Barry Arringotn took exception and challenged me in: Larry Moran's Irony Meter.
OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.This was the kind of challenge that's like shooting fish in a barrel but I thought I'd do it anyway in case it could serve as a teaching moment. Boy, was I wrong! Turns out that ID proponents are unteachable.
I decided to concentrate on Arrington's published statements about junk DNA where he said ...
For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.In my first post I established that Barry Arrington's definition of "Darwinism" is actually a definition of "Neo-Darwinism" or the "Modern Synthesis." The definition posted in the Uncommon Descent glossary talks exclusively about random mutation and natural selection as the mechanisms of evolution [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism ]. That's the adaptationist position and it's pretty close to what evolutionary biologists consider to be old-fashioned Darwinism. It is not modern evolutionary theory as developed since the late 1960s but Barry Arrington thinks it is.
Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
In my second post I proved that "Darwinists" (using Barry Arrington's definition) did not "predict" junk DNA. Nobody predicted junk DNA and Darwinists were generally opposed to the idea when it was first widely discussed back in the 1970s. I also mentioned that the ID "prediction" of no junk in our genome has NOT been confirmed and is most likely to be false [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism predicted junk DNA].
Barry Arrington says,
Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.It's clear that he doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory, which he thinks is called "Darwinism." You cannot challenge the evolution position on junk DNA without understanding Neutral Theory and random genetic drift and there's abundant evidence that Barry Arrington is clueless about those concepts.
Barry didn't like that very much so he posted two quotations that presumably refuted my entire case [Larry Moran is a Desperate Man]. The first quotation was from Francis Collins in 2006 and the second was from Jerry Coyne in 2009. Barry triumphantly concludes with ...
How embarrassing that biologist Larry has to be schooled on this subject by a lawyer. Ouch. That’s gotta smart.He followed up with: Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura ...
After two failed posts, Larry has put up a post on a completely unrelated topic, apparently giving up on even a pretense of backing up his claim. I expect to see him post an apology for his smear against me that, when challenged, he was unable to support (as soon as pigs fly).In the comments section of that post I attempted to provide links to the ongoing discussion about junk DNA. I emphasized that there were lots of issues that you need to understand in order to have a serious debate. I said I would be glad to debate anyone who challenged junk DNA as long as they did their homework.
Barry Arrington attached the following statement to the bottom of my comment ...
UDEditors: “Anyone who’s prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk.”Not satisfied with his own "debunking," Barry Arrington put up a post yesterday where he highlighted Casey Luskin's "body slam on post-ENCODE revisionism." Arrigton's post is: Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again). (I seem to be getting a lot of attention on ID websites.) He says,
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that. Many Darwinists used to before ENCODE. ID proponents predicted function would be ultimately found. The Darwinists were wrong. The ID proponents were correct. Larry, how can we even begin to debate you when you make Romper Room mistakes like this and don’t even seen to have a grasp on the question we are discussing. Now, you go do your homework. See if you can catch up with the rest of us, and if you can, come and back and we will be happy to discuss it with you.
In the space of just a couple of days Professor of Biochemistry Larry Moran has been taken down not once but twice by mere lawyers. Ouch and double ouch.
The scientific debate over junk DNA is a fun and interesting debate with respected opponents on both sides. I think the tide has turned against opponents of junk DNA but it's still possible to be a respectable scientist and support the position that most of our genome is functional. I don't think that's going to be possible in a few years. At some point in the near future you will be a kook if you continue to argue for function in most of our genome.
What's disappointing about the ID position of Barry Arrington, Casey Luskin, and other ID supporters is that they simply won't admit that there's a good scientific case for junk DNA. That ID position doesn't deserve respect.
What's also disappointing is that there are some ID supporters who do understand the issue but they never speak out against people like Casey Luskin and Barry Arrington. That's also a stance that doesn't deserve respect. It's why I call them all IDiots.
66 comments :
It amazes me the way that Barry and his sycophants (sorry Larry, no sycophants for you) will twist logic to ensure that they never have to retract a statement. In the revisionist history OP, Luitesuit was taking them to task over their refusal to accept Larry's claim that Darwinism and Darwinists did not predict junk DNA. If I may borrow one of Barry's phrases, Larry's statement is self-evidently true.
But the best is Andre's argument that Dawkins was invoking God and ID when he said that it is remarkable that most of the human DAN is junk. The logic goes as follws:
1) Remarkable is often used as a synonym of miraculous.
2) Miracles are supernatural.
3) Therefore, Dawkins' statement invokes God.
All this arguing over "junk DNA" is getting very depressing. What must come first (i.e. properly modeling the system in question) does not even matter, to either side. That's shameful.
Did you notice that Barry actually said that Darwinism does not predict junk DNA in that thread?
Arrington lives in a Jeebus-bubble. Expecting him to be able to understand the issues is like expecting Ted Cruz to read a book by Richard Dawkins. It just ain't gonna happen.
No. Where?
Both sides of the argument have swept the real issues "under the rug". Larry is now giving Barry more power by keeping the discussion to an argument from ignorance about a process that cannot even be accurately modeled, by anyone. How much "junk" there is cannot even be determined at this time.
Barry's latest threat:
"Last chance Larry. Are you going to answer my question at 35?"
Larry, welcome to the unwashed banned. Of UD.
Barry is invincible.
Finally, let’s get this back into context. I said “Darwinists touted ‘junk DNA.'” If more than one Darwinist used junk DNA as evidence for Darwinism, that statement is true. More than one Darwinist did in fact do that. Therefore, you were wrong when you said the statement was false.
Sure. If I say "French people are sadistic murderers", my statement is correct as long as there are more than one French people who are sadistic murderers. If I say "spiders have six legs", I'm correct because there surely are at least two spiders that have lost a couple of legs each. If I say "people called Barry are stupid", I only have to indicate one other stupid Barry to justify the plural.
Hey lutesuite,
In his "answer" to your post (number 4; Bold is mine):
UD Editors: Welcome to UD lutesuit. You misunderstand the claim. As Vincent Torley has already pointed out, the Darwinists “predicted” junk DNA AFTER it was “discovered.” This tactic is often called a “post-diction.” It goes like this. After something is discovered, the Darwinist howls in triumph about how this was exactly what the theory “predicts.” Never mind that no one actually predicted it. In the case of junk DNA there were numerous post-dictions all the way up until ENCODE debunked the concept. Then the Darwinists (including some of the very same ones who said the theory predicted junk DNA) howled about how they knew all along that junk DNA was not a real thing, exactly as the theory predicts.
See? So, He admits that Darwinism did not predict junk DNA ever. But, according to him, ENCODE debunks that prediction, etc. He doesn't know anything about evolution, he just knows "pronouncements" by people he labels as "Darwinists," which is not the same. Larry said that Barry did not understand evolutionary theory. Barry admits so. One day Barry says that junk DNA is a prediction from "Darwinism," next day that nobody predicted it, but "never mind."
His question, for those not following, is this:
Francis Collins disagrees with you about junk DNA in the same way I disagree with you about junk DNA. Does that mean neither of us understands Darwinism?
That's right. Barry Arrington, expert on Darwinism and, in particular, on how it pertains to the issue of junk DNA, thinks it's a big problem for Larry if Larry can be forced to admit that he disagrees with Francis Collins on the issue of junk DNA.
True story. Oh, poor Larry. He must be quaking in his boots.
In addition to that, Barry seems to think that the fact that Francis Collins, the Darwinist, agrees with him on the non-existence of junk DNA somehow supports Barry's position that Darwinists strongly support the idea of junk DNA.
You couldn't make this shit up.
To coin a phrase: And you wonder why they're called IDiots?
The problem is you're presuming that Barry Arrington isn't a pathological liar with shit for brains. He openly admits that Darwinists never predicted the existence of junk DNA. But he goes on to say that they "postdicted" or "retrodicted" it. And further, as he sees it, postdictions and retrodictions are the same thing as predictions.
I shit you not.
But he goes on to say that they "postdicted" or "retrodicted" it. And further, as he sees it, postdictions and retrodictions are the same thing as predictions.
I find this particularly relevant because he claims to know "darwinism" from A to Z but he's not making a case for why "darwinism" should or shouldn't derive Junk DNA, he just relies on testimony... cherry picked, self interpreted testimony to define what "darwinism" predicts with regard to jDNA. If he's such an expert on Darwinism, why care what Francis Collins or anyone else has to say about anything?
You won't have to look far.
Barry is a lawyer.
He is arguing the meanings of terms.
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is...."
lutesuite,
I agree. He will never admit to having deflected. But deflected and contradicted himself regardless. I'm just curious as to how his readers won't notice this direct contradiction. That they won't notice that instead of showing how junk DNA follows from "Darwinism." As Dazz said, he rather "relies" on "testimony." Why so? Because he doesn't understand any of it. That's why. But he had to give the appearance of giving Larry an answer. Those idiots reading his shit eat the shit as if it's chocolate cake. Amazing.
T. Ryan Gregory has an interesting quote from Francis Crick written in 1959 which seems relevant to the debate about whether junk DNA was expected:
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2015/04/quotes-of-interest-crick-1959/
“... it is postulated that the sequences of bases in a DNA molecule are of two types: one makes ‘sense,’ that is, codes an amino acid sequence; the other makes ‘nonsense,’ that is, has some other function. The difficulty of this idea is that the nonsense must make up a rather large fraction of the DNA. ... consider what might happen if dud genes could not be eliminated by genetic deletion. The base composition of such genes might well drift to extreme values because of mutagenic bias within the cell. This explanation is not very likely, and in addition demands that dud genes be reasonable uniformly distributed among DNA molecules.
Jeffrey Shallit is right. The "Jeebus-bubble" that arrington lives in is clearly shown in comment number 55 by arrington in this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-morans-revisionist-history-debunked/
In that comment arrington quotes Andre as saying: "It is very clear people are either willful liars or they are morons. What do you think?"
And arrington responds with this: "A question I have asked myself many times over the years. But, of course, there is a third option. II Cor. 4:4"
Let's look at that "third option". II Cor. 4:4 says:
"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
Here's another version of it:
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
And another:
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with arrington and his fellow thumpers has been blinded by Satan (aka "the god of this world"/"the god of this age").
Here are three links to chapter 4 of corinthians in the horrible mess called the bible:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/2-corinthians/4-4.html
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Corinthians-Chapter-4/
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204&version=NIV
arrington and his creobot ilk see themselves as a "minister" for and "servant" of "God", "Jesus Christ as Lord", "the glory of Christ", "the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ", "Lord Jesus", "the glory of God", "the word of God", "the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God", etc., "for Jesus' sake". And since arrington and his ilk believe that the bible is "the word of God" and would never "distort" it, they must all be YEC biblical inerrantists. Hmm, I wonder which of the many versions and interpretations of the bible is inerrant? LMAO
IDiot-creationism, all science so far!
Congratulations on your UD debut, lutesuite! Barry was quick to show his appreciation: he defaced your "hello" post to add a boldface editorial comment (quoted by photosynthesis above), and now he already wants to keep you silent (emphasis added):
lutesuite, you are deeply stupid. Here’s a hint: Deeply stupid people should say very little, because the more they say the more their stupidity is revealed.
The highlighted part is something I agree with, and also something Barry himself should be made to write down 50 times every morning.
Well, my last post didn't go thru. I guess that means I've been banned, right?
I was going to point out how the following post by Larry has been roundly ignored by Barry's babbling band of nincompoops, as if it didn't even exist:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587465
You'd almost think they were "in the grip of a “Domineering Parasitical Ideology".
Barry is a lawyer (of sorts). He thinks he can pwn his opponent in a debate about science by using argumentative tricks before the "jury" of UD regulars (and raising his voice if necessary). At UD there is no judge to gavel him down, so he can wallow in his narcissism.
I've tried to join the discussion (to reply to a civil but naive post by "soundburger"), but it seems I remain banned. I'm not going to create any more aliases to circumvent their banwall.
Well! I"m royally pissed that I can't respond to that vicious piece of slander. I'm as big a ninny as anyone here!
Poor Barry is in so far over his head. But what else is new? Larry answers his "gotcha" question:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587465
Barry retorts:
Larry, I will ask you one more time. Do try to answer honestly this time. Francis Collins disagrees with you about junk DNA in the same way I disagree with you about junk DNA. Does that mean neither of us understands Darwinism?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587559
As if the fact that the Darwinist Francis Collins rejects junk DNA has anything to do with the question of whether the creationist Barry Arrington, who also rejects junk DNA, is indicating that he understands Darwinism when he says it would predict the existence of junk DNA.
I'd really love to help Barry out, but I'm no longer in a position to do that. (Unless he takes the time to read this).
Um, whaaa? Actually what comes first is good comparative biology and then phylogenetics. Our side has this and it strongly supports the idea that much of the DNA is junk. Then comes popgen modeling and this also suggests why there can be so much junk and, in fact, predicts the maximum amount of sequence-specific functional DNA. Our side has this too and it also supports the junk idea. So, whatever are you talking about?
Oh, Barry. You're such a card:
Onlookers, Larry Moran has backed himself into a corner. He goes onto the internet and mocks me before the entire world with his claim that I do not understand Darwinism.
I call him to account and demand that he back his claim up. If he is so certain that I do not understand Darwinism, surely he can point to some error I’ve made on the topic. Otherwise, his claim is false and based on nothing more than his anti-ID bigotry.
Larry flailed about in three separate posts over at Sandwalk. At the end of the day, the ONLY evidence he could come up with is his assertion that I am wrong about junk DNA.
But I agree with many of the world’s leading scientists about that question, including many scientists, such as Dr. Collins, who are actively hostile to ID.
So the problem with Larry’s “evidence” that I do not understand Darwinism is obvious. If my position on junk DNA is the measure, then many of the world’s leading scientists do not understand Darwinism either.
Larry, you really stuck your foot into it this time. The ONLY honorable thing for you to do is withdraw your charge and apologize. I will not be holding my breath waiting for you to do the honorable thing.
And:
A final note Larry.
You and I both know that all of the unbiased observers who have been following this exchange believe that your initial irresponsible charge combined with your feckless defense of that charge have made you look like a fool
You should bear that in mind the next time you consider attacking me. I bite back..
Could anyone be more pathetic?
Professor Moran,
You seem to be under the impression that there is a "party line" which ID proponents have to adhere to, on the topic of junk DNA. Not so. I will be putting up a post on the subject, in the next few days.
Some of the quotes you've cited in your recent comments on http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/ appear to lend some support to your version of the story. Indeed, I'm surprised you didn't cite them earlier on, in your posts on Sandwalk.
However, I have to say that Casey Luskin also cited a number of quotes showing that some neo-Darwinists predicted junk DNA as far back as the seventies.
- Vincent Torley
Please, NickM. Don't get him started.
"As far back as the seventies." You mean, after junk DNA had already been demonstrated to exist by direct experiment?
What is it with creationists? Do none of you understand what is meant by the word "predict"?
A more important question, vjtorley. In the following post on UD you praised that article by Casey Luskin by saying "I have to say that Casey Luskin’s takedown is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo!"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-morans-revisionist-history-debunked/#comment-587440
However, shortly thereafter Larry posted an analysis of Luskin's piece that demonstrated that Luskin had misrepresented many of the sources he cited:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587465
Have you read Larry's post? Had you actually read the articles that Luskin cited before you praised his article? Having read Larry's response to that article, do you still hold the opinion that "Luskin's take down is one of the best (you've) seen in a long time?"
One more thing, vjtorley: There are still some unanswered questions I asked at the following link:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/11/answering-barry-arringtons-challenge_8.html?showComment=1447177182425#c7769576861912183015
I'm thinking that Barry doesn't know about the argument between selectionists and neutralists that raged for many years, in its later stages mostly regarding allozymes.
I'm also curious about one thing. Wouldn't junk DNA have become predictable by genetic load arguments as soon as we had some idea of the mutation rate relative to the size of the genome? And wouldn't that have been long before we were able to look at all closely within the genome? So were there such predictions?
Barry is back at UD strutting and crowing how he whipped the mean evolutionist. The man has no clue how foolish he continually makes himself look. I guess that's why he bought UD in the first place.
Vincent Torley says,
You seem to be under the impression that there is a "party line" which ID proponents have to adhere to, on the topic of junk DNA. Not so. I will be putting up a post on the subject, in the next few days.
I surely hope there's not a "party line" but if you are going to argue in favor of junk DNA be prepared for a lot abuse from the "party."
Some of the quotes you've cited in your recent comments on http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/ appear to lend some support to your version of the story. Indeed, I'm surprised you didn't cite them earlier on, in your posts on Sandwalk.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you're talking about the history of the field then we covered that debate many years ago when Jonathan Wells published his book on "The Myth of Junk DNA."
Junk & Jonathan: Part 1—Getting the History Correct
Junk & Jonathan: Part 2— What Did Biologists Really Say About Junk DNA?
IDiots vs Francis Collins
Junk & Jonathan: Part 4—Chapter 1
Junk & Jonathan: Part 5—Chapter 2
However, I have to say that Casey Luskin also cited a number of quotes showing that some neo-Darwinists predicted junk DNA as far back as the seventies.
No, he didn't. He posted references to some scientists who were responding to the "evidence" that there was a lot of excess DNA in our genome. They were addressing the question, "Could this be junk DNA as some other people claim?"
Only two scientific papers by knowledgeable experts were cited. They are the "Selfish Gene" and the "Selfish DNA" papers by Doolittle & Sapienza (1980) and Orgel & Crick (1980) . A quotation from the Orgel & Crick paper explains their motive ...
In summary, there is a large amount of evidence which suggests, but does not prove, that much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk. We shall assume, for the rest of this article, that this hypothesis is true. We therefore need to explain how such DNA arose in the first place and why it is not speedily eliminated, since, by definition, it contributes little of nothing to the fitness of the organism.
They already know about the EVIDENCE for junk DNA (i.e. not a prediction) and their goal is to explain how it got there. Why do ID proponents have so much trouble understanding this?
I'll give Casey Luskin credit for one thing. He talks about "evolutionists" not Darwinists. That's a wise move since every one of those four authors supports non-Darwinian evolution and they discuss it in these papers.
Casey Luskin says [Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions]
Indeed, it's difficult to accept Gregory's claims that evolutionary biologists by-and-large anticipated function for non-coding DNA when he himself is a prime example of an evolutionary scientist who ardently advocates the view that our genome is overwhelmingly junky.
This doesn't make any sense. Back in the 1970s there were a few brave scientists who suggested that the excees DNA in large genomes was probably junk. Most of them were experts in molecular evolution and were familiar with Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.
Most biologists were adaptationists and they were very skeptical of junk DNA. They tried to come up with functions.
The fact that thirty years later Ryan Gregory sides with the minority position that turned out to be correct doesn't mean his version of the history is wrong.
Or am I missing some version of ID logic?
Casey Luskin says,
Even in the face of the ENCODE consortium's compelling experimental results, many evolutionists still adamantly maintain that the vast majority of the human genome is junk. Even in the face of the ENCODE consortium's compelling experimental results, many evolutionists still adamantly maintain that the vast majority of the human genome is junk.
It's true that many evolutionists reject the ENCODE hype.
Here's what happened.
1. ID predicts that most of the human genome is functional.
2. A bunch of biochemists and molecular biologists said that 80% of the genome has a function.
3. Experts in molecular evolution disgree and so do a lot of other people.
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."
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.
Really! That's what happened!
The ID logic you are missing appears to be that unless scientists all said the same thing throughout history about a given topic (say, junk DNA), even scientists separated by 40+ years of investigation and empirical data, then it is all suspect, and neatly disposed of.
I'm still waiting for Barry Arrington's scientific explanation of what scientific principles of Darwinism predict junk DNA, since he understands all about it.
I'm also still waiting for any ID creationist to explain what scientific principles of ID creationism predict no junk DNA.
"I'm also still waiting for any ID creationist to explain what scientific principles of ID creationism predict no junk DNA."
That one is easy. Man is created in God's image, and God is a perfect being. He would not crate us to contain anything that is non-functional. Well, except for the ear lobes. And the appendix. And...
And now that we are on this subject, what moron of a God would think that having testicles outside the body was a good idea?
For me, this quote sums up Barry Arrington: "What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that." So, Larry, you don't know your own position on junk DNA, but Arrington does because he's heard the ENCODE hype. Never mind that you voluntarily offered to defend that position, you're being told that you don't know what you think anyway.
If that doesn't sum up Arrington's comprehensive combination of arrogance and ignorance, I don't know what does.
Piotr quoted Barry,
"Deeply stupid people should say very little, because the more they say the more their stupidity is revealed."
There goes yet another irony-meter. :(
I think the point that Chris B made needs to be emphasized more often.
This point:
"I'm also still waiting for any ID creationist to explain what scientific principles of ID creationism predict no junk DNA."
Larry, you said:
"1. ID predicts that most of the human genome is functional."
I hope you won't mind me saying that that isn't quite accurate. IDiots (not 'ID') assert that there's very little or no junk DNA in the human genome but unless I've missed it they haven't "explained what scientific principles of ID creationism predict no junk DNA".
What I'm trying to explain is that the IDiots are making their assertions solely because of their unscientific religious belief that their chosen, so-called 'God' wouldn't design-create any and wouldn't allow ('guide') much if any junk DNA in human beings that 'he' 'specially created in his image' and the IDiots are not relying on a scientific 'ID' principle or hypothesis or any evidence that supports and explains how 'ID' 'scientifically predicts' that there's little or no junk DNA in the human genome.
Lots of things that are allegedly 'intelligently designed' by so-called 'intelligent agents' (e.g. by humans) are partly or completely junk, so 'intelligent design' by 'intelligent agents' does not mean that there is no or will be no junk in something. In other words, 'ID' does not equal perfection and cannot 'predict' perfection therefor no assertion (or prediction) of perfection (or close to perfection) can be made from an 'ID' point of view unless that 'ID' point of view is not scientific and is instead based solely on religious beliefs.
Am I making sense?
"I have to say that Casey Luskin’s takedown is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo!"
I too saw that at UD. To me it shows that torley is as much a jerk as luskin and arrington (not that I didn't think that already).
131
Barry Arrington November 12, 2015 at 9:57 am
A final note Larry.
You and I both know that all of the unbiased observers who have been following this exchange believe that your initial irresponsible charge combined with your feckless defense of that charge have made you look like a fool.
You should bear that in mind the next time you consider attacking me. I bite back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A "final note", eh? It wasn't "final", and arrington and his ilk are the ones who look like fools because they are fools.
After his "final note" to Larry, arrington directed more 'notes' (comments) specifically to Larry, and before he did that he posted this drool:
149
Barry Arrington November 12, 2015 at 12:28 pm
LarTanner,
I’m not going to let you get away with your 147. You came in and made the following claim:
“Larry Moran gives a direct and clear answer to the questions asked.”
I asked you “How is “Francis Collins is not a leading expert in Darwinism” an answer to the question “does Francis Collins understand Darwnism.”
Instead of backing up your claim, you ran like a scalded hound.
You and Larry have this in common: You make irresponsible and unsupportable claims, and when you are called to account you run away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The part about making irresponsible and unsupportable claims and when called to account LarTanner and Larry run away is especially funny coming from a bible thumping blowhard whose beliefs and assertions are some of the most irresponsible and unsupportable claims ever made, who regularly runs away from answering questions that scare him, who blocks/bans many people just for disagreeing with him or asking questions that scare him, and who is way too cowardly to step out of his UD sanctuary to face Larry and other opponents here, at TSZ, at The Panda's Thumb/AtBC, etc.
The comments above, by arrington, are from this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/
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)?
In their co-proposal of the neutral theory, they quote Simpson, who speaks for the Darwinian orthodoxy of the time when he says
"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."
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.
IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades.
"Molecular evolution" takes place on a different "level"....
IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades.
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?
Sorry, the "are" after the parenthetical shouldn't be there.
judmarc: I don't think it relates in any way.
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?
Barry is now under the impression that
(1) the neutral theory is a "relative newcomer in evolution theory";
(2) if the neutral theory is valid, it rules out adaptation.
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.
(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.)
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.
Oops, Another thing Barry doesn't understand after 20 years of studies.
Pathetic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another fact! fact! fact! Stamp, stamp, spit, spit!
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, Speciation.
For a full treatment of this, see Coyne & Orr, Speciation.
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. ;-)
I'd look for it in a library, but I think this is the sort of book one wants to keep rather than borrow.
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.
Box: Bornagain, don’t miss Larry Moran’s #204 and #213.
It’s rather shocking — even at a night like this.
Some of those people are fucking insane.
"It's true that many evolutionists reject the ENCODE hype.
Here's what happened.
1. ID predicts that most of the human genome is functional.
2. A bunch of biochemists and molecular biologists said that 80% of the genome has a function.
3. Experts in molecular evolution disgree and so do a lot of other people.
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."
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.
Really! That's what happened!"
Yep! Casey Luskin...operating in the twilight zone between dishonesty and ignorance...it's so hard to tell...
Only some? :)
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.
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:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-a-synthetic-genome-design/
When Larry replies in the affirmative, Barry springs his trap:
Dr, Moran, you astonish me. In a good way.
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.
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 was designed and the IDiots have detected this.
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.
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.
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.
What are you referring to?
Arlin Stolzfus said,
IMHO their success in promoting this ridiculous metaphysical argument set back evolutionary thinking for decades.
I agree with you. It also made it much more difficult to debate Intelligent Design Creationists.
It's hard enough to explain the history to scientists (e.g. John Mattick and Francis Collins), but it seems to be impossible to explain it to IDiots.
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 attention
I'm trying to be generous. Some are nuts in a non-rabid way.
About Andre's question in that UD thread...
Andre asks,
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 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.
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.
Only Barry could insult someone by apologizing.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-apology-to-dr-moran/#comment-588002
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.
Who is this Jack Jones joker? Is he another sock puppet of Joe G.? He has the same abusive nature.
Post a Comment