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. dazz: So that link I posted about a paper that showed a bacteria flagellum without the flagellum after a gene knockout, evolve it back by repurposing a different gene is not a clear enough mechanism?

    There’s direct observation for you, that a subsystem of an “IC” system can arise by pure random mutation. Right in your face.

    So you have two options:

    1. Admit that IC and is debunked
    2. Admit that IC systems can arise naturally

    But we all know what you’ll do. Same old creationist crap: you’ll move the goalposts

    Knocking out one gene is very different from having the thing develop from scratch. And you have no way of saying that the replacement gene arose via accident or not.

    You are just clueless and grasping

  2. Rumraket:
    By the way, I have JoeG/Frankie on ignore. I have never seen him contribute anything meaningful to any discussion. Even though we disagree on a lot, it is still clearly possible to debate stuff with Mung and others. Frankie though, not so much.

    Nice projection.

  3. dazz,

    LoL! You are a loser and you know it.

    How is directed evolution unfalsifiable and undirected evolution falsifiable? Do explain.

    BTW organisms designed to evolve = directed evolution.

    Why is it that you cannot support your position? You say it is science and yet you have nothing.

  4. dazz,

    LoL! The OP was about testing ID and the OP covered that. I take it that upsets you.

    I know all about GAs- the are goal-oriented targeted searches. Evolutionism is not goal oriented and is not a search. That means they do not model natural selection. Thank you for exposing your ignorance on the subject

  5. Frankie: The pre-planned goal in organisms means there isn’t just one pre-planned response to each environmental cue. The organism is free to innovate. The designer gets the pre-planned results by implementing the design to get them- and that could mean designing different populations of organisms to fulfill that plan

    You just contradicted yourself again FrankenJoe. If the Designer created the organism so it is free to innovate then it doesn’t have a goal. Over time the organism will move farther and farther away from the initial pre-planned setup.

    You really stepped in it this time FrankenJoe. That’s what happens when you make up this shit as you go.

    BTW, please explain why the Designer need to create organisms that change and aim for a goal over time? Why didn’t the Designer just build what was wanted for the goal in the first place?

    You make less sense every time you speak.

  6. Adapa,

    If the Designer created the organism so it is free to innovate then it doesn’t have a goal

    Cuz you say so? Really?

    The goal to actively adapt to its environment is not a goal? Wow, you must be desperate, or ignorant

  7. dazz,

    LoL! Darwinism is not goal-oriented nor does it use targeted searches. GAs are goal oriented and they use targeted searches. Being goal-oriented means it is a telic process. Targeted searches are a telic process

    Are you really that ignorant that you cannot understand that?

  8. Adapa,

    So the Designer’s goal wasn’t to produce any pre-planned resultant species like humans.

    That doesn’t follow from anything I have posted. As I said, you must be desperate, or ignorant.

  9. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    That doesn’t follow from anything I have posted. As I said, you must be desperate, or ignorant.

    Nobody can follow what you post FrankenJoe since you contradict yourself with every other sentence. The Designer has a goal, no there is no pre-planned goal.

    Whatta maroon.

  10. Adapa,

    LoL! Evolving is more than just adapting to an environment. You can have evolution without adaptation.

    Look, your ignorance, while amusing, is not an argument

  11. dazz,

    Obviously you are the retard:
    Link to one GA that simulates natural selection. Every GA is goal-oriented, Natural selection is not. Every GA uses a targeted search. NS is not a search.

    Why is it that you cannot understand that?

    It is very telling that you just ignore that as if your ignorance is an argument

  12. Frankie:
    dazz,

    Obviously you are the retard:
    Link to one GA that simulates natural selection. Every GA is goal-oriented, Natural selection is not. Every GA uses a targeted search. NS is not a search.


    Why is it that you cannot understand that?

    It is very telling that you just ignore that as if your ignorance is an argument

    Why would anyone code an algo to find a known goal you fucking idiot?

  13. dazz,

    LoL! You pathetic moron. The goal is the specification, ie the problem that needs to be solved. And the GA is steered, actively, towards solving the problem it was designed to solve, ie the goal

  14. dazz,

    LoL! There is a GA that designed a specific antenna. They did not know what shape the antenna was going to be but they knew the specifications the antenna had to meet.

    Look, obviously you are ignorant wrt GAs

  15. Another hit and run from Mung?

    IOW, Mung appears and spouts forth some claim or other and when challenged he disappears from sight. Is this a pattern?

  16. dazz,

    GAs do have a goal. They are designed to solve specific problems. GAs are search heuristics.

    GA’s are used to find solutions to certain problems that turn out to be better than design (cool huh?).

    Hey retard, GAs are design tools. So what you said is moronic. And if “GA’s are used to find solutions to certain problems ” that means they have a goal, dipshit

  17. dazz,

    GAs are goal oriented as they are designed to solve specific problems. They are actively searching for solutions to the problem. The goal is to solve the problem they are designed to solve.

    It’s as if you are proud to be an ignorant ass.

  18. petrushka:
    Behe is on record as supporting experimental re-evolution of flagella. He obviously doesn’t think it will happen. Dollo is on his side. And Gould. There are events in the history of life that may only happen once.

    stop moderating my edits

  19. Any other ID proponent want to take over for Mung in this discussion? He seems to have misplaced his testicles again.

  20. Neil Rickert: I see that as evidence that CSI pertains to fiction (making up stuff as you go along) and to Christian apologetics.

    You don’t seem to be able to see anything

  21. Adapa:
    How many ID threads are you going to start then bail out on FrankenJoe?That you don’t understand ID or evolution is blatantly obvious.That’s why you run from every question.

    I understand both ID and evolution better than you ever will. That much is obvious from your posts

  22. Richardthughes,

    Nice projection, cupcake. We are still waiting for the work that supports evolutionism. Heck your position’s falsification criteria says that we have to prove a negative and you don’t have a positive case.

    You lose

  23. Joe Felsenstein,

    ID is not anti-evolution, Joe. You have no idea what is being debated even though it has been explained to you several times. That is just sad.

  24. Richardthughes,

    Your ignorance is not a refutation, Rich. You have also never seen any evolutionary biologist make a positive case for the evolution of a bacterial flagellum via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. Yet you still cling to evolutionism as if it is a life saving device.

  25. Joe Felsenstein,

    You cannot show that natural selection can produce CSI. There isn’t any way to model natural selection doing so. So enough with your bluffing already

  26. Frankie:
    Richardthughes,

    Nice projection, cupcake. We are still waiting for the work that supports evolutionism. Heck your position’s falsification criteria says that we have to prove a negative and you don’t have a positive case.

    You lose

    Falsifiable: “A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.” [Wiki]

    You can thank me later for providing you with the definition of “falsifiable”.

  27. Frankie: CSI is real and is used by people every day.

    By people who bake caek? 😀

    What’s the CSI value of Stonehenge?

  28. Neil Rickert,

    CSI is real and is used by people every day. Why isn’t Neil’s post put into guano? It doesn’t have any substance and is purely infantile.

  29. Adapa,

    Yes, recipes contain CSI- that is if they have over 500 bits of information. And why would I use CSI for Stonehenge? Do you use a chainsaw for a fork?

  30. Alan Fox:
    Frankie

    Moved comments, mostly yours, to guano. Read the rules.

    Read the rules, Alan, and apply them equally or else you are a hypocrite. Rich’s posts should be removed. Neil’s post should be removed.

    Grow up or recuse yourself

  31. Frankie:
    Adapa,

    Yes, recipes contain CSI- that is if they have over 500 bits of information. And why would I use CSI for Stonehenge? Do you use a chainsaw for a fork?

    So you can’t actually calculate any CSI values. It’s just a meaningless buzzterm you throw around like all the other meaningless IDiot phrases. Got it.

  32. Adapa,

    LoL! CSI is not used on objects. CSI is used only when the information is readily converted to bits. Specified complexity is used with objects.

    Why do you insist on exposing your scientific ignorance?

  33. Alan is being a hypocrite when it comes to putting posts in guano. He is also being a coward by protecting the losers whose posts belong in guano.

  34. Adapa,

    You said organisms don’t have pre-planned goals stored. Now you say they do have pre-planned goals stored so they know how to direct changes.

    That is incorrect and demonstrates you are willfully ignorant and a waste of time

  35. Richardthughes,

    LoL! I know that is all you have and that is why you belong in guano.

    Again you have all the power to refute ID and you can’t. That says it al

  36. Frankie:
    Richardthughes,

    Again you have all the power to refute ID and you can’t. That says it al

    Organisms have pre-planned goals! Organisms have no pre-planned goals! No they do!! Yes they don’t!!

    That’s how it goes in the IDiot Army: Order. Counter-order. Disorder. 😀

Comments are closed.