Guano (1)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. Maus: Then let’s chalk it up to a case of mistaken identity between you and someone that used the same name and engaged in the same sophistries.It’s a happy accident in either case as I wouldn’t have sorted out who Toronto was until your ‘no habla’ had me wonder where your doppleganger’s sidekick got off to.Toronto’s good for red herrings but a great guy and an endless ball of fun.

    Speaking of red herrings I see you have caught a sudden allergy to statements that are ‘true & accurate’.It seems you’ve moved on from “I have this idea you are referring to “hopeful monsters”, …” to “Even Gould wasn’t contemplating a giant one-step “macroevolutionary event” for his punctuated evolution idea.”despite that I never made any such statement as ‘one-step’ at all.

    Indeed your inference chain seems to be no more than: “My opponent means completely banal thing X or possibly evil Y.Because I am ignorant, therefore my opponent is evil.And so means Y.”Despite that this is Not Even Thinking in the same sense of Not Even Wrong you have now moved onto: “My opponent meant X.Therefore he still means Y.”

    If this was the doppleganger I had you mistaken for this could continue for days.Right up until he started making claims that “He read it in the original German” to excuse his errors.But as you’re not such a desperately soft-headed individual as the fellow I had you mistaken for then I’m certain you’re more than happy to clear up the misunderstanding in terms you continue to introduce.

    For certainly if you know that ‘hopeful monsters’ are an inappropriate representation of a entirely commonplace idea then it is beyond question you can inform me as to the terms you will accept that represent the entirely commonplace idea to you in a manner that you find suitable and unambiguous.Indeed it seems that we can get nowhere if, at any time I provide a completely obvious definition, you start bolting on modifiers such as “one-step” in an effort to accurately portray statements I have not made.

    And as you are not your doppleganger we can take comfort in knowing that you are more than happy to involve clarity rather that definitional sophistries.

    Whatever

    After a quick look I slung your overcooked Spanish omelette into the bin. I’m not going to fork deeply through your mangled word combinations on the off chance that you’ve got something interesting & sensible to say.

  2. Hi Mike,

    Context is important. The “evolution” Granville et al., are talking about is blind watchmaker evolution, ie evolution via blind and undirected processes.

    And we haven’t been demonizing science, just your mangling of it.

    Also you can stick your “All of these misconceptions and misrepresentations are a common theme that runs through all of ID/creationism” you know where as it has been my experience taht you and your ilk have the misconceptions and misrepresentations- and that is one of the reasons for my post.

  3. Joe G,

    So, there goes joe again, insulting someone just because they point out some facts and ask some questions, and joe’s totally out of line remarks are still here while comments by other people that are not insulting at all are sent to “Guano”.

  4. Joe G
    So bye-bye

    Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    (“No!”)
    Bravely ran away away.
    (“I didn’t!”)
    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    (“no!”)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (“I didn’t!”)
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    ****Bravely**** taking (“I never did!”) to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    (“all lies!”)
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
    (“I never!”)

  5. OM: Well, that’s not for you to decide now is it?

    So according to you “copying errors such as point mutations” are in fact not random at all, but telic. Have I got you right?

    Actually it is for me to decide- it is my post and my thread.

  7. OM: ID appears to be for evolution in every way apart from one specific thing, in Joe’s mind anyway.

    ID is simply the idea that copying errors such as point mutations are not random but are telic. Despite the fact that Joe nor anybody else has ever presented any evidence in support of that (read “Not By Chance”) it’s the crux of ID for Joe.

    So, Joe, given any mutations how can if it is random?

    Joe, what’s the % of actual really random mutations?

    99% random, 1% telic? What’s the ratio as far as you know?

    If you don’t even have an idea of that on what basis do you claim that any are telic at all?

    OM you are a pathetic and confused liar. I take it taht it bothers you that you cannot support your position…

  8. I’m confused but did OM just invoke a tropical storm analogy into a biology debate and then write a song ?

  9. Joe G: More to the point evos say all mutations are random yet they cannot tell anyone how tat was determined.

    This is classic Joe. Joe can’t answer a question so he asks it back. Unfortunately for Joe evotards have done plenty of research on that very issue so he get’s an answer he does not like but can’t actually then defend his position because all he has is a book and can’t even explain in his own words why he believes that book over actual science.

    Classic Joe.

  10. I’ve been round this loop with Joe before. He reckons some mutations are directed,some random. He can’t tell the difference, but demands that “evos”prove they’re all random.
    I’ve been told, but haven’t checked, that in general the arising patterns of mutations are what would be expected if they WERE the results of unguided processes.
    So that leaves the burden on Joe to show some evidence that some of them are/were directed.
    Of course, he will mention Spetner’s book – but no-one has been able to find any such evidence there, either.
    It’s weird how he keeps banging on with a position he can’t support (and that no “ID scientist” will research, either)

  11. OM: This is classic Joe. Joe can’t answer a question so he asks it back. Unfortunately for Joe evotards have done plenty of research on that very issue so he get’s an answer he does not like but can’t actually then defend his position because all he has is a book and can’t even explain in his own words why he believes that book over actual science.

    Classic Joe.

    Except there isn’t any research on that issue. You are fibbing, again.

  12. Joe G: Not going to happen- please give me the rights to remove unwanted and off-topic comments from my threads.

    You already showed the world what happens when you have moderation powers by your actions on your own blog. You ban people who disagree, modify or remove their posts, curse them a blue streak.

    You’ve been posting the same C&Ped ID stupidity across the web for years. It never changes. You make the same stupid claims, you get called on them the same way, you throw insults and run from questions every time.

    Now, just like Bully Arrington at UD you think you should have some sort of right to remove posts you don’t like. There’s zero reason for Dr. Liddle to allow your juvenile behavior here.

  17. Rich:
    Joe:

    “Again for the learning impaired-

    This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution-”

    then:

    “IOW all I am doing is asking evotards to actually ante up and support their position. But they are obvioulsy too cowardly to do so.”

    So by “their position”, you mean “your position”, which they aren’t supporting, being ‘evotards”.

    Again, Joe, tone. Second warning.

    You have serious issues when you attack the person defending himself…

  19. OM-

    Let’s get this out in the open right now-

    You are a slandering and lying PoS – just for what you tried to pull over on wikipedia. That is why I refuse to answer anything from you.

  20. Joe G:
    OM-

    Let’s get this out in the open right now-

    You are a slandering and lying PoS – just for what you tried to pull over on wikipedia. That is why I refuse to answer anything from you.

    You seem happy to engage until I start asking questions, questions that you can’t answer.

    So I think it’s that rather then anything else.

    If you like I’ll register a different name and ask the same questions.

  21. OM: You seem happy to engage until I start asking questions, questions that you can’t answer.

    So I think it’s that rather then anything else.

    If you like I’ll register a different name and ask the same questions.

    Umm except I haven’t been very engaging, have I? Why are you running around whining that I am basically ignoring you?

  22. OM: If my position has nothing then why are you so keen to say that ID is not anti-evolution?

    So ID is not anti something that you don’t think exists anyway? that’s very good of you Joe.

    Because of people, like you, who love to misrepresent ID. And I never said evolution nor blind watchmaker evolution doesn’t exist.

    Obvioulsy you have mental issues.

  23. OM: No, I’m asking you specifically what you mean when you use that term. If you are asking me for evidence of X you’ll have to describe it better then “it’s a process”. There are many processes in biology, you want specific answers then pick a specific process.

    I mean the same thing as dawkins, darwin, mayr, simpson, coyne, et al.

    Sir robin, indeed, you are a coward

  24. No matter who’s blog Joe G shows up on, his MO has always been to assert, deny, and insult in short non-answers to anything. Unfortunately that doesn’t display any detailed understanding of anything he is for or against; it is all assertions and angry, insulting denials.

    I’m guessing he has not studied any textbooks in science, but has instead taken all his beliefs from the ID/creationists.

    As near as I can tell from the rather brief assertions among all his insults, Joe G believes that evolution refers only to things that reproduce. So the buildup of elements in stars and supernovae explosions apparently doesn’t count as evolution for him. He hasn’t said what he would call that.

    Reproduction happens to be a case in which systems evolve by replacing themselves with approximate replicas of themselves. These replicas are then sorted by the forces in the total environment in which these systems are immersed. The approximate replicas that fit best in the current environment are the ones that will be afforded more opportunities to make approximate replicas of themselves.

    The same result would apply to a system that did not reproduce but was simply loosely enough bound that it could respond to changes in its environment by gradually deforming to relax into the changing constraints. But in either case, this involves the release of energy and the maintaining of the system in a soft-matter state that is loose enough to adapt. Frozen, tightly bound systems don’t adjust to changing constraints very readily.

    If one wants to really understand evolution, it is necessary to understand not only the replicating systems in living organisms, one must also understand physics and chemistry.

    Start by understanding the structure of, say, a hydrogen atom. Understand the evolution of stars and the buildup of more complex atoms in stars and supernovae. Understand the millions of compounds and complex molecules formed by chemistry.

    Understand why liquids and solids exist. Understand the rapidly emergent properties of all these structures. Understand why water sticks to glass and why this is temperature dependent. Understand why the structures of all complex assemblies are temperature dependent. Understand what temperature really is and what it has to do with the assemblies of atoms and molecules.

    Joe doesn’t know what evolution really is because he is narrowly focused on insulting and demanding “proof” that evolution occurs in living systems. The proof is all around him in every second of his existence. Sits on it, complains on it, hammers on it, swims in it, it runs down his face in the rain; yet he never notices.

  25. Mike E:

    I’m guessing he has not studied any textbooks in science, but has instead taken all his beliefs from the ID/creationists.

    It is ignorant false accusations like that, Mike- that is what causes me to respond the way i do.

    And Mike- I provided evolutionary experts’ versions of what evolution is. I will go along with them over you any and every day.

    Heck you seem to have a problem staying on-topic.

  26. Elizabeth:
    Joe, thanks for posting your OP.That clarifies a lot for me, I think,about where you are coming from.

    Do I take it, then, that your position is that evolutionary processes basically work, but that the heritable variance (the novel genetic sequences) are purposefully introduced by an Intelligent Designer, rather than being the result of physics and chemistry?

    That’s his position now. Give him 15 minutes and he’ll be arguing for baraminology, or front-loading, or whatever the ID flavor of the day is.

    Good luck getting him to commit to any one idea, or providing positive evidence for any of the multiple claims.

  27. OM: So if the random part are the mutations then what is this about?

    What processes do you have in mind?

    So, Joe, if you accept this definition:

    Then ID is anti-evolution as

    Evolution is not guided.
    It’s not planned.

    Yet ID is both of those things by definition, so by your own words you’ve shown that ID is anti-evolution!

    Wow, just wow- I just explained it-

    Natural selection and drift are blind and the mutations are undirected.

    Also that is not a definition of evolution- i provided those in the OP. That is the opinions of the signees.

    As i keep saying and you keep proving-> you have issues.

  28. Thorton:
    Me asking Joe G questions about his GA claims:

    “Lots of questions for you Joe. Do you have any answers besides your normal evasion of “that’s what science is here to investigate”?”

    Joe G’s answer:

    “Hey Rich, guess what? that is what science is for- to help answer those questions.

    …can I call ’em or what?

    Yes thorton I understand that the concept of science eludes people like you.

    Unfortunately science hasn’t helped your position one bit.

  29. Mike Elzinga: Let me try to articulate what I think I have been able to glean from Joe’s brief assertions.

    I am pretty sure Joe doesn’t understand what this particular statement of his reveals of his understanding of even basic high school chemistry and physics.As I said on my previous comment, this is the fundamental misconception that runs through all of ID/creationist writings.

    “Things breaking” seems to mean for ID/creationists what those of us in the sciences would refer to as a plasma state; ionized atoms and molecules just randomly banging into each other and coming right back apart again.How could evolution occur in something like that?

    I am quite sure that Joe does not exist in a plasma state.I am fairly sure his computer keyboard, the chair he sits on, the walls, the floor, the ceiling of the room he sits in are not in a plasma state.I am quite sure that the ground and the rocks under the building he is in are not in a plasma state.

    So why do atoms, molecules, rocks, water, solids, liquids and all the things around us not come all apart?ID/creationists point to iron rusting as an example of all the “decay” we see around us.But iron rusting is a classic example of the atoms of iron and oxygen coming together to form a more complex system with properties nothing like those of the constituents from which it is comprised.The pure iron we see in our technological civilization since the Iron Age comes from taking iron apart from the other atoms withwhich it had combined.It’s simpler stuff now.

    If everything is being “broken,” why are there still things left to “break?”

    This is why I have suggested that Joe doesn’t even have a basic understanding of high school chemistry and physics.Had he even paid attention in any of those classes – assuming he even took such classes – he would learn words like solid, liquid, gas, plasma, phase changes, chemical reactions, condensation, evaporation, temperature, energy, binding energies, chemical bonds, adhesion, cohesion, mixtures, compounds, and all the basic terminology and concepts that high school students learn.

    Those science words refer to concepts; and those concepts refer to how matter interacts with matter and why it takes on the various forms it does depending upon things like kinetic energy, potential energy, and temperature (basically a kinetic energy).

    So, to simply assert that things “break” as fast as they are formed reveals a profound misunderstanding of chemistry and physics at the most basic level.The “spontaneous molecular chaos” of David L. Abel is extremely revealing of Abel’s conceptual level of understanding of chemistry and physics and, by extension, biology.

    This level of naiveté about even the most basic ideas of chemistry and physics is not only surprising in some way, but its persistence has to be reinforced within a culture of distain for what scientists know and understand.I think we all know what that culture is; and ID/creationist misconceptions, no matter how much they will deny it, originate in a set of sectarian beliefs that are threatened by real science.

    Any time that you have actual evidence that refutes what we say, present it.

    Your accusations are childish and sickening.

  31. Mike Elzinga: For those familiar with Duane Gish’s debating tactics, you will remember that it was all taunting assertions in rapid-fire.

    By the time the debate was over, any opponent could only elaborate on one or two issues and totally demolish Gish on these.

    To which Gish would respond, “Well, you couldn’t answer ninety percent of my arguments!” Gish’s audience would go wild with ecstasy.

    Joe G. is after celebrity.The taunts are to make himself the center of attention as he imagines himself getting “evos” to scurry all around, pee their pants, and lather all their attention on him. He just wants people to jump when he says jump.And we have already seen from his demand to Elizabeth about censorship that he wants power

    Knowledgeable individuals can make specific refutations of every coy assertion he hints at; but he doesn’t read, let alone comprehend them.

    It’s standard ID/creationist street theater.Joe G. has been trolling the internet for a number of years now.He has his own blog, but he is always infesting other blogs because nobody pays any attention to his.His shtick hasn’t changed.

    Spoken like a true asshole…

  34. OM: But it does work! It’s well know that if you take a virus and chop it up into it’s component pieces it can self (re)assemble.

    If you chop a 747 airliner into it’s component pieces, which after all is less complex then a cell, does it assemble itself back into a working 747?

    I guess that means 747s are not reducible to matter and energy!

    Non-sequitur- I said NOTHING about chopping anything into pieces.

    You have serious issues

  35. Rich: That’s a very poor, very obvious dodge, Joe. Please engange what I say, less Gish Gallup. Thanks in advance.

    Wrong again Rich- I play by the SAME standards.

    I know you don’t like that but then again that is the whole problem with people like you

  36. OM: You claim is that cells contain more then “matter and energy” because when you have their component pieces all together they don’t self assemble.

    I pointed out the same is true of many other things, but nobody is claiming some mysterious force is responsible.

    My data and evidence is the fact that 747s don’t self assemble when all the component parts are in place. Or we’d have warehouses full of parts turning out planes all on their own. Therefore that disconfirms your claim, that when things don’t self assemble when all the component parts are present it’s because of some other force that is not present.

    You are really sick. I never said “You claim is that cells contain more then “matter and energy” because when you have their component pieces all together they don’t self assemble. ”

    I am done with you as obviously you are just a lying PoS

  37. OM: No, you’ve never said that all in one go, because then you would have actually have said something specific. But if you add up all your claims that’s exactly what you have said and anybody can read it for themselves on this thread.

    If anybody *at all* thinks I’ve got this wrong, please do feel free to say so and why. But it’s all Joe’s words, all on this thread.

    747s do not fly if you dump the contents of one into a test tube. Nor do the engines run. Your point?

    747s are designed. thanks by your “logic” living organisms are also designed

    c-ya, dumbass

  38. OM: It either fits it with baraminology, or it does not.

    If it does, great.

    If it does not, you’ve just disconfirmed baraminology! That’s why it matters! It’s how science proceeds Joe!

    So the answer is, you care Joe as you support baraminology.

    Wrong again loser- baraminology is supported by the evidence.

    Don’t blame me

  40. Thorton: You still didn’t give us the mechanism by which your GAs get passed down Joe, or your specific location in cells where the GAs are located.

    Are you now claiming your GAs are passed epigenetically?How does that work Joe, and where are your references?

    I have told you- REPRODUCTION- taht is the mechanism in which the GAs are passed down to the next generation.

    What is wrong with you? (besides the obvious)

  41. Thorton: So you don’t have any evidence for these GAs, they’re just a possibility.

    Got it.

    Yes moron, tat is how it works- OTOH your position still has nothing.

  42. Rich: You – this comment will get guanoed, but I must say I’m absolutely delighted you’ve been stupid enough to memorialize this. I’m amazed Dembski, Wells, etc haven’t called you up to tell you to ‘fuck off’. Its absolutely transparent that you have nothing, are making it up as you go along and refuse to engage points. Gish Gallop was spot on. As long as ID has demented cheerleaders like you, it wont even be viable in the culture wars, the only venue where it’s had any success.

    That you think I am stupid tells me I am spot on and you are a moron. Your whole position is about making it up, so you would know about that.

    And why would Wells or Dembski say that? They aren’t as ignorant as you are.

  43. Kevin,

    You are an infant- but anyway I will quickly address some of your tripe and then demolish the rest later.

    There isn’t any CSI in random characters so Poe would have more.

    I don’t believe you. You can’t explain why this is so.

    It’s the ^&%*ing DEFINITION. What is wrong with you?

    Until you can distinguish between designed and random, how can you possibly expect to distinguish between designed and evolved?

    As I have told you SEVERAL TIMES that doesn’t have anything to do with what ID claims. ID is only about detecting if agency involvement was required or not.

    So, what you are saying is that any sequence of ASCII text over 71 characters is designed.

    No, Kevin. You show me any string of ascii characters I will will tell you that an agency was involved somewhere along the line.

    For example if we are investigating a cave and saw a string of characters on one of the walls, I would infer some agency put it there, at some time in the past, for some unknown reason.

    I keep telling you that CONTEXT is important with science, but you, being totally ignorant of science, just refuse to get it.

  44. OgreMkV: I disagree that natural selection is a result.The result is changes in the allele frequency in the population.The cause of that is natural selection (or genetic drift or any of a variety of other processes).Selection is a process.

    Oops- one more bit of tard to deal with:

    “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

    The snow calls….

  45. Again, I can give you dozens of strings of ASCII text, or binary, or octal, or whatever you like that is completely random.

    Either you are ignorant as hell, just plain stupid or a psychopath. That has nothing to do with anything ID claims.

    Now I am back out to put the carrot in place.

  46. damitall: Joe, here’s a bit of Lifemanship. (It’s a bit like Oneupmanship, but you’re not ready for that yet) Just look on it as friendly advice.

    If you want any shred of scientific credibility, don’t – DO NOT – holler up Pivar in support.

    People will laugh, Joe – laugh like drains. As I am doing. I was so amused, I gave the dam’ cat a sardine (to make up for the chicken leg)

    Just look him up. (Pivar, not the cat. Or the sardine)

    So you just attack people instead of providing refuting evidence?

    pathetic…

  48. Joe G: So for the record Rich, you don’t understand much about developmental biology and you think that your lack of understanding means something.

    I cited that paper as evidence that there is more to heritability than DNA- developmental biologists have known that for years and have known that the egg plays an important role

    can you ever answer a very simple question? Baloonatic!

  49. Joe G:

    Thorton: “Since you’ve evaded every last question about your magic GAs in cells, here’s two more for you to run from:

    How do these cell-internal GAs physically interface with the nucleotides to cause genetic mutations?

    Where do the GAs keep the information to know how these mutations will be affected and selected by their surrounding environment?”

    There isn’t any magic GAs only an infant would say something like that.

    Only a cowardly poseur with no answers would run from every last question asked about his ridiculous claims.

    Sorry Joe, but your “GAs run inside of cells” hypothesis was dead before it hit the ground. Here’s another fatal flaw it has:

    In computer-run GAs the algorithms aren’t part of the organisms doing the evolving. They’re external – part of the environment. Indeed the algorithm controls the environment, providing the selection pressure that culls out the results undesirable for the goal.

    How do your “GAs inside of cells” control external selection pressure to vector the organism towards the desired goal?

    You won’t answer because you have no answer, but it’s still fun to point out the stupidity of your idea.

  50. It appears that Joe G has hijacked Elizabeth’s blog. It’s typical of his behavior with the same profile. He has done this on other forums as well.

Comments are closed.