How are people like this getting elected?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Not at all. The thread's title question has been very thoroughly answered.



And of course, there's always unanswered question that should automatically follow along that line of thinking: What created the creator, one which is so advanced and sophisticated that it is able to specifically direct atomic and molecular processes on Earth, and possibly elsewhere, with the specific goal of producing numerous and highly-varied species?

Apologies. My mistake.

 

[BxgJ]

I still eagerly await Buckshot's likely incredibly insightful answer to my very simple question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So not living in the US and not actually meeting any people like Buckshot before is their standard operating procedure to just continually repeating the same stupid tropes over and over until everyone else ignores them then declare victory?

It's pretty much the standard operating procedure for internet creationists.

A mildly amusing fact: creationism is by-and-large exclusively a feature of a small subset of evangelical Christians in America and to a lesser extent Australia, particularly Baptists, Methodists and Calvinists. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians don't really have any trouble accepting evolutionary theory.

Then for a period of time there began to appear a number of Muslim creationists that would show up on internet forums, mostly following the lead of a guy named Harun Yahya. To absolutely nobody's surprise they had IDENTICAL arguments to the Christian creationists, only the name of the purported god had changed.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So not living in the US and not actually meeting any people like Buckshot before is their standard operating procedure to just continually repeating the same stupid tropes over and over until everyone else ignores them then declare victory?

Trolls from all over the world follow the same process. It's not particularly American. For example, look at Max. In his own way he follows the same pattern. Follows the same script and *never* deviates.

 

[WelshBloke]

Trolls from all over the world follow the same process. It's not particularly American. For example, look at Max. In his own way he follows the same pattern. Follows the same script and *never* deviates.

This is the only place that I've met anyone like Max either.

 

[buckshot24]

Cutting some fat from this...

Why not? You don't know what it is? Then how can you have any beliefs about it at all?

Because you're a hack and the question is a hack question and I don't need to precisely and rigorously define what a living thing is. None of this helps you in anyway it is a desperate attempt to avoid problems in your world view.

I said we can explain the properties of the compounds by the properties of the atoms they are made of. You said that was wrong. Do you maintain that it is wrong, or are you just very confused?

Obviously I wasn't responding to that. You tried to correct me when I said molecules trying to quibble your way back to the list.

Of course you can. What in the world are you on about? You think we don't know why the proteins of DNA bond with eachother? It's because of the properties of the compounds that they are made of, which in turn have those properties because of the atoms which they are made of.

Lets see if this sinks in.

What I am referring to is the assembly of the cellular machinery itself not how it runs once it is in place.

Look at this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAqGcLaE5II

The dominos fall naturally and completely on their own, meaning no further input needed from the assemblers. This obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with how they got into the position to do what they are doing once that first domino is pushed. Nothing within the dominos would make them form in the patterns we find them in the video just like nothing within the molecules that make up living things would make them form into the patterns we find them in living things.

Oh yeah, you're the expert here.

Instead of focusing on me why don't you tell us why crystals are relevant to the origin of complex biological systems?

Your inability to support your assertion is noted.

If you want to believe biological life has always existed, you go right ahead. I'd love to see your theories on how something self replicating could pass through the singularity. I'm not wasting my time proving life hasn't always existed.

Why would I do that?

Because they are wasting their time. We don't even know that life hasn't always existed!

I think everyone here has basically written you off as any kind of reliable judge of the merits of evolutionary evidence. The fact is there is no evidence which does not support evolutionary theory.

Really? haha.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love to forget about it after having your ass handed to you.

Delusional.

You can suggest anything you like. If you don't have any evidence to support your suggestion you can shove it right up your ass.

Are all changes equally likely that turned a microbe to a man? No? Then addition isn't the proper way to look at it.

But even if addition WAS the proper way to look at it you still haven't shown how adding a bunch of copying errors isn't going to hit a limit. Why does mutation and selection expand outward instead of compress into a limit?

My guess is that you're 5'6" and 130 pounds and since you get bullied in your real life you try and take it out on people on the internet.

 

[buckshot24]

I still eagerly await Buckshot's likely incredibly insightful answer to my very simple question.

Lets say I have zero evidence, now what? What does that have to do with believing your theory?

I'm not the one calling you people idiots for not believing as I believe.

 

[DrDoug]

This is the only place that I've met anyone like Max either.

I don't think communicating with people is Max's strong suit. They come across more like someone who takes up a trite stance opposing something as bait and then sits back and waits for someone to bite. When he gets a bite he gets to have a 'conversation' with someone. He will do his damnedest to keep that person engaged, as if he's afraid of being left alone with nobody to talk to. Once the other person disengages he declares victory, does his happy dance and tries to taunt the person who left into coming back. He loves to 'speak' with images and cartoons, as if they hold some great significance to him and speak in a way that he is unable to.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty sad...

 

[buckshot24]

Does Pluto orbit the sun?

I think you asked me this before. I can't remember exactly how you used my answer so I'll answer again.

As far as I can tell, yes. Not something I've spent any time questioning to be honest with you. So my answer is, probably yes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is the only place that I've met anyone like Max either.

You must not read the comments pages for news articles. :biggrin:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cutting some fat from this...

You mean abandoning your failed arguments.

Because you're a hack and the question is a hack question and I don't need to precisely and rigorously define what a living thing is.

But of course you do. If your arguments cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny then they are clearly without any merit at all.

None of this helps you in anyway it is a desperate attempt to avoid problems in your world view.

Talkie talkie talk. How's about you put up or shut up, fuck face?

Obviously I wasn't responding to that.

Bullshit. I said only one thing, and your direct response to that one thing was to tell me I was wrong.

You tried to correct me when I said molecules trying to quibble your way back to the list.

Was what I said wrong, or were you wrong when you claimed that what I said was wrong? It's gotta be one or the other.

Lets see if this sinks in.

What I am referring to is the assembly of the cellular machinery itself not how it runs once it is in place.

Look at this...

The dominos fall naturally and completely on their own, meaning no further input needed from the assemblers.

Do dominos self-replicate?

This obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with how they got into the position to do what they are doing once that first domino is pushed.

What relevance does that have?

Nothing within the dominos would make them form in the patterns we find them in the video just like nothing within the molecules that make up living things would make them form into the patterns we find them in living things.

Are dominos living things?

Instead of focusing on me why don't you tell us why crystals are relevant to the origin of complex biological systems?

Self-replication is clearly a common behavior of many different types of molecular structures.

If you want to believe biological life has always existed, you go right ahead.

Did I say that I believe that?

I'd love to see your theories on how something self replicating could pass through the singularity.

The Big Bang and its associated singularity is a feature of a particular mathematical model, not necessarily a feature of reality.

I'm not wasting my time proving life hasn't always existed.

Then you don't get to make claims about an origin of life, including, but not limited to the notion that your imaginary friend magicked life into being, nor that it is any kind of inadequacy of evolutionary theory that it does not describe a beginning of life.

Because they are wasting their time.

Oh, it remains a worthwhile area of investigation. We can learn a great deal along the way, even if we never manage to discover any real beginning of life.

Are you really so dumb as not to realize that?

Who am I kidding? Of course you are.

You see, we rational people are not afraid of learning because we do not have any sacred ideas that we must protect from the discovery of conflicting evidence.

We don't even know that life hasn't always existed!

Yeah? So?

Really? haha.

Yes. Really.

Delusional.

I'm not the one running away from half of my arguments, so as usual I'll let others judge for themselves.

One has to wonder, though: If nobody else is convinced that I am "delusional" as you have claimed, then who are you really convincing besides yourself? It seems rather that a person who has convinced himself of a false reality which isn't apparent to anyone else is rather the person suffering from delusions, wouldn't you agree?

Are all changes equally likely that turned a microbe to a man? No? Then addition isn't the proper way to look at it.

What does the probability of a change have to do with whether or not those changes are additive? Do you even math, bro?

The point of Jeff7's analogy is that even creationists accept evolution, they just arbitrarily reject certain degrees of it when it begins to conflict with their superstitions. The process and mechanisms at work are the same no matter the degree of evolution, and that is why the addition of integers is quite a suitable analogy, even if it has eluded you.

But even if addition WAS the proper way to look at it you still haven't shown how adding a bunch of copying errors isn't going to hit a limit.

Why would it hit a limit?

Why does mutation and selection expand outward instead of compress into a limit?

What the hell would that even mean? "Compress" what? You do understand that biological organisms are discrete objects, right?

Right?

My guess is that you're 5'6" and 130 pounds and since you get bullied in your real life you try and take it out on people on the internet.

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick. Now you want to measure dicks?

I'll put fucking money on this. I'm not even kidding. Do you have the courage of your conviction to put your money where your mouth is, fuckstick, or are you going to admit you're just talking out of your ass like every other time you post to this forum?

I think you asked me this before. I can't remember exactly how you used my answer so I'll answer again.

As far as I can tell, yes. Not something I've spent any time questioning to be honest with you. So my answer is, probably yes.

"Probably yes"? You don't really know? And yet you think we're going to take you seriously when you lay charges against the foundational theory of all biology when you can't answer for an astronomical fact known to any 4th grader?

 

[BxgJ]

Lets say I have zero evidence, now what? What does that have to do with believing your theory?

I'm not the one calling you people idiots for not believing as I believe.

I simply asked 'when', as in if you believe in creation, how long ago did it happen? You don't have to be exact, an estimate will do. I didn't ask for evidence as to when.

 

[buckshot24]

You mean abandoning your failed arguments.

No.

But of course you do. If your arguments cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny then they are clearly without any merit at all.

No I don't.

Bullshit. I said only one thing, and your direct response to that one thing was to tell me I was wrong.

Well I wasn't. None of that matters anyway.

Was what I said wrong, or were you wrong when you claimed that what I said was wrong? It's gotta be one or the other.

You were wrong.

Do dominos self-replicate?

No but that isn't relevant anyway. Way to miss the point. The point is the dominos fall and do what they do because of the arrangement they have been placed. They don't get put into the patterns they are in the video because of the properties of the dominos. I think you realize this but can't admit you blew it.

What relevance does that have?

That's what we are talking about.

Are dominos living things?

No.

Self-replication is clearly a common behavior of many different types of molecular structures.

Can you point to any instance where living systems, following the patterns within the constituent parts, form all on their own while not coming from other living systems? We can do that for crystals.

Nothing within the parts that make up life make them form the way they do. Period.

Did I say that I believe that?

Your idiot questioning implied that was where you were going.

The Big Bang and its associated singularity is a feature of a particular mathematical model, not necessarily a feature of reality.

To this I agree.

Then you don't get to make claims about an origin of life, including, but not limited to the notion that your imaginary friend magicked life into being, nor that it is any kind of inadequacy of evolutionary theory that it does not describe a beginning of life.

Well, hacks gonna hack. Good job hacking.

Yeah? So?

Actually we do but you are so pathetic that you have to argue is if we don't because you know you lose.

1. There hasn't been and can't be an infinite number of moments going into the past. Same reason we can't count to infinity.
2. If there hasn't been an infinite number of moments then there can't have been an infinite number of replications of living things.
3. Since there hasn't been an infinite number of replications then life cannot have been here forever.

Yes. Really.

I'm not the one running away from half of my arguments, so as usual I'll let others judge for themselves.

Most of what you are saying doesn't even address my points. Why would I defend myself from an infant intruder?

One has to wonder, though: If nobody else is convinced that I am "delusional" as you have claimed, then who are you really convincing besides yourself? It seems rather that a person who has convinced himself of a false reality which isn't apparent to anyone else is rather the person suffering from delusions, wouldn't you agree?

Convincing other darwinists of your delusion isn't a requirement for you to be deluded. I'm sure some of them see my point and that you are deluded to think you hadn't handed me my rear end on the addition point.

What does the probability of a change have to do with whether or not those changes are additive? Do you even math, bro?

It shows that we're not talking about a linear progression. It shows that some changes will never happen, its pretty hard to add something that never happens.

The point of Jeff7's analogy is that even creationists accept evolution, they just arbitrarily reject certain degrees of it when it begins to conflict with their superstitions. The process and mechanisms at work are the same no matter the degree of evolution, and that is why the addition of integers is quite a suitable analogy, even if it has eluded you.

So if we see any species changing at all that means the features of every living thing was caused by those changes? Huge leap of logic there. Go back to the baby crawling to the moon.

Why would it hit a limit?

That isn't my burden. You need to show that it wouldn't.

What the hell would that even mean? "Compress" what? You do understand that biological organisms are discrete objects, right?

Right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

It happens, you're wrong again.

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick. Now you want to measure dicks?

I'll put fucking money on this. I'm not even kidding. Do you have the courage of your conviction to put your money where your mouth is, fuckstick, or are you going to admit you're just talking out of your ass like every other time you post to this forum?

How would I put my money where my mouth is? What do you suggest?

I could be wrong but you act like a real life twerp who gets some anonymity then turns into an abusive name calling tough guy online.

"Probably yes"? You don't really know? And yet you think we're going to take you seriously when you lay charges against the foundational theory of all biology when you can't answer for an astronomical fact known to any 4th grader?

Not as if this has anything to do with genetic copying errors and natural selection. Another red herring.

 

[buckshot24]

I simply asked 'when', as in if you believe in creation, how long ago did it happen? You don't have to be exact, an estimate will do. I didn't ask for evidence as to when.

Somebody else asked for evidence/proof. My bad. I won't answer your question of when. I don't have any burden to prove anything to you. I'm asking questions about Darwinist dogma.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Somebody else asked for evidence/proof. My bad. I won't answer your question of when. I don't have any burden to prove anything to you. I'm asking questions about Darwinist dogma.

no burden to prove unsubstantiated claims, sounds about right for you.

 

[zinfamous]

Somebody else asked for evidence/proof. My bad. I won't answer your question of when. I don't have any burden to prove anything to you. I'm asking questions about Darwinist dogma.

So you are saying that you are still not ready to offer a viable alternative to the current tested, verified, tested again, repeatedly verified standard?

Are you ever going to bother engaging in debate, or just keep flinging pooh?

 

[buckshot24]

So you are saying that you are still not ready to offer a viable alternative to the current tested, verified, tested again, repeatedly verified standard?

Are you ever going to bother engaging in debate, or just keep flinging pooh?

How about some evidence of this verification? What evidence is there that mutation and selection built molecular machinery we find in cells?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Somebody else asked for evidence/proof. My bad. I won't answer your question of when. I don't have any burden to prove anything to you. I'm asking questions about Darwinist dogma.

to answer the question in the OP,
the above is how/why people like those mentioned in the OP are getting elected.

 

[bshole]

How about some evidence of this verification? What evidence is there that mutation and selection built molecular machinery we find in cells?

That question has not been definitively answered yet. It will be interesting when science uncovers the answer, I am sure religion never will.

Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html

 

[zinfamous]

How about some evidence of this verification? What evidence is there that mutation and selection built molecular machinery we find in cells?

So you are saying that you are still not ready to offer a viable alternative to the current tested, verified, tested again, repeatedly verified standard?

Are you ever going to bother engaging in debate, or just keep flinging pooh?

 

[zinfamous]

That question has not been definitively answered yet. It will be interesting when science uncovers the answer, I am sure religion never will.



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html

heh, you could also direct-quote the rest of the abstract, starting with the very next statement. (because you know buckwheat isn't going to click)

Here we use ancestral gene resurrection9, 10, 11 and manipulative genetic experiments to determine how the complexity of an essential molecular machine—the hexameric transmembrane ring of the eukaryotic V-ATPase proton pump—increased hundreds of millions of years ago. We show that the ring of Fungi, which is composed of three paralogous proteins, evolved from a more ancient two-paralogue complex because of a gene duplication that was followed by loss in each daughter copy of specific interfaces by which it interacts with other ring proteins. These losses were complementary, so both copies became obligate components with restricted spatial roles in the complex. Reintroducing a single historical mutation from each paralogue lineage into the resurrected ancestral proteins is sufficient to recapitulate their asymmetric degeneration and trigger the requirement for the more elaborate three-component ring. Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes, without the apparent evolution of novel functions. They point to a plausible mechanism for the evolution of complexity in other multi-paralogue protein complexes.

 

[buckshot24]

So you are saying that you are still not ready to offer a viable alternative to the current tested, verified, tested again, repeatedly verified standard?

Are you ever going to bother engaging in debate, or just keep flinging pooh?

How about some evidence for the power of genetic copying errors and natural selection creating these highly complex interdependent molecular machines instead of worrying about me? You can't.

(because you know buckwheat isn't going to click)

He's on ignore.

Click..

Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking.

Really? Maybe those researchers should join this thread and get edumacated by the elites here on our forums.

Unfortunately, I can't read the rest of their paper.

 

[zinfamous]

How about some evidence for the power of genetic copying errors and natural selection creating these highly complex interdependent molecular machines instead of worrying about me? You can't.

He's on ignore.

Click..

Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking.

Really? Maybe those researchers should join this thread and get edumacated by the elites here on our forums.

Unfortunately, I can't read the rest of their paper.

and yet, you could read the rest of the abstract that I posted, which actually answers your question. That is exactly what they are investigating.

"I can't read their paper."

Ah yes, the excuse for willful ignorance.

 

[fskimospy]

Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking.

Really? Maybe those researchers should join this thread and get edumacated by the elites here on our forums.

Unfortunately, I can't read the rest of their paper.

/facepalm.

The part you italicized is the problem that the paper was written to address.

 

[buckshot24]

and yet, you could read the rest of the abstract that I posted, which actually answers your question. That is exactly what they are investigating.

"I can't read their paper."

Ah yes, the excuse for willful ignorance.

No, they make assertions in the abstract. Are you always so easily convinced?

Anyway I found the full paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979732/