How are people like this getting elected?

[DrDoug]

Instead of commenting on me why don't you demonstrate that genetic copying errors and selection can build biological machines? Such an obvious fact should be trivially easy to demonstrate. None of your tripe is even an attempt at demonstrating the power of mutation and selection.

Why does anyone have to demonstrate a damned thing to you? Who gives a shit if you choose to ignore known science and instead wallow in ignorance? You are arguing purely for the sake of arguing, with no intention of changing your stance when the requested evidence is presented. You instead choose to dismiss the data and demand more data all the while knowing that you will dismiss that data too. You like circular arguments, moving goal posts and seem to enjoy dragging people into wasting time responding to you.

I wouldn't waste another second in any serious discussion with you.

 

[Meghan54]

Why does anyone have to demonstrate a damned thing to you? Who gives a shit if you choose to ignore known science and instead wallow in ignorance? You are arguing purely for the sake of arguing, with no intention of changing your stance when the requested evidence is presented. You instead choose to dismiss the data and demand more data all the while knowing that you will dismiss that data too. You like circular arguments, moving goal posts and seem to enjoy dragging people into wasting time responding to you.

I wouldn't waste another second in any serious discussion with you.

Watch out, keep that up and you may end up on........

THE LIST!!!

 

[kage69]

Why does anyone have to demonstrate a damned thing to you? Who gives a shit if you choose to ignore known science and instead wallow in ignorance? You are arguing purely for the sake of arguing, with no intention of changing your stance when the requested evidence is presented. You instead choose to dismiss the data and demand more data all the while knowing that you will dismiss that data too. You like circular arguments, moving goal posts and seem to enjoy dragging people into wasting time responding to you.

I wouldn't waste another second in any serious discussion with you.

Can we turn that into a sticky?

Please say No to 'chess with pigeons,' and put the sorry little troll on Ignore.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Far be it from me to get in the middle, but what exactly is the argument? Evolution in general doesn't exist or that humans didn't evolve from other organisms?

Instead of commenting on me why don't you demonstrate that genetic copying errors and selection can build biological machines?

A single celled organism is a biological machine. What are you suggesting then is the reason "biological machines" came to be.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can we turn that into a sticky?

Please say No to 'chess with pigeons,' and put the sorry little troll on Ignore.

I believe this is the wrong attitude. I say that he lacks the faculty to see the unreasonableness of his demands. You attribute that, it seems, to some sort of malice and want him to be ignored. That would, in my opinion, help neither him or you or me. There is a difference between he can't participate for lack of capacity, and you won't participate because he pisses you off. The result would be similar, but the reasoning is very different and important, it seems to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Far be it from me to get in the middle, but what exactly is the argument? Evolution in general doesn't exist or that humans didn't evolve from other organisms?


Quote:
Instead of commenting on me why don't you demonstrate that genetic copying errors and selection can build biological machines?

A single celled organism is a biological machine. What are you suggesting then is the reason "biological machines" came to be.

I think what he is doing is relying on the fact that nobody saw evolution happen and therefore there can be no direct first hand evidence that it happened. He is asking for that evidence because it does not exist. What it seems to me that you are asking is to know his explanation for how things happened. I would not hold my breath on that. The only rational explanation he could give would be the thing he challenges, the Theory of Evolution, the fact of the reality of evolution he denies. Anything he came up with would likely be a joke.

 

[werepossum]

Far be it from me to get in the middle, but what exactly is the argument? Evolution in general doesn't exist or that humans didn't evolve from other organisms?

A single celled organism is a biological machine. What are you suggesting then is the reason "biological machines" came to be.

The argument generally is that random variation coupled with selective pressure does not adequately explain speciation. A corollary argument is that some constructs are irreducible complex (meaning that producing only some of the necessary products is wasted energy and thus makes the individual's survival less likely.

In reality genes are not hard-coded but instead are coded for a variety of compounds and duties, many if not most of which are expressed only at need. I think there is a lack of understanding about just how versatile are genes in general. For instance, birds whose normal food disappears can adapt to better utilize barely accessible food sources in a few generations. This is evolving longer (or stronger) beaks at need, not through selective survival. (Or at least not only through selective survival.) We've even seen this in humans, where kids who grow up climbing tend to have longer fingers and limbs. Obviously this isn't a matter of having dozens of children, of which only those with the longest reach survive. It's only an adaptation of what is being used. But over generations, such traits may become genetically fixed as a preferential genotype.

Of course, that doesn't explain getting something from nothing, or turning fish into fowl.

 

[buckshot24]

Why does anyone have to demonstrate a damned thing to you? Who gives a shit if you choose to ignore known science and instead wallow in ignorance? You are arguing purely for the sake of arguing, with no intention of changing your stance when the requested evidence is presented. You instead choose to dismiss the data and demand more data all the while knowing that you will dismiss that data too. You like circular arguments, moving goal posts and seem to enjoy dragging people into wasting time responding to you.

I wouldn't waste another second in any serious discussion with you.

Please place me on ignore, for your own good.

 

[buckshot24]

I comment on you because you ask me to demonstrate something to you. Your request is meaningless because you lack the capacity to validate such a demonstration. It would be like trying to prove to a machine it's a printer if it were out of ink.

How about you just show how this self evident fact is so self evident? If one is a nut for not believing it then it should be simple. It isn't so you concentrate on calling me an idiot who wouldn't be able to understand it.

A machine like a printer isn't able to think at all, I am so please keep your insults out of it. They don't make what you believe in any more true.

 

[buckshot24]

Far be it from me to get in the middle, but what exactly is the argument? Evolution in general doesn't exist or that humans didn't evolve from other organisms?

I'm not really making an argument, I'm asking why people believe that genetic copying errors and selection created the intricate machines we find in cells.

What we observe, to me, isn't adequate. Some bacteria change the shape of an active site on an enzyme to allow a different substrate to bind to it and people go nuts as if this is evidence that a microbe turned into people and jelly fish.

A single celled organism is a biological machine. What are you suggesting then is the reason "biological machines" came to be.

I'm not talking about the cell itself but the machines within it that make it work. One is considered a nut if one doesn't believe that a microbe turned into people over billions of years so I'd like to see how this is so self evidently true. Instead, I'm called a nut for simply questioning it or/and I am an idiot that couldn't understand it even if demonstrated.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How about you just show how this self evident fact is so self evident? If one is a nut for not believing it then it should be simple.

It is simple. You are simply a dishonest fucktard.

It isn't so you concentrate on calling me an idiot who wouldn't be able to understand it.

A machine like a printer isn't able to think at all

Prove it.

I am

Prove it.

They don't make what you believe in any more true.

If you don't like people pointing out that you are a dishonest fucktard, then stop being a dishonest fucktard.

 

[buckshot24]

I think what he is doing is relying on the fact that nobody saw evolution happen and therefore there can be no direct first hand evidence that it happened. He is asking for that evidence because it does not exist. What it seems to me that you are asking is to know his explanation for how things happened. I would not hold my breath on that. The only rational explanation he could give would be the thing he challenges, the Theory of Evolution, the fact of the reality of evolution he denies. Anything he came up with would likely be a joke.

Then why on earth is one a nut for not believing this explanation? Can't you see a problem here? My explanations have nothing to do with whether yours are true or not.

 

[buckshot24]

I believe this is the wrong attitude. I say that he lacks the faculty to see the unreasonableness of his demands. You attribute that, it seems, to some sort of malice and want him to be ignored. That would, in my opinion, help neither him or you or me. There is a difference between he can't participate for lack of capacity, and you won't participate because he pisses you off. The result would be similar, but the reasoning is very different and important, it seems to me.

I think it is your assertions about life that are unreasonable. Especially if one is a nut for not believing your assertions.

To Kage, who I have on ignore, please place me on ignore.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Far be it from me to get in the middle, but what exactly is the argument? Evolution in general doesn't exist or that humans didn't evolve from other organisms?

He has an irrational religious commitment to evolution being untrue. Since scientific models are inferential instead of deductive, he pretends that the inferences are not justified -- usually by examining a single piece of evidence in isolation and then trumpeting his incredulity, all the while conveniently ignoring the vast body of additional and independent lines of evidence that work in concert to buttress evolutionary theory.

A single celled organism is a biological machine. What are you suggesting then is the reason "biological machines" came to be.

He won't answer that question because for all his feigned incredulity, his preferred alternative explanation is "magic."

 

[kage69]

I believe this is the wrong attitude. I say that he lacks the faculty to see the unreasonableness of his demands. You attribute that, it seems, to some sort of malice and want him to be ignored. That would, in my opinion, help neither him or you or me. There is a difference between he can't participate for lack of capacity, and you won't participate because he pisses you off. The result would be similar, but the reasoning is very different and important, it seems to me.

While I do appreciate the kinder, gentler approach to combating ignorance and agenda on the forums, I also happen to feel it's perfectly appropriate to keep in mind the subject's track record of being able to prove their good intentions, or lack there of, towards the spirit of debate. In cases where it's quite clear you are dealing with someone that cannot bring themselves to accept basic tenants of real debate, a claimants burden of proof most notably, let alone basic tenants of science (his favorite field to fertilize), I believe it's better for the discussion if we just put those types on mute. Call me heartless, but I'm under no presumption that any of us are obligated to fight his affliction for him, to say nothing of what a task of such might likely entail. We do know what the results are though, one need only look at the Christopher Hitchens thread we had recently for a good example. It's not that I'm pissed off moonie, it's that I'm tired, and I probably resent being tired on top of it! Searching through threads like that for bits related to the subject (what was different, important if you will) can be exhaustive when his kind are successful at what they do.

Quite simply, I think it's a mistake not to use the Ignore button in cases like this. If you want to devote time and effort to helping this guy try to be less stupid, fine. Don't put him on Ignore. It's about choice after all, I just wish you could see that he's already made his.

 

[kage69]

He has an irrational religious commitment to evolution being untrue.

Exactly.

But hey, at least we're in the same ballpark as the thread subject now! See, I'm a positive kinda guy. :biggrin:

 

[Brainonska511]

Watch out, keep that up and you may end up on........

THE LIST!!!

After the last farce, I don't know why anyone would bother engaging him.

 

[MongGrel]

The likely explanation IS that you are a nut in this case. Because to an I programmed rational mine, the theory of evolution is in first place as an explanation. The only exceptions is any statistical significance are people who save been previously brainwashed by. Religion. There, the need to rationalize
Takes presidency.

Of course I know this is how it works, more or less.

I see it every day in my work. Anyone can cite tens of thousands of articles and letters that show how this works.

Hi--I'm an evolutionary geneticist.

This dingbat in state congress isn't so much about who voted for her--it's about the other dingbats in her congress thinking she is qualified for this position--which she most certainly is not.

You first. the ball is in your court, making a strange claim against a century plus of volumes of evidence and observed, tested, repeated data.

That's how this works.

Or, you could just keep walking up to the Formula One mechanics, as you do, tell them that they have no clue how their engines work, "because reasons," and they'll just keep ignoring you.

Buckshot is actually back to this again ?

More face palming ensues.

 

[brycejones]

Please place me on ignore, for your own good.

Stop acting like an idiot. Your posts are little more than baseless asseritions combined with a refusal to support your positions with evidence.

 

[WelshBloke]

After the last farce, I don't know why anyone would bother engaging him.

Lolz?

It's funny seeing hubris in action.

 

[Moonbeam]

While I do appreciate the kinder, gentler approach to combating ignorance and agenda on the forums, I also happen to feel it's perfectly appropriate to keep in mind the subject's track record of being able to prove their good intentions, or lack there of, towards the spirit of debate. In cases where it's quite clear you are dealing with someone that cannot bring themselves to accept basic tenants of real debate, a claimants burden of proof most notably, let alone basic tenants of science (his favorite field to fertilize), I believe it's better for the discussion if we just put those types on mute. Call me heartless, but I'm under no presumption that any of us are obligated to fight his affliction for him, to say nothing of what a task of such might likely entail. We do know what the results are though, one need only look at the Christopher Hitchens thread we had recently for a good example. It's not that I'm pissed off moonie, it's that I'm tired, and I probably resent being tired on top of it! Searching through threads like that for bits related to the subject (what was different, important if you will) can be exhaustive when his kind are successful at what they do.

Quite simply, I think it's a mistake not to use the Ignore button in cases like this. If you want to devote time and effort to helping this guy try to be less stupid, fine. Don't put him on Ignore. It's about choice after all, I just wish you could see that he's already made his.

The only think I feel I can contribute to him is my opinion that he can't use what he says he wants, explanations he can't absorb. He is attempting to lift a manhole cover while standing on it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then why on earth is one a nut for not believing this explanation? Can't you see a problem here? My explanations have nothing to do with whether yours are true or not.

You would be a nut for not believing the explanation you will inevitably give if you use reason to arrive at it. Direct witness proof of what happened before humanity existed is not possible to have. Only inferred truth can be postulated and the theory of evolution is the result. It is so powerful and logically valid that it's swept all other ideas away. But is it required in its understanding that you be mentally equipped to handle follow it. You don't have that ability, either because you are insufficiently scientifically literate or by a motivated need for denial. The simple fact is that I do see and you can't.

We will make more progress when you decide to explain whatever it is you are asking me to explain or state your question in words that make sense. The biological machine stuff is all gobble beloved patriot to me.

 

[buckshot24]

You would be a nut for not believing the explanation you will inevitably give if you use reason to arrive at it.

Care to rephrase this because it isn't making any sense to me?

Direct witness proof of what happened before humanity existed is not possible to have.

This isn't what I'm asking for I'm asking how biological machines we find in cells could possibly come about by genetic copying errors and selection. If something is so self evidently true it shouldn't be this difficult to demonstrate it.

I suggest it is blind faith that makes one believe a human brain came about via genetic copying errors over billions of years.

Only inferred truth can be postulated and the theory of evolution is the result. It is so powerful and logically valid that it's swept all other ideas away.

You're just giving me platitudes. I am not interested in platitudes.

But is it required in its understanding that you be mentally equipped to handle follow it. You don't have that ability, either because you are insufficiently scientifically literate or by a motivated need for denial. The simple fact is that I do see and you can't.

Right, I don't believe it so I'm an idiot. Look, this isn't the playground and I'm not 5. This crap doesn't work.

We will make more progress when you decide to explain whatever it is you are asking me to explain or state your question in words that make sense. The biological machine stuff is all gobble beloved patriot to me.

How do genetic copying errors build these complex structures?

 

[WelshBloke]

I suggest it is blind faith that makes one believe a human brain came about via genetic copying errors over billions of years.

Wut?

So how did the human brain come about?

 

[MongGrel]

If something is so self evidently true it shouldn't be this difficult to demonstrate it.

I'm an idiot.

()

He must have quite the list by now.