Glancing at Uncommon Descent (I still do as Denyse O’Leary often reports on interesting science articles, as here*, and the odd comment thread can still provide entertainment), I see an OP authored by gpuccio (an Italian medical doctor) entitled The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together, telling the story of the ubiquitin protein and its central role in eukaryote biochemistry in some considerable detail. The subtext is that ubiquitin’s role is so widespread and diverse and conserved across all (so far known) eukaryotes, that it defies an evolutionary explanation. This appears to be yet another god-of-the-gaps argument. Who can explain ubiquitin? Take that, evolutionists! I’m not familiar with the ubiquitin system and thank gpuccio for his article (though I did note some similarities to the Wikipedia entry.
In the discussion that follows, gpuccio and others note the lack of response from ID skeptics. Gpuccio remarks:
OK, our interlocutors, as usual, are nowhere to be seen, but at least I have some true friends!
and later:
And contributions from the other side? OK, let’s me count them… Zero?
Well, I can think of a few reasons why the comment thread lacks representatives from “the other side” (presumably those who are in general agreement with mainstream evolutionary biology).
- In a sense, there’s little in gpuccio’s opening post to argue over. It’s a description of a biochemical system first elucidated in the late seventies and into the early eighties. The pioneering work was done by Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko, Irwin Rose (later to win the Nobel prize for chemistry, credited with “the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation”, all mainstream scientists.
- Gpuccio hints at the complexity of the system and the “semiotic” aspects. It seems like another god-of-the-gaps argument. Wow, look at the complexity! How could this possibly have evolved! Therefore ID! What might get the attention of science is some theory or hypothesis that could be an alternative, testable explanation for the ubiquitin system. That is not to be found in gpuccio’s OP or subsequent comments.
- Uncommon Descent has an unenviable history on treatment of ID skeptics and their comments. Those who are still able to comment at UD risk the hard work involved in preparing a substantive comment being wasted as comments may never appear or are subsequently deleted and accounts arbitrarily closed.
I’m sure others can add to the list. So I’d like to suggest to gpuccio that he should bring his ideas here if he would like them challenged. If he likes, he can repost his article as an OP here. I guarantee that he (and any other UD regulars who’d like to join in) will be able to participate here without fear of material being deleted or comment privileges being arbitrarily suspended.
Come on, gpuccio. What have you got to lose?
gpuccio@UD
And the best part is: As long as we keep pretending that constructing a watch is “comparable” to designing organisms, we still don’t need to explain how
Godthe Designer did it.And remember: only the Designer can create life because humans can’t.
Good thing you mentioned that. That is indeed a bit inconsiderate.
Thanks Alan 🙂
Yeah, only if you really have an explanation–which you don’t. And you have to explain with your addled “theory” what evolution explains about life, and you don’t even pretend to do so (and your design evolution isn’t an explanation, it’s just putting two things together without explaining why anyone or anything could and would design via evolutionary limitations).
Or give it to us, Gpuccio. The explanation of life. You can’t just blither away saying that you have an explanation for knives and computers and pretend that it’s the same thing for life. You only think so because you ignore the vast differences between life and designed objects, following the pseudoscience of the IDists.
Why are the patterns of life so different? And why won’t you deal with what we actually write, you know? You get answered, your pathetic logic gets blown out of the water, your mindless assumptions are pointed out. The differences between life and designed things are elucidated, and you just return to blathering away that design explains life–which it doesn’t–and that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain–while it is built by explaining the facts of life that make no sense as design–as if no one had ever written anything.
You have no explanation for the heavy dead hand of history in life. It lies on all of biology, and the ersatz and evidence-free abstract merging of design and evolution hardly explains why brilliant intelligence does nothing to undo that dead hand of history in life. Why can’t it give feathers to a bat, why can’t it evince the least amount of evidence of actually thinking beyond evolutionary limitations?
Always nice for you to return to the comfort of non-facts and non-explanation, all resting on false premises and bad logic. You can’t explain, you can’t answer, you can’t do logic properly. But you can sling the BS of the usual ID cant that you have an explanation that works. And the theory that actually explains so much about life is what you dismiss without any explanatory replacement.
Of course it’s presented as if it weren’t god of the gaps. But the lacunae are all that exist in your “theory,” there are no explanations worthy of the name.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
And another one who spotted right away that the gap remains a gap, even with the “good inference” in place. I guess it really was pretty obvious.
I’ll agree that you guys sometimes use faulty premises and bad logic instead of god-of-the-gaps. The trouble is that when called on it you only double down on it.
And because you can’t do a speck of real science with “design explains it” and “neo-darwinism doesn’t explain it,” (never mind how wrong those claims are), you end up bashing on evolutionary theory while never doing any kind of ID science.
The upshot is, what? You’re claiming gaps, and just asserting that
GodDesigner can do the job. Well, we don’t really doubt that logically, a made-up omniscient and omnipotent being could do it, without the foresight and ability to look around at non-interbreeding organisms that normal humans have (however ridiculous that idea is), it’s just that it remains what it was in the beginning, a made-up cause. And rather than do anything with design, you’re stuffing God into the gaps.Effectively it’s a god-of-the-gaps operation. Logically, it sometimes uses unsound premises and bad logic to make a bad argument that yields nothing that can be used to do science. Which is why it ends up doing nothing but putting God into the gaps.
Glen Davidson
Gpuccio: “Neo-darwinism is a possible falsification of ID”
No falsification by counter-evidence of the positive case for design?
How very telling. But hey! nothing to see here, he’s made positive case for design, it’s just as invisible as the designer
Gpuccio falsifying darwinism, caught on tape
That’s also what he looks like when making a “positive case” for ID, and, well, all the fucking time.
See, this is your bad logic exhibited yet again. How would “neo-darwinism” falsify ID if ID isn’t effectively a god-of-the-gaps idea? What you need for ID is actual evidence for design, which you don’t have. Design evidence could exist alongside darwinian evolution, after all, which is basically the case in domesticated organisms.
If you had any reasonable evidence for design, and you were interested in competing fairly in science, you’d be arguing that ID is the best explanation (yes, we hear the claims, not decent arguments). Only you don’t have that evidence, you just assume that life could be designed using your bad analogies, so you beat on evolution hoping that you can open up gaps into which you wish to stuff your useless “explanation.”
No large-scale explanation, a theory or a model, has ever won out by pretending that the extant idea is no explanation at all. What it actually does is explain what the current theory does, and more.
What ID does is, not explain what evolutionary theory does, and then it adds nothing explanatory beyond that. Only your faith that God can do anything makes you think you have any explanation at all.
Glen Davidson
It is exceptional according to current knowledge Who knows what future research will reveal?
But exceptional findings are precisely the facts that do need to be explained. The reason you are speculating on pathways such as transference through diet is because this finding is so hard to explain by the usual Darwinian route. If this sequence has been retained since the shared common ancestor of both species, why is it that both have retained such an exact conservation? It looks more like an instance of common design that unguided common descent.
gpuccio via GlenDavidson:
Well, it remains a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Let’s check it again:
The god-of-the-gaps argument has always been exactly what you describe here. Oh! Ah! I don’t know how this could be explained, but magical beings can do anything! Same old god-of-the-gaps argument.
You just rephrased the part that reads “because a magical being can do anything,” with “we have observed similar things done by humans,” only, of course, for that to work you need “magic” so that The Designer (let’s not forget those capitals), can design the designers, but it remains the very same shit.
As to neo-darwinism, I think you’re the ones who keeps repeating that word. I doubt I’ve used it as many times. Either way. I don’t have a default explanation. I just prefer not to make a fool out of myself. So I’m reluctant to include “explanations” that don’t explain anything, like absurd magical beings in the sky. Why? Because that’s purely religious nonsense, and it doesn’t explain anything. It just pretends to do so.
It is exceptional because most phylogenetic studies overwhelmingly support common descent. That is what makes this particular case stand out.
The reason why I am speculating on this is because I was thinking of batrachotoxins which are taken up in the diet by animals as different as poison dart frogs and poisonous hooded pitohui birds, posibly both as the result of eating Choresine beetles (yes, also poisonous). Also, there are examples where catterpillars stock up toxins from some dietary source (usually the host plant) in order to become poisonous themselves, e.g. the larvae of Cinnabar moths Tyria jacobaeae.
Heh, funny. We were just talking about god-of-the-gaps. So now I am going to ask you: where is your evidence that the protein is encoded in the genome of Hebomoia glaucippe? You don’t just get to make extraordinary claims based on an absence of data.
I wasn’t making an argument against common descent. Common descent is also an observed fact.
The link you gave should demonstrate the difference between your speculations and the example I gave.
From your link
In this case the toxin does not originate from the bird’s genome, it is sequestered from their diet. This reminds me of the sea slugs that use the stinging cells of their prey
You continue:
My evidence comes from a PNAS link I had provided:
Peptide toxin glacontryphan-M is present in the wings of the butterfly Hebomoia glaucippe (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae)
Then why the “It looks more like an instance of common design that unguided common descent”, I wonder?
which is what I was speculating was the case for the butterfly as well. So what’s the difference?
I am sorry, but it doesn’t. The paper shows how the protein was detected and the peptide sequence was established. It reports no genetic work.
More gawd-of-the-gaps + burden shift claptrap from puccio:
Such a one trick pony
gpuccio@UD,
Oh my.
If the answer was “a single amino-acid can reverse the specificity,” then you’d be right, but that wasn’t the answer. You took that single sentence, which was parenthetical, and assumed that was the answer I was giving. The rest f the paragraph you took to be the parenthesis, apparently, and you ignored spectacularly.
You’re not fooling anybody. Not even yourself.
Not the example, the parenthetical factoid. I was very clear about that when I pointed out that you didn’t bother reading my answer. Why do you guys love pretending illiteracy when seems convenient to you?
The parenthetical part that you bolded (emphasis yours, remember?), and that you decided to use as an excuse to ignore the whole answer. “Oh! That’s not a ladder! That’s a jump!” While ignoring the ladders described otherwise.
Sure, ignore the fact that there’s lots of ranges in efficiency towards different substrates just among LDHs. You have a good excuse. You conveniently forgot that you focused on a parenthetical sentence, and now you can excuse yourself from reading the whole thing for comprehension. All by failing to read for comprehension again!
So now you pretend further illiteracy? That enzymes have ranges of efficiency, sometimes working on substrates they’ve never encountered in their environments, is a “conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps.”
(Emphasis mine.) If ladders in enzymatic activities towards a variety of substrates is not a reason to at least believe that it is possible, then the problem is with your reasoning. I think that the emphasis should be on “we,” and that you should clarify that means “me-gpuccio.” that way we won’t waste time even trying. It’s a request to convince the irrational. A request to convince people who’d rather pretend to be illiterate that get a clue.
You should at least try and be consistent. First you didn’t like that you saw a jump in specificity. “Jumps are not ladders!” Now you seem to have realized that the ladders were there (even though you called it a confused fuss), but no, you don’t want that anymore. Now you want a complex transition. Not just the existence of ladders, no sir, complete complex transitions.
Affinities are naturally selectable functions gpuccio. How do you think protein functions are performed? By protein telepathy? (Of course you’d believe that!) How do you think proteins come together into protein complexes if not by their relative affinities towards each other?
What happened with “any conceptual reason”? Now you want the whole story?
Well, I gave you that. The problem was, as I now realize, that the challenge was to convince you. Not to give you any conceptual reasons, but to convince you.
I did all right. This is settled, at least from the point of view of a reasonable person.
My mistake was that I didn’t take you for an illiterate who doesn’t even know what he’s asking for. Now I know better.
Given your pretended and your authentic stupidity, I doubt this conversation can go anywhere but downhill. So, I’m out.
Oddly they never demand the same level of detail in the explanations they accept.
Corneel,
Are you claiming there is no ancestor to the eukaryotic cell? I would support this hypothesis.
I am not claiming that it came on all at once I am simply showing that current evidence shows greater then 100k jump in bits. What we are missing is a plausible evolutionary path to a protein that is central to the spliceosome and has around 10k bits. Evolutionarily conserved since yeast. No evidence of a precursor.
Functions such as cell cycle control, Mis folded protein breakdown, DNA repair.
Well, that’s because it’s just magic. If it’s magic it explains everything. No reasoning necessary.
I almost missed this other detail in his moving of the goal posts:
His original “request”:
His, ahem, let’s call it rewording:
See that? He changed from asking about the function to asking about the protein. This way, instead of something as easy as getting new functions from already existing proteins, he’s asking for new proteins.
Of course, that’s also answerable, but he made sure to mention, on passing, that directed evolution experiments were not acceptable answers. Why not? Because they’re experiments made by people, and people are intelligent, and thus they only prove Intelligently Designed Selection [TM]. Therefore any experiments aiming at showing that there’s selectable ladders, will prove Intelligent Design. So, no experiments. Is examination of life forms acceptable? Are you kidding me? Of course not! Those were designed by The Magical Being In The Sky, That would only prove Intelligent Design!
Not any conceptual reasons, not ladders in function, not experiments, not reasonable answers, not reasonable inferences. The point is to move the goal posts and to make sure to dismiss any potential answer.
The guy is a shameless ass-hole.
P.S. The bit about directed evolution experiments proving intelligent design puts gpuccio at the very same level as the most stupid among creationists. That’s were he irremediably lost all my respect.
Entropy,
lulz
This I find so revolting. They just keep piggybacking on legit science to proclaim it supports their BS.
Gpuccio’s egregious question begging is on display time and again:
yippee!
dazz,
Oh, yes. Weasel words indeed. The hypocrisy and stupidity of that crowd is unbearable.
I would be happy if they provided any level of detail. “Poof” is not detail.
No, That’s not fair. He is orders of magnitude less stupid than ET or bornagain77. 🙂
No, I am claiming that without phylogenetics you have no way of knowing anything about the genome of those ancestors, including whether any “information jumps” were necessary.
What is that evidence? I don’t think you can produce any without either resorting to irreducible complexity or accepting methods that rely on common descent.
We are discussing the spliceosome now? OK, very well, I am very flexible. What protein would that be?
Incidentally, what does “Evolutionarily conserved since yeast” mean? Channeling John: “word salad”.
So the primitive ubiquitin system simply was recruited to perform novel functions in multicellular development? Excellent, I am so glad you reject this IC nonsense as well.
Can our UD friends respond to my macro-gravitational challenge? (Tried presenting it to Bill Cole a while back and as one would assume, he failed miserably)
Gravitationists claim that the entire solar system was created by gradual accretion, small gravitational steps accumulating over millions & millions of years. Yeah, we regularly observe these micro-gravitational events, apples fall from trees and stuff, but no one has ever observed the formation of a planet by accretion.
Where’s the evidence? Do we even have a reason to believe our beloved planet earth, in all it’s perfection to support intelligent life and also creationists, could have been formed by a blind and mindless process like that? Do we need to believe that all those little rocks just happened to hit in the right places time and again?
Agreed, gpuccio has proven himself a lot brighter and more polite than several other participants in that same UD thread. We have experienced far less pleasant exchanges.
Dembski’s famous, ” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.”
Both faulting our “level of detail” and claiming to be exempt from having to provide as much as we do at the same time–actually, of course, they provide none.
The hypocrisy is ever present.
Glen Davidson
Yes, much better than most of the others at UD. And yet he seems to follow the script, seemingly unaware of the bad logic and unsupported presuppositions that ID uses and that are obvious to us when he uses them.
He seems to be a true believer, not one who is aware of how bad his logic is, for example. And yet why not? Is he incapable of recognizing bad logic, or is he just unwilling to do so?
This really struck me:
Take the definition of a symbol, which includes a representational relationship, and make the leap to ubiquitin tags being symbols simply because they have a similar causal relationship (or actually worse, he says that they indicate an outcome, however ambiguous that is–but it seems based on the causal relationship). Without apparently even realizing that the definition of the symbol depended upon representation, not upon causal outcomes, let alone “indicating” anything to anybody or anything before science discovered the relationship.
It’s a category mistake in the first place (he seems unaware of the different categories involved and thus mashes together representational and causal matters ambiguously), and also the fallacy of taking a characteristic of a category as if it were universal. The typical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
It really is typically bad ID thinking. While he’s miles above ET or BA77, he’s still stuck in logical fallacies that a mediocre Philosophy 101 student should recognize at least toward the end of the term. And so one wonders, is he that incapable of reasoning, that desperate to believe, or some combination of the two?
Glen Davidson
Well, that was to be expected, wasn’t it? 🙂
Just façade. The impoliteness manifests in the disinterest in reading for comprehension. He thinks he’s dealing with flies, and that all he has to do is hand-wave them away. The impoliteness is also manifest in the dishonesty, though I’d understand why they have such a tendency, ID is hypocritical from the very foundations, no wonder it would permeate into their whole character.
The stupidity displayed in the inability to understand the ridiculousness of the “experiments-only-prove-intelligent-design” claim, makes it hard to put him above BA77 or ET. But maybe you’re right. Some things indicate that he’s above those other idiots, which makes this “inability,” I suspect, just more of the dishonesty. Maybe he understand the stupidity of that position, but uses the claim just because he knows that the rest of the idiots don’t understand the problem with that shit. If nobody there called him on his lack of understanding of the word “arbitrary,” for example, then they won’t notice anything.
OK. Then he’s just deeply dishonest and passive aggressive.
Yes I was mistaken about that. But it does show that in all probability common descent was not involved in the toxin’s appearance in the orange tip butterfly.
I will need to do more reading about the distribution and use of toxins. Here is an interesting article that I have just found about resistance to toxins which involves convergence rather than common descent .
This from Science Daily:
I need to leave it there as time is short.
At least not by descent from the common ancestor of insects and gastropods, I agree.
Yes, fascinating stuff. Thanks for the link.
Corneel,
The evidence is an organism with a spliceosome and an approximate date for the origin of this organism. We also have preservation of the Prp8 sequence through out all eukaryotic life which shows time differences.
Recruited? You are agreeing with the design hypothesis? Recruiting needs a recruiter:-)
How did it originate in yeast? How was the controlled and variable cell division feature evolved before this complex function could benefit the organism?
Every time.
Glen Davidson
Entropy,
I do not think he is either dishonest or passive aggressive.
He may not completely understand your arguments at this point and I understand your frustration but in the spirit of TSZ please assume he is posting in good faith.
All groups go through a process of confrontation in the beginning especially when there are major philosophical differences.
Really?
Way to admit you’re a stupid fuck, Poochie.
Those who can, do; those who can’t, bullshit like you do.
Glen Davidson
Yes.
But pretty stupid, too.
Glen Davidson
The problem, Bill, is that he doesn’t even try and read for comprehension. He didn’t read that comment that made it obvious, and when confronted, instead of reading it, he claimed he did, then proceeded to call it a confused fuss, rather than assume that maybe he was the one with the problem, then he shows that he kind of got it, then he says that affinity doesn’t have anything to do with function (!!!!!????), while pressuring to talk about molecular and biochemical systems, when affinity is obviously the main thing in biology, especially at that scale, then he doesn’t know the definition of “arbitrary,” a word he’s been using su “support” his anthropomorphisms all along. That’s either dishonesty or stupidity. I’m inclined to dishonesty because he’s shown that he’s capable of choosing data on a web page form. Someone who cannot read would not be able to do that. Then he’s passive aggressive and considers us flies, because otherwise he’d make an effort to understand instead of dismissing without reading as soon as he found an excuse in a parenthetical sentence.
I agree that things can start roughly and get better later, but this was getting worse with his excuses for not reading, lying about having read them, pretending not to get it when finally read, being a total ass-hole about it, then going for the experiments-are-intelligently-designed-therefore-experiments-don’t-work astoundingly stupid excuse.
Sorry, the guy is dishonest and passive aggressive. If he remains interested, he’d have to show that he can do better. I’m not holding my breath, and I’m not likely to take another look.
I can answer your questions though. I think we’ve developed some good communication. Even if we might never agree.
Entropy,
I don’t think he can bear to admit being wrong–and he’s massively wrong.
So he projects.
Glen Davidson
Entropy,
I agree that we have developed productive communication. I also think you are smart (more then just academically) and have some really thoughtful ideas.
I have known gpuccio for several years and believe that your disconnect is due solely to the fact that your relationship is new. His presentation here is very valuable for science in general. If you want a more detailed description why; connect with me at colewd@aol.com.
What can you expect from someone who doesn’t even understand what it means to make a positive case?
They shit all over science, trying to push their theological BS into the field and complain about our “materialistic” bias when we let them know that’s not how science is done. What does materialism have to do with this? Are you suggesting the designer you have in mind is immaterial? That can’t be, cause ID is not about identifying the designer right? heh
Keep bitching and moaning folks. Science will keep on progressing by advancing proper explanations with empirical entailments.
And no Puccio, for the emptienth time, declaring that this or that is evidence of design won’t cut it. Give us a proper theory with causal explanatory power or crawl back to your creotard forums where you can all tap each other in the back for rehashing the same old failed unscientific arguments
I disagree. I went a coupla rounds with gpuccio; he’s polite, but he was either unwilling, or unable, to read for comprehension. Once he started in with the “Intelligent Selection” rubbish, I realized he was obfuscating, probably intentionally. That was over three years ago, and my cursory review of his latest output confirms my suspicion that he has learnt nothing since, and still lacks basic understanding. In particular, he suffers from Texas Sharp Shooter in a big way.
colewd,
What presentation are you talking about that you think is good for science? The summary of ubiquitin systems?
So you had the very same experience. Now I wonder if I should be surprised.
I think that’s what he meant when he mentioned that he was supposed to have a private party. He meant that he was not really asking anybody like us to participate. He was just boasting that he never gets answers to get some pats in the back from his stupid friends. Of course, using a forum anybody can read for a private party is kinda stupid, but what else can we expect from them?
Just couldn’t face the stupidity of your illogic, could you? Hence you skip where I expose your inability to avoid obvious fallacies. So you come back to issues where you just repeat the same insipid BS that you began with, sans any evidence worthy of the name.
Comment:
Well that’s meaningless. Why even use the term “nature” if you’re speaking of all observables?
“Observable” is not a very apt word for consciousness. Empiric, or something that we experience, works rather better.
No, I have a model of it that you’ve not touched. Hardly a full explanation (what is?), it’s deals with the evidence in a manner that no one’s brought a good objection against. The criticisms I’ve gotten were against McFadden’s rather poor model.
You could try having an open mind instead.
What good is the word “nature” if you couldn’t theoretically ever observe something that wasn’t “nature”?
Not really, at least not often without some modifier, like “artificial.”
No, I don’t see where consciousness is a deciding factor. You’re making another unjustified claim.
In ID pseudoscience. So you can only parrot ID nonsense, without even grasping the need to justify your presuppositions?
So? That has nothing to do with your claims about the importance of consciousness to creating information. I think it matters, as I suspect that the interactions producing consciousness help to coordinate information, but intelligence isn’t obviously dependent on consciousness as such.
And far more beholden to the dead hand of history than human designs are. Which you’d deal with if you were intellectually honest.
No, of course you don’t. With ID it’s just a matter of assertion, rather than of discovery and producing evidence for your claims.
Yeah, if I were as dishonest as you are. But I actually care about justification, while you simply believe what a bunch of professional charlatans have told you.
Of course, you’d have to be able to make a case, instead of asserting BS over and over again. You’re a shameless believer who has no ability to understand epistemic requirements.
Yes, but the real point is that you never justified your claim in the first place. And you’re too beholden to your beliefs to understand the fact that you need evidence for your position in the first place, and that trying to illegitimately transfer the burden of proof is the work of an illogical crank.
How fucking stupid your response is. Those are accidental features, not part of the design. Somehow, we don’t really have much trouble distinguishing between the wood of a bow and the design and manufacture of that bow.
Anyway, clearly you’re too dumb and/or dishonest to recognize that your idiotic response has fuck all to do with the lack of transference of good “design” across non-interbreeding lineages. Just spew some mindless garbage at a legitimate objection, and bask in the warm glow of the UD dimwits.<b,
Look, dumbshit, the fact that you’re too much a dull and dishonest bozo even to begin to consider what truly indicates design–and not the dishonest bullshit that you swill from mendacious morons–hardly gives you any credibility to judge the matter. I brought up basic design principles, and you’re so despicable that you call them “designer’s style.” No, it’s designer’s intelligence, which is as lacking in crucial areas (that is, where evolutionary constraints apply) as your intelligence is.
What a retard you are. You recently went on and on about how analogy is legitimate, when I hadn’t suggested otherwise, and now when I point out that if you’re going to make an analogy you don’t get to cherry pick as dishonest cretins like you do, you resort to stupid name-calling of “anthropormorphism.”
You really can’t deal with logic at all, can you? Anthropomorphism is an idiot like you looking at complex functionality in life and stupidly thinking it must be due to something like a human because you lack intellectual integrity and imagination. Analysis is comparing what real examples of designers do and using that to identify what design is. You, predictably, don’t know the difference between the two, because you’re a pseudoscientific sellout.
Admission? Who minds admitting that you make utterly dishonest “arguments” that masquerade as science?
Yes, dumbass. You certainly don’t catch on to the point that you have the burden of justifying your asinine claim in the first place. I don’t have the burden to disprove your fucking lies. How fucking retarded are you, shithead? Get it through your damaged brain that you need to justify your claims, that you don’t get to just make up lies and demand that we disprove your lies when we disagree.
First off, I have, and you’re too fucked in the head to recognize it as analysis. I’m not going to repeat myself so that you just blither on with your mindless drivel and demand again what you’ve been provided but are too ignorant and stupid to understand.
Second, it’s burden tennis again from the brain-damaged pseudoscientist. Can’t you even begin to grasp the important of having evidence for your stupid claims? You have none, and you don’t even know why justification even matters. Maybe you aren’t brighter than JoeG and BA77.
Everything, to someone intelligent enough and educated enough to actually do what scientists do, attempt to match up cause and effect to determine whether the effect is likely to come from the cause. You don’t understand the first thing about causal thinking, it appears.
Rather than engaging with the issues, shithead. And it’s not opinion, disingenuous fool, it’s observation. That you don’t know the difference isn’t surprising to me, dumb as you are about everything.
Science accepts the evidence, you just accept whatever you want without caring about the actual non-design effects that mindless evolutionary causes have produced in life.
So no, no praise for your endless stupidity.
OK, you’re still stupid, and you’re too rude to think when you can just ignore what you mindlessly call “opinion.”
Because you’ve never justified it, you dull dull fool. I’ve given other reasons, but you’re too idiotic even to understand the importance of having a good reason for your claims in the first place.
OK, you’re too stupid to understand the importance of having an actually logical scientific hypothesis. You don’t get to just make up shit and pretend that your made-up shit justifies your conclusions. Science builds on justification, it doesn’t allow your sort of mendacious claims to rule matters.
Please learn philosophy, science, or anything else that might keep you from writing inanities.
Look, stupid fuck, bad scientific hypotheses can be falsifiable and thus scientific. Bullshit “scientific hypotheses,” like ID, which includes unjustified claims as the basis for their falsification standards, are not scientific, and not honestly falsifiable. That’s because they have illegitimate claims within them that would have to be justified before they can be used.
Oh wow, a stupid fuck telling us that “neo-darwinism” (dumbass, it’s no longer neo-darwinism) is a good example of a bad scientific theory. A stupid fuck who doesn’t even understand that he has to justify his claims for them to be taken seriously.
Too damned stupid to recognize the importance of your category mistake, are you?
ID isn’t about functional complexity, because it claims to be about design detection, and functional complexity simply isn’t the mark of design. Many designs are simple and quite identifiable as such, and obviously you have to just make a lot of disingenuous claims when it is pointed out that complex functional life happens not to have the actual effects of intelligence that any honest ID entails.
No you don’t, moron, you’re too dumb even to understand it. You do try to rubbish what you don’t understand with your insipid lies about “opinion.”
Yes, I’m quite good at it. I’d be appalled if you could say so without your dishonest sarcasm dripping through, revealing your character and inability to recognize anything beyond your cherished pseudoscience.
You’re too dumb to even understand that you have the burden to justify your claims. You’re a worthless interlocutor, because you begin stupid, and then you merely accentuate your stupidity whenever you’re called on it.
Glen Davidson
You know that Pooch is just pleased with his beliefs, satisfied with the accolades that he receives from the mentally-challenged, and unable and unwilling to consider anything written by those evil atheists.
So he’s just going to stay an ignorant chump, whatever mental abilities he has. You catch him out on really stupid illogic and fallacious presuppositions, and he just weasels around with pathetic excuses.
Not only won’t he learn, he won’t discuss in any way except by privileging ID fallacies and bullshit above all truth and logic. I think that profitable discussion is largely at an end, although I’m not swearing it off yet.
Glen Davidson
Does gpuccio really buy into that? One could as easily say that if, by a carefully and intelligently designed algorithm, we can make a reasonably successful simulation of erosion of soil, that this proves that erosion occurs by intervention of an Intelligent Designer.