tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2503886476849974043..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Pwned by lawyers (not)Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50467759682308787072015-11-14T17:20:05.375-05:002015-11-14T17:20:05.375-05:00Who is this Jack Jones joker? Is he another sock p...Who is this Jack Jones joker? Is he another sock puppet of Joe G.? He has the same abusive nature. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66376415891170915822015-11-14T15:57:57.860-05:002015-11-14T15:57:57.860-05:00Yeah, he is trying to document what he thinks is a...Yeah, he is trying to document what he thinks is a "gotcha", and do it in such a way as to get the last word. Not bloody likely. Fair Witnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02096585841391610098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57336812694388563922015-11-14T11:51:15.389-05:002015-11-14T11:51:15.389-05:00Only Barry could insult someone by apologizing.
...Only Barry could insult someone by apologizing. <br /><br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-apology-to-dr-moran/#comment-588002William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86880177230839042122015-11-14T09:17:06.157-05:002015-11-14T09:17:06.157-05:00About Andre's question in that UD thread...
A...About Andre's question in that UD thread...<br /><br /><i>Andre asks,<br /><br />You bring up an interesting point. So lets say this new organism accumulates junk over time as it replicates and multiplies, it gets pseudo genes and the networks are a bit messy as the generations go on as typical systems in operation tend to do. Does that mean it is any less designed than when it was in pristine condition?</i><br /><br />I would think that there would still be evidence of an entirely different tree of life, for which we would know it's LUCA and we would know it to be human design. We could easily do comparative genomics to determine which organisms share a human designed common ancestor and which don't.<br /><br />Also just because we can design things to evolve, doesn't mean that everything that evolves is designed. Logic 101.It just further confirms that WE, as humans, design stuff and there's no evidence any other "entity" can do that.Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88866753907359135862015-11-14T08:35:31.853-05:002015-11-14T08:35:31.853-05:00I'm trying to be generous. Some are nuts in a ...I'm trying to be generous. Some are nuts in a non-rabid way.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30874947615326314902015-11-14T08:33:50.437-05:002015-11-14T08:33:50.437-05:00Larry, just ignore him. Gaulin is a lunatic who th...Larry, just ignore him. Gaulin is a lunatic who thinks he has a theory of ID and spends inordinate amounts of time spamming the web trying to gather attentionDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4252748531282540782015-11-14T08:32:15.232-05:002015-11-14T08:32:15.232-05:00Arlin Stolzfus said,
IMHO their success in promot...Arlin Stolzfus said,<br /><br /><i>IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades.</i><br /><br />I agree with you. It also made it much more difficult to debate Intelligent Design Creationists.<br /><br />It's hard enough to explain the history to scientists (e.g. John Mattick and Francis Collins), but it seems to be <b>impossible</b> to explain it to IDiots. <br /><br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77275251693726927032015-11-14T08:25:25.660-05:002015-11-14T08:25:25.660-05:00What are you referring to?What are you referring to?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52737364909485006562015-11-14T08:23:55.729-05:002015-11-14T08:23:55.729-05:00The thing that worries me the most is not that Bar...The thing that worries me the most is not that Barry and I disagree about intelligent design but that he seems to be incapable of constructing and adhering to a logical argument. <br /><br />I'm no great fan of lawyers but most of them can do better than that, can't they? The ones I know personally are able to carry on very rational discussions about a large number of issues.<br /><br />Barry doesn't even know what constitutes "evidence" for his positions. I thought that proper use of evidence is important in the practice of law. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5604507168680248722015-11-14T08:11:23.113-05:002015-11-14T08:11:23.113-05:00Good lord. I knew Barry was stupid, but I never r...Good lord. I knew Barry was stupid, but I never realized what a staggeringly moronic imbecile he was. He might be the stupidest creationist around, and this in a field that includes Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Banaman Comfort.<br /><br />In Barry's latest attempt at a "gotcha" he calls Larry out by name and asks if it would be possible to determine if a synthetic genome created by Craig Venter could be determined to have been designed by humans:<br /><br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-a-synthetic-genome-design/<br /><br />When Larry replies in the affirmative, Barry springs his trap:<br /><br /><i>Dr, Moran, you astonish me. In a good way.<br /><br />Thank you for admitting that design leaves indicia that are empirically detectable in biological organisms, and that a design inference is perfectly valid if those indicia are present.</i><br /><br />Yes. After 20 years of studying the subject, Barry thinks the opposition to ID is based on the position that, if life was "designed", this could not be detected. As opposed to simply not accepting the ID position that life <i>was</i> designed and the IDiots <i>have</i> detected this. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61040772634949063162015-11-14T06:41:02.450-05:002015-11-14T06:41:02.450-05:00Only some? :)Only some? :)The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71982933051956103422015-11-14T02:41:12.909-05:002015-11-14T02:41:12.909-05:00"It's true that many evolutionists reject..."It's true that many evolutionists reject the ENCODE hype. <br /><br />Here's what happened. <br /><br />1. ID predicts that most of the human genome is functional.<br /><br />2. A bunch of biochemists and molecular biologists said that 80% of the genome has a function.<br /><br />3. Experts in molecular evolution disgree and so do a lot of other people. <br /><br />4. The biochemists and molecular biologists (ENCODE) re-think their stance and publish a paper a year-and-a-half later saying that "there's no universal definition of what constitutes function." They point out that there is compelling evidence that most of our genome is junk and that they have not supplied evidence that biochemically active regions are truly functional. They conclude that the ENCODE data should be used as a resource and that's "far more important than any interim estimate of the fraction of the human genome that is functional."<br /><br />5. Casey Luskin declares victory and the ID proponents go nuts over the idea that Darwinism has been refuted and the ID prediction has been confirmed. <br /><br />Really! That's what happened!"<br /><br /><br />Yep! Casey Luskin...operating in the twilight zone between dishonesty and ignorance...it's so hard to tell...NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22507128476023241612015-11-13T20:07:07.065-05:002015-11-13T20:07:07.065-05:00Box: Bornagain, don’t miss Larry Moran’s #204 and ...<a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587895" rel="nofollow">Box</a>: <i>Bornagain, don’t miss Larry Moran’s #204 and #213.<br />It’s rather shocking — <b>even at a night like this.</b></i><br /><br />Some of those people are fucking insane.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88819924237824910042015-11-13T14:09:26.929-05:002015-11-13T14:09:26.929-05:00I can see that all are still busy setting a bad ex...I can see that all are still busy setting a bad example by making it appear that one theory defeats another, even though each was premised for an entirely different phenomena.<br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50430866064295499882015-11-13T12:56:38.891-05:002015-11-13T12:56:38.891-05:00For a full treatment of this, see Coyne & Orr,...<i>For a full treatment of this, see Coyne & Orr, Speciation.</i><br /><br />Actually, I had already looked on Amazon, where it is now less expensive (paperback now available), but I'm waiting for the cheaper Kindle version. ;-)<br /><br />I'd look for it in a library, but I think this is the sort of book one wants to keep rather than borrow.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25460419212609243322015-11-13T12:35:36.310-05:002015-11-13T12:35:36.310-05:00judmarc: Yes, selection does seem to be the most c...judmarc: Yes, selection does seem to be the most common cause of speciation. Drift can do it too, but is much slower, and so selection is likely to do it first. For a full treatment of this, see Coyne & Orr, <i>Speciation</i>.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81330740477874089652015-11-13T11:18:21.536-05:002015-11-13T11:18:21.536-05:00Another fact! fact! fact! Stamp, stamp, spit, spit...Another fact! fact! fact! Stamp, stamp, spit, spit!Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51713035519224465412015-11-13T11:15:42.214-05:002015-11-13T11:15:42.214-05:00Pathetic.
If, prior to Einstein, someone had sai...Pathetic. <br /><br /><i>If, prior to Einstein, someone had said Newton’s law is a fact, fact, fact, they would have been wrong. “Apples fall” is the fact.</i><br /><br />Newton's law is still a scientific fact. It may not work as well as relativity but it's a pretty darn good model and it works on its own merits and scope.<br /><br />This retard finally proves what we all knew, that not only he doesn't understand evolution, he also doesn't understand anything about science in general.<br /><br />Actually, neutral theory adds to the theory of evolution instead of replacing it like happened to Newton's gravity, so if it was fact, fact, fact without drift, now we can add another fact to it all.Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48061252623031893702015-11-13T11:04:53.748-05:002015-11-13T11:04:53.748-05:00Oops, Another thing Barry doesn't understand a...Oops, <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-it-is-a-fact-fact-fact-how-can-the-facts-change/" rel="nofollow">Another thing Barry doesn't understand after 20 years of studies.</a>Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8892546091100305132015-11-13T11:02:52.912-05:002015-11-13T11:02:52.912-05:00Barry is now under the impression that
(1) the ne...Barry is now under the impression that<br /><br />(1) the neutral theory is a "relative newcomer in evolution theory";<br />(2) if the neutral theory is valid, it rules out adaptation.<br /><br /><br /><i>Neutral theory is a relative newcomer in evolution theory. Nevertheless, prior to neutral theory proponents of materialist evolutionary theory still got red in the face, stamped their feet, and yelled that evolution is a “fact, fact, fact” as spittle flew from their lips.</i><br /><br />(For some reason "Darwinists" invariably get red in the face, stamp their feet, shout and spray spittle when Barry visualises them. They are probably possessed by evil spirits.)<br /><br /><i>This highlights the fallacy of the “fact, fact, fact” mantra. If neutral theory is true, then those who were shouting that their particular version of materialist evolutionary theory is a fact, fact, fact prior to neutral theory were wrong.</i><br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78158668932870251582015-11-13T10:50:05.298-05:002015-11-13T10:50:05.298-05:00John, thanks as usual. Is my recollection accurat...John, thanks as usual. Is my recollection accurate, by the way, that speciation is thought to result (primarily or exclusively) from the operation of selection rather than drift?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27926173332118004402015-11-13T10:41:31.156-05:002015-11-13T10:41:31.156-05:00judmarc: I don't think it relates in any way.judmarc: I don't think it relates in any way.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86241977700874830592015-11-13T09:12:26.613-05:002015-11-13T09:12:26.613-05:00Sorry, the "are" after the parenthetical...Sorry, the "are" after the parenthetical shouldn't be there.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28822174066863056252015-11-13T09:11:44.170-05:002015-11-13T09:11:44.170-05:00"Molecular evolution" takes place on a d...<i>"Molecular evolution" takes place on a different "level"....</i> <br /><br /><i>IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades.</i><br /><br />How does this relate to the thinking that speciation events ("macroevolution") are mostly result from the operation of selection as opposed to drift, even though drift will be responsible for most of the molecular/genetic-level variation between species?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62622241208383589742015-11-13T08:32:24.928-05:002015-11-13T08:32:24.928-05:00Larry, why don't you show Arrington the infamo...Larry, why don't you show Arrington the infamous "Non-Darwinian Evolution" paper by King and Jukes, 1969 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/164/3881/788.full.pdf)? <br /><br />In their co-proposal of the neutral theory, they quote Simpson, who speaks for the Darwinian orthodoxy of the time when he says <br /><br />"The consensus is that completely neutral genes or alleles must be very rare if they -exist at all. To an evolutionary biologist, it therefore seems highly improbable that proteins, supposedly fully determined by genes, should have nonfunctional parts, that dormant genes should exist over periods of generations, or that molecules should change in a regular but nonadaptive way . . . [natural selection] is the composer of the genetic message, and DNA, RNA, enzymes, and other molecules in the system are successively its messengers."<br /><br />What happened over the next 10 years is that Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky, et al. stopped saying these things, but they didn't change their thinking about evolution. Instead, they just argued that "molecular evolution" was a different beast altogether from real evolution. "Molecular evolution" takes place on a different "level" and presents a superficial view of the proximate causes of evolution. <br /><br />IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades. Arlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03243864308260498878noreply@blogger.com