Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ June 22 2015,20:48) | | Quote (Joe G @ June 22 2015,20:24) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ June 22 2015,17:09) | | Quote (Joe G @ June 22 2015,15:23) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ June 22 2015,14:57) | | Quote (Joe G @ June 22 2015,11:14) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ June 21 2015,19:08) | | Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2015,09:52) | | Quote | 6
Virgil Cain
June 20, 2015 at 6:49 am
It looks like the E coli engineered themselves to accompany the new gene. James Shapiro and Lee Spetner must be smiling. |
Chubs lets the designer out of the bag: E Coli. |
As usual, chubs says whatever he thinks will get himself out of his current losing argument without considering the ramifications.
Well, then who (or what) designed E. coli?
The evolutionary relationships between the two bacteria Escherichia coli and Haemophilus influenzae and their putative last common ancestor
Published in 1998. Surely, someone as well read as Joey would know about that one. Oh yeah, I forgot, he has a reading problem. Poor guy. |
Well, Kevin, you don't have a mechanism capable of producing a living organism, so you lose, again. Bacteria evolving into bacteria doesn't help you.
Also there wasn't any losing argument and you don't know anything about ramifications. If you did then you would understand the ramifications of evolutionism. |
So please provide the detailed mechanisms of how E. coli designed itself new traits.
With peer-reviewed references to said mechanisms.
Sufficient to show that you really are following the actual science, not just what you wish was true. |
Kevin, your position is void of details you imbecile. If you had something then ID would be a non-starter. But you have nothing but whining. It suits you. |
So, you don't have a mechanism. You don't have any evidence that what you say is true.
All you have is what is a truly pathetic and obvious attempt at deflection. Which you have been using for half a decade (at least).
You can't even answer the same question that you're asking. So sad. |
Kevin, Design is a mechanism. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" is another.
That said design is a top-down approach, moron. That means first you determine if it exists and only then do you try to find out who, how, why, etc. We still don't have the details as to how Stonehenge was built. And the best we can say as to the "who" is "humans".
OTOH your position is a bottom-up approach that says it has a step-by-step process for producing the evidence we observe.
That means I don't have to answer the same questions as they only pertain to your position's claims. Nice to see that you don't understand how science works. |
Design is not a mechanism. Design purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
Actually constructing that object, building that object, modifying that object requires PHYSICAL efforts, tools, materials... even if they are genetic and/or molecular.
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? According to ID.
That's the thing you idiots don't get. Design is meaningless without a system to accomplish the design. Design is not the end of the process, it's beginning.
I've designed hundreds of spaceships, but not a one has been built. I've designed organisms, hell, I've even designed an alternate biochemistry for energy transfer between plant analogues and animal analogues using ketones as the rough equivalent of ATP.
Doesn't mean that I can BUILD it.
So you morons need to fucking man up and admit you don't have a fucking clue about the mechanisms that are used to build the design.
IF you wimp out like the chichenshit we all know that you are, then you will say that genetics is the tool kit... in which case, you have just admitted that everything that science says is true. Further, that means that the only difference between what you wish was true and what is actually true is the actual designer itself.
So, you either have to produce the designer or show how a bacterium can purposefully modify it's own genetic code to make itself better... and include a lengthy discussion of why only some bacteria are smart enough to do this.
But we all know that you can't do that. You're going to run away from this discussion, just like you've run away from every other discussion you've ever had about this.
Here's a hint, yelling at us, calling us stupid, cursing, trying to turn this discussion back on us, saying we don't understand the issues....
that's all pathetic attempts to divert attention away from the one true thing we've know about you for over 5 years. You don't have a clue.
You couldn't get a clue if you were naked in a field of horny clues, drenched in clue musk and doing the clue mating dance.
You can't even begin to describe a mechanism for ID that is in any way different than that of evolution. You can't begin to describe the limit of evolution, because you really don't know what it is.
So, feel free to explain how the ID position describes the tools and construction of organisms from the designer's plans. We're all waiting. Most of us have been waiting for almost two decades and, if you and the rest of the morons in the ID camp are any indication, we will go on waiting.
You know what, even if ID were correct. Even if there was a real designer. Even if every living thing on the planet was purposefully designed, frontloaded with all the information to change over time and had perfect knowledge of the future of the entire Earth biosphere... it would NOT be you clowns who would find out about it... because you are all pathetic morons.
That was fun. Let's do this again in 4-5 years and I'm willing to bet large sums of money that ID will only continue to decline... not that you would admit it. |
Design is a mechanism. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it you ignorant ass.
AGAIN, we do NOT need to know where the materials came from before we can determine if intelligent design exists. We do NOT need to know how the design was implemented before we can determine that intelligent design exists. All of that comes AFTER you ignorant ass.
| Quote | | So, you either have to produce the designer or show how a bacterium can purposefully modify it's own genetic code to make itself better... and include a lengthy discussion of why only some bacteria are smart enough to do this. |
Only a scientifically illiterate ass would say such a thing. And here you are.
| Quote | | You can't even begin to describe a mechanism for ID that is in any way different than that of evolution |
You are one dense asshole, Kevin. ID is not anti-evolution. Intelligent Design evolution is exemplified by evolutionary and genetic algorithms which are goal-oriented targeted searches. Unguided evolution can't even be modeled you loser.
So we have kevin, a scientifically illiterate coward, spewing his ignorance as if it means something.
Thankfully Kevin isn't a scientist.
--------------
"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- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
