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.
Rumraket,
LoL! Evos are the irrational lot. You guys can’t even make a positive case
Adapa,
LoL! You just make shit up because you cannot understand what is posted. Such is the life of an evo
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
Nice projection.
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.
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
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.
Adapa,
Cuz you say so? Really?
The goal to actively adapt to its environment is not a goal? Wow, you must be desperate, or ignorant
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?
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.
Adapa,
ID is goal-oriented. Your desperation and ignorance are still showing
Adapa,
You can’t follow what I say because you are an ignorant ass.
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
All of them do you retard. They simulate NS by DEFINITION. That’s what a GA is.
Are you so dumb that you can’t even google it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
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
Adapa,
And I never said “There are no pre-planned goals in Design.”
You are obviously a desperate ass
Why would anyone code an algo to find a known goal you fucking idiot?
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
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
stcordova,
Sal, go fuck yourself, loser
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?
dazz,
GAs do have a goal. They are designed to solve specific problems. GAs are search heuristics.
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
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.
stop moderating my edits
Any other ID proponent want to take over for Mung in this discussion? He seems to have misplaced his testicles again.
You don’t seem to be able to see anything
It is a real thing. And real people use CSI every day. So what is your problem?
I understand both ID and evolution better than you ever will. That much is obvious from your posts
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
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.
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.
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
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”.
Fuck you, Alan. YOU read the rules and stop being such a cowardly hypocrite.
By people who bake caek? 😀
What’s the CSI value of Stonehenge?
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
Adapa,
Press him on specifics and he always falls over himself, hilariously.
Adapa,
That is incorrect and demonstrates you are willfully ignorant and a waste of time
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
Adapa,
Gravity, math, biology, logic – he’s a polytard!
Richardthughes,
Your ignorance is not an argument
And you are an ignorant coward
Not really cupcake. I show up 😉
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. 😀