Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2012,11:58) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,11:40) |
Kevin,
We have shown that agency is required. |
As I predicted. Grandiose claims, but not actual information presented. As we say in Texas... all hat, no cattle. IOW, you ain't got shit and you know it.
| Quote |
OTOH your position has nothing.
|
and you are an expert on positions that have nothing.
However, I'd just like to remind you that you continually misrepresent my position anyway. So whatever you think my position is, you are wrong.
My position (and that of all competent biologists, the world over) has plenty of support.
| Quote |
And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole.
|
That's right, when I gave the links to a IDist who did say that, you were too scared to come and argue with him. Why was that?
It was Amazon.com, one of the review threads for Signature in the Cell.
| Quote |
And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. |
Nope, that what you THINK is required, because you are still attacking a strawman.
| Quote |
IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position.
|
Remind me again, with your significant knowledge of science and logic, how that works.
Explain in detail how supporting an opposing position automatically refutes a position.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
But that's not the big question you keep running away from. You claim that ID is not anti-evolution, yet all I have to do to refute ID is support evolution.
Can we count the logical fallacies and outright contradictions in this?
But that's OK. Keep on trucking dude.
Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?
Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position.[/quote]
.v |
Wrong again Kevin- blind and undirected processes is not a strawman. If it is then there are many evolutionary biologists pushing a strawman.
First I was told I was wrong by saying evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents.
So I provided the references that support what I said and the evotards just seem to quiet down for a while. But they never acknowledge their mistake.
Oh well.
Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.
So here is the evolutionary references to support my claim:
Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", <i>Biological Journal of the Linnean Society</I> (1998), 63: 1–49:
<blockquote>
Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively <b>blind</b>, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)</blockquote>
Then we have:
<blockquote>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”</blockquote>
and:
<blockquote>
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” <a href=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE6Nonrandom.shtml><b>UCBerkley</b></a></blockquote>
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- <i>Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought</i>, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
<blockquote>
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- <b>those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells</b>. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that <b>mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force</b>. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro</blockquote>
<a href=http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html><b>What Causes Mutations?</b></a>:
<blockquote>
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.</blockquote>
<a href= http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....;Causes of Mutations</b></a>:
<blockquote>
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.
2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.</blockquote>
<a href=http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409><b> DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation</b></a>:
<blockquote>
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. <b>Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate.</b> In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)</blockquote>
?
And finally:
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative
September 9, 2005
<blockquote>
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.</blockquote>
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.
Then we have-
<blockquote>
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species.-<a htef=http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68><b>Dr Lynn Margulis</b></a></blockquote>
It looks like IU teaches a strawman version:
<blockquote>
Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. <a href=http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html><b>IU</b></a></blockquote>
And Christian de Duve must also be pushing a strawman:
<blockquote>
A majority of biologists subscribe in one form or another to the main tenets of the theory, first proposed by Charles Darwin, that biological evolution is the outcome of accidentally arising genetic variations passively screened by natural selection according to the ability of the variants to survive and reproduce progeny under prevailing environmental conditions.- Christian de Duve in <i>Mysteries of Life: Is there “Something Else”?</i> </blockquote>
Methinks evotards who say I created a strawman are just totally clueless.
So shut the fuck up Kevin- you are an ignorant sack of shit.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Â Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
