional probability until I forced you to look it up to defend your position.

    Liar

    You didn't know what LASER stood for,

    Liar

    YOU can't even answer simple questions about set theory. You hide behind other people because you are a coward.

     

  • At 6:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad the equivocating wanker- so willfully ignorant that all things evolution = blind watchmaker evolution.

     

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! No, it isn't blind watchmaker research you ignorant ass.

    Sure it is. No other 'cause' has been shown to exist to bring about the data.

    You didn't even look at the research. You are just a gullible and blind follower.

    Uh huh.

    Liar- you are too stupid to grasp my point.

    I know exactly wheat your point is. You read the words and interpret them in a common, non-specialised way. But what you frequently mistake about scientific discourse is that terms can be used in very specific ways as long as the writers lay out what they mean. The word gravity means something different in physics than it does in daily discourse where a matter of gravity can just be something of great importance. In mathematical graph theory a tree is a special kind of graph. Also in graph theory a path is a particular kind of sequence of lines and edges on a graph.

    Liar

    Took you long enough to tell me what P(T|H) meant though didn't it?

    Liar

    It's true!! You thought the letters in LASER stood for other words!!

    YOU can't even answer simple questions about set theory. You hide behind other people because you are a coward.

    Absolutely I can answer questions about real mathematical set theory which is a lot more complicated that simple Venn diagrams and such. I'd invite you to ask me a question but I doubt you could even come up with something.

    I"ve got a real set theory question for you though: are Zorn's lemma and the Axiom of Choice equivalent. Take your time.

    Jerad the equivocating wanker- so willfully ignorant that all things evolution = blind watchmaker evolution.

    Gee, and I thought ID was compatible with some bits of evolution at least. But you've just said evolution is equal to blind watchmaker evolution. That's a bit confusing. Would you like to tell me exactly what parts of evolution ID is compatible with?

     

  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Well, that didn't go well for Joe, cabin boy on the sinking ship.

     

  • At 3:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What? It's going very well for me, Richie. Still nothing for blind watchmaker research. Still nothing on a testable hypothesis for blind watchmaker evolution and still no sign of the alleged theory of evolution.

     

  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, it isn't blind watchmaker research you ignorant ass.

    Sure it is.

    Wrong

    No other 'cause' has been shown to exist to bring about the data.

    Blind watchmaker "causes" have never been shown to be capable of anything beyond disease and deformities.

    I know exactly wheat your point is

    Bullshit.

    Took you long enough to tell me what P(T|H) meant though didn't it?

    It took me long enough to actually give a shit what an obvious wanker has to say.

    You thought the letters in LASER stood for other words!!

    Not really.

    Absolutely I can answer questions about real mathematical set theory which is a lot more complicated that simple Venn diagrams and such.

    You didn't answer my questions about set theory.

    Gee, and I thought ID was compatible with some bits of evolution at least.

    Gee, ID is OK with evolution. Gee, you are ignorant of what is being debated.

    Would you like to tell me exactly what parts of evolution ID is compatible with?

    Again? How many times do I have to tell people that exact thing?

     

  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're the only one banging on about blind watchmaker research. The vast volumes of evolution research don't mention a designer at all, or a pony named Clive. Is that support for Cliveism, Chubs?

     

  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Blind watchmaker "causes" have never been shown to be capable of anything beyond disease and deformities.

    Come up with a better explanation that includes process and pattern. And that means it has to account for things like the trilobites Joe. You can only run away from the questions so long.

    Bullshit.

    It's true though isn't it? You insist on interpreting what's written your way as opposed to the way the scientists CLEARLY STATE it should be interpreted. Lack of reading comprehension that's called.

    It took me long enough to actually give a shit what an obvious wanker has to say.

    I'm sure Dr Dembski would be glad you think so little of his mathematical construction.

    Not really.

    Sure you did. You said the letters in LASER stood for different words than what they do stand for. And then you argued about it. And when you finally HAD to admit you were wrong you insisted your words meant the same thing anyway.

    You didn't answer my questions about set theory.

    Go on, ask again. Real set theory now Joe. As discussed in Kaplansky's book which I linked to.

    Gee, ID is OK with evolution. Gee, you are ignorant of what is being debated.

    Evolutionary theory says natural processes are entirely sufficient to bring about life in all its variation that we see presently existing and in the the fossil record. ID says natural processes are not sufficient. Correct?

    Again? How many times do I have to tell people that exact thing?

    We don't think you really understand what you're arguing over. Or even what you're supporting at times. Because you can't even understand some of the things people like Dr Dembski have published that you say you agree with. So, we're skeptical.

     

  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie- those vast volumes don't mention the blind watchmaker nor unguided evolution.

     

  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Come up with a better explanation that includes process and pattern.

    You don't have anything, Jerad. You can't explain trilobites because you can't get beyond prokaryotes and that is given prokaryotes.

    So fuck off.

     

  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Or Clive. They also don't mention Clive!

     

  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You don't have anything, Jerad. You can't explain trilobites because you can't get beyond prokaryotes and that is given prokaryotes.

    So fuck off.

    You can't even come up with anything. You don't even try.

    No wonder you resort to profanity.

    Where is your question for me about real set theory Joe? You keep threatening but you can't seem to come up with anything.

    Can you compute 128^(3/7)? Can you find the antiderivative of sin(x) times (cos(x))^3? OH, I know, compute the value of P(T|H) for the bacterial flagellum. Are there more natural numbers or real numbers? And so there's no argument here's a definition of 'real number' from Wikipedia:

    "[A] real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line. The real numbers include all the rational numbers, such as the integer −5 and the fraction 4/3, and all the irrational numbers such as √2 (1.41421356…, the square root of two, an irrational algebraic number) and π (3.14159265…, a transcendental number). Real numbers can be thought of as points on an infinitely long line called the number line or real line, where the points corresponding to integers are equally spaced. Any real number can be determined by a possibly infinite decimal representation such as that of 8.632, where each consecutive digit is measured in units one tenth the size of the previous one. The real line can be thought of as a part of the complex plane, and complex numbers include real numbers."

     

  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Richie- those vast volumes don't mention the blind watchmaker nor unguided evolution.

    Odd that real biological research papers don't use terms in the same way that you do. Maybe, just maybe, you don't understand what the biologists are saying?

    Take my word for it: unguided is the basic assumption. It doesn't need to be mentioned every time so ID trolls get it.

     

  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Odd that real biological research papers don't use terms in the same way that you do.

    Prove it.

    Maybe, just maybe, you don't understand what the biologists are saying?

    More likely that you are just an ignorant asshole.

    Take my word for it: unguided is the basic assumption.

    AGAIN- You cannot assume what has to be demonstrated. Obviously you enjoy being an ignorant asshole.

     

  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can't even come up with anything. You don't even try.

    LoL! Just because you are a willfully ignorant wanker doesn't mean I haven't come up with anything. I have defended ID and you have choked trying to defend unguided evolution.

    You are nothing but a bluffing coward- all evoTARDs are.

     

  • At 9:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You (and your position) have no process (and no counter-flow), no model and no explanations.

    Evolutionary and genetic algorithms model intelligent design evolution. Directed mutations is a process as is built-in responses to environmental cues. Counter-flow is all over the place and unguided evolution can't explain anything. Obviously you are confused.

    OTOH no one can model unguided evolution. No one knows where to start.

     

  • At 11:16 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joey, the way you're going, some guys will be coming pretty soon to put you in a straitjacket and take you to an asylum.

     

  • At 11:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! The way I am going is exposing you assholes as the equivocating cowards that you are. But then again I wouldn't expect an ignorant asshole like you to understand that.

    Notice that we are still waiting for testable hypotheses for blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution. Typical cowards.

     

  • At 12:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Prove it.

    Read some scientific research papers. Read that book by Kaplansky I linked to. You'll find that real researchers are careful to define their terms. Dr Dembski does it in his 2005 paper.

    More likely that you are just an ignorant asshole.

    It's possible. But I think you've shown more ignorance than me.

    AGAIN- You cannot assume what has to be demonstrated. Obviously you enjoy being an ignorant asshole.

    Evolution HAS been proven. You can't just ignore it and ask for the whole world to do it all again.

    LoL! Just because you are a willfully ignorant wanker doesn't mean I haven't come up with anything. I have defended ID and you have choked trying to defend unguided evolution.

    Too bad for you the vast majority of scientists think your defence is rubbish. Drop back and punt?

    You are nothing but a bluffing coward- all evoTARDs are.

    Because we disagree with you?

    Evolutionary and genetic algorithms model intelligent design evolution. Directed mutations is a process as is built-in responses to environmental cues. Counter-flow is all over the place and unguided evolution can't explain anything. Obviously you are confused.

    What is the chemical process where mutations are directed? Algorithms are designed to explore some aspects of evolutionary theory. Where are the workships, the supply lines, the equipment, the design documentation?

    OTOH no one can model unguided evolution. No one knows where to start.

    And yet someone found a fossil in a pre-specified layer. Go figure eh?

    Notice that we are still waiting for testable hypotheses for blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution. Typical cowards.

    Find a rabbit fossil in a Pre-Cambrian layer.

     

  • At 12:38 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    He's in his own world again. Reality passes him by...

     

  • At 4:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    From http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability on the testability of evolutionary theory

    "In response to creationist Duane Gish's assertion that the theory of evolution is a tautology without predictive value on the basis of the argument just cited, Gould writes: "Please note, however, that the false claim for tautology was advanced only against Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, not against the idea of evolution itself" (p. 140). In response to the claim that natural selection was quietly abandoned by even its most ardent supporters, Gould quips: "News to me, and I, although I wear the Darwinian label with some pride, am not among the most ardent supporters of natural selection" (p. 141). These remarks, if anything, suggest that the theory of evolution is independent of natural selection."

    And

    "Two others might be mentioned: mutation and founder effect. Now if authorities cite many other factors involved in evolutionary change, debate the relative importance of natural selection, and suggest that the theory of evolution is independent of it, then creationists must first establish that the theory of evolution stands or falls with natural selection before their case can be made. But that issue is not even broached in their argument for evolution's circularity. Therefore, they have not proved the theory untestable."

    And

    "Nonetheless, they have made an important charge against natural selection itself: the charge of untestability. To answer this, it will be necessary to show that there is a criterion other than survival for something being the "fittest" or better adapted. Is there an independent criterion?

    Gould tells us that there is. He says that the survival and spread of certain traits in individuals throughout populations is a result of the fitness (adaptability) of those traits, not a definition of fitness (p. 143). Certain traits are superior or better adapted before they survive and spread. I quote Gould:

    Now, the key point: certain morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer's criterion of good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. [p. 143]

    A trait is better adapted, then, if it meets an engineer's criterion of good design. Although the word design may prompt some to think of a popular argument for God's existence, the criterion Gould invokes is naturalistic. It is a matter of comparing an engineer's design of something with what one finds in nature. The better adapted or "fitter" organisms are those which would meet an engineer's criterion for good design if an engineer were to apply one. If one then predicts that organisms which meet an engineer's criterion would be those that survive and, in the long run, spread their traits throughout populations, then such a prediction in terms of natural selection is testable."

     

  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Oh gosh, here's a whole article about making evolutionary predictions and then testing them. I guess Joe has Googling issues.

    http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/how-to-test-and-disprove-evolution/

     

  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    This article (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php) has four ways evolution can be tested and falsified.

    Not hard to find stuff when you bother to look Joe.

     

  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Wow, there's even some good answers on this Yahoo page! Cool.

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708120457AA5UowK

    Amazing you couldn't find this stuff Joe. Maybe you just didn't bother to look.

     

  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Hey, even Wikipedia says there's a whole branch of study called Experimental Evolution. Who would have thought eh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

     

  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Notice that we are still waiting for testable hypotheses for blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution.

    Actually, you really should explain this. Evolution does occur, that's a fact. A hypothesis (when he made it) would be like Charles Darwin saying natural selection was responsible.

    So, perhaps you'd like to be more specific . . . what aspect of evolution would you like a testable hypothesis for?

    Blind watchmaker evolution? Meaning un-guided? Meaning natural selection and other processes acting on natural variations to create specialisations in the plants and animals? So, which part are you complaining about? The natural selection part? The other processes (like genetic drift and sexual selection for example)? Or is the randomly occurring variations?

    I bet it's the last bit that you think you've got a trump card for since you're a Spetner fan.

    So, a hypothesis something like: mutations are unpredictable and occur randomly?

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Interestingly enough, here's the notice for some recent research asking the question are mutations really random.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

    Now, it's possible they aren't, that they tend to occur near existing mutations at a greater rate. NOT saying they're directed mind you.

     

  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Actually Joe, did you know that somewhere between a fourth and a third of all human pregnancies end up with non-viable babies? That is the pregnancies spontaneously abort at some some or the fetuses die.

    This is probably due to mutations/variations that are 'not good'.

    So, what's the designer thinking there eh? Why the incredible amount of waste of time and resources? Sounds like a pretty crappy 'directed' system to me. And then there's the suffering it causes the parents.

    And what about the plants and animals that produce hundreds/thousands of offspring so that a very few will mature and reproduce? Who thought that was a good idea, a good design? Again, an incredible waste of time and effort.

    Do you think the baby animals that die are being tested to see if they're worthy to get into heaven Joe? Are there animals in heaven? Have you watched a baby deer being taken down by some wolves? Did the designer think the pain and suffering experienced by that baby deer was okay? How about a dog that gets run over by a car? Or baby birds that die in their first attempt at flight?

    I suppose plants don't really count since they can't think or feel pain. But still, who designs systems where some flower create literally thousands of seeds a season? That's a lot of waste.

     

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh gosh, here's a whole article about making evolutionary predictions and then testing them.

    Blind watchmaker predictions- I asked for blind watchmaker predictions/

    Obviously you think that your willful ignorance means something.

     

  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolution HAS been proven.

    Evolution isn't being debated you ignorant asshole.

    Too bad for you the vast majority of scientists think your defence is rubbish.

    Too bad for you they cannot refute that defence.

    And yet someone found a fossil in a pre-specified layer.

    Moron. What was found was not what they were looking for as what they were looking for occurred millions of years earlier.

    Find a rabbit fossil in a Pre-Cambrian layer.

    Unguided evolution can't explain rabbits. So Jerad is so stupid he thinks that finding something allegedly out of place that his position cannot explain in the fist place, is some sort of refutation of it.

    So Jerad cannot prove his accusations and is forced to bluff, lie and equivocate, again.

     

  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually Joe, did you know that somewhere between a fourth and a third of all human pregnancies end up with non-viable babies?

    That is what unguided evolution has wrought.

     

  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is great- neither Jerad, nor Richie, nor TWiT knows what a testable hypothesis is.

    And they say I am the ignorant one...

     

  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If humans are the product of a common design, we would expect for them to share similarities with other animals that they shared a common design with.

    and

    If humans are the product of a common design, we would expect to find evidence of the common design over time within the geologic column, recorded history, or across geography.

    and

    If humans are the product of degenerative evolution, we would predict that they would have traits and genes that are remnants of past generations.

     

  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He's in his own world again. Reality passes him by...

    Nice projection from the cupcake.

    Let's see, I prove that Jerad and Richie are equivocating cowards and they throw hissy fits as opposed to dealing with that reality.

     

  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey, even Wikipedia says there's a whole branch of study called Experimental Evolution.

    So what? I am asking for experimental blind watchmaker evolution. No one is debating mere evolution you ignorant asswipe.

     

  • At 1:00 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    I'm wondering who is Unknown. Santa perhaps?

     

  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    His name is Jerad- from the UK...

     

  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Blind watchmaker predictions- I asked for blind watchmaker predictions/

    All the researchers are working for 'blind watchmaker' evolution. I've said this many times. But you just keep thinking you've won if that phrase doesn't appear in the research.

    Evolution isn't being debated you ignorant asshole.

    It is because the common use of the terms means something you disagree with. But you think you can hoodwink someone by pretending it doesn't.

    As I asked you: what particular aspect do you think hasn't been hypothesised in a testable and falsifiable way?

    Moron. What was found was not what they were looking for as what they were looking for occurred millions of years earlier.

    Too bad for you their prediction of where to find what they were looking for turned out correct.

    Unguided evolution can't explain rabbits. So Jerad is so stupid he thinks that finding something allegedly out of place that his position cannot explain in the fist place, is some sort of refutation of it.

    You are really, really misunderstanding and misrepresenting evolutionary theory. This comes from your blindly reacting to certain phrases you've been trained to flinch at. Sad.

    So Jerad cannot prove his accusations and is forced to bluff, lie and equivocate, again.

    I notice you did not respond to reams and reams of stuff I posted.

    That is what unguided evolution has wrought.

    What? That a large percentage of human conceptions don't come to term?

    You have real issues Joe. Seriously. That is just fact.

    This is great- neither Jerad, nor Richie, nor TWiT knows what a testable hypothesis is.

    I linked to quite a few. You can't run your whole life Joe.

    If humans are the product of a common design, we would expect for them to share similarities with other animals that they shared a common design with.

    But that doesn't make design the best explanation. Especially when its proponents can't use the notion to explain the data better than the modern evolutionary theory does.

    If humans are the product of a common design, we would expect to find evidence of the common design over time within the geologic column, recorded history, or across geography.

    But design does not explicitly explain other things 'better'. AND, let's not forget, you are hypothesising an unknown, undetected and undefined designer. You CANNOT have design without a designer. And you've got no designer.

    If humans are the product of degenerative evolution, we would predict that they would have traits and genes that are remnants of past generations.

    Which they do!! Hooray!!

    Let's see, I prove that Jerad and Richie are equivocating cowards and they throw hissy fits as opposed to dealing with that reality.

    You must learn to see things from outside your own narrow perspective.

    So what? I am asking for experimental blind watchmaker evolution. No one is debating mere evolution you ignorant asswipe.

    It's all 'blind watchmaker' evolution Joe. Only you think you can take a stand on a really narrow ledge.

    His name is Jerad- from the UK...

    But born in Wisconsin!!

     

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All the researchers are working for 'blind watchmaker' evolution.

    That is incorrect and demonstrates willful ignorance on your part.

    But you just keep thinking you've won if that phrase doesn't appear in the research.

    LoL! YOU keep thinking you've won if Intelligent Design doesn't appear in the research.

    Evolution isn't being debated you ignorant asshole.

    It is because the common use of the terms means something you disagree with.

    Fuck you, you are just a lying cowardly bitch.

    I don't have time for your cowardice.

    As I asked you: what particular aspect do you think hasn't been hypothesised in a testable and falsifiable way?

    Coward. As I asked YOU to present testable hypotheses wrt blind watchmaker evolution. Only a coward would try to turn it so the onus is on me.

    Unguided evolution can't explain rabbits. So Jerad is so stupid he thinks that finding something allegedly out of place that his position cannot explain in the fist place, is some sort of refutation of it.

    You are really, really misunderstanding and misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

    Liar.

    I notice you did not respond to reams and reams of stuff I posted

    You cannot show they relate top blind watchmaker evolution. It is up to YOU to actually make a case and you cannot. That is because you are ignorant.


    It's all 'blind watchmaker' evolution Joe.

    Only in your little mind. Too bad no one can model it. No one can say what predictions are born from the proposed mechanisms.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent and that is the best your position has.

    So if it is all blind watchmaker evolution then it had to be starting from a Special Creation as put forth in Genesis or some reasonable facsimile thereof as blind watchmaker evolution can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And not one biologist can demonstrate otherwise.

     

  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You don't prove anything Joe, you just assert. The fact you don't know the difference is one of your many failings. Big plans for Ramadan?

     

  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That is incorrect and demonstrates willful ignorance on your part.

    That is NOT incorrect. A vast majority of evolution researchers are working under the paradigm of 'blind watchmaker' processes. They don't state that so you think you can declare the opposite. Shame on you.

    LoL! YOU keep thinking you've won if Intelligent Design doesn't appear in the research.

    Not at all. And we're not even talking about ID now. I think ID has been shown (notice I didn't say proven) to be a weaker argument/explanation of the data. But I agree that IF ID comes up with the goods then it will have to be considered.

    Evolution isn't being debated you ignorant asshole.

    It is because you disagree with one of the basic tenets of modern evolutionary theory: unguided common descent.

    Fuck you, you are just a lying cowardly bitch.

    I am just pointing out that you have a tendency to misread scientific research based on common use of terms.

    Coward. As I asked YOU to present testable hypotheses wrt blind watchmaker evolution. Only a coward would try to turn it so the onus is on me.

    I did provide some which you have ignored. Not even acknowledged or addressed. And, it's up to those who make a claim against the accepted paradigm to prove their cause.

    Unguided evolution can't explain rabbits. So Jerad is so stupid he thinks that finding something allegedly out of place that his position cannot explain in the fist place, is some sort of refutation of it.

    That's pretty incoherent and does NOTHING to support your model, whatever it is.

    You really need to work on a alternative model. I know you can't and you won't but that is the next step.

    Liar.

    Joe doesn't refute, he shoots back.

    You cannot show they relate top blind watchmaker evolution. It is up to YOU to actually make a case and you cannot. That is because you are ignorant.

    Why don't you look at the links and research I presented and tell me why each of those does not answer your objections? You say no one ever disputes you but when some one tries you can't even be bothered to address what they've presented? Whose got a problem with dissenting opinions eh?


    Only in your little mind. Too bad no one can model it. No one can say what predictions are born from the proposed mechanisms.

    Hmmm, let's see . . . oh yes, I linked to some predictions. I guess you didn't read those. Please try harder.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent and that is the best your position has.

    OR you just don't understand it.

    So if it is all blind watchmaker evolution then it had to be starting from a Special Creation as put forth in Genesis or some reasonable facsimile thereof as blind watchmaker evolution can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And not one biologist can demonstrate otherwise.

    hahahahhahahahahahhaah That doesn't even make sense.

     

  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I think there are two major issues here:

    One is that modern evolutionary theory is now widely accepted as the base assumption, the null hypothesis. You may disagree with that but the reality is that any claims to the contrary have to be proven against that.

    The second issue is that you, Joe, bitch and cry and moan that no one can provide you with this or that data or result or theory or hypothesis. And then when people do (at least make an attempt) you completely fail to address whatever has been brought up. Except, maybe, to say it's all lies.

    You say you have a fairly high IQ and you say that you used to believe in evolutionary theory. If those are true then you know very well how inadequate and childish your responses and behaviour regarding disagreements with your statements and attempts to provide you with counter-arguments have become. You respond with abuse and, most importantly, you do not address the responses you have solicited.

    Are you really interested in a conversation or are you just finding ways to hurl abuse at those with whom you disagree?

     

  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One is that modern evolutionary theory is now widely accepted as the base assumption, the null hypothesis

    What modern evolutionary theory? No one seems to be able to find it. A scientific theory requires measurements and evolution doesn't offer any.

    The second issue is that you, Joe, bitch and cry and moan that no one can provide you with this or that data or result or theory or hypothesis. And then when people do (at least make an attempt) you completely fail to address whatever has been brought up

    So it's my fault that you are ignorant and can't make a case?

    You have not posted anything that deals with blind watchmaker evolution. You have not posted any alleged entailments of blind watchmaker evolution.

    As for the theory you don't know who the author was nor when it was written. You have no idea what it says.

    And that is hilarious.

     

  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't prove anything Joe

    And yet I have.

     

  • At 6:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A vast majority of evolution researchers are working under the paradigm of 'blind watchmaker' processes.

    That is your ignorant opinion.

    They don't state that so you think you can declare the opposite.

    They don't state it because it isn't so.

    a researcher refutes Jerad

    I think ID has been shown (notice I didn't say proven) to be a weaker argument/explanation of the data.

    That is incorrect.

    It is because you disagree with one of the basic tenets of modern evolutionary theory: unguided common descent

    You are proud to be an imbecile. Unfortunately you cannot show us that modern evolutionary theory says what you claim. And being against unguided common descent does not mean against evolution.

    I am just pointing out that you have a tendency to misread scientific research based on common use of terms

    Liar. We have noticed tat you never support your claims.


    I did provide some which you have ignored.

    The evidence contradicts you.

    Why don't you look at the links and research I presented and tell me why each of those does not answer your objections?

    LoL! YOU still need to make a positive case. Until you do I have nothing to respond to.

    Your "predictions" had NOTHING to do with blind watchmaker evolution. You are a confused and cowardly wanker. And obviously you are proud of it.

     

  • At 1:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And yet I have."

    Sorry, but you don't understand "proof' nor "conjecture". You're just sad.

     

  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, You are just a pathological liar.

     

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    Joe,

    Good stuff from your Skell link!



    Per Skell:
    "Philip Skell responds: My essay about Darwinism and modern experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology. Comparative physiology and comparative genomics have certainly been fruitful, but comparative biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory. Before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, comparative biology focused mainly on morphology, because physiology and biochemistry were in their infancy and genomics lay in the future; but the extension of a comparative approach to these sub-disciplines depended on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not on evolutionary theory and immersion in historical biology."

    The "cornerstone" of biology claim by the NDE crowd is just ludicrous.

    Also:
    Anybody who says there it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient "hard" empirical evidence to demonstrate the alleged mechanisms of NDE are capable producing the vast array of integrate components of living organisms has some other agenda in mind. Not science.

    The documentation attempting to make a "scientific" case for NDE is usually so ridden with assumption, conjecture, and assertions that it takes an extremely naive individual to believe that it has been demonstrated "scientifically". And/or, again, someone with another type of agenda. Maybe something against "religion"?

    I notice some "God wouldn't have done it this way" arguments above.
    Which are totally bogus as far as the real issues are concerned. So much of the NDE propositions seems to be girded by highly subjective philosophical preference.

     

  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, I noticed Jerad/ Unknown ran away after I posted it.

     

  • At 10:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    a researcher refutes Jerad

    From the essay/letter (I'm pretty sure this was NOT a peer-reviewed article, it sound a lot more like a letter or brief essay. An interesting point of view.)

    "None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."

    So, he's not saying he disbelieves "Darwinism" is true. He just doesn't like that it has to be invoked all the time. I can see that point and I've heard other make it.

     

  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the essay/letter (I'm pretty sure this was NOT a peer-reviewed article, it sound a lot more like a letter or brief essay. An interesting point of view.)

    It is based on real-world experiences.

    So, he's not saying he disbelieves "Darwinism" is true.

    I never said he was.

    He just doesn't like that it has to be invoked all the time. I can see that point and I've heard other make it.

    It isn't needed nor used in research.

     

  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Richie, You are just a pathological liar."

    Bwahahahah, Cupcake. Joe / Jim / JohnPaul who lives in a parkinglot...

    Weapons grade projection there, Chubs.

     

  • At 6:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh wow, what a devastating refutation of my claim!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home