How are people like this getting elected?

[fskimospy]

Why is one a "nut" for not believing it? What evidence makes it obvious to any sane person that it is true? I want to know why it is so dang obvious that mutations can and did build interdependent complex parts from scratch that you're insane if you don't believe it.

Do you think that you are looking at the evidence for evolution clearly or do you think literally the rest of humanity, no small part of which has studied evolution, is wrong?

 

[buckshot24]

1+1=2
2+2=4
4^4=256
256^4 = Now you're just being ridiculous. That's impossible.

No, I'm fine with that. Now show how this is relevant.

This would seem to be at odds with...


...this.

Well it isn't. Saying something changes isn't the same thing as saying it gains more and more complex molecular machinery. It's sort of like saying all you need is movement to get to the moon. Well, yes, you need to move to get to the moon but you need a specific kind of movement. Walking around your backyard isn't going to get you to the moon no matter how long you do it.

Unless you have an understanding of calculus. Infinity does things common sense wouldn't normally tell you, because infinity is unlike anything we encounter on a regular basis.

I do have an understanding of calculus and infinity doesn't make these convergent functions add up to something less than infinity. You can plug in 100 trillion and see it isn't going anywhere. This isn't a valid criticism to my point.

There's a difference between blind faith and evidence-based faith.

Well, how about some evidence!? I don't believe you that you don't evoke blind faith.

I've never seen a human liver, but I've got faith in the knowledge that says I have one.

Great. Now lets go to a lab and find a mutation that has anything to do with building complex molecular machines. Let's verify it like we can verify that humans have livers.

This line of thinking also really doesn't make sense to me:
"How can I explain this big and complex system of a Universe?"

One is considered a nut if they don't believe your fairy tale that a self-replicating molecule turned into people via mutation and selection. Well, how about you show us plainly why this is the case? Maybe you don't think this is the case?

-"Maybe some life form even more complex made it."

I don't know, you're making a claim here. How about you support your claim instead of complaining about an alternative?

"Ok, works for me. No need to investigate further. We should invent some ritualized ways of communicating with this insanely complex and intelligent entity. Ooh, maybe it will even respond in ways that are extremely vague and indistinguishable from simple random chance!"

Your post is a perfect example of simply not liking an alternative explanation. Step back and forget about alternatives and examine why you really believe this conjecture about the origin of complex life.

 

[buckshot24]

No you haven't.

Haven't what?

We are still awaiting your analysis of this review article that discusses multiple new genes and new genetic systems.

This is the first I recall seeing it. I've had you on block previously so if you posted it before I probably missed it. And where do I say I have examined every single observed mutation event? I have looked at lots of them, which is what I've said, not all of them.

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

Which example are you referencing? I see a bunch of assumptions about common ancestry but I didn't catch any observed examples of gene generation. (I did a quick skim as it's late so please point it out if I missed it.)

We all know you've never read that review

.
Never claimed to have read it so...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why is one a "nut" for not believing it?

Because there is no other rational explanation for the evidence.

What evidence makes it obvious to any sane person that it is true?

All of it, which has already been provided to you, repeatedly.

I want to know why it is so dang obvious that mutations can and did build interdependent complex parts from scratch that you're insane if you don't believe it.

No, you do not want to know it. You are lying.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, I'm fine with that. Now show how this is relevant.

It's relevant because you're the one claiming that there's something in the process of addition that creates an upper boundary to how high it can count...

...but of course you can't tell us what that is.

Well it isn't. Saying something changes isn't the same thing as saying it gains more and more complex molecular machinery.

That's not what evolution says.

It's sort of like saying all you need is movement to get to the moon.

No, it isn't. We can identify the obstacles which must be surmounted to reach the moon.

In contrast, you cannot identify the obstacles that you claim prevent the formation of higher taxa.

Well, yes, you need to move to get to the moon but you need a specific kind of movement. Walking around your backyard isn't going to get you to the moon no matter how long you do it.

Of course not. There's gravity in the way. See how easy that is?

So what's in the way of evolution?

I do have an understanding of calculus

It does not seem that you do.

and infinity doesn't make these convergent functions add up to something less than infinity.

Yes it does.

You can plug in 100 trillion and see it isn't going anywhere.

What does 100 trillion have to do with anything? Do you think infinity is just a "really big number" like 100 trillion?

This isn't a valid criticism to my point.

How would you know, dummy?

Well, how about some evidence!? I don't believe you that you don't evoke blind faith.

Yeah, and you also said you didn't believe that I was an atheist when I told you I was. You seem quite ready to believe what you want in spite of evidence.

Great. Now lets go to a lab and find a mutation that has anything to do with building complex molecular machines. Let's verify it like we can verify that humans have livers.

Done already. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change it.

One is considered a nut if they don't believe your fairy tale that a self-replicating molecule turned into people via mutation and selection.

Again, the only "fairy tale" is the idea that a magical being of unlimited powers and inscrutable motives just *poofed!* these things into existence. Let's see you examine that idea for its evidential basis. We won't hold our breath for that analysis.

Well, how about you show us plainly why this is the case? Maybe you don't think this is the case?

It has been shown, and it continued to be shown in classrooms and laboratories around the world, every single day.

I don't know, you're making a claim here. How about you support your claim instead of complaining about an alternative?

What alternative? Magical *poofing* isn't a legitimate explanation. It doesn't explain anything.

Your post is a perfect example of simply not liking an alternative explanation.

You don't have an "alternative explanation." You have "MAGIC! YAY!" It's absurd.

Step back and forget about alternatives and examine why you really believe this conjecture about the origin of complex life.

We've all examined the evidence, and we thus have apprehended the correspondence of the evolutionary model to reality. It isn't conjecture anymore.

Read a fucking book, for Christ's sake.

 

[ivwshane]

It's relevant because you're the one claiming that there's something in the process of addition that creates an upper boundary to how high it can count...

...but of course you can't tell us what that is.


That's not what evolution says.


No, it isn't. We can identify the obstacles which must be surmounted to reach the moon.

In contrast, you cannot identify the obstacles that you claim prevent the formation of higher taxa.


Of course not. There's gravity in the way. See how easy that is?

So what's in the way of evolution?


It does not seem that you do.


Yes it does.



What does 100 trillion have to do with anything? Do you think infinity is just a "really big number" like 100 trillion?


How would you know, dummy?



Yeah, and you also said you didn't believe that I was an atheist when I told you I was. You seem quite ready to believe what you want in spite of evidence.



Done already. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change it.


Again, the only "fairy tale" is the idea that a magical being of unlimited powers and inscrutable motives just *poofed!* these things into existence. Let's see you examine that idea for its evidential basis. We won't hold our breath for that analysis.


It has been shown, and it continued to be shown in classrooms and laboratories around the world, every single day.


What alternative? Magical *poofing* isn't a legitimate explanation. It doesn't explain anything.


You don't have an "alternative explanation." You have "MAGIC! YAY!" It's absurd.


We've all examined the evidence, and we thus have apprehended the correspondence of the evolutionary model to reality. It isn't conjecture anymore.

Read a fucking book, for Christ's sake.

You were doing good until that comment. It read a book, a really old one that it puts it's faith in more than any current science book out there.

 

[Paratus]

Why is one a "nut" for not believing it? What evidence makes it obvious to any sane person that it is true? I want to know why it is so dang obvious that mutations can and did build interdependent complex parts from scratch that you're insane if you don't believe it.

Reading check time.

What evidence have we told you makes it obvious? You don't have to believe it, but let's see if you've even read and understood what we've all posted by listing the evidence we've provided.

 

[abj13]

Which example are you referencing? I see a bunch of assumptions about common ancestry but I didn't catch any observed examples of gene generation. (I did a quick skim as it's late so please point it out if I missed it.)

Good to see how prinicipled you are with that list.

And no. You didn't "skim it." It reviews exactly addresses your assertions. It describes mechanisms of new gene generation, multiple examples of new genes in a variety of organisms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and how they fit into the bigger biochemical pathways

If you say it is nothing but "assumptions about common ancestry" you haven't read it. If you claim its some "fairytale" you haven't read it. You only use these claims to dismiss things you don't understand or try to dodge your inane logic.

 

[buckshot24]

Good to see how prinicipled you are with that list.

And no. You didn't "skim it."

Yeah I did. This is why you were on the list in the first place. Why should I engage you when you won't believe anything I say anyway?

It reviews exactly addresses your assertions.

I didn't see anything about the formation of complex biological machines via genetic copying errors.

It describes mechanisms of new gene generation, multiple examples of new genes in a variety of organisms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and how they fit into the bigger biochemical pathways

Why can't you just highlight your favorite example?

If you say it is nothing but "assumptions about common ancestry" you haven't read it.

Dude, I didn't say this. I said I see a bunch of assumptions not NOTHING but assumptions.

I should have been more principled and kept you on ignore if this is the kind of misrepresentations and lies you're going to produce.

 

[DrDoug]

Good to see how prinicipled you are with that list.

And no. You didn't "skim it." It reviews exactly addresses your assertions. It describes mechanisms of new gene generation, multiple examples of new genes in a variety of organisms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and how they fit into the bigger biochemical pathways

If you say it is nothing but "assumptions about common ancestry" you haven't read it. If you claim its some "fairytale" you haven't read it. You only use these claims to dismiss things you don't understand or try to dodge your inane logic.

BS24/7 is also doing the usual tactic of having you do the work and present the evidence to them just so they can say it's wrong, you're wrong, your interpretation of it is wrong or deploy a new set of goal posts to move everyone down field. Skimmed it? I bet he didn't even glance at anything more than a title (if that). You can lead a horse to water and all that...

You will never convince him of anything because in his world reality must bend to his beliefs.

 

[buckshot24]

Reading check time.

What evidence have we told you makes it obvious? You don't have to believe it, but let's see if you've even read and understood what we've all posted by listing the evidence we've provided.

Basically I've been called names and my ability to access evidence has been questioned and that's about it. I've seen pages and pages of platitudes but nor real demonstration of the power of genetic copying errors and selection.

 

[fskimospy]

BS24/7 is also doing the usual tactic of having you do the work and present the evidence to them just so they can say it's wrong, you're wrong, your interpretation of it is wrong or deploy a new set of goal posts to move everyone down field. Skimmed it? I bet he didn't even glance at anything more than a title (if that). You can lead a horse to water and all that...

You will never convince him of anything because in his world reality must bend to his beliefs.

Exactly this. He gave away the game when he was asked over and over what evidence he was looking for and stubbornly refused to answer. He is pulling a Behe here by just hand waving away massive piles of evidence as 'not good enough'.

He is emotionally and religiously invested in not accepting evolution. There's simply no way to crack through that wall of denial with evidence.

Hell, go look at his response to issues where his faith wasn't even involved. He fought tooth and nail to convince himself that the polls were wrong and Romney was going to win for example, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[abj13]

Yeah I did. This is why you were on the list in the first place. Why should I engage you when you won't believe anything I say anyway?
I didn't see anything about the formation of complex biological machines via genetic copying errors.
Why can't you just highlight your favorite example?
Dude, I didn't say this. I said I see a bunch of assumptions not NOTHING but assumptions.

I should have been more principled and kept you on ignore if this is the kind of misrepresentations and lies you're going to produce.

No. There is a example with a perfect review article that summarizes 170 different manuscripts from over 500 scientists in the field of evolutionary molecular biology. They discuss mechanisms of new gene generation, multiple examples of new genes in a variety of organisms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and how they fit into the bigger biochemical pathways.

Your response? Nothing. Nothing of substance other than some hand waving dismissing it. You claim to know the field, except you don't. You claim you have skimmed that paper when you have not.

We all know your shell game around here. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, and when people keep giving you the biology that refutes your lame assertions, you put them on ignore as an excuse to hide from the biology they post. I'll await you to do this once again. Multiple examples, pathways, and mechanisms have been posted before and you do nothing but ignore them all and then put people on your ignore list.

But for anyone interested, this paper discusses the very things that this poster claims "doesn't exist" or is a bunch of "fairytales." Just read his above postings, as already he is claiming various things about "common ancestry" without even reading it. 170 papers cited, over 500 scientists in the field know more than some internet hack who acts just like Michael Behe.

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

 

[cliftonite]

So you're not a nut if you believe random genetic copying errors w/ selection actually built the highly ordered biological machines we find in cells? Nevermind that there isn't a shred of observable evidence that mutation and selection could do such miraculous things, you're a nut if you don't believe it?

Is there any evidence of what she believes in (creationism) is real?

 

[DrDoug]

Exactly this. He gave away the game when he was asked over and over what evidence he was looking for and stubbornly refused to answer. He is pulling a Behe here by just hand waving away massive piles of evidence as 'not good enough'.

He is emotionally and religiously invested in not accepting evolution. There's simply no way to crack through that wall of denial with evidence.

Hell, go look at his response to issues where his faith wasn't even involved. He fought tooth and nail to convince himself that the polls were wrong and Romney was going to win for example, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Kind like Karl Rove and his "math" on election night on Fox...lol!

What he is doing with his arguments is looking for validation of his beliefs. By 'refuting' all evidence presented to him he is proving to himself that his beliefs are correct, his faith is strong. There is nothing more to this, no honest discussion to be had or ideas exchanged. This is all about him and nothing more than that.

IOW, he's deliberately wasting the time of others to feed his religious ego.

 

[buckshot24]

Is there any evidence of what she believes in (creationism) is real?

Is there any evidence that copying errors and selection built your brain?

 

[fskimospy]

Kind like Karl Rove and his "math" on election night on Fox...lol!

What he is doing with his arguments is looking for validation of his beliefs. By 'refuting' all evidence presented to him he is proving to himself that his beliefs are correct, his faith is strong. There is nothing more to this, no honest discussion to be had or ideas exchanged. This is all about him and nothing more than that.

IOW, he's deliberately wasting the time of others to feed his religious ego.

The level of arrogance is pretty impressive considering he claims to adhere to a religion that emphasizes humility. Although really, I think it's more insecurity than anything else. There's no rational reason to ignore all the evidence presented to him, he's just afraid that his view of the world might be wrong.

 

[cliftonite]

Is there any evidence that copying errors and selection built your brain?

What does that have anything to do with my question?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What does that have anything to do with my question?

Exactly nothing, but this is his disingenuous hypocrisy manifest.

He is ideologically committed to his religious mythology, so evidence is irrelevant. He knows that there is no evidential basis that supports his superstition, so his only debate tactic is to put ridiculous evidential demands on evolution and then whine like a bitch that his demands aren't met even when they are.

Never mind that what he does believe about the origins of biological diversity has literally zero evidential support. He will do anything and everything to keep from discussing his own ridiculous beliefs.

Go ahead - I dare anyone to get him to tell you how old he thinks the universe and the earth are, and what evidence undergirds those beliefs.

This is the inherent hypocrisy and dishonesty of evangelical Christianity.

 

[thraashman]

Sheila Jackson Lee

If she had been picked to head the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, you'd have a point.

 

[MongGrel]

Is there any evidence that copying errors and selection built your brain?

Hey look guys, Mr Broken Record is at it again.

What does that have anything to do with my question?

Nothing, but it is just how his mind works at some odd level. Somehow he has not realized everyone knows this by now, and continues on his mindless diatribe.

 

[Jeff7]

It's relevant because you're the one claiming that there's something in the process of addition that creates an upper boundary to how high it can count...


...

This pretty well addresses everything.

We've all examined the evidence, and we thus have apprehended the correspondence of the evolutionary model to reality. It isn't conjecture anymore.

Scientific method.
1) Observe the universe Universe doing a thing.
2) Why does it do it? Propose a hypothesis.
3) Test it.
4) Can you repeat it?
5) If the hypothesis is repeatable, hey, maybe that's useful knowledge. If not, try again.

If you've got a bunch of matter and energy sitting around, let's try to figure out what it does by itself, without the need to drag a powerful and exceedingly complex and inherently unexplainable creator entity into things, especially when such a thing is not necessary to generate an explanation.
Some minerals can form very nice cubic crystals, which would seem to be unnatural, something that only someone able to carve gemstones could make. Or it could just be due to the inherent properties of the atoms that lend them to making cubic shapes with no outside intervention at all. Order from chaos, naturally.

 

[buckshot24]

It's relevant because you're the one claiming that there's something in the process of addition that creates an upper boundary to how high it can count...

Anybody who has spent ten minutes in a calculus class knows that adding an infinite number of bits doesn't always get you to a huge number.

If you've got a bunch of matter and energy sitting around, let's try to figure out what it does by itself, without the need to drag a powerful and exceedingly complex and inherently unexplainable creator entity into things, especially when such a thing is not necessary to generate an explanation.

You keep talking about an alternative as if you not liking it makes it automatically wrong. How about you focus on the "stuff" and tell me why you believe "stuff" can start to self-replicate (nothing like this has ever been observed) and do so in a way that introduces errors and eventually produces the most intricate and amazing molecular machines imaginable. You don't need to accept God and reject this fairy tale you all are trying to prop up. What's wrong with "I don't know?"

Some minerals can form very nice cubic crystals, which would seem to be unnatural, something that only someone able to carve gemstones could make.

Which are perfectly explicable by looking at the chemistry of the molecules involved. This has nothing to do with life forming on its own.

Or it could just be due to the inherent properties of the atoms that lend them to making cubic shapes with no outside intervention at all. Order from chaos, naturally.

Except it isn't coming from chaos it is coming because of the chemical properties of the molecules. The exact opposite of order from chaos.

 

[buckshot24]

What does that have anything to do with my question?

If a person is a nut for believing God created their brain how much more of a nut is a person for believing genetic copying errors could actually build human brains while having zero valid evidence to believe so?

If you don't have any valid evidence then what makes you any different than a person who you think doesn't have any evidence for their view?

 

[sandorski]

Anybody who has spent ten minutes in a calculus class knows that adding an infinite number of bits doesn't always get you to a huge number.
You keep talking about an alternative as if you not liking it makes it automatically wrong. How about you focus on the "stuff" and tell me why you believe "stuff" can start to self-replicate (nothing like this has ever been observed) and do so in a way that introduces errors and eventually produces the most intricate and amazing molecular machines imaginable. You don't need to accept God and reject this fairy tale you all are trying to prop up. What's wrong with "I don't know?"
Which are perfectly explicable by looking at the chemistry of the molecules involved. This has nothing to do with life forming on its own.
Except it isn't coming from chaos it is coming because of the chemical properties of the molecules. The exact opposite of order from chaos.

"Stuff" self replicates all the time. When the fertilized ovum inbeds itself in the uterine wall it takes in nourishment from the host and begins replicating all on its' own. No outside force is required other than the nourishment provided by the host.

All it takes is the most rudimentary self replication to begin in order for Life to exist. Once it begins, so does Evolution.