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

Friday, March 06, 2015

SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting Seth Shostak

-
In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common.

However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided.

Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.


Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:
In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak

1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching.
2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such
3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria



An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak


Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.
However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -


Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.

125 Comments:

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity.

    Can you point to a peer-reviewed research paper which claims to use specified complexity as a criteria for design?

    (No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up)

    No but IDist's are famously vague about measuring, detecting and defining specified complexity. It's very hard to get a good handle on what the mathematical criteria are and to see a worked out example.

    Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria.

    Surely complexity and improbability are much different concepts. You need to make this connection more clear.

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you point to a peer-reviewed research paper which claims to use specified complexity as a criteria for design?

    No, can you point to a peer-reviewed research paper which claims to have a criteria for detecting unguided evolution?

    We use SC as a criteria for detecting design because every time we observe SC and know the cause it is via an intelligent agency- always, 100%. No one has ever observed nature, operating freely, producing it. If it has been observed then SETI, archaeology, and forensic science would be fucked also.

    No but IDist's are famously vague about measuring, detecting and defining specified complexity.

    LoL! That's funny coming from a person who accepts a position that relies of being vague. IDists have made it clear what SC is and how it is measured.

    It's very hard to get a good handle on what the mathematical criteria are and to see a worked out example.

    And yet we have done so.

    Surely complexity and improbability are much different concepts.

    Surely you are wrong, again, as usual.

    Complexity, difficulty, and probability are as alike as ratios and percentages.

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No, can you point to a peer-reviewed research paper which claims to have a criteria for detecting unguided evolution?

    If you can't show a peer-reviewed paper or publication which shows your idea of design detection being used then how do you know it is used? Deflecting the question is just a way of dodging the issue.

    We use SC as a criteria for detecting design because every time we observe SC and know the cause it is via an intelligent agency- always, 100%. No one has ever observed nature, operating freely, producing it. If it has been observed then SETI, archaeology, and forensic science would be fucked also.

    Again, can you indicate a peer-reviewed publication which cites specified complexity as part of design detection?

    Additionally, can you specify a case of design detection in an organic situation that is not in contention?

    LoL! That's funny coming from a person who accepts a position that relies of being vague. IDists have made it clear what SC is and how it is measured.

    But, they are famous for not showing how to measure it in given situations. Can you do better?

    And yet we have done so.

    Tell me a documented case when specified complexity has been measured and stated.

    Complexity, difficulty, and probability are as alike as ratios and percentages.

    Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of this. To make sure your point is clear. And not just dodge the question by passing it back to me and claiming that if I knew what I was talking about I could do the work myself.

    Let's just make sure we all know what you're talking about: give us some worked out, clearly stated examples.

     
  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you can't show a peer-reviewed paper or publication which shows your idea of design detection being used then how do you know it is used?

    I gave the reasoning.

    Additionally, can you specify a case of design detection in an organic situation that is not in contention?

    Science wallows in contention. However your position doesn't even have a methodology. We do.

    But, they are famous for not showing how to measure it in given situations.

    We do better than your position does.

    Tell me a documented case when specified complexity has been measured and stated.

    Measuring CSI in Biology

    Complexity, difficulty, and probability are as alike as ratios and percentages.

    Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of this.

    It's basic stuff, Jerad. Basic.

     
  • At 2:00 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I gave the reasoning.

    Can you provide an example?

    Science wallows in contention. However your position doesn't even have a methodology. We do.

    Do you have an example of the computation of specified complexity in a biological system?

    We do better than your position does.

    Do you have an example?

    Measuring CSI in Biology

    Nowhere in your blog post do you provide a worked out example of measuring specified complexity in an organic situation. Now, at the bottom of your blog post you link to an academic paper by Hazen, etc. This is very interesting, especially since some actual calculations are done. I find the conclusion of the paper interesting, especially the first sentence:

    A complexity metric is of little utility unless its conceptual framework and predictive power result in a deeper understanding of the behavior of complex systems. Analysis of complex systems in terms of functional information reveals several characteristics that are important in understanding the behavior of systems composed of many interacting agents. Letter sequences, Avida genomes and biopolymers all display degrees of functions that are not attainable with individual agents (a single letter, machine instruction, or RNA nucleotide, respectively). In all three cases, highly functional configurations comprise only a small fraction of all possible sequences. Furthermore, these three examples reveal that several discrete classes of functional configurations exist, a situation that can lead to distinctive step features in plots of information versus function.

    The functional information formalism may also point to key factors in the origin and emergence of biocomplexity. In particular, functional information quantifies the probability that, for a particular system, a configuration with a specified degree of function will emerge. Furthermore, analysis of the relationship between information and function may reveal how much more information is required to encode a given improvement in function. The formalism also points to strategies, such as increasing the concentration and/or diversity of molecular agents, that might maximize the effectiveness of chemical experiments that attempt to replicate steps in the origin of life.


    So, it doesn't sound like the authors support your view of the usefulness of such techniques for design detection.

    Complexity, difficulty, and probability are as alike as ratios and percentages.

    It's basic stuff, Jerad. Basic.


    Give me an example then.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you provide an example?

    Artifacts, crimes, arson, forgery, plagiarism, etc.

    Do you have an example of the computation of specified complexity in a biological system?

    I provided one.

    Nowhere in your blog post do you provide a worked out example of measuring specified complexity in an organic situation.

    Of course there is. I provided a peer-reviewed paper.

    So, it doesn't sound like the authors support your view of the usefulness of such techniques for design detection.

    So what? They don't provide an alternative to explain the evidence.

    Give me an example then.

    If that is required then you do not belong in this discussion.

    But OK- the degree of difficulty of a dive, for example, correlates directly to the complexity of the dive which translates into the probability the dive will be completed as designed.

    Then there is algorithmic probability and its close relationship with Kolmogorov complexity. Also the more complex something is the smaller the probability of chance producing it. The same goes for difficulty- the more difficult something is the less likely you can slop your way through it.

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Artifacts, crimes, arson, forgery, plagiarism, etc.

    In those fields people talk about pattern matching not specified complexity. None of their published research papers include that term or exhibit any method of measuring it.

    Of course there is. I provided a peer-reviewed paper.

    In that paper three examples are worked out to some extent: sequences of letters, Avida machine commands and RNA polymers. The metric used is not the same as that proposed by Dr Dembski or the reworked version proposed by KairosFocus on Uncommon Descent so it's not clear that everyone is talking about the same thing. The term 'specified complexity' is not used in the paper.

    Also, in the paper the writers state:

    The in vitro evolution of RNA aptamers (e.g., refs. 47 and 48) provides a dramatic illustration of the evolution and selection of systems with high functional complexity. Aptamer evolution experiments begin with large populations (up to 1016 randomly generated RNA sequences), which are subjected to a selective environment, a test tube coated with a target molecule, for example. A small fraction of the random RNA population will selectively bind to the target molecules. Those RNA strands are recovered, amplified with mutations (through reverse transcription, PCR, and transcription), and the process is repeated several times.

    Which does not uphold the ID hypothesis.

    So what? They don't provide an alternative to explain the evidence.

    Which has nothing to do with the possibility of their work upholding the design paradigm. Unless you can show how their formulation can do that.

    But OK- the degree of difficulty of a dive, for example, correlates directly to the complexity of the dive which translates into the probability the dive will be completed as designed.

    The probability changes for each diver though. The probability is not a fixed or given value.

    In other cases, for example rolling a die or rates of mutation the situation is much different.

    Then there is algorithmic probability and its close relationship with Kolmogorov complexity. Also the more complex something is the smaller the probability of chance producing it. The same goes for difficulty- the more difficult something is the less likely you can slop your way through it.

    Perhaps you'd care to make these concepts more solidly formed around your assumption of design? The paper you linked to didn't do that.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In those fields people talk about pattern matching not specified complexity.

    They all contain SC and SC is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency interaction.

    Also functional sequence complexity is specified complexity. I explained all of that in the link. Are you daft?

    If you have FSC you have CSI and SC.

    Which has nothing to do with the possibility of their work upholding the design paradigm.

    There isn't any other testable explanation for the evidence.

    The probability changes for each diver though.

    Does it?

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    In those fields people talk about pattern matching not specified complexity.

    They all contain SC and SC is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency interaction.

    They don't use the term AND, in biology at least, intelligent agency is not the only explanation.

    Also functional sequence complexity is specified complexity. I explained all of that in the link. Are you daft?

    No one doing research in the fields you mentioned uses that language.

    If you have FSC you have CSI and SC.

    How do you measure FSC or CSI or SC? Can you explain to me how to measure any of those for an archaeological artefact or a possible arson location?

    There isn't any other testable explanation for the evidence.

    That is not true.

    The probability changes for each diver though.

    Does it?

    Certainly the probability of me executing a particular dive is different from someone who has won an Olympic Gold Medal in diving.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They don't use the term

    So what? SC is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation. That is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relation ships.

    AND, in biology at least, intelligent agency is not the only explanation.

    It is the only scientific explanation. Your position's "it just happened" isn't testable.

    No one doing research in the fields you mentioned uses that language.

    LoL! No black swans...

    How do you measure FSC or CSI or SC?

    Exactly as in the paper, in "No Free Lunch" and "Specification" 2005 Dembski

    Can you explain to me how to measure any of those for an archaeological artefact or a possible arson location?

    I did that years ago.

    There isn't any other testable explanation for the evidence.

    That is not true.

    Let's here another one then.

    Certainly the probability of me executing a particular dive is different from someone who has won an Olympic Gold Medal in diving.

    Certainly the probabilities do not change in Olympic diving where the same dive has the same degree of difficulty regardless of the diver.

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    They don't use the term

    So what? SC is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation. That is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relation ships.

    If they don't use the term or the idea then they don't recognise it as a valid explanation or form of analysis.

    AND, in biology at least, intelligent agency is not the only explanation.

    It is the only scientific explanation. Your position's "it just happened" isn't testable.

    Except, of course, the biological explanation has never been 'it just happened'. Meanwhile, the design camp can't say when or how or why.

    How do you measure FSC or CSI or SC?

    Exactly as in the paper, in "No Free Lunch" and "Specification" 2005 Dembski

    Which differs from KF's reworking and the measure proposed in the paper you linked to. If you're siding with Dr Dembski can you show me a worked out example of his measure.

    Can you explain to me how to measure any of those for an archaeological artefact or a possible arson location?

    I did that years ago.

    Well, if I missed those then please give me the reference.

    Certainly the probability of me executing a particular dive is different from someone who has won an Olympic Gold Medal in diving.

    Certainly the probabilities do not change in Olympic diving where the same dive has the same degree of difficulty regardless of the diver.

    Gosh, that's pretty clearly wrong isn't it? Even given the same diver they do better on some days than others. If it was all so cut and dried there'd be no need for a competition. They'd just roll some dice and award the medals.

    Just think: why do some divers or athletes win more medals? They 'beat' the odds. For some reason. Which changes the odds/probabilities for next time.

    It's not like hands in poker which are strictly governed by rules of probabilities. You've overstated your case.

    Plus, you've not exactly gone out of your way to provide worked out examples of the computation of specified information have you? You've not blitzed me with references to its use in research. If it's such a great tool then you should be able to give me lots of examples. So . . . .

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If they don't use the term or the idea then they don't recognise it as a valid explanation or form of analysis.

    The process is the same. Call SC "work" and they are OK with it. Forensic science calls it a crime- it's SC. Artifacts-> SC.

    Except, of course, the biological explanation has never been 'it just happened'.

    It always is. All you have are promissory notes. You have no idea what mutations were responsible for the evolution of the vision system- all of your mechanisms are vague.

    Meanwhile, the design camp can't say when or how or why.

    Neither can your side! And wrt the design camp all of that comes AFTER design has been determined. Your willful ignorance, while entertaining, still means nothing.

    Which differs from KF's reworking and the measure proposed in the paper you linked to. If you're siding with Dr Dembski can you show me a worked out example of his measure.

    I am not sure that you read the right paper. I linked to it again- Durston, et al. And NFL has a worked example.

    Plus, you've not exactly gone out of your way to provide worked out examples of the computation of specified information have you?

    It has been done to death. OTOH your position still has nothing. If it had something you wouldn't have to worry about SC, CSI or IC.

     
  • At 5:59 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The process is the same. Call SC "work" and they are OK with it. Forensic science calls it a crime- it's SC. Artifacts-> SC.

    'Crime' is synonymous with specified complexity? I think not. An artefact is an object NOT specified complexity. You haven't really thought this out.

    It always is. All you have are promissory notes. You have no idea what mutations were responsible for the evolution of the vision system- all of your mechanisms are vague.

    The specific steps may be unknown but the path and mechanisms are known. ID doesn't even have a path.

    Neither can your side! And wrt the design camp all of that comes AFTER design has been determined. Your willful ignorance, while entertaining, still means nothing.

    ??? Evolutionary theory has good ideas of when and how and why. You've been saying for years that design has been detected (even though you can't show me any analytic work done to that end) but still no one can say anything about when or how. But then, how do you ascribe tasks to an unknown, undetected and undefined designer?

    I am not sure that you read the right paper. I linked to it again- Durston, et al. And NFL has a worked example.

    The worked example is not about a biological system though is it? In fact, Dr Dembski even bailed on dealing with the bacterial flagellum. And you can't fail to see that there are several different definitions of measures of specified complexity. So, which one are you going to go with?

    It has been done to death. OTOH your position still has nothing. If it had something you wouldn't have to worry about SC, CSI or IC.

    Except it hasn't been done to death. I have yet to see anyone calculate the specified complexity in a strand of DNA or a bacterial flagellum. Or an archaeological artefact or a crime scene for that matter. I have yet to see anyone actually use any of the proposed measures on a daily basis for decided which things or objects have specified complexity and which don't. I don't see anyone publishing papers showing how anyone's measure of specified complexity can avoid false positives and false negatives. I don't see anyone using any of it at all. You and KF and Dr Dembski included. You fling around the formulas but you never used them.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, crimes have SC. Artifacts have SC.

    The specific steps may be unknown but the path and mechanisms are known.

    The known mechanisms are also known to be incapable of producing the diversity of life. And you don't know the path you lying sack.

    Evolutionary theory has good ideas of when and how and why

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and no one has any idea of when or why.

    You've been saying for years that design has been detected (even though you can't show me any analytic work done to that end) but still no one can say anything about when or how.

    I have been over and over that with you. Obviously you think your ignorance means something. Strange.

    But then, how do you ascribe tasks to an unknown, undetected and undefined designer?

    The same way forensic science, SETI and archaeologists do. And we have detected design which means we have detected signs of the designer.

    The worked example is not about a biological system though is it?

    Yes, they are. Read the paper.

    In fact, Dr Dembski even bailed on dealing with the bacterial flagellum

    It's in NFL.

    And you can't fail to see that there are several different definitions of measures of specified complexity

    So what? Your position has NOTHING. No theory, no hypotheses, mo model and no methodology.

    I have yet to see anyone calculate the specified complexity in a strand of DNA or a bacterial flagellum.

    Your ignorance means nothing, Jerad. I provided a peer-reviewed paper that does just that, asshole.

    OTOH no one uses unguided evolution for anything. It is useless and untestable.

    When evos are asked to lead by example they always choke- ALWAYS. Why is that?

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, crimes have SC. Artifacts have SC.

    No forensics scientist or archaeologist uses any of your computations of specified complexity nor do they use the term.

    The known mechanisms are also known to be incapable of producing the diversity of life. And you don't know the path you lying sack.

    This is simply not true. But you are parroting the ID party line well.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and no one has any idea of when or why.

    This is simply not true. You're just a merchant of doubt who ignores that which doesn't support your views.

    I have been over and over that with you. Obviously you think your ignorance means something. Strange.

    You continually show that ID cannot come up with notions of when design was implemented or how or why. You pretend that research is being done along those lines but it's never seen or heard of.

    The same way forensic science, SETI and archaeologists do. And we have detected design which means we have detected signs of the designer.

    Forensic science and archaeology work with human designers and abilities and motivations. SETI hasn't found anything to analyse yet.

    In fact, Dr Dembski even bailed on dealing with the bacterial flagellum

    It's in NFL.

    He completes the calculation he bailed on in his 2005 paper on specified complexity? Really?

    So what? Your position has NOTHING. No theory, no hypotheses, mo model and no methodology.

    Are you seriously saying it doesn't matter that there are multiple measures of specified complexity? Do you think they give the same results in all cases?

    Your ignorance means nothing, Jerad. I provided a peer-reviewed paper that does just that, asshole.

    Did you? Well be specific then: which paper or book or article computes the specified complexity of a strand of DNA or the bacterial flagellum?

    When evos are asked to lead by example they always choke- ALWAYS. Why is that?

    Too busy doing real research and publishing papers that are reviewed and criticised by others in their field. And attending conferences, talking to others doing similar work. And writing books which are reviewed by members of the public along with peers and other scientists.

    Meanwhile ID proponents are doing what exactly? Dr Dembski doesn't do any ID research anymore. Dr Behe has publshed two non-peer reviewed books about ID. Dr Wells and Dr Meyer likewise haven't done any real ID research. Dr Gauger and Dr Axe seem too interested in trying to show evolutionary theory is wrong to do any real ID research.

     
  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No forensics scientist or archaeologist uses any of your computations of specified complexity nor do they use the term.

    So what? That doesn't stop SC from being present in crimes and artifacts.

    The known mechanisms are also known to be incapable of producing the diversity of life. And you don't know the path you blah, blah.

    This is simply not true.

    It's true. Natural selection has proven to be impotent and drift is even more so.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and no one has any idea of when or why.

    This is simply not true.

    It is true. You drank the kool-aid and bought the lies. You cannot support your claims.

    You continually show that ID cannot come up with notions of when design was implemented or how or why.

    That isn't ID. That is beyond ID. Those are questions that ID forces us to ask and they prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end. But then again you seem to be ignorant of science and investigations in general.

    You pretend that research is being done along those lines but it's never seen or heard of.

    Nice projection.

    Forensic science and archaeology work with human designers and abilities and motivations. SETI hasn't found anything to analyse yet.

    Nice non-sequitur. All of those fields need to differentiate between nature, operating freely and when intelligent agency involvement was required.

    You are quite dim when it comes to science and investigations, Jerad.

    Are you seriously saying it doesn't matter that there are multiple measures of specified complexity?

    If you think that is an issue then make your case or stuff it.

    Do you think they give the same results in all cases?

    I bet each one can be used to determine if intelligent design is present or not. And I know it is more than your position has.

    Well be specific then: which paper or book or article computes the specified complexity of a strand of DNA or the bacterial flagellum?

    The Durston paper, asshole. Just as I told you.

    When evos are asked to lead by example they always choke- ALWAYS. Why is that?

    Too busy doing real research and publishing papers that are reviewed and criticised by others in their field. And attending conferences, talking to others doing similar work. And writing books which are reviewed by members of the public along with peers and other scientists.

    Too bad they aren't publishing anything that supports unguided evolution. Too bad they still don't know what makes an organism what it is. Too bad they can't think of a way to test the claims of evolutionism.

    IOW, Jerad, either you are deluded or just another pathetic LIAR.

    And no one can show evolutionary theory is wrong as no one can show us an evolutionary theory.

    You are nothing but a deluded ass, Jerad.

     
  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So what? That doesn't stop SC from being present in crimes and artifacts.

    The point is the concept is useless and unused. By anyone.

    It's true. Natural selection has proven to be impotent and drift is even more so.

    This is not true. AND you've got no proven agency to replace it.

    That isn't ID. That is beyond ID. Those are questions that ID forces us to ask and they prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end. But then again you seem to be ignorant of science and investigations in general.

    Everything seems to be beyond ID. It explains nothing. It has no hypothesis. Perhaps it really is just an excuse for Christians to try and get god into science.

    Nice projection.

    Except it's true. ID's publication record is abysmal to non-existent.

    Nice non-sequitur. All of those fields need to differentiate between nature, operating freely and when intelligent agency involvement was required.

    But they don't do that using the concept of specified complexity. And you cannot find a published paper or article or book where an archaeologist or forensic scientist uses that term.

    Are you seriously saying it doesn't matter that there are multiple measures of specified complexity?

    If you think that is an issue then make your case or stuff it.

    I don't have to. You thinking it's not an issue proves my case: that you do not really understand the mathematics.

    I bet each one can be used to determine if intelligent design is present or not. And I know it is more than your position has.

    Why don't you pick an example and show me how each of the various methods gives an indication that design is present. Pick an example and do the math.

    The Durston paper, asshole. Just as I told you.

    Alright, just to be clear, give the link so there is no ambiguity.

    Too bad they aren't publishing anything that supports unguided evolution. Too bad they still don't know what makes an organism what it is. Too bad they can't think of a way to test the claims of evolutionism.

    I'm really sorry you can't understand the 150 years of publications and research.

    And no one can show evolutionary theory is wrong as no one can show us an evolutionary theory.

    Anyone with the right data can show evolutionary theory is wrong. Darwin himself pointed out a way it could be done.

    Time for ID proponents to step up to the plate and get at least a base hit to show their ideas can scores some runs. Can you do some math to show that design detection works?

     
  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You're not going to stand on the paper by Hazen, et al then that you referenced in an earlier blog post that you linked to?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876432/

    You see to be a bit confuse as to which method and reference you want to use.

     
  • At 6:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are one ignorant ass. The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Unguided evolution's publication record is non-existent. No one can model it. No one can say what it predicts and no one uses it for anything.

    I'm really sorry you can't understand the 150 years of publications and research.

    You ate sorry if you think any of it supports unguided evolution. You are one deluded fuck, Jerad. And you cannot link to ONE paper that supports unguided evolution producing any multi-protein machinery.

    Anyone with the right data can show evolutionary theory is wrong

    LoL! No one can show evolutionism is right! It can't be tested.

    Can you do some math to show that design detection works?

    Already have. Can you do some math to show that unguided evolution works? Of course not.

    Are you seriously saying it doesn't matter that there are multiple measures of specified complexity?

    There are multiple measures of temperature you ignorant asshole. By your "logic" that means they are all flawed and useless.

    You are one ignorant ass, Jerad.

     
  • At 6:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Natural selection HAS proven to be impotent and Jerad cannot present any papers to the contrary.

    Just what does Jerad think differential reproduction due to heritable genetic accidents can do? Heck Jerad couldn't even figure out a way to test for natural selection actually doing something.

     
  • At 6:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, You are one ignorant ass. The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Hardly. And don't tell me you've done archaeology because you don't seem to know anything about it. I believe you may have volunteered on a site but that's about it.

    Unguided evolution's publication record is non-existent. No one can model it. No one can say what it predicts and no one uses it for anything.

    We know you think mutations are guided. Too bad you can't prove that. AND, besides, assuming a guiding agent is one assumption too many. Ockham's razor still applies.

    You ate sorry if you think any of it supports unguided evolution. You are one deluded fuck, Jerad. And you cannot link to ONE paper that supports unguided evolution producing any multi-protein machinery.

    It all does. You just think the mutations are guided. Which you cannot prove. So, we'll go without that assumption.

    Already have. Can you do some math to show that unguided evolution works? Of course not.

    Funny, I keep asking you for examples. What paper did you refer to which I asked about that you haven't linked too?

    There are multiple measures of temperature you ignorant asshole. By your "logic" that means they are all flawed and useless.

    Different measuring scales are hardly the same as different methodologies which measure different quantities are they? Your grasp of math and science seems quite juvenile.

    You are one ignorant ass, Jerad.

    Why don't you show some maturity and show some real computational ability and work instead of resorting to playground tactics?

    Natural selection HAS proven to be impotent and Jerad cannot present any papers to the contrary.

    Joe believes mutations are directed but can't prove that.

    Just what does Jerad think differential reproduction due to heritable genetic accidents can do? Heck Jerad couldn't even figure out a way to test for natural selection actually doing something.

    The history of life on earth is proof enough for me. Unless you can figure out how to prove mutations are directed. Or come up with some explanations as to how and when and why design was implemented.

     
  • At 7:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are one ignorant ass. The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Hardly.

    Your ignorance means nothing to me, Jerad.

    And don't tell me you've done archaeology because you don't seem to know anything about it.

    I know more about it than you do.

    We know you think mutations are guided. Too bad you can't prove that. AND, besides, assuming a guiding agent is one assumption too many. Ockham's razor still applies.

    You don't have anything, Jerad. Yours is a barren position.

    It all does

    Deluded liar.

    Different measuring scales are hardly the same as different methodologies which measure different quantities are they?

    Prove it.

    Why don't you show some maturity and show some real computational ability and work instead of resorting to playground tactics?

    LoL! All YOU can do is LIE. You are pathetic.

    Joe believes mutations are directed but can't prove that.

    Science isn't about proof and you don't have anything.

    The history of life on earth is proof enough for me.

    Yet you don't have any idea what that history actually is.

    Look, Jerad, obviously you are ignorant of science and investigations. You are also deluded and a big fat LIAR.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    And Jerad couldn't demonstrate otherwise even if his life depended on it.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, You are one ignorant ass. The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Find a book or article or paper in any of those fields that addresses specified complexity then.

    I know more about it than you do.

    This is just bluffing and intimidation.

    You don't have anything, Jerad. Yours is a barren position.

    You should really spend more time trying to defend your own position. When you fail to link to an article I've asked you about at least twice it looks cowardly when you don't give a link.

    Different measuring scales are hardly the same as different methodologies which measure different quantities are they?

    Prove it.

    Look at the different formulas for measuring specified complexity and you can see that they measure different things. If you went through an example with each one you will better be able to decide which one to back.

    LoL! All YOU can do is LIE. You are pathetic.

    So, you aren't going to even attempt to work through an example using the different measures of specified complexity? If you can't do that then you're just dependent on the author for telling you what it does. Aren't you the one that tries to think for himself? How does that work then when you can't understand the work you claim to support?

    Science isn't about proof and you don't have anything.

    Science certainly isn't just blindly supporting views because of their implications.

    Yet you don't have any idea what that history actually is.

    What part of the standard version don't you agree with then? I expect you to dodge the question as usual.

    Look, Jerad, obviously you are ignorant of science and investigations. You are also deluded and a big fat LIAR.

    Your typical response when you can't or won't deal with technical issues.

    The PROCESS for determining design is the SAME for ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

    Find a paper or article or book regarding any of those fields which refer to specified complexity.

    And Jerad couldn't demonstrate otherwise even if his life depended on it.

    Find a reference which upholds your point of view.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Find a book or article or paper in any of those fields that addresses specified complexity then.

    LoL! Keep digging. Artifacts exhibit SC. Crimes exhibit SC. SC is ID's criteria for determining design as ID is a more advanced venue than the others. However the PROCESS is the same.

    This is just bluffing and intimidation.

    That is all you are doing, dumbass. that is all you ever do.

    You should really spend more time trying to defend your own position.

    My position is very well defended- and I have done so on this blog.

    When you fail to link to an article I've asked you about at least twice it looks cowardly when you don't give a link.

    I gave the link- TWICE. YOU look stupid and cowardly not being able to grasp that fact.

    Look at the different formulas for measuring specified complexity and you can see that they measure different things.

    That is your opinion. Make a case if you can.

    Science certainly isn't just blindly supporting views because of their implications.

    Unguided evolution is blindly supported.

    What part of the standard version don't you agree with then?

    What standard version? How can it be tested? Please do tell.

    Find a paper or article or book regarding any of those fields which refer to specified complexity.

    Why is that a requirement? Or are you saying that you are too stupid to understand my explanations?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Specified complexity is a category of patterns that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    Archaeology, SETI and forensic science all do the same- they look for patterns that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    And we know they can only be explained by intelligent agency causation for the simple reason is they match what intelligent agencies are known to do and no one has a clue how any non-telic process could have done it.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! Keep digging. Artifacts exhibit SC. Crimes exhibit SC. SC is ID's criteria for determining design as ID is a more advanced venue than the others. However the PROCESS is the same.

    Strange no archaeologist or forensic scientist or SETI researcher uses the term specified complexity. I guess they have no need for it.

    I gave the link- TWICE. YOU look stupid and cowardly not being able to grasp that fact.

    The paper by Hazen, et al has three worked out examples, one of which refers to RNA polymers. But, as I pointed out when I quoted from it, the authors do not agree with your interpretation of their work. Also the paper does not refer to specified complexity.

    The Paper by Durston, et al (which I will admit to having missed previously, my bad) also does not refer to specified complexity. It does refer to functional sequence complexity which is not the same thing.

    So, I do not understand how either of those papers supports your views.

    That is your opinion. Make a case if you can.

    Are you claiming the different formulations give the same results for the same input?

    Unguided evolution is blindly supported.

    150 years of research says otherwise. Unless you want to blindly believe mutations are guided; a contention which you cannot prove.

    What standard version? How can it be tested? Please do tell.

    The standard version in textbooks. Or Wikipedia articles.

    Why is that a requirement? Or are you saying that you are too stupid to understand my explanations?

    Because if no one uses a concept they have no need for it as part of their techniques or resources. Since no forensic scientist or archaeologist or SETI researcher speaks of specified complexity they have no need for such a concept, i.e. they don't use it. You're trying to claim they do is just wishful thinking.

    Specified complexity is a category of patterns that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    Used only by ID proponents many of whom are trying to get god into science.

    Archaeology, SETI and forensic science all do the same- they look for patterns that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    They do not speak of specified complexity, do they?

    And we know they can only be explained by intelligent agency causation for the simple reason is they match what intelligent agencies are known to do and no one has a clue how any non-telic process could have done it.

    I've been on many an archaeological site where it's hard to tell a post-hole from a natural deposit and NO ONE talks about specified complexity. NO ONE. Pattern matching: yes. Specified complexity: no, never.

    YOU can't understand how non-telic processes could have created life in all its forms. That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

    It doesn't work Joe. You can't magic god into existence. You haven't even exhausted all the possible natural explanations for the simple reason that we don't even know all the natural explanations and functions yet.

     
  • At 10:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange no archaeologist or forensic scientist or SETI researcher uses the term specified complexity.

    They have their own terms. Are you really that stupid?

    The paper by Hazen,

    THE DURSTON PAPER YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASS. DURSTON.

    Grow up, asshole.

    The Paper by Durston, et al (which I will admit to having missed previously, my bad) also does not refer to specified complexity. It does refer to functional sequence complexity which is not the same thing.

    Yes, it is. Are you really that fucking stupid? If you have functional sequence complexity you have specified complexity and you have complex specified information.

    Are you claiming the different formulations give the same results for the same input?

    Yes, they all determine designed from not.

    150 years of research says otherwise.

    Bluffing idiot. 150 years of research have proven natural selection is impotent.

    The standard version in textbooks. Or Wikipedia articles.

    IT CAN'T BE TESTED. IT MIGHT AS WELL BE A FABLE.

    Because if no one uses a concept they have no need for it as part of their techniques or resources.

    OK so you are too stupid to understand my explanations.

    Since no forensic scientist or archaeologist or SETI researcher speaks of specified complexity they have no need for such a concept, i.e. they don't use it.

    They use it, they just call it something else.

    They do not speak of specified complexity, do they?

    Not required.

    YOU can't understand how non-telic processes could have created life in all its forms. That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

    NO ONE HAS THE SLIGHTEST IDEA HOW TO EVEN TEST SUCH A CLAIM. IT IS OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SCIENCE.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    They have their own terms. Are you really that stupid?

    Terms which mean something other than specified complexity.

    Yes, it is. Are you really that fucking stupid? If you have functional sequence complexity you have specified complexity and you have complex specified information.

    Not at all. Something can be functionally complex or not but that is a separate concept from specified. YOU think it means the same but it doesn't. Which is why the authors of the paper don't use the term 'specified'.

    Yes, they all determine designed from not.

    Even if they give different numeric results? How can that be?

    Bluffing idiot. 150 years of research have proven natural selection is impotent.

    Only because you choose to believe mutations are directed, something which you cannot prove and which violates the notion of Ockham's Razor.

    IT CAN'T BE TESTED. IT MIGHT AS WELL BE A FABLE.

    It's tested every day. Unless you choose to believe mutations are directed. Which cannot be proved.

    OK so you are too stupid to understand my explanations.

    And you can't show anyone in archaeology or SETI or forensics using the term specified complexity.

    They use it, they just call it something else.

    Nope. They look for patterns but they do not speak of specified complexity.

    Not required.

    The concept has no use or it would be referred to.

    NO ONE HAS THE SLIGHTEST IDEA HOW TO EVEN TEST SUCH A CLAIM. IT IS OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SCIENCE.

    Writing it all caps doesn't make it true. But it does make you look like a typical internet troll.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Terms which mean something other than specified complexity.

    That's your opinion. I know they are all synonymous.

    If you have functional sequence complexity you have specified complexity and you have complex specified information.

    Not at all. Something can be functionally complex or not but that is a separate concept from specified.

    Functionality is a specification.

    YOU think it means the same but it doesn't. Which is why the authors of the paper don't use the term 'specified'.

    Functionality is a specification. Dembski went over that in NFL.

    Yes, they all determine designed from not.

    Even if they give different numeric results? How can that be?

    For the same reason 100 degrees and 212 degrees are boiling points in different measurement schemes.

    Bluffing idiot. 150 years of research have proven natural selection is impotent.

    Only because you choose to believe mutations are directed, something which you cannot prove and which violates the notion of Ockham's Razor.

    LoL! As if that has anything to do with the fact that natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    And you can't show anyone in archaeology or SETI or forensics using the term specified complexity.

    That isn't a requirement. The METHODOLOGY is the same.

    They look for patterns but they do not speak of specified complexity.

    Specified complexity is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    The concept has no use or it would be referred to.

    Do you enjoy being a dick? Obviously you do. They use OTHER TERMS. And guess what? Those other terms and SC are all synonymous.

    Writing it all caps doesn't make it true.

    It is true and you cannot do anything but whine.

    You can't even tell us how to test the claim of natural selection producing a bacterial flagellum.

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That's your opinion. I know they are all synonymous.

    Really. You know more than the people working in the field? Amazing.

    If you have functional sequence complexity you have specified complexity and you have complex specified information.

    No, not necessarily. This is one of ID's failings: assuming that which it is trying to prove. You WANT all those things to be equivalent but they are different things and you cannot assume (as you do) that they go together.

    Functionality is a specification.

    A specification is not the same as your use of the word specified. A virus can have functionality without being designed. You are assuming that which you are trying to establish.

    Functionality is a specification. Dembski went over that in NFL.

    It is not the same as your use of the word specification. Dr Dembski wants to equate improbability with design and that's just wrong.

    For the same reason 100 degrees and 212 degrees are boiling points in different measurement schemes.

    You really don't get it do you? Think of it like one of the formulas measuring volume and another measuring surface area. They're not looking at the same thing.

    Bluffing idiot. 150 years of research have proven natural selection is impotent.

    Only because you already assume mutations are directed.

    LoL! As if that has anything to do with the fact that natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    If you stop assuming mutations were directed and considered them to be random then you'd have to consider that life arose and developed without direction. But you argue out of both sides of your mouth: one the one hand you say there isn't enough time for natural processes to work and on the other hand you say the mutations which created life forms were directed. You can't have it both ways.

    That isn't a requirement. The METHODOLOGY is the same.

    Not even close. Not that you have a methodology.

    Specified complexity is a pattern that can only be explained by intelligent agency causation.

    IF specified complexity is a pattern then why are people proposing ways of measuring it like a quantity? Dr Dembski's formula only talks about the probability of something.

    Do you enjoy being a dick? Obviously you do. They use OTHER TERMS. And guess what? Those other terms and SC are all synonymous.

    They use other terms because they don't believe in your specified complexity.

    You can't even tell us how to test the claim of natural selection producing a bacterial flagellum.

    Find an irreducible complex form. As Darwin himself said.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You know more than the people working in the field?

    Ignorant asshole.

    If you have functional sequence complexity you have specified complexity and you have complex specified information.

    No, not necessarily.

    Always.

    A virus can have functionality without being designed.

    Prove it.

    Functionality is a specification. Dembski went over that in NFL.

    It is not the same as your use of the word specification.

    Yes, it is.

    Dr Dembski wants to equate improbability with design and that's just wrong.

    He doesn't do that. You are a moron.

    You really don't get it do you?

    Nice projection.

    Only because you already assume mutations are directed.

    That doesn't have anything to do with it. Natural selection is impotent- period.

    If you stop assuming mutations were directed and considered them to be random then you'd have to consider that life arose and developed without direction.

    You can't get beyond prokaryotes you ignorant ass.

    That isn't a requirement. The METHODOLOGY is the same.

    Not even close.

    You're ignorance is not an argument.

    Not that you have a methodology.

    I posted it you fucking moron.

    IF specified complexity is a pattern then why are people proposing ways of measuring it like a quantity?

    We have. What does archaeology use? What does forensic science use?

    They use other terms because they don't believe in your specified complexity.

    Bluffing asshole.

    Find an irreducible complex form

    We have found many. However tat doesn't test unguided evolution.

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Ignorant asshole.

    I'm sorry but you are making claims about how people in certain disciplines practice their craft and yet you can't back up your interpretations with references. And then you insult me for questioning you.

    Always.

    That's where ID falls flat. It ASSUMES, doesn't prove, that improbability and complexity go with intelligence.

    Prove it.

    A virus like HIV exhibits functions because it has a predictable effect on a human being when it's introduced. You're just flailing about aren't you?

    Yes, it is.

    I know you don't understand the mathematics so it's pointless to ask you to show that the calculations work out to be the same. But it would be nice if you actually admitted that you were NOT thinking independently but just taking some things on faith.

    He doesn't do that. You are a moron.

    But he clearly does. It's evident in his formulation of his measure.

    That doesn't have anything to do with it. Natural selection is impotent- period.

    Ah but we're talking about your views. Don't change the subject.

    You can't get beyond prokaryotes you ignorant ass.

    Again, you're avoiding answering some challenges to your view. And now you'll ask me what challenges to further put off dealing with things you'd rather not address.

    I posted it you fucking moron.

    ID's methodology: look at some object, if you can't figure out how it happened then say it's designed.

    IF specified complexity is a pattern then why are people proposing ways of measuring it like a quantity?

    We have. What does archaeology use? What does forensic science use?

    You just completely missed the point. IF you can measure it then it's NOT just a pattern. It's a quality associated with an event or occurrence. You really don't get it do you?

    Bluffing asshole.

    Provide a reference where specified complexity is used in SETI or archaeology or forensics or shut up about it.



    You have yet to prove an irreducibly complex form AND for 150 years finding one has been an accepted version of disproving evolutionary theory. Unless you're Joe who thinks he can twist everything his way.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm sorry but you are making claims about how people in certain disciplines practice their craft and yet you can't back up your interpretations with references.

    So you think they flip a coin. Jerad? I know they all follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation to determine if intelligent agency involvement is a requirement.

    And again- functional sequence complexity is specified complexity. The functional sequence is the specification per Dembski. And the complexity is the same.

    A virus like HIV exhibits functions because it has a predictable effect on a human being when it's introduced.

    Unguided evolution can't explain HIV's function.

    ID's methodology: look at some object, if you can't figure out how it happened then say it's designed.

    That's your ignorant opinion. However that is far from the truth. AND if you could demonstrate unguided evolution can produce what we say is designed then you win! Yet you can't do that because you are a loser.

    Provide a reference where specified complexity is used in SETI or archaeology or forensics or shut up about it.

    I never said it was used you ignorant wanker. I said the signal SETI is looking for exhibits SC as defined by ID. I said the artifacts of archaeology also exhibit SC as defined by ID. And yes, crimes also exhibit SC as defined by ID.

    You are one blathering idiot, Jerad.

    You have yet to prove an irreducibly complex form AND for 150 years finding one has been an accepted version of disproving evolutionary theory.

    Dumbass. You need a way to TEST the claims. Finding a way to falsify them is great but the positive aspect has to come in somewhere. AND IC has been proven many times over. Basic asexual reproduction is IC.

    But then again you have no clue about biology. Darwin knew more than you do.

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski

    and

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

     
  • At 2:39 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So you think they flip a coin. Jerad? I know they all follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation to determine if intelligent agency involvement is a requirement.

    Of course they don't flip a coin. I've never heard any archaeologist mention Newton's four rules . . . have you? Can you show me a reference to that effect?

    And again- functional sequence complexity is specified complexity. The functional sequence is the specification per Dembski. And the complexity is the same.

    Nope. Just because something is functionally complex does not mean it's intelligently specified. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Dr Dembski is measuring improbability.

    A virus like HIV exhibits functions because it has a predictable effect on a human being when it's introduced.

    Which doesn't imply it was specified does it? Unless you think your mysterious designer wanted to infect millions of people with that virus.

    Unguided evolution can't explain HIV's function.

    Just keep repeating things like that to yourself in case you start to doubt ID.

    That's your ignorant opinion. However that is far from the truth. AND if you could demonstrate unguided evolution can produce what we say is designed then you win! Yet you can't do that because you are a loser.

    Well, you can't demonstrate any analytic, mathematical way of analysing a pattern or an object. You can't apply Dr Dembski's (or KF's) measure in a given example.

    I never said it was used you ignorant wanker. I said the signal SETI is looking for exhibits SC as defined by ID. I said the artifacts of archaeology also exhibit SC as defined by ID. And yes, crimes also exhibit SC as defined by ID.

    You did say they use it. It's not my fault you aren't careful about what you type.

    Dumbass. You need a way to TEST the claims. Finding a way to falsify them is great but the positive aspect has to come in somewhere. AND IC has been proven many times over. Basic asexual reproduction is IC.

    Too bad only a few ID proponents think irreducible complexity has been established. And how was that tested Joe? Can you explain how Dr Behe 'tested' his claim?

    But then again you have no clue about biology. Darwin knew more than you do.

    Darwin did, and he and 150 years of biologists disagree with you.

    Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski

    Except they aren't 'best' explained as the result of intelligence since that explanation requires assuming there's an agent which hasn't been proven to exist. Dr Dempski is assuming that which he is trying to prove.

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

    Dr Dempski (not trained in biological science) saying something in a non-peer reviewed book does not make it true. You want to believe him so you think he has proved something. Read the reviews of No Free Lunch to see if biologists agree.

    Following the data means following ALL the data and the arguments and analysis. You read a few books that support your view and thinks it's all done and dusted. Even Dr Dempski has given up on Intelligent Design recently. He teaches theology now. And he was too scared to show up at the Kitzmiller trial.

     
  • At 6:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've never heard any archaeologist mention Newton's four rules . . . have you?

    They don't have to, those rules are part of science.

    Just because something is functionally complex does not mean it's intelligently specified.

    You are one fucking dumbass as that has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing.

    FSC - SC = CSI. Period. And we say that = ID for the many reasons provided.

    I see you also choked on HIV. It's as if you are incapable of following along.

    Unguided evolution can't explain HIV's function.

    Just keep repeating things like that to yourself in case you start to doubt ID.

    Why would I doubt ID - there isn't any viable alternatives. Also what I said is a fact.

    Well, you can't demonstrate any analytic, mathematical way of analysing a pattern or an object. You can't apply Dr Dembski's (or KF's) measure in a given example.


    We can and we have. You are just an ignorant asshole.

    You did say they use it. It's not my fault you aren't careful about what you type.

    Evidence please.

    Too bad only a few ID proponents think irreducible complexity has been established.

    Too bad you are an ignorant fuck. Why is it that evos have been trying to show that unguided evolution can produce IC if it doesn't exist?

    Darwin did, and he and 150 years of biologists disagree with you.

    LoL! Darwin was ignorant about molecular biology and not one biologist who disagrees with me can refute what I say. You lose, again.

    Except they aren't 'best' explained as the result of intelligence since that explanation requires assuming there's an agent which hasn't been proven to exist

    Yes, Jerad, we know that you are ignorant of science. Proof is not a requirement of science, Jerad. If it was then your position would be out. The evidence for ID has been presented. You choked on it and you have nothing that can explain it.

    Dr Dempski (not trained in biological science) saying something in a non-peer reviewed book does not make it true

    Actually it does as he was explaining ID and how it relates to biology.

    Also your position doesn't have any support in peer-review.

    Following the data means following ALL the data and the arguments and analysis

    I know and I know you are incapable of doing that. You are an ignorant ass who doesn't understand science nor how to conduct an investigation.

    You are a bluffing liar and nothing else.

     
  • At 6:31 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    FSC - SC = CSI. Period. And we say that = ID for the many reasons provided.

    Too bad you can only find ID proponents that agree with all that.

    Why would I doubt ID - there isn't any viable alternatives. Also what I said is a fact.

    If it ain't got god it ain't no good eh?

    Well, you can't demonstrate any analytic, mathematical way of analysing a pattern or an object. You can't apply Dr Dembski's (or KF's) measure in a given example.

    We can and we have. You are just an ignorant asshole.

    I said YOU can't. Which means you have no choice but to blindly believe what Dr Dembski says. Too bad his work is considered pretty ridiculous by other mathematicians.

    Too bad you are an ignorant fuck. Why is it that evos have been trying to show that unguided evolution can produce IC if it doesn't exist?

    They aren't trying to show something is irreducibly complex!! hahahahahahahahahahahahah

    LoL! Darwin was ignorant about molecular biology and not one biologist who disagrees with me can refute what I say. You lose, again.

    Pay attention: Darwin proposed a way of falsifying evolutionary theory and so far no one has been able to do that.

    Yes, Jerad, we know that you are ignorant of science. Proof is not a requirement of science, Jerad. If it was then your position would be out. The evidence for ID has been presented. You choked on it and you have nothing that can explain it.

    You are assuming there is an agent capable of implementing design when no such agent has been found. You cannot magic a non-existent designer into existence. You first have to establish such a designer exists.

    Actually it does as he was explaining ID and how it relates to biology.

    Yeah, and mathematicians and biologists say he got it wrong. You chose to believe him even though you can't do the math he proposes. So . . . how do you know he got it right?

    I know and I know you are incapable of doing that. You are an ignorant ass who doesn't understand science nor how to conduct an investigation.

    And you do eh? So . . . why is it that thousands, maybe millions of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you?

    Show me that you can at least calculate the amount of specified complexity in an item by using Dr Dembski's formulation.

     
  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Too bad you can only find ID proponents that agree with all that.

    Too bad you can't find anything to refute ID. Too bad your position has nothing.

    If it ain't got god it ain't no good eh?

    ID doesn't require god, asshole.

    I said YOU can't

    I say you are a little impish pussy. And I can support my claim.

    They aren't trying to show something is irreducibly complex

    They already know it is. They are trying to show that unguided processes can produce it. And they have failed.

    Darwin proposed a way of falsifying evolutionary theory and so far no one has been able to do that.

    It has been done. Also Darwin needed a way to TEST his claims. He failed.

    You are assuming there is an agent capable of implementing design when no such agent has been found.

    It's called science you ignorant asshole. As I said you could step up and refute ID but you don't even know where to start. Yours doesn't have any testable entailments.

    Yeah, and mathematicians and biologists say he got it wrong.

    How can Dembski get the description of ID as it pertains to biology, wrong?

    You are one retraded fuck.

    BTW not one of your mathematicians and biologists has anything to refute ID. They are a bunch of lying losers just like you.

    And you do eh?

    Yes, I do.

    So . . . why is it that thousands, maybe millions of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you?

    Bluffing asshole.

    Show me that you can at least calculate the amount of specified complexity in an item by using Dr Dembski's formulation

    Show me you can find support for unguided evolution.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Out of all of your alleged mathematicians and biologists not one can refute ID nor produce anything that supports unguided evolution.

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Too bad you can't find anything to refute ID. Too bad your position has nothing.

    It's still true that very, very, very few scientists or mathematicians agree with ID. Very few.

    ID doesn't require god, asshole.

    Just an unnamed, undetected, undefined ghost designer.

    I say you are a little impish pussy. And I can support my claim.

    Let's see you compute Dr Dembski's measure for an example.

    They already know it is. They are trying to show that unguided processes can produce it. And they have failed.

    Reference? To the 'they already know it is' part.

    It has been done. Also Darwin needed a way to TEST his claims. He failed.

    He proposed a hypothesis. Lots of people disagreed with him at first but over the last century and a half the data has continued to support his idea.

    It's called science you ignorant asshole. As I said you could step up and refute ID but you don't even know where to start. Yours doesn't have any testable entailments.

    You are still assuming some unknown, undetected and undefined ghost designer.

    How can Dembski get the description of ID as it pertains to biology, wrong?

    Because of the way he thinks biology works. And his failed attempt to define a mathematical detection procedure. Which no one uses. And you haven't shown you can use it either.

    Yes, I do.

    Show me you can compute Dr Dembski's measure for an example then.

    Bluffing asshole.

    I was just pointing out that very, very, very few scientists or mathematicians agree with you. How is that a bluff?

    Show me that you can at least calculate the amount of specified complexity in an item by using Dr Dembski's formulation

    Show me you can find support for unguided evolution.

    Shall I take that dodge as an admission you can't use Dr Dembski's measure?

    Out of all of your alleged mathematicians and biologists not one can refute ID nor produce anything that supports unguided evolution.

    Too bad you're convinced mutations are guided by some unknown, undetected and undiscovered ghost designer and/or some non-existent extra-programming. Lots of assumptions. You fail Ockham's razor.

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.

    Considering you don't understand the mathematics of the research that is published I"m not surprised you say that.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    t's still true that very, very, very few scientists or mathematicians agree with ID. Very few.

    So what? The people who disagree with ID have nothing else to offer.

    Just an unnamed, undetected, undefined ghost designer.

    It has been detected.

    Let's see you compute Dr Dembski's measure for an example.

    Let's see you find support for unguided evolution.

    Reference? To the 'they already know it is' part.

    It's called science.

    He proposed a hypothesis. Lots of people disagreed with him at first but over the last century and a half the data has continued to support his idea.

    Nope. He proposed an idea. He didn't say how to test it. And over the last century natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    Because of the way he thinks biology works.

    So you have nothing but your bluffs. Got it.

    Too bad you're convinced mutations are guided by some unknown, undetected and undiscovered ghost designer and/or some non-existent extra-programming.

    Too bad unguided evolution cannot be tested, nor modeled. Too bad it doesn't bear any predictions and is totally useless.

    Considering you don't understand the mathematics of the research that is published I"m not surprised you say that.

    And more cowardly bluffing.

    You are a pathetic loser, Jerad.

    Out of all of your alleged mathematicians and biologists not one can refute ID nor produce anything that supports unguided evolution.

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.


    You have nothing but your ignorance and your bluffs.

     
  • At 2:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So what? The people who disagree with ID have nothing else to offer.

    Unlike ID of course which has some ghost designer which no one can say anything about, not when the designer implemented design nor how nor why. In fact, ID proponents can't even agree what exactly was designed.

    It has been detected.

    You THINK you've detected something designed which is not the same thing.

    Let's see you find support for unguided evolution.

    Okay, so you can't compute Dr Dembski's measure for an example. That's settled then.

    Nope. He proposed an idea. He didn't say how to test it. And over the last century natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    Funny that you think a negative has been proved.

    So you have nothing but your bluffs. Got it.

    And this from the guy who can't even use Dr Dembski's measure for complex specified information.

    Too bad unguided evolution cannot be tested, nor modeled. Too bad it doesn't bear any predictions and is totally useless.

    I tell you what, even if you can't use Dr Dembski's metric can you find someone else who does know how to use it?

    And more cowardly bluffing.

    But you don't know how to use the mathematics. That's pretty clear.

    Out of all of your alleged mathematicians and biologists not one can refute ID nor produce anything that supports unguided evolution.

    Found someone who uses Dr Dembski's metric yet?

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.

    Except evolutionary biologists of course. And there are more of them then the 900 or so people who signed the dissent from Darwinism petition sponsored by the Discovery Institute.

    You have nothing but your ignorance and your bluffs.

    Let's see if you can find someone, anyone who uses Dr Dembski's metric.

     
  • At 6:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unlike ID of course which has some ghost designer which no one can say anything about, not when the designer implemented design nor how nor why.

    Unguided evolution has some ghost process that no one can say anything about, not when the ghost process did something nor why.

    In fact, ID proponents can't even agree what exactly was designed.

    In fact evos don't have a clue as to how to test their claims.

    You THINK you've detected something designed which is not the same thing.

    And archaeologists think they found artifacts. Forensic scientists think they have uncovered crimes. No one can refute our claim and no one has a viable alternative.

    Okay, so you can't compute Dr Dembski's measure for an example

    OK so you are nothing but a bluffing liar and a coward. That's settled then.

    Funny that you think a negative has been proved.

    Funny that you are a cowardly loser who can't make a case and can only spew false accusations.

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.

    Except evolutionary biologists of course.

    Bluffing moron. Too bad you can't support what you say.

    Let's see if you can find someone, anyone who uses Dr Dembski's metric

    Your position doesn't even have a metric. And all you can do is bluff and lie like the coward you are.

     
  • At 6:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID is alive and well because Jerad's lame-ass position has nothing- no metrics, no hypotheses, no entailments, no support other than lying losers and it's of no use to anyone.

     
  • At 6:44 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Unguided evolution has some ghost process that no one can say anything about, not when the ghost process did something nor why.

    As I thought, you still can't say anything about your mysterious designer. Dr Dembski thinks it's God. Dr Behe thinks it's God. Dr Meyer thinks it's God. Casey Luskin thinks it's God. What do you think?

    In fact evos don't have a clue as to how to test their claims.

    And you don't dispute that ID proponents can't even agree what was designed and when. Doesn't that bother you since you think ID is science, that nobody even knows what was designed and when?

    And archaeologists think they found artifacts. Forensic scientists think they have uncovered crimes. No one can refute our claim and no one has a viable alternative.

    The archaeologists' finds and the forensics scientists' get tested by their peers and sometimes in courts. As I recall ID is pretty roundly dismissed by the biologists and it was deemed by at least one court to be a smokescreen for religious beliefs.

    OK so you are nothing but a bluffing liar and a coward. That's settled then.

    Have you found someone who can compute Dr Dembski's metric since you can't?

    Funny that you are a cowardly loser who can't make a case and can only spew false accusations.

    I'm not the one who said natural processes have proven to be inadequate. I'm not the one who claimed to have proved a negative.

    Not one can present the entailments of unguided evolution. Not one can produce any predictions borne from unguided evolution. And not one uses unguided evolution to guide their research.

    Strange how many journals are devoted to evolutionary research then isn't it? Of course you think it's all goobly-gook and lies. Too bad you can't follow the mathematics in most of them eh?

    Bluffing moron. Too bad you can't support what you say.

    Too bad you can't even understand, let alone do the math, in stuff you profess to believe in. There's no way you can even judge if Dr Dembski had a clue what he was talking about. You just have to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    Your position doesn't even have a metric. And all you can do is bluff and lie like the coward you are.

    I guess you can't find anyone who uses Dr Dembski's metric then. I thought as much but it's nice to have it confirmed.

    ID is alive and well because Jerad's lame-ass position has nothing- no metrics, no hypotheses, no entailments, no support other than lying losers and it's of no use to anyone.

    Hmm . . . Dr Meyer doesn't do any real research. Dr Dembski now teaches theology. Dr Berlinski doesn't do any real research. Dr Wells doesn't do any real research. Dr Behe does real chemistry research and has many peer-reviewed publications but none of those are about ID. Dr Spetner doesn't do any real research anymore and never did any biological research before he retired. Dr Sewell is a mathematician who doesn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and doesn't do any ID research. Dr Gauger and Dr Axe are too busy trying to prove the natural processes can't cut it (and they are routinely criticised for their misinterpreting other people's research) and they don't do any real ID research.

    And no ID proponents anyway will venture to say when design was implemented or how or why.

    If I missed someone who is doing ID research please let me know.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I thought, Jerad is too stupid or too cowardly to support unguided evolution.

    ID's finds are tested in labs and are always confirmed. Unguided evolution can't be tested. No one knows where to start.

    Natural selection has been proven to be impotent. That has nothing to do with proving a negative. Your desperation is showing, again.

    Jerad reverts to equivocation like the coward he is- not one article supports UNGUIDED evolution you cowardly loser. Not one biologist can support it and there isn't any math that supports it either. You are a liar and a coward.

    No one is doing any unguided evolution research. No one.

    And AGAIN, ID is about the DESIGN. The who, how, when all come AFTER design is detected. Once again Jerad proves that he is an ignorant coward.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    As I thought, Jerad is too stupid or too cowardly to support unguided evolution.

    What can I add to the mountains of books and research papers already published? Besides, you think mutations are directed (an unfalsifiable position) so it doesn't matter what I say.

    ID's finds are tested in labs and are always confirmed. Unguided evolution can't be tested. No one knows where to start.

    Tell me an ID find that's been tested in a lab and published.

    Natural selection has been proven to be impotent. That has nothing to do with proving a negative. Your desperation is showing, again.

    Sorry, you can't prove something didn't go down a certain way.

    Jerad reverts to equivocation like the coward he is- not one article supports UNGUIDED evolution you cowardly loser. Not one biologist can support it and there isn't any math that supports it either. You are a liar and a coward.

    Too bad you can't show things were guided eh? Can't find that extra programming. Can't say when design was implemented. Where's your hidden, ghostly designer eh? Mutating Ebola so it kills more people?

    No one is doing any unguided evolution research. No one.

    Joe thinks mutations are 'guided' so he claims all the evolutionary research is not about unguided evolution. And he can't say when design was implemented. Or how. Even though he says design has been detected.

    And AGAIN, ID is about the DESIGN. The who, how, when all come AFTER design is detected. Once again Jerad proves that he is an ignorant coward.

    And you've told me over and over and over again that design has been detected yet no one has lifted a finger to do more.

    And we're established that NO ONE is using Dr Dembski's metric I guess. So that's truly a dead duck. Great, we don't have to discuss it anymore then. KF doesn't use his metric either so that's also a goner.

    And I haven't heard about any real ID research so . . . gee, ID ain't doing much is it?

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    You told me design was already detected so what's your point? Where's the follow-on research?

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...

    With no follow on research to show. Funny that. It's almost like no one cares 'cause they don't want to be accused of just saying 'God did it'.

    ID has been around for 20 years or so and what has it got to show? A few non-peer reviewed books? A pathetically few research papers? Hardly a lively and active field of inquiry. Meanwhile the Discovery Institute worries more about changing teaching laws instead of funding work. Maybe they know it would be a waste of time. They'll just get their loyal followers to buy their books and keep the offices open. Ride that true believer gravy train.

     
  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What can I add to the mountains of books and research papers already published?

    You are a bluffing coward and a liar.

    Tell us an unguided evolution find that's been tested in a lab and published.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent is a FACT, Jerad. It is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations.

    Jerad is so stupid and desperate he thinks evolutionary research pertains to unguided evolution. Yet no one can model unguided evolution! And even scientists say it is useless!!!

    Unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Evolutionary biologists can't even answer the most simple question in biology- What makes an organism what it is?

    Not only that the paper waiting for two mutations shoots their claims to hell- there isn't enough time in the universe for unguided evolution to produce the diversity of life. That is what peer-review says.

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...


    And it is looking really good, too.

     
  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You are a bluffing coward and a liar.

    It is true that mountains of papers and books have been published about unguided evolution. You think mutations are guided (without proof) and so you claim there is no support.

    Tell us an unguided evolution find that's been tested in a lab and published.

    Dr Lenski's work. And you will claim (without proof) that the mutations were guided or that the results weren't what he said. But it was an experiment, done in a lab and published.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent is a FACT, Jerad. It is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations.

    Yup, that's a good summary. And the life forms that can out-compete their fellows leave more offspring and their alleles increase in the gene pool.

    Jerad is so stupid and desperate he thinks evolutionary research pertains to unguided evolution. Yet no one can model unguided evolution! And even scientists say it is useless!!!

    Really. Who says that then?

    Unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes.

    In your ill-informed opinion. Too bad millions of biologists disagree with you.

    Evolutionary biologists can't even answer the most simple question in biology- What makes an organism what it is?

    And you can answer that? Go ahead, make my day and answer that from an ID perspective.

    Not only that the paper waiting for two mutations shoots their claims to hell- there isn't enough time in the universe for unguided evolution to produce the diversity of life. That is what peer-review says.

    Which peer-reviewed paper says that?

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    Unless you a) jumped the gun, b) have an agenda, c) don't understand the biological research, d) are a merchant of doubt.

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...

    And it is looking really good, too.


    And where is the research about when design was implemented? And how?

    Gosh . . . I can't find anything about that. I wonder why that it?

    At least we cleared up the issue about Dr Dembski's measure of complexity. We now agree no one uses it for anything. Told you.

    And we know you can't compute it for a given example. How you can even come close to understanding a book by Dr Spetner I'll never understand.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Oh, by the way, you punted on providing details of any ID lab research that had been published. Just trying to keep track of all the answers you haven't addressed. It's hard to keep track of so much stuff!!

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is true that mountains of papers and books have been published about unguided evolution.

    It's true that you are a liar and a bluffing asshole. You claim mutations are unguided (without proof) so you just spew your ignorance.

    Dr Lenski's work

    How does that support unguided evolution? Be specific of stuff it.

    Yup, that's a good summary. And the life forms that can out-compete their fellows leave more offspring and their alleles increase in the gene pool.

    It doesn't do anything else but that and that makes it impotent. Duh. Also the forms that out compete can be just about anything that isn't fatal.

    Really. Who says that then?

    Dr Skell, for one. And no one can say that unguided evolution is useful.

    Unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes.

    In your ill-informed opinion.

    LoL! IT'S A FACT YOU IGNORANT WORM.

    Too bad millions of biologists disagree with you.

    No, they don't. Not one biologist can posit a mechanism and a way to test prokaryotes evolving into something other than prokaryotes. Grow up you big fucking baby.

    Evolutionary biologists can't even answer the most simple question in biology- What makes an organism what it is?

    And you can answer that?

    LoL! Your biologists have everything and they can't do anything with it.

    Thanks for proving evolutionary biology is useless and untestable.

    Which peer-reviewed paper says that?

    WAITING FOR TWO MUTATIONS- Geez, asshole, we went over this before. It's as if you are proud to be a willfully ignorant crybaby.

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    Unless you a) jumped the gun, b) have an agenda, c) don't understand the biological research, d) are a merchant of doubt.

    No one jumped the gun, your position is a failure, you have an agenda, you don't understand the research and you are a merchant of doubt.

    Heck you don't even understand science.

    And where is the research about when design was implemented?

    What does that have to do with ID?

    Where is the research into unguided evolution? There isn't any.

    At least we cleared up the issue about Dr Dembski's measure of complexity.

    Yes, we are clear that you are an ignorant crybaby who doesn't understand science, and shits himself when asked to support his position.

    As for unanswered questions- unguided evolution and evolutionists have too many to list.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Looks like you haven't yet come up with any ID lab work that has been published. So we've settled that as well I guess. No one used Dr Dembski's metric and no ID lab work has been published. We're going to run out of stuff to talk about soon.

    It's true that you are a liar and a bluffing asshole. You claim mutations are unguided (without proof) so you just spew your ignorance.

    Unguided is the simplest explanation (with the fewest assumed agents or causes) so it is preferred and the default aside from the fact that no agent or guide has been found.

    How does that support unguided evolution? Be specific of stuff it.

    It shows two dependent beneficial mutations can arise in a fairly short period of time. But since you think mutations are guided I guess you think the designer is just fucking with Dr Lenski and making him think he's on to something.

    It doesn't do anything else but that and that makes it impotent. Duh. Also the forms that out compete can be just about anything that isn't fatal.

    If allele frequencies change in the gene pool then you will see slow morphological changes and eventually speciation.

    Dr Skell, for one. And no one can say that unguided evolution is useful.

    It explains the fossil record, the genomic record, the morphological record and the bio-geographic distribution of species.

    Unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and we gave you starting populations of prokaryotes.

    More mutations lead to more changes.

    LoL! IT'S A FACT YOU IGNORANT WORM.

    Temper, temper.

    No, they don't. Not one biologist can posit a mechanism and a way to test prokaryotes evolving into something other than prokaryotes. Grow up you big fucking baby.

    The fossil record and the genomic record and the morphological record and the bio-geographical record say otherwise. Can you interpret those records in a meaningful, explanatory way that includes times and hows?

    LoL! Your biologists have everything and they can't do anything with it.

    So far ID has come up with nothing except: we see design.

    WAITING FOR TWO MUTATIONS- Geez, asshole, we went over this before. It's as if you are proud to be a willfully ignorant crybaby.

    Ah, the paper by Durrett and Schmidt? Aren't they explaining why Dr Behe got it wrong? Tell me what passage in their paper you are referring to.

    No one jumped the gun, your position is a failure, you have an agenda, you don't understand the research and you are a merchant of doubt.

    Well, until ID comes up with something other than: this stuff looks designed I think I'll stick with the mountains of books and research produced by evolutionary investigation.

    What does that have to do with ID?

    If ID can't explain anything then it's useless. At least saying when design was implemented is a start.

    Yes, we are clear that you are an ignorant crybaby who doesn't understand science, and shits himself when asked to support his position.

    My position has plenty of support that's easy to find. I'm not in the habit of reinventing the wheel.

    It's not my fault you think your argument is with me. Your real argument is with thousands and thousands of working biologists and 150 years of research and publications. And you can't even prove any of your basic contentions: that mutations are guided, that some unspecified stuff is designed, when design was implemented, how design was implemented. You're just a big pile of nothing really. No publications, no books, no research, no lab results, no explanations. No thing. And you say you know how science works? You certainly hide it well.

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Looks like you can't come up with any unguided evolutionary work that has been published. No one uses it and it doesn't even have any metrics.

    Unguided evolution can't be modeled so it isn't an explanation. Explanations need to be tested and unguided evolution cannot be tested.

    It shows two dependent beneficial mutations can arise in a fairly short period of time.

    LoL! THAT does NOT support unguided evolution.

    f allele frequencies change in the gene pool then you will see slow morphological changes and eventually speciation.

    Not necessarily.

    It explains the fossil record, the genomic record, the morphological record and the bio-geographic distribution of species.

    Liar or deluded. If unguided evolution can't get beyond prokaryotes, and it cannot, then it cannot explain the fossil record.

    So far ID has come up with nothing except: we see design.

    That is more than you have.

    Ah, the paper by Durrett and Schmidt? Aren't they explaining why Dr Behe got it wrong? Tell me what passage in their paper you are referring to.

    The entire paper demonstrates there isn't enough time for unguided evolution if it requires more than two specific mutations. and only a childish moron would think any ole mutations can bring about specific changes.

    Well, until ID comes up with something other than: this stuff looks designed I think I'll stick with the mountains of books and research produced by evolutionary investigation.

    Yes, we understand that you are an ignorant wanker. Too bad you are a deluded loser as there isn't any research that supports unguided evolution.

    If ID can't explain anything then it's useless.

    Unguided evolution can't explain anything beyond disease and deformities. ID explains the DESIGN.

    My position has plenty of support that's easy to find.

    Liar. Too bad you can't find any.

    Your real argument is with thousands and thousands of working biologists and 150 years of research and publications.

    Bluffing asshole. Those working biologists don't have any answers, Jerad. You are a deluded loser.

    And you can't even prove any of your basic contentions: that mutations are guided, that some unspecified stuff is designed,

    Science is NOT about p[roving things, Jerad. And your position has nothing and yet you stand by it because you are nothing but an ignorant and blind follower.

    No publications, no books, no research, no lab results, no explanations. No thing.

    That describes unguided evolution. Nice own goal.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Looks like you can't come up with any unguided evolutionary work that has been published. No one uses it and it doesn't even have any metrics.

    I've got an idea: you pick a published work on evolutionary theory that is publicly accessible and point out what exactly you think is incorrect.

    Unguided evolution can't be modeled so it isn't an explanation. Explanations need to be tested and unguided evolution cannot be tested.

    There are mathematical models which are easy to look up. And all new data and experiments 'test' the theory.

    LoL! THAT does NOT support unguided evolution.

    Show me specifically in Dr Lenski's work which part does not support unguided evolution.

    Not necessarily.

    Well, what else would they specify?

    Liar or deluded. If unguided evolution can't get beyond prokaryotes, and it cannot, then it cannot explain the fossil record.

    I'm sorry . . . what part of the fossil record or the genomic record or the morphological record or the bio-geographic record is not explained by modern evolutionary theory?

    That is more than you have.

    Give me something that ID can explain better than evolutionary theory.

    The entire paper demonstrates there isn't enough time for unguided evolution if it requires more than two specific mutations. and only a childish moron would think any ole mutations can bring about specific changes.

    Except that it doesn't. Did you bother to read the authors' refutation of Dr Behe's comment? Are you really following all the data or just picking and choosing?

    Yes, we understand that you are an ignorant wanker. Too bad you are a deluded loser as there isn't any research that supports unguided evolution.

    Pick a published evolutionary research paper and point out the mistakes.

    Unguided evolution can't explain anything beyond disease and deformities. ID explains the DESIGN.

    Evolutionary theory explains the existing hind-leg bones in whales. What is the ID explanation of those? What is the ID explanation for mens' nipples? What is the ID explanation for the giraffe's laryngeal nerve's journey?

    Bluffing asshole. Those working biologists don't have any answers, Jerad. You are a deluded loser.

    Apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

    Science is NOT about p[roving things, Jerad. And your position has nothing and yet you stand by it because you are nothing but an ignorant and blind follower.

    Joe, you can't understand or even mimic the mathematics in the works you claim to support your view. This makes you a blind faith-head. You can prove me wrong by working out Dr Dembski's metric for a given example. Something you have run away from like a frightened child.

    That describes unguided evolution. Nice own goal.

    Where's that list of ID lab based, published research Joe? Your Discovery Institute buddies are letting you down. They're getting you to buy their books and they're producing jack-shit for original work. How does it feel to be subsidising Casey Luskin's new Prius?

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've got an idea: you pick a published work on evolutionary theory that is publicly accessible and point out what exactly you think is incorrect.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory.

    There are mathematical models which are easy to look up. And all new data and experiments 'test' the theory.

    Nope, not for unguided evolution.

    Show me specifically in Dr Lenski's work which part does not support unguided evolution.

    Show me specifically in Dr Lenski's work which part does support unguided evolution. Loser.

    Well, what else would they specify?

    It doesn't specify anything.

    what part of the fossil record or the genomic record or the morphological record or the bio-geographic record is not explained by modern evolutionary theory?

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and unguided evolution can't explain any part of the fossil record and it can't explain any genomes.

    The entire paper demonstrates there isn't enough time for unguided evolution if it requires more than two specific mutations. and only a childish moron would think any ole mutations can bring about specific changes.

    Except that it doesn't.

    Yes, it does. Obviously you didn't read it or couldn't understand it.

    Did you bother to read the authors' refutation of Dr Behe's comment?

    What does it matter? They already gave away the store.

    Are you really following all the data or just picking and choosing?

    Nice projection.

    Pick a published evolutionary research paper and point out the mistakes.

    Pick a published evolutionary research paper and point out how it supports unguided evolution, loser.

    Evolutionary theory explains the existing hind-leg bones in whales.

    LoL! There aren't any hind legs in whales and unguided evolution can't explain whales. And there isn't any evolutionary theory, asshole.

    What is the ID explanation for the giraffe's laryngeal nerve's journey?

    It innervates along the way, duh.

    Apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

    LoL! Biologists can't support their claims so I have reading comprehension issues! Jerad the faggot coward strikes again.

    Joe, you can't understand or even mimic the mathematics in the works you claim to support your view

    That is your ignorant opinion, Jerad. Just because I refuse to play your childish games really doesn't mean anything you ignorant fuck.

    To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...



     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory.

    Okay, so you can't find a mistake in a paper about evolution of your choosing.

    Nope, not for unguided evolution.

    Okay, so you can't understand the mathematics presented in papers about evolution

    Show me specifically in Dr Lenski's work which part does support unguided evolution. Loser.

    Okay, so you can't point out a mistake in Dr Lenski's work.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and unguided evolution can't explain any part of the fossil record and it can't explain any genomes.

    Show me how ID explains the fossil record, the genomic record, the morphological record and the bio-geographical record.

    Yes, it does. Obviously you didn't read it or couldn't understand it.

    Well, point out to me where in the paper it says there isn't enough time then.

    What does it matter? They already gave away the store.

    Show me where in the paper it says there isn't enough time.

    Nice projection.

    Okay, so you are picking and choosing what data to follow.

    Pick a published evolutionary research paper and point out how it supports unguided evolution, loser.

    We already established that you can't find a mistake in a evolutionary research paper but thanks for the confirmation.

    LoL! There aren't any hind legs in whales and unguided evolution can't explain whales. And there isn't any evolutionary theory, asshole.

    I didn't say hind legs. I said hind legs bones. But I guess ID can't explain those.

    It innervates along the way, duh.

    Really. It handles organs other than the larynx?

    LoL! Biologists can't support their claims so I have reading comprehension issues! Jerad the faggot coward strikes again.

    You have this fascination with faggots. Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

    That is your ignorant opinion, Jerad. Just because I refuse to play your childish games really doesn't mean anything you ignorant fuck.

    Well, you can prove me wrong and compute Dr Dembski's metric for a given example.

    Yet here we are, at the design inference...

    And nothing to show for it. No explanations, no insights, no theory, not even a hypothesis. You do know that even Dr Johnson admits that ID has no theory aren't you?

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK so Jerad is just a bluffing liar and asshole. Typical.

    The paper "Waiting for two mutations" said it would take 25 million years to get two specific mutations in a fruit fly. With humans that equates to over 100 million years.

    We already established that you can't find a mistake in a evolutionary research paper but thanks for the confirmation.

    We have already established that there aren't any papers that deal with unguided evolution.

    I didn't say hind legs. I said hind legs bones.

    Your position can't account for bones. It cannot account for whales. It cannot account for anything but disease and deformities.

    You have this fascination with faggots.

    Nope, I just point out the obvious.

    But OK- there isn't any evolutionary theory, Jerad lies. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution, Jerad is a lying bluffer. And there isn't any math that supports unguided evolution, Jerad is a pussy liar and cowardly punk.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    OK so Jerad is just a bluffing liar and asshole. Typical.

    At least we've established that you haven't been able to find any mistakes in any evolutionary research.

    The paper "Waiting for two mutations" said it would take 25 million years to get two specific mutations in a fruit fly. With humans that equates to over 100 million years.

    Uh huh, in a single individual. Read their response to Dr Behe.

    http://www.genetics.org/content/181/2/821.full

    We have already established that there aren't any papers that deal with unguided evolution.

    Then you should have been able to find a mistake! But you couldn't.

    Your position can't account for bones. It cannot account for whales. It cannot account for anything but disease and deformities.

    So you're punting on the whale's hind leg bones. Okay, we got that sorted then.

    But OK- there isn't any evolutionary theory, Jerad lies. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution, Jerad is a lying bluffer. And there isn't any math that supports unguided evolution, Jerad is a pussy liar and cowardly punk.

    Okay, not only have we established that you can't compute Dr Dembski's metric, that you can't find a mistake in any evolutionary paper, we've also proven that you only read the abstract of Durrett and Schmidt's paper and you certainly didn't bother to read their response to Dr Behe's comments. Along with not being able to hold up any lab based ID research or publications. And it looks like ID can't really explain the fossil record, the morphological record, the genomic record or the bio-geographic record. It can't even explain the hind leg bones of the whale.

    Is that how science is done Joe? You say: gee, that looks designed and then sit on your ass producing nothing? Kind of lame isn't it? Especially when you can't even interpret other people's work?

     
  • At 8:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    At least we've established that you haven't been able to find any mistakes in any evolutionary research.

    No mistakes just nothing that supports unguided evolution.

    So you're punting on the whale's hind leg bones

    Whales don't have hind leg bones. You are a deluded jerk.

    Okay, not only have we established that you can't compute Dr Dembski's metric

    How was that established? Please be specific.

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    e've also proven that you only read the abstract of Durrett and Schmidt's paper

    You didn't prove that. Obviously you are an asshole piece of shit.

    Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record, Jerad. It can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Unguided evolution is worse that nothing. It is an obstruction.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No mistakes just nothing that supports unguided evolution.

    Find the mistakes then. Point out something that is wrong in a research paper.

    Whales don't have hind leg bones. You are a deluded jerk.

    Ok, so you don't know whale anatomy. Got it.

    How was that established? Please be specific.

    Prove me wrong. Compute Dr Dembski's metric for an example.

    You didn't prove that. Obviously you are an asshole piece of shit.

    Your comment was lifted straight out of the abstract without the understanding that would come from reading the paper.

    Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record, Jerad. It can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Find a mistake in the research to show that it is wrong then.

    Unguided evolution is worse that nothing. It is an obstruction.

    Find a mistake in some published research then.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Find the mistakes then. Point out something that is wrong in a research paper.

    No mistakes just nothing that supports unguided evolution.

    Ok, so you don't know whale anatomy.

    No asshole, YOU don't understand whale anatomy. Flipper bones are NOT leg bones.

    Prove me wrong.

    You aren't even wrong. Also YOU are the alleged mathematician so YOU should be able to use it. Yet you can't.

    Your comment was lifted straight out of the abstract without the understanding that would come from reading the paper.

    The paper didn't change anything. Obviously you are dim. Also Behe has been vindicated in peer-review.

    Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record, Jerad. It can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Find a mistake in the research to show that it is wrong then.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes and I will.

    Find a mistake in some published research then.

    Find some published papers that support unguided evolution or shut up.

     
  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No mistakes just nothing that supports unguided evolution.

    Pick a research paper and show me what statement in it is incorrect. So far you've failed to do so.

    No asshole, YOU don't understand whale anatomy. Flipper bones are NOT leg bones.

    You don't understand the fossil evidence do you? The progression of fossils clearly shows the bones are remnants of legs.

    You aren't even wrong. Also YOU are the alleged mathematician so YOU should be able to use it. Yet you can't.

    I can use it. Pick an example. We'll both do the calculation and then compare answers. That's fair.

    The paper didn't change anything. Obviously you are dim. Also Behe has been vindicated in peer-review.

    Dr Behe has NOT been vindicated in his rebuttal to that paper. As the authors clearly pointed out in their response to his response. He got it wrong. Find a mistake in the authors' paper or follow-on statement.

    Unguided evolution cannot explain the fossil record, Jerad. It can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Show me a mistake in a published research paper and then we'll talk.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes and I will.

    Find a mistake in a published research paper.

    Find some published papers that support unguided evolution or shut up.

    Find a mistake in a published paper or admit you can't. Your call.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Just to make sure we're clear . . .

    Find a mistake in a published research paper purporting to support unguided evolution

    AND

    Provide a biological example for which we will both compute Dr Dembski's metric and then compare answers.

    Anything else is just ducking and dodging. Clearly.

     
  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pick a research paper and show me what statement in it is incorrect.

    What does that even mean? Show us one that supports unguided evolution.

    You don't understand the fossil evidence do you?

    No, you don't.

    The progression of fossils clearly shows the bones are remnants of legs.

    Only in imagination-land.

    Pick an example.

    ATP synthase.

    Dr Behe has NOT been vindicated in his rebuttal to that paper.

    Dumbass- other researchers have vindicated him- even Larry Moran.

    Behe had also continued his destruction of Durrett and Schmidt, too

    Show me a mistake in a published research paper and then we'll talk

    You can't find one to talk about. I asked you for one and you have failed because you are a bluffing loser.

    Find a mistake in a published research paper purporting to support unguided evolution

    I cannot find any to discuss. There aren't any papers purported to support unguided evolution.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    Anything else is ducking and dodging...

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What does that even mean? Show us one that supports unguided evolution.

    You pick a paper that claims to support unguided evolution and find a mistake. You pick one.

    Only in imagination-land.

    Well find a mistake in a paper discussing the hind limb bones in whales.

    ATP synthase.

    Umm . . . are you sure that's measurable by Dr Dembski's metric? Are you paying attention here? The question was: can you compute Dr Dembski's metric for a suitable example and I said pick an example and we'll both do the computation and compare answers. Are you sure you want to use ATP synthase?

    Dumbass- other researchers have vindicated him- even Larry Moran.

    Not according to Dr Moran. Try again.

    Behe had also continued his destruction of Durrett and Schmidt, too

    Really. Strange he's not more widely supported then isn't it?

    You can't find one to talk about. I asked you for one and you have failed because you are a bluffing loser.

    You pick a paper. I'm giving you the chance to prove your point and even letting you pick the case.

    I cannot find any to discuss. There aren't any papers purported to support unguided evolution.

    That's a fail then Joe. There are thousands of papers purporting to support unguided evolution. You can't even find one.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    It's not my fault you can't do a publication search.

    Anything else is ducking and dodging

    Show me you can compute Dr Dembski's metric. It it to be ATP synthase?

    Show me you can find a mistake in an evolutionary research paper that purports to support unguided evolution. (Hint: they all do purport that so it's not hard to find one.) I'm giving you the chance to snipe at the weakest calf in the herd. So far you've just bailed. Maybe it's time to put up or shut up.

     
  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You pick a paper that claims to support unguided evolution and find a mistake

    I can't find any that say they support unguided evolution.

    Well find a mistake in a paper discussing the hind limb bones in whales.

    Not one demonstrates it was a leg bone.

    Not according to Dr Moran.

    His numbers were the same as Behe's.

    There are thousands of papers purporting to support unguided evolution.

    That is your opinion. Find one and we will see.

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    Anything else is ducking and dodging...


    Behe corrects Moran and supports his claim

     
  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ATP synthase- I get an answer that is greater than 1 using Dembski's metric in his 2005 paper on Specification.

    χ = –log2 [10^120 · ϕS(T)·P(T|H)]

     
  • At 2:07 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I can't find any that say they support unguided evolution.

    If you can't show me a mistake then I guess there aren't any.

    Not one demonstrates it was a leg bone.

    Fossil evidence says it.

    His numbers were the same as Behe's.

    His interpretation is not the same.

    That is your opinion. Find one and we will see.

    You are making a claim counter to the accepted paradigm. It's up to you to uphold your claim. Or not. Doesn't matter to me. But if you can't then you're just a blowhard.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    The fossil record, the genomic record, the bio-geographic record, the morphological record and all the work done interpreting those.

    I guess you can't point out an error. So that's a wrap then.

    Behe corrects Moran and supports his claim

    Too bad very, very few people think so. You just believe Dr Behe is correct so you discount anyone who says otherwise. That's called having a bias. That's NOT doing science.

    ATP synthase- I get an answer that is greater than 1 using Dembski's metric in his 2005 paper on Specification.

    Really. Well, I'll get going on that when I have a chance. What's your T then?

     
  • At 6:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you can't show me a mistake then I guess there aren't any.


    Jerad admits there aren't any papers that support unguided evolution.

    Fossil evidence says it.

    That is your opinion.

    You are making a claim counter to the accepted paradigm.

    The accepted paradigm doesn't have anything.

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    The fossil record, the genomic record, the bio-geographic record, the morphological record and all the work done interpreting those.

    Lying bitch.

    Too bad very, very few people think so.

    Evidence and data matter, asshole. And Behe has that. Obviously what Behe said went right over your little head.

    ATP synthase- I get an answer that is greater than 1 using Dembski's metric in his 2005 paper on Specification.

    Really. Well, I'll get going on that when I have a chance. What's your T then?

    T is the structure, duh.

     
  • At 6:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Produce the research that allegedly demonstrates unguided evolution can get beyond prokaryotes

    Anything else is ducking and dodging...


    Everything else gets sent to spam, Jerad. So this is good-bye...

     
  • At 6:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Okay, first let me say that evaluating Dr Dembski's metric given some values of phi-s(T) and P(T|H) is not hard. Find/estimating values for phi-s(T) and P(T|H) is difficult and probably explains why Dr Dembski himself does not exhibit using his own formulation.

    I'll start with p(T|H) the probability of pattern T (in this case the structure of the enzyme ATP synthase) appearing given H defined by Dr Dembski as "the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms."

    Clearly p(T|H) is not equal to zero since ATP synthase exists (and we are assuming a naturalistic pathway for the purposes of calculating p(T|H) as stated by Dr Dembski). I don't think anyone would say that p(T|H) = 1 so the value is somewhere in between. According to the Wikipedia article on ATP synthase it's thought to have evolved from similar structures and quite a long time ago. The fact that there seems to have been precursor sub-units drives p(T|H) closer to 1 but how far . . .

    The earth is about 4.5 billion years old or 4.5 x 10^9. That's about 1.6 x 10^12 days or 39 x 10^16 hours or about 2.4 x 10^15 minutes or 1.4 x 10^17 seconds. But remember, under H we are assuming purely undirected, natural processes. And we had some building blocks to start with (we're not trying to find the probability of the whole chain building up to ATP synthase, just the occurrence of that T). Since it took less than all the seconds that the Earth has existed for ATP synthase to have occurred then and allowing for at least one chemical reworking per second then p(T|H) > 1 in 1.4 x 10^17. Or p(T|H) > 7 x 19^-18

    Does this make sense? I'm not sure. That's pretty damn small. I'm happy to square that result if you like.

    Let p(T|H) > 5 x 10^-35

    That's really damn small.

     
  • At 6:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Now phi-s(T) is something else altogether. Dr Dembski defines it as:

    "the number of patterns for which S’s semiotic description of them is at least as simple as S’s semiotic description of T."

    So, how can we describe the ATP synthase molecule? How many molecules does it have? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Some of the molecules are used more than once. How many different kinds of molecules are used? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? IF there were 1,000,000 different molecules used in 1,000,000 places then it would only take 1,000,000^2 or 10^12 different bits of description to specify the configuration. So there would be about that many 'patterns' matching the criteria?

    Shall we use phi-s(T) = 10^12? It's an over estimate for sure. But if we're counting patterns then the lowest value we could pick would be zero. phi-s(T) is not going to be zero. So, something between zero and 10^12 then.

    Put it all together:

    10^120 x 5 x 10^-35 x 10^12 = 5 x 10^97

    minus the log base 2 of that is about -135.

    Now, if you're getting something different then show me your numbers and your calculations.

     
  • At 6:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Clearly p(T|H) is not equal to zero since ATP synthase exists

    That doesn't follow. My house clearly exists yet its p(T|H) is 0.

    The fact that there seems to have been precursor sub-units drives p(T|H) closer to 1 but how far . . .

    That doesn't follow either. You are confused.

    You can't even come up with a testable hypothesis for H. You don't have any entailments.

    H = 0, and that is fair given the total lack of anything for unguided evolution. You don't even know where to start.

     
  • At 6:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad refuses to present any papers that support unguided evolution. Jerad refuses to present any papers that support unguided evolution producing eukaryotes. Jerad has proven he doesn't know anything but to be belligerent in the face of reality.

    Your bluffs have been called, Jerad, and you have choked.

     
  • At 6:55 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That doesn't follow. My house clearly exists yet its p(T|H) is 0.

    I knew you didn't understand the mathematics. Thank you for just proving it.

    Plug in p(T|H) in Dr Dembski's formula and what do you get?

    That doesn't follow either. You are confused.

    Nope, I'm operating under H which is the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

    You can't even come up with a testable hypothesis for H. You don't have any entailments.

    You clearly don't understand what Dr Dembski was getting at do you?

    H = 0, and that is fair given the total lack of anything for unguided evolution. You don't even know where to start.

    I was right. You don't get it. H is not a number.

     
  • At 6:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    If you think p(T|H) = 0 then you are assuming what you're trying to prove, that something could not have happened.

    You really don't get the math do you?

     
  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad refuses to present any papers that support unguided evolution. Jerad refuses to present any papers that support unguided evolution producing eukaryotes. Jerad has proven he doesn't know anything but to be belligerent in the face of reality.

    They're not hard to find Joe. You pick one, anyone you like, and find a mistake. Go on.

    Your bluffs have been called, Jerad, and you have choked.

    You haven't found a mistake have you Joe? You've got 150 years of research on evolutionary theory to pick from and you can't pick one paper and point out mistake.

    And you're doing pretty badly on Dr Dembski's metric as well. H = 0. What a joke. Better stop digging before the hole collapses on top of you. Can't you even read what Dr Dembski wrote about H?

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Jerad, p(T|H) = 0 = 0 for the reasons provided. No assumptions required.

    You don't get it. H is not a number.

    What is it then? The chance hypothesis doesn't exist so what could H be besides 0?

    You can't even come up with a testable hypothesis for H. You don't have any entailments.

    H = 0, and that is fair given the total lack of anything for unguided evolution. You don't even know where to start.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    150 years of alleged research and not one paper supports unguided evolution.

    No hypotheses, no research, no use, no metric, nothing.

    150 years of pure bullshit and Jerad is proud of it.

     
  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nope, I'm operating under H which is the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

    Except you don't have an appropriate naturalistic hypothesis. So tat would be a problem, duh.

     
  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! Jerad, p(T|H) = 0 = 0 for the reasons provided. No assumptions required.

    Plug 0 into Dr Dembski's metric and what do you get? Go on, do the math . . . what do you get?

    What is it then? The chance hypothesis doesn't exist so what could H be besides 0?

    Dr Dembski defined it, read his paper.

    H = 0, and that is fair given the total lack of anything for unguided evolution. You don't even know where to start.

    When you can find a mistake in some research establishing non-guided evolution then you might have something. But you can't, you refuse to even try. Now why is that eh? You talk and you talk and you talk but you cannot find a mistake. What does that tell you? That you don't understand the science (or the math) and you blindly follow what some people tell you.

    H = 0 therefore p(T|H) = 0. You are just way too funny. H is not a number. It's an assumption. It doesn't even have to be true. You really, really don't get Dr Dembski's paper at all. You do not understand the mathematics.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Nope, I'm operating under H which is the appropriate naturalistic hypothesis.

    Except you don't have an appropriate naturalistic hypothesis. So tat would be a problem, duh.

    Oh good, now we've established that not only don't you understand the mathematics but you disagree with Dr Dembski who put H into his formula!!

    Go on Mr high IQ, what do you get when you put p(T|H) = 0 into Dr Dembski's formula. Go on . . . what do you get?

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh good, now we've established that not only don't you understand the mathematics but you disagree with Dr Dembski who put H into his formula!!

    What an asshole you are. H exists for some examples, I am sure. It does not exist for ATP synthase and that is just a fact.

    Plug 0 into Dr Dembski's metric and what do you get?

    Undefined, which in this case would mean > 1.

    When you can find a mistake in some research establishing non-guided evolution then you might have something.


    BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    When you FIND some research establishing unguided evolution YOU will have something.

    You are obviously too stupid to get it, Jerad. You are a deluded and cowardly bluffer. You don't have any hypotheses, Jerad. Your H is missing in action, dumbass.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    H is the chance hypothesis in Dembski's formula. That alone does not mean there has to be a chance hypothesis. If one doesn't exist that is the way it is and it gets a zero. If something else comes up in the future we will revisit it at that time. And if chance gets a zero then design gets a 1 (or greater).

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What an asshole you are. H exists for some examples, I am sure. It does not exist for ATP synthase and that is just a fact.

    Strange that Dr Dembski didn't qualify his formulation then. He just says use the appropriate one.

    Undefined, which in this case would mean > 1.

    Correct, you get positive infinity. Which is not a real number. How can that be a measure of complexity?

    BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    When you FIND some research establishing unguided evolution YOU will have something.


    If none of the research supports unguided evolution then there must be mistakes. But you can't find one.

    You are obviously too stupid to get it, Jerad. You are a deluded and cowardly bluffer. You don't have any hypotheses, Jerad. Your H is missing in action, dumbass.

    Find a mistake Joe. Show me some research that is wrong and tell me why it's wrong.

    H is the chance hypothesis in Dembski's formula. That alone does not mean there has to be a chance hypothesis. If one doesn't exist that is the way it is and it gets a zero. If something else comes up in the future we will revisit it at that time. And if chance gets a zero then design gets a 1 (or greater).

    Dr Dembski doesn't say that if there isn't a change hypothesis then it becomes zero does he though? You just made that up.

    And, again, H is not a number so can't be = 0. p(T|H) is a probability, saying it's = 0 is saying T can't happen. But the formula is checking to see how plausible it is that T happened by chance or natural processes. If you decide the probability is zero then your are not testing it, you are deciding that it can't exist. KF does the same stupid thing because he doesn't understand the mathematics either.

    In effect you didn't compute Dr Dembski's metric; you just decided ATP synthase couldn't occur through natural processes and punted. You didn't even try to come up with an argument. You never even discussed phi-s(T). You certainly didn't show you could compute a p(T|H).

    I stand by my statement: you don't understand the mathematics behind Dr Dembski's metric AND you cannot compute it for an example. And you think you don't have to because you've already decided some stuff was designed even though you can't prove it or your contention that mutations were guided. You bury your head in the sand regarding any evidence you disagree with, you can't answer questions about your own ideas, you do no research, you don't read other people's research and you;re abusive and foul-mouthed when people disagree with you.

    Is that the way science is done?

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange that Dr Dembski didn't qualify his formulation then.

    He shouldn't have to.

    He just says use the appropriate one.

    What happens when there isn't one?

    If none of the research supports unguided evolution then there must be mistakes.

    That doesn't follow. Try again.

    Dr Dembski doesn't say that if there isn't a change hypothesis then it becomes zero does he though?

    He shouldn't have to as it is obvious.

    n effect you didn't compute Dr Dembski's metric; you just decided ATP synthase couldn't occur through natural processes and punted.

    That is your ignorant opinion. No one can produce a testable hypotheses for ATP synthase arising via blind and undirected processes, Jerad. You lose.

    You certainly didn't show you could compute a p(T|H).

    And yet I did. YOU certainly can't come up with H so you lose.

    I stand by my statement:

    You are a proven liar, loser, coward and bluffer. No one cares about your ignorant statement.

    And your projections are duly noted. You have no idea what science is nor how it proceeds.

     
  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    He shouldn't have to.

    Of course he has to qualify and be specific!! Unless he wants people just making shit up when they think H = 0.

    What happens when there isn't one?

    You really don't get it do you? He's saying to the non-ID crowd: under your materialistic assumption/hypothesis figure out p(H|T).

    That doesn't follow. Try again.

    Why don't you prove your point and find a mistake in a paper espousing unguided evolution instead of pretending there aren't any.

    He shouldn't have to as it is obvious.

    No, it is not obvious. H is not a number so it can't be 0. You can't say the probability of T occurring under an appropriate materialistic model is 0 because you don't believe there is a materialistic model. There would be no point of coming up with the formula then!! Stop trying to duck out of showing you can do the mathematics involved. And stop assuming what you are trying to prove. Your avoidance is obvious and childish. And if you don't believe me try writing it up and sending it to a peer-reviewed journal.

    That is your ignorant opinion. No one can produce a testable hypotheses for ATP synthase arising via blind and undirected processes, Jerad. You lose.

    That is not my ignorant opinion. Dr Dembskil clearly thought an argument need to be made GIVEN a materialistic hypothesis why some things should still be considered to be designed; i.e. that they fell outside of the hypothesis. You, in your non-understanding ignorance, don't even see the point of the formula (which you can't compute) so you just brush it all under the carpet and say: it's all shit, there isn't even a hypothesis, Dr Dembski wasted his time 'cause the evoTards got nothing.

    You think a guy on your side, with a PhD in mathematics didn't know what he was doing because he developed a formula which accounted for a materialistic hypothesis which you say doesn't exist. When are you IDers going to figure out what you believe in?

    And yet I did. YOU certainly can't come up with H so you lose.

    Nope, you didn't. You didn't use what Dr Dembski stated needed to be used: the appropriate deterministic hypothesis. You just said: it's shit so it's zero and you get +infinity which is bigger than 1.

    You are a proven liar, loser, coward and bluffer. No one cares about your ignorant statement.

    Uh huh.

    And your projections are duly noted. You have no idea what science is nor how it proceeds.

    This from a guy who can't do some simple mathematics, has no publications, disagrees with Dr Behe and Dr Dembski, doesn't read research papers (except for the abstracts) AND is abusive to those he disagrees with. Some scientist you are.

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He's saying to the non-ID crowd: under your materialistic assumption/hypothesis figure out p(H|T).

    There isn't such a hypothesis. You have never posited one and neither has anyone else. Obviously you have issues and should seek help.

    Why don't you prove your point and find a mistake in a paper espousing unguided evolution instead of pretending there aren't any.

    I can't find a paper that espouses unguided evolution. Neither can you.

    You can't say the probability of T occurring under an appropriate materialistic model is 0 because you don't believe there is a materialistic model.

    It has nothing to do with what I believe, asshole.

    Dr Dembskil clearly thought an argument need to be made GIVEN a materialistic hypothesis why some things should still be considered to be designed; i.e. that they fell outside of the hypothesis.

    No one can provide such a hypothesis. So GIVEN that no one can provide such a hypothesis a zero is fair and deserved.

    If you read the paper Dembski even says that such a hypothesis doesn't exist.

    You didn't use what Dr Dembski stated needed to be used: the appropriate deterministic hypothesis.

    I cannot use what does not exist, dumbass.

    Stop blaming me for the total failure of you and yours to support your position.

     
  • At 1:20 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't such a hypothesis. You have never posited one and neither has anyone else. Obviously you have issues and should seek help.

    Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his formula? Why didn't he just say: they've got nothing so p(T|H) = 0? Why didn't he just say that then?

    I can't find a paper that espouses unguided evolution. Neither can you.

    Right, so you can't do a basic literature search. Got it.

    It has nothing to do with what I believe, asshole.

    You cannot get out of the trench your beliefs have dug.

    No one can provide such a hypothesis. So GIVEN that no one can provide such a hypothesis a zero is fair and deserved.

    Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his formula? Why did he spend so much time discussing it?

    If you read the paper Dembski even says that such a hypothesis doesn't exist.

    They why develop the formula at all?

    I cannot use what does not exist, dumbass.

    Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his paper?

    Stop blaming me for the total failure of you and yours to support your position.

    I'm trying to figure out why you disagree with Dr Dembski. You both support ID but clearly you don't agree.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then why did Dr Dembski put it in his formula?

    In the eventuality someone grows a pair and actually antes up.

    Right, so you can't do a basic literature search.

    I did. I am asking for your help and you cannot provide any.

    You cannot get out of the trench your beliefs have dug.

    You cannot pull your head out of your ass. I was an evolutionist and I know evolutionism is bullshit.

    Why develop the formula? For one to expose unguided evolution for what it is-> total vacuous bullshit. And thanks to lugs like you it has succeeded.

    This has all been discussed already: The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

    More importantly the point of this OP stands- ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI all follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. And to try to refute the design inference in any of those venues one also follows those same rules. Newton, Occam, parsimony-> science.

    Jerad is upset because to reach the design inference means we have eliminated his lame-ass and indefensible position.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    In the eventuality someone grows a pair and actually antes up.

    Uh huh. Dr Dembski is going to put his reputation on the line creating a formula that is bullshit but might be usefull sometime.

    I did. I am asking for your help and you cannot provide any.

    Part of the point here is that you CAN'T find research material without help. Thanks for helping to prove the point.

    You cannot pull your head out of your ass. I was an evolutionist and I know evolutionism is bullshit.

    You were and always have been a blind follower.

    Why develop the formula? For one to expose unguided evolution for what it is-> total vacuous bullshit. And thanks to lugs like you it has succeeded.

    Spend pages and pages discussing what p(T|H) means and then just to say: it's all shit and you 'Tards got nothing? Really? You are such a child.

    This has all been discussed already: The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room

    Is that you CANNOT compute p(T|H) for an example.

    More importantly the point of this OP stands- ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI all follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. And to try to refute the design inference in any of those venues one also follows those same rules. Newton, Occam, parsimony-> science.

    And NONE of those disciplines talk about complex, specified information. Go figure.

    Jerad is upset because to reach the design inference means we have eliminated his lame-ass and indefensible position.

    I'm not upset at all. I find it very amusing that you cannot compute Dr Dembski's metric, that you cannot do a basic literature search, that you and Dr Dembski disagree, that you and Dr Behe disagree, that ID proponents can't agree on what they believe, that there is no central ID hypothesis, that your mathematical abilities are severely limited, that you think H is a number, that you are scared to address phi-s(T) (go on, say something that isn't just: this is shit, go on).

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Your point, in the end, is always: you guys ain't got shit so I don't have to do anything. And that's not true.

    Even if the established paradigm IS shit (which it isn't) that doesn't mean you just get to sit on your ass spouting abuse on your shitty little blog and expect people to come around to your point of view.

    You have provide no hypothesis except: some shit looks designed. You have no publications. You ID guys can't even agree on what you believe. You can't say when design was implemented. You can't say how design was implemented.

    All you think you've got is: you other guys are wrong because that's the way it looks to us.

    That's not science. No research. No ongoing work. No explanatory power. Just a mysterious and undefined, unexplained, undetected ghost of a designer who can't be bothered to make themselves known. Great.

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your point, in the end, is always: you guys ain't got shit so I don't have to do anything.

    That's your ignorant opinion. And your ignorance is your problem.

    You have provide no hypothesis except: some shit looks designed.

    Liar.

    No research. No ongoing work. No explanatory power.

    That sums up unguided evolution. Thank you.

     
  • At 3:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Dembski is going to put his reputation on the line creating a formula that is bullshit but might be usefull sometime.

    What an ignorant conclusion.

    Part of the point here is that you CAN'T find research material without help.

    I can't find what doesn't exist. That is my point and thanks for supporting it.

    You were and always have been a blind follower.

    Nice projection. You are and always have been a bluffing coward.

    Spend pages and pages discussing what p(T|H) means and then just to say: it's all shit and you 'Tards got nothing?

    You are an asshole. One discusses what it means because Newton's four rules demands it, dumbass. And it is shit because of YOU and your ilk, idiot.

    More importantly the point of this OP stands- ID, archaeology, forensic science and SETI all follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. And to try to refute the design inference in any of those venues one also follows those same rules. Newton, Occam, parsimony-> science.

    And NONE of those disciplines talk about complex, specified information.

    Not required and explained. Talk about being a child.

    I'm not upset at all.

    Your posts betray you. And your posts also prove that you are a deluded and demented loser. You can't make a case but like the child that you are you spew many bullshit accusations.

    And trying to blame me for your position's failures is a sure sign of a cowardly loser.

    We are still waiting on your hypotheses, Jerad. ID's have been presented and discussed.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That's your ignorant opinion. And your ignorance is your problem.

    Except that's all you've provided: some stuff looks designed so fuck you.

    Liar.

    Show me the ID research regarding when and how design was implemented. Show me the ID journals which are publishing the ID research. Show me the work that is going on into ID. Go on . . . show me.

    What an ignorant conclusion.

    Except that's what you said: Dr Dembski published his paper addressing H IN CASE someone come up with one. You really think Dr Dembski is going to publish that kind of school boy taunt? Really?

    I can't find what doesn't exist. That is my point and thanks for supporting it.

    Pick any paper regarding evolutionary theory Joe. Any one. How hard is that? You can't do it. More importantly you know you cannot find fault with any published paper about evolutionary theory. If you could then I"m sure you would have done. But you haven't. After weeks and weeks and weeks.

    You are an asshole. One discusses what it means because Newton's four rules demands it, dumbass. And it is shit because of YOU and your ilk, idiot.

    You clearly are not even close to addressing the issues discussed in Dr Dembski's paper. You can't compute his metric, you don't understand it AND you think he was just fucking with the evoTards.

    Not required and explained. Talk about being a child.

    Again, your ignorance is showing. You chose to think that anything not explicitly stated supports your point of view.

    Your posts betray you. And your posts also prove that you are a deluded and demented loser. You can't make a case but like the child that you are you spew many bullshit accusations.

    At least I can discuss mathematically Dr Dembski's metric. Which you can't. I've got 150 years of research and publications behind my position. I do not verbally abuse my detractors.

    We are still waiting on your hypotheses, Jerad. ID's have been presented and discussed.

    Joe's position: I don't get what you all are saying so I say it's shit. And I am so bias that I cannot even begin to accept any data or research which contradicts my previously decided upon viewpoint. And I will verbally abuse those of you who disagree with me whilst I continue to be inable to compute some basic mathematical metrics proposed by fellow ID supporters who I actually disagree with.

    AND you cannot find any mistakes in any research paper discussing unguided evolution. And that is a fact. You pretend that there isn't any such papers but guess what . . . you can't even pick one just to prove it wrong. You lose. Big time. You cannot sustain your position. You cannot find an error.

     
  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except that's all you've provided: some stuff looks designed so fuck you.

    Liar

    Show me the ID research regarding when and how design was implemented.

    That isn't part of ID, asshole.

    Except that's what you said:

    No. that is your childish take.

    Pick any paper regarding evolutionary theory Joe.

    Nice back-peddle. Please reference this evolutionary theory, Jerad. EVOLUTION is NOT being debated and evidence for evolution is not automatically evidence for unguided evolution, asshole.

    Grow up.

    You clearly are not even close to addressing the issues discussed in Dr Dembski's paper.

    I have and you aren't anyone to say otherwise.

    Again, your ignorance is showing.

    The ignorance is all yours, asshole.

    You chose to think that anything not explicitly stated supports your point of view.

    Again that has already been covered. It is a FACT that all of those fields follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. It is a FACT that to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate nature is up to the task- ask your wife. I have references that archaeologists do that to refute the claims of other archaeologists. Court cases turn due to the defence showing nature did it.

    YOU are a fucking clueless fuck, Jerad.

    At least I can discuss mathematically Dr Dembski's metric.

    LoL! Anyone can discuss it. YOU can't produce any chance hypotheses and that is what counts.

    've got 150 years of research and publications behind my position.

    Nice bluff. We all know that you think there is such research and support for unguided evolution but the truth is unguided evolution has nothing. Natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    You have failed to produce any papers that demonstrate unguided evolution can produce eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.

    You are a loser.

    Jerad's position: Lie like a little bitch about your opponents because that is all you can do.

    AND you cannot find any mistakes in any research paper discussing unguided evolution.

    AND you cannot find any research paper discussing unguided evolution. That is a FACT.

    I have supported ID. Anyone can search my blog and discuss the actual evidence. You never do though. I know why.

     
  • At 7:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I do not verbally abuse my detractors.

    All evidence to the contrary, of course.

     
  • At 2:52 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    That isn't part of ID, asshole.

    That's right it isn't because there isn't any ID research. None you can point to anyway.

    Nice back-peddle. Please reference this evolutionary theory, Jerad. EVOLUTION is NOT being debated and evidence for evolution is not automatically evidence for unguided evolution, asshole.

    When I and others have done so you've just denied it. Deny, deny, deny, never give an inch. That's the plan isn't it Joe?

    I have and you aren't anyone to say otherwise.

    No you haven't. YOU mistakenly decided that H = 0 (when H isn't a number at all) and thought that makes p(T|H) = 0 (which doesn't fallow) and then figured that Dr Dembski was just taunting evoTards with his paper because he too knows it's all BS.

    Again that has already been covered. It is a FACT that all of those fields follow Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. It is a FACT that to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate nature is up to the task- ask your wife. I have references that archaeologists do that to refute the claims of other archaeologists. Court cases turn due to the defence showing nature did it.

    I have asked her. She thinks you're a moron.

    LoL! Anyone can discuss it. YOU can't produce any chance hypotheses and that is what counts.

    You can't understand the hypothesis that have been presented in numerous papers and books.

    Nice bluff. We all know that you think there is such research and support for unguided evolution but the truth is unguided evolution has nothing. Natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    Uh huh

    You have failed to produce any papers that demonstrate unguided evolution can produce eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.

    Are you sure they aren't any? You seem pretty incapable of searching for research. And then understanding it when it's been shown to you.

    AND you cannot find any research paper discussing unguided evolution. That is a FACT.

    Start with these:

    http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4083

    http://www.uni-ulm.de/uploads/media/Stemmer_DNA_shuffling.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04012.x/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00486096

    http://www.pnas.org/content/91/22/10747.short

    http://jb.asm.org/content/182/11/2993.short

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/191/4227/528.short

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/232/4753/980.short

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917

    Some of those papers talk about environmentally directed evolutionary models.

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4083

    FAIL

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    http://www.uni-ulm.de/uploads/media/Stemmer_DNA_shuffling.pdf

    Nope- how did you determine DNA shuffling is a blind and undirected chemical process?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04012.x/full

    Great- support for Shapiro and Spetner- not support for unguided evolution

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00486096

    0 for 4!

    Jerad, you are one pathetic asshole.

    Still waiting on the alleged theory of evolution.

     
  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOU mistakenly decided that H = 0 (when H isn't a number at all)

    YOU are too stupid to understand my explanation. You are a reject.

    then figured that Dr Dembski was just taunting evoTards with his paper because he too knows it's all BS.

    No, Jerad, THAT is your twisted take. And that is all it is.

    I have asked her. She thinks you're a moron.

    And yet she cannot say where I am wrong. She probably looks at chicken livers to decide if something is an artifact or not.

    You can't understand the hypothesis that have been presented in numerous papers and books.

    Lying bitch

    Are you sure they aren't any? You seem pretty incapable of searching for research. And then understanding it when it's been shown to you

    Lying bitch

    And obviously you are nothing but a lying and equivocating bitch.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Starting from the bottom:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917

    Nope- that doesn't help you. You are one fucked up asshole, Jerad.

    How is unguided evolution directing any of this research, Jerad?

    What are the hypothesis wrt unguided evolution?

    Why are you just another cowardly bluffing asswipe?

     
  • At 4:30 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    FAIL

    Why? Where is there a mistake?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Why can't you carry on a conversation about the data instead of being abusive and dodging questions?

    Nope- how did you determine DNA shuffling is a blind and undirected chemical process?

    Because there is no, zero, not a jot of evidence that it is directed. Just because you read a couple of books that make that claim doesn't make it so. There is research addressing it if you could be bothered to track it down and read it. But you won't because you don't actually follow all the data. You've already made up your mind.

    Great- support for Shapiro and Spetner- not support for unguided evolution

    Where does it say that?

    Still waiting on the alleged theory of evolution.

    Maybe you should learn how to do a Google search and try to really understand what you read.

    YOU are too stupid to understand my explanation. You are a reject.

    Your explanation is crap. Find me a statistic book which says if you can't find a hypothesis then set it equal to zero which makes any conditional probability based on that hypothesis zero. You don't know how to do the math.

    And yet she cannot say where I am wrong. She probably looks at chicken livers to decide if something is an artifact or not.

    You are wrong because the things you say archaeologists do . . . they don't do. And your nasty insult is noted.

    Lying bitch

    Why can't you address the issues instead of being abusive?

    Lying bitch

    Sigh.

    And obviously you are nothing but a lying and equivocating bitch.

    Oh dear, the record's stuck.

    Nope- that doesn't help you. You are one fucked up asshole, Jerad.

    What is wrong with that paper?

    How is unguided evolution directing any of this research, Jerad?

    Because it's all based on unguided evolution!! Because there is no, zero, zip, nada evidence for guidance. It's only you who ASSUME it's guided without proof that thinks all this work is wrong.

    What are the hypothesis wrt unguided evolution?

    You've been told. You're a denialist.

    Why are you just another cowardly bluffing asswipe?

    Why don't you learn to actually address the research instead of just saying it's wrong without being specific?

    Why don't you find EVIDENCE for mutations being directed. That would be a start.

     
  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are the mistake, You are an ignorant equivocating bluffing coward.

    I challenge you to make your case that each of those papers support unguided evolution. If you can't you will prove my point. You don't just get to say they all support unguided evolution. That is a desperate pussy ploy.

    I will use Judge Jones' criteria. That means it has to explicitly state it is a paper on unguided evolution and it has top provide the hypothesis for unguided evolution.

     
  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, You are the mistake, You are an ignorant equivocating bluffing coward.

    At least I can do the math in Dr Dembski's formula. You just bailed.

    I challenge you to make your case that each of those papers support unguided evolution. If you can't you will prove my point. You don't just get to say they all support unguided evolution. That is a desperate pussy ploy.

    There is no evidence for guidance. No matter what Dr Spetner says. Therefore, it's all unguided.

    Besides, if it were guided then the guider must be a real limited being. Only able to make small tweaks along the way leaving hundreds of millions of years worth of extinct forms, filling the genome with non-coding base pairs (including thousands and thousands of repeated segments), unable to protect 'his' star designs from lots and lots of diseases and parasites. A pretty shoddy job of it I'd say. If I believed in guidance.

    I will use Judge Jones' criteria. That means it has to explicitly state it is a paper on unguided evolution and it has top provide the hypothesis for unguided evolution.

    Isn't that the guy who found that and decided that ID was stealth creationism? I'm happy to agree on his view.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Jerad, you cannot do the math in Dembski's paper. You just baldly throw numbers around as if it means something.

    There is no evidence for guidance.

    There is no evidence for unguided processes being capable of producing multi-protein complexes. Unguided processes can't even produce DNA.

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    Besides, if it were guided then the guider must be a real limited being.

    That doesn't follow. Try again. Why can't the guider by the built in programming?

    Isn't that the guy who found that and decided that ID was stealth creationism?

    He found no such thing. That is the whole problem.

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    No Jerad, you cannot do the math in Dembski's paper. You just baldly throw numbers around as if it means something.

    Okay, you show me. Compute phi-s(T) for ATP synthase. Go on.

    There is no evidence for unguided processes being capable of producing multi-protein complexes. Unguided processes can't even produce DNA.

    Lots of evidence. And since there's nothing to suggest it was guided then it must be unguided.

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    No evidence for anything being guided. Too bad.

    That doesn't follow. Try again. Why can't the guider by the built in programming?

    'Cause . . . there isn't any. Zero evidence of that. Aren't you suppose to follow the evidence Joe instead of just insisting it must be there?

    But hey, if you want to live on a promise and a prayer be my guest.

    He found no such thing. That is the whole problem

    Pretty much he said ID was religion masquerading as science. You can disagree with him but that's what he said.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Judge Jones doesn't know what science is. He doesn't know what ID is and he sure as hell doesn't understand evolutionism. He was fooled by a bluff!

    Lots of evidence

    LIAR.

    Aren't you suppose to follow the evidence Joe instead of just insisting it must be there?

    I do. OTOH you are just an ignorant asshole.

    We are STILL waiting for the entailments for unguided evolution. Stop being such a wanker and post them, if you can. Otherwise fuck off.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    I will leave it at that.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Judge Jones doesn't know what science is. He doesn't know what ID is and he sure as hell doesn't understand evolutionism. He was fooled by a bluff!

    Is that why you said you'd use his criteria?

    LIAR.

    Maybe, but you still haven't proved there is 'extra programming'.

    I do. OTOH you are just an ignorant asshole.

    What evidence (except for being sure it must exist) do you have for this 'extra programming' then?

    We are STILL waiting for the entailments for unguided evolution. Stop being such a wanker and post them, if you can. Otherwise fuck off.

    Who did you steal this term 'entailments' from?

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    Give me the entailments of ID then. And some decent solid predictions. Go on. Show me you got something. Your hoped-for 'extra programming' would be good to find as well.

    I will leave it at that.

    So, you're not going to try and compute phi-s(T) for ATP synthase? Shall I take that as a fail then?

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is that why you said you'd use his criteria?

    It's the one evoTARDs stand by. So that is why I use it- to expose your double-standards.

    Maybe, but you still haven't proved there is 'extra programming'

    I say that I have. You are too stupid to understand the evidence so fuck off. You are also too dim to offer an alternative.

    Who did you steal this term 'entailments' from?

    Merriam-Webster- stop being a dick, Jerad.

    Give me the entailments of ID then. And some decent solid predictions. Go on. Show me you got something.

    It is all over my blog, asshole. And you have nothing to counter any of it.

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    I will leave it at that.


    And yes, you have failed to provide a chance hypothesis for ATP synthase. But as I said so has everyone else. That alone means there is no need to compute anything else in the formula. Once you get a zero in a multiplication sequence it all stops.

    A mathematician would grasp that.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It's the one evoTARDs stand by. So that is why I use it- to expose your double-standards.

    Well, Judge Jones came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is science and ID is religious dogma pretending to be science by that standard. Sounds about right to me.

    I say that I have. You are too stupid to understand the evidence so fuck off. You are also too dim to offer an alternative.

    Really. Where is this extra programming then? How is it encoded? How 'big' is it? How does it affect evolution? Where is the research agenda or work trying to find it?

    It is all over my blog, asshole. And you have nothing to counter any of it.

    Gee, I don't remember any specific predictions of ID. Or logical conclusions. In fact, ID can't say much of anything since its supporters don't even agree on when or how design was implemented and no one seems to be doing any research to nail it down. I guess no one really cares.

    Unguided processes don't have any entailments. No predictions are borne from them. Obviously you are ignorant when it comes to science.

    You mean gravity has no entailments? Or quantum mechanics? Or chemical reactions? Or photosynthesis?

    And yes, you have failed to provide a chance hypothesis for ATP synthase. But as I said so has everyone else. That alone means there is no need to compute anything else in the formula. Once you get a zero in a multiplication sequence it all stops.

    And yet, when specifically addressing the example of the bacterial flagellum Dr Dembski left that term in.

    A mathematician would grasp that.

    Looks like Dr Dembski (who has a PhD in mathematics) thought it mattered.

    Got phi-s(T) yet?

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, Judge Jones came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is science and ID is religious dogma pretending to be science by that standard.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and Jones still doesn't know what science is.

    You mean gravity has no entailments? Or quantum mechanics? Or chemical reactions? Or photosynthesis?

    LoL! Keep it to biology you fucking coward. Then tell us how unguided processes produced gravity, quantum mechanics, chemical reactions and photosynthesis.

    And yet, when specifically addressing the example of the bacterial flagellum Dr Dembski left that term in.

    And we all see what he said about it. Dumbass.

    So what is the chance hypothesis for ATP synthase? Why are you such an asshole?

     
  • At 2:47 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and Jones still doesn't know what science is.

    Funny that the cowardly Discovery Institute didn't appeal the decision then. Or haven't brought another case to trial if he got it wrong. Now why it that do you think? Why do you think Dr Dembski didn't even bother to show up to testify?

    LoL! Keep it to biology you fucking coward. Then tell us how unguided processes produced gravity, quantum mechanics, chemical reactions and photosynthesis.

    ???? How was gravity produced? hahahahahah You're deep in the fine-tuning mindset clearly. After a few billion years life forms evolved that are well adapted to the environmental conditions and you think it went the other way around. Your designer is awfully damn slow. And inefficient. And those damn extinction events.

    And we all see what he said about it. Dumbass.

    He left the term in though didn't he? Have you calculated phi-s(T) yet? Have you found your extra programming? Have you figured out how it's stored and encoded? Have you decided how it affects development? Have you found any peer-reviewed papers that support your idea?

    So what is the chance hypothesis for ATP synthase? Why are you such an asshole?

    Even Wikipedia lays out some of the development path. Go look for some research papers if you really care, I'm tired of doing work just so you can deny the evidence.

    Better yet: see if you can compute phi-s(T) instead of just ignoring me every time I bring it up. Afraid to show you can't do it? That must be it. When your stance is fragile you can't risk anything that might erode it.

    You should try and answer some questions about your extra programming as well. Where is it. How is it stored and encoded. How does it affect development. Things like that. 'Cause right now, it's just a wild-ass guess isn't it? No physical evidence at all. Nada. Nothing.

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a fucking moron. It was NOT the Discovery Institutes case so they can't appeal it, you are an ignorant asshole.

    How was gravity produced?

    Yes, Jerad. If you can't answer tat then you can't say it is an unguided process. Especially when it guides.

    He left the term in though didn't he

    And you don't have a chance hypothesis. You are a loser.


    Even Wikipedia lays out some of the development path.

    It doesn't have anything top do with UNGUIDED evolution. As I said you are just an ignorant fuck

    Jerad, the fucking cowardly asshole. Too fucked up to support unguided evolution and too fucked up to attack ID with valid criticisms.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a fucking moron. It was NOT the Discovery Institutes case so they can't appeal it, you are an ignorant asshole.

    They were advising the school district and they sent some of their fellows to testify. Dr Dembski bailed though, I wonder why . . .

    Anyway no one anywhere is appealing the decision or pushing for another case. Scared they'll get the same result I bet.

    Yes, Jerad. If you can't answer tat then you can't say it is an unguided process. Especially when it guides.

    Wow, Joe thinks gravity may have been designed. With no evidence of course. Is that how science is done Joe? "Hey, you don't know it didn't happen that way, you got nothing." Funny that the academic papers I read never make that argument.

    Have you found a mistake in an academic paper on evolution yet? Just checking.

    And you don't have a chance hypothesis. You are a loser.

    Dr Dembski defined and discussed p(T|H) and phi-s(T) so he must have thought they were important even if you can't compute them.

    It doesn't have anything top do with UNGUIDED evolution. As I said you are just an ignorant fuck

    It's all unguided Joe since there is no guider. Except in your mind that is. Kind of like an imaginary friend isn't it?

    Jerad, the fucking cowardly asshole. Too fucked up to support unguided evolution and too fucked up to attack ID with valid criticisms.

    Unguided evolution has got plenty of support. There's no designer/guider that's been detected or even defined despite the fact that ID is trying to magic him into existence (kind of like the ontological proof of the existence of God). Besides the fact that IF there were a designer s/he/it would be pretty slow and dull. Who takes hundreds of millions of years to come up with humans? What was the point of the trilobites? Who let almost all their creations die out over the years including some massive die-offs. Maybe s/he/it is too lazy to clean up their messes. Are you glad that the designer saddled you with a prostate gland that can go bad and kill you? Or you might have a cardiac arrest while driving your car and crash into a school bus full of kids and kill a bunch of them. Nice. Do you think the poor, destitute children in Africa who died from Ebola has a learning experience? Do you think their slow, painful deaths were testing them? Is it just the fault of those dopes Adam and Eve who disobeyed and so now billions and billions of us now have to suffer unless we pray to some guy we've never met or talked to?

    Why don't you tell us what your designer is all about aside from designing our sun to go nova some day and fry this planet into dust. Was the black plague part of some cosmic plan. "Gosh, these humans are okay but some are weak so I'm going to send some nasty bugs to weed out the weaker ones and their family and friends can watch them die in agony and they'll know that I'm the boss."

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They were advising the school district and they sent some of their fellows to testify.

    What a dumbass. They advised against the school board doing what they did. And they didn't send anyone.

    Wow, Joe thinks gravity may have been designed.

    So did Sir Isaac Newton so I'm in good company.

    Jerad's position can't explain gravity- even Hawking admits it.

    Have you found a mistake in an academic paper on evolution yet?

    Your continued cowardly equivocation is duly noted.

    Found the theory of evolution yet? Found any of its entailments yet?

    Dr Dembski defined and discussed p(T|H) and phi-s(T)

    Yes, he did. So what? You can't provide H so you lose, moron.

    It's all unguided Joe since there is no guider.

    So it's all sheer dumb luck then. Thanks for admitting it ain't science.

    Unguided evolution has got plenty of support.

    It doesn't have any entailments so you are a big fucking LIAR. Obviously you are a scientifically illiterate asshole.

    There's no designer/guider that's been detected

    That's your uneducated opinion. However you don't have an alternative. Your theological arguments are amusing though.

     
  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What a dumbass. They advised against the school board doing what they did. And they didn't send anyone.

    Dr Stephen Meyer's primary employer is the Discovery Institute and he testified.

    So did Sir Isaac Newton so I'm in good company.

    Even Newton got some things wrong. Like alchemy.

    Your continued cowardly equivocation is duly noted.

    Your continuing inability to find a mistake in papers you say are wrong and full of lies is noted.

    Found the theory of evolution yet? Found any of its entailments yet?

    Yup.

    Yes, he did. So what? You can't provide H so you lose, moron.

    So, he thought you should be able to compute it for his metric. But you can't. Nor can you compute phi-s(T). No one else seems to bother either. No one uses his metric at all. That is the truth.

    So it's all sheer dumb luck then. Thanks for admitting it ain't science.

    It's not dumb luck, it's constrained by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.

    It doesn't have any entailments so you are a big fucking LIAR. Obviously you are a scientifically illiterate asshole.

    It's got plenty. You just deny them when someone points them out.

    That's your uneducated opinion. However you don't have an alternative. Your theological arguments are amusing though.

    No Joe, you cannot point out a designer. You can't say what the designer did. You can't say when the designer did something. You can't understand how unguided forces brought some things about (and you want to think that humans are specially created) so you KNOW there is a designer. ID was devised to try and get religious beliefs into the science classroom.

    The Pope believes in unguided evolution. As does the Archbishop of Canterbury. And the Dalai Lama. Do you think their theological knowledge is suspect as well?

    Your designer is a wasteful tinkerer who has killed off millions and millions of species before humans were even around. And millions and millions of humans have died of diseases and natural disasters, many more than have died in human waged wars. And that's who you worship? Because he gave us a perfect eclipse?

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Stephen Meyer's primary employer is the Discovery Institute and he testified.

    They did NOT send him. Obviously you have serious issues.

    Even Newton got some things wrong. Like alchemy.

    I bet you don't even understand Newton's alchemy.

    Your continuing inability to find a mistake in papers you say are wrong and full of lies is noted.

    I never said they were full of lies. I said that you are a liar.

    Found the theory of evolution yet? Found any of its entailments yet?

    Yup.

    Liar.

    So, he thought you should be able to compute it for his metric.

    Wrong again.

    t's not dumb luck, it's constrained by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.

    It is all sheer dumb luck, including those laws and chemistry.

    It's got plenty.

    And yet no one can present any of it.

    No Joe, you cannot point out a designer.

    I can pint out the DESIGN and you don't have an alternative explanation for it.

    The Pope believes in unguided evolution.

    Liar.

    Look obviously all you can do is lie like the little cowardly bitch tat you are.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    They did NOT send him. Obviously you have serious issues.

    Do you think he paid for his airfare and hotel?

    I bet you don't even understand Newton's alchemy.

    Neither did he!! It never worked.

    I never said they were full of lies. I said that you are a liar.

    And you still haven't found a mistake . . .

    Wrong again.

    So, you can't compute it and you can't explain why he put it in his formula. Is that how science is done Joe?

    I can pint out the DESIGN and you don't have an alternative explanation for it.

    Not one you accept you mean.

    The Pope believes in unguided evolution.

    Liar.

    Well, he thinks ID is crap at least.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

    Look obviously all you can do is lie like the little cowardly bitch tat you are.

    Have you found your extra programming yet? Can you explain how it is stored and encoded? Do you know how it affects development? Have you got a plausible explanation for how it changes from one species to another? OR is the extra programming the same for every species in which case how does the programming know if it's in a frog or a starfish?

    It's kind of tough isn't it when you've got an idea that no one else takes seriously and no research is being done along those lines. Couldn't be that Dr Spetner is wrong though. He MUST be right because it upholds your already arrived at point of view. You used to believe in unguided evolution then something changed your mind and now you're just latching onto things that support your viewpoint even if you don't understand the mathematics. That's about right isn't it?

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolution is NOT being debated and the Pope did NOT say he accepted unguided evolution. As I said you have serious issues and should seek help.

    And you still haven't found a mistake . .

    You still haven't found any support.

    So, you can't compute it and you can't explain why he put it in his formula.

    What's there to compute? You can't provide a chance hypothesis. You lose, asshole.

    I can pint out the DESIGN and you don't have an alternative explanation for it.

    Not one you accept you mean.

    Not one SCIENCE will accept YOU mean.

    OK so no entailments, no theory and just an ignorant asshole- Jerad- trying to support unguided evolution with his ignorance.

    Life is good...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home