Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 03 2014,07:23) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2014,06:42) | Kevin McCarthy, scientifically illiterate:
| Quote | | • Describes the so-called barrier in evolution that prevents so-called macroevolution from occurring. Evidence supporting this claim must be included. ”I say it exists” is not evidence. In your discussion, you will need to show an understanding of how actual evolution works (not the typical ID strawman), how new taxonomic groups are formed (hint, I’ve described this in detail), and an explanation of how new taxonomic orders arise if not by evolution (the designer did it is not an explanation unless you provide evidence for the designer as well). |
No, dumbass. It is up to YOU to demonstrate the validity of macroevolution. It isn’t up to us to prove a negative and only someone ignorant of science would ask us to. And here is Kevin.
That said, just look at Lenski’s experiment- 50,000+ generations and not even a new protein, let alone a new multi-protein complex. Also Kevin is full of shit as neither he nor anyone else has described macroevolution in any detail. Doing so would be to discuss the genes involved along with how those genes and networks came to be. You have nothing but branching of species. Unfortunately there isn’t anything in the observed cases of speciation that we can extrapolate into macroevolution.
My bet is Kevin doesn’t understand what macroevolution entails.
| Quote | | • Who is the designer and the evidence for the DESIGNER to exist (not any supposed works of said designer). It’s very silly to say that the tooth fairy is the cause of teeth disappearing when there’s no evidence that the tooth fair exists. Inferences about a designer are not sufficient when there is an alternate explanation for the diversity of life. |
Double-dumbass. We don’t even know who designed Stonehenge. Ya see, moron, REALITY dictates that in the absence of direct observation of designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
The evidence that people built Stonehenge is, wait for it, Stonehenge and the other evidence left behind.
If we knew who the designer was we wouldn’t need science to help us make a design inference- design would be a given. It’s as if Kevin is proud of his ignorance of science.
Forensic science examines the scene for evidence the criminal may have left behind. Archaeologists don't look for existing civilizations. They look for ancient civilizations and they find them by locating the supposed works of the people. SETI looks for the supposed works of ET.
Kevin is obviously retarded.
| Quote | | • The computation of complexity, specified complexity, complex specified information, or any other ID notion about complexity, information, or specificity. This computation can be for a gene, a protein, a structure, or an organism. The same computation for a non-designed system (you choose, but examples would be a rock of the same mass as an organism, a string of random numbers the same length as the gene or protein (include a string of data that has been encrypted using an approved method (256 bit AES for example)). In this description all variables should be explicitly defined and explained. The results should also be explained (i.e. why does this value indicate design while that value indicates non-design.) |
I already provided you with that and you obviously choked on it.
| Quote | | • The existence of front-loading in any open-source genetic algorithm. I have often heard that programmers ‘design’ the results of genetic algorithms by inserting the ‘correct’ values in the program somehow. Since there are numerous examples of open-source genetic algorithms, it should be trivial to determine where, exactly, the information is front-loaded. An alternate version of this would be a detailed explanation of how a ‘search’ in a genetic algorithm is different from a ‘search’ by a population in the real world. This should be mathematically rigorous not “because living things are different than programs”. |
Just shut up- you are obviously proud to be an asshole. Genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They are designed for specific purposes. For a GA to design an antenna, for example, all of the information for that antenna has to be programmed in and the offspring are compared to that. They employ a targeted search and cumulative selection to achieve a pre-specified result, ie the specification of the antenna required.
Dawkins’ “weasel” is unable to design an antenna because it isn’t designed to. Only GAs specifically designed to design an antenna can do so. Got that, dipshit?
| Quote | | • Which is the designer responsible for and why? A) The creation of the entire universe and everything in it. B) The creation of only living things on Earth. C) The creation of only ‘complex’ (include a definition and how you determine complexity) structures in organisms. D) The front-loading of living things with genes that will help their descendants survive (examples required). E) something not yet mentioned by ID advocates. |
Again, THAT is what science is for, Kevin.
| Quote | | • A page number of any description of any of this or experiments that support these statements in Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt. I have asked this multiple times from multiple people who feel that my treatment of Darwin’s Doubt is incomplete. Yet not a single one of them have responded |
Kevin, you butchered that book. You should be ashamed but yet you are not. Strange. |
Joe.
1) YOU said that there was a barrier to macroevolution. Just tell us what it is.
2) Humans designed stonehenge, Joe... Humans. WIth known characters of strength, lifespan, innovativeness, and creativity. We still know NOTHING about your so-called designer. Was it human? Like Behe's time travelling cell-biologists. Did Doctor Who, just stop at a million points in the history of the Earth and drop stuff off?
3) Joe, teh recipe for Caek isn't what I asked for. If you have done this, provide a link. No, the number of bits in the word 'aardvark' doesn't count either.
4) And yet, genetic algorithms have resulted in systems that are way better than a team of HUMAN engineers have ever come up with. Indeed, in at least one case, evolution has resulted in a system that human engineers can't even understand, much less duplicate. Why don't you explain, in detail,* the difference between a goal oriented program and a goal oriented environment, when in both, the organisms are only their to survive (Avida).
5) You have to show the existence of a designer before you can start talking about what he did Joe. Once again, you contradict yourself within just a few paragraphs. Your skill in that is amazing. We know that stonehenge is designed, because we know that humans designed it. We know that living things are designer because we have no idea who or what the designer is and haven't even begun to find out yet. Joe, you can't even do circular reasoning right... your train fell of the circular track halfway through.
And that is why these questions remain unanswered. When Joe speaks for your position, then you are doomed.
___
* Not really, I don't want to listen to your whining anymore. |
Yes Kevin, you are ignorant of science. You have to demonstrate that macroevolution is possible.
Saying humans desogned Stonehenge does NOT say who.
And yes I showed you how to measure information.
Genetic algorithms are goal oriented- it's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole, Kevin. AVIDA is NOT a genetic algorithm and itr does not model unguided evolution. As for your qup about the environment, when you get published someone may listen.
The design is evidence for the designer. Again your ignorance wrt science, while amusing, means nothing to me.
And again, everything we know about Stonehenge we know because we A) first determined it was deisgned and B) we studied it
Face it Kevin, you are just a fucking loser.
--------------
"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
|
