tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4250202662933967314..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Insulators, junk DNA, and more hype and misconceptionsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76662297560010563302015-08-13T13:52:45.933-04:002015-08-13T13:52:45.933-04:00In any case, bad design has never, and could never...In any case, bad design has never, and could never, be used as an argument against the existence of god. The reason the topic is discussed is because the faithful claim perfect design... that is all.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14919679683075685072015-08-13T13:48:54.431-04:002015-08-13T13:48:54.431-04:00Haha. I see it didn't take long for Lies to ad...Haha. I see it didn't take long for Lies to adopt my "god is just a bad designer" idea as a way to back out of the junk DNA cul de sac.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59195494431473580722015-08-13T13:16:23.567-04:002015-08-13T13:16:23.567-04:00"I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, ..."I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, et al had their books reviewed by evolutionary biologists before publishing them."<br /><br />Wells definitely did not, at least not by any competent one. His child-like distortions and non-sequiturs are standard fare in creationist rantings, but I'm betting at least most of them would have been caught by real scientist reviewers. Of course, having been sent on a Mission for the Rev.Moon to destroy Darwin, a rational person understands that truth and honesty are pretty low on the lists of folks like Wells.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12832807205800338812015-08-13T13:14:14.191-04:002015-08-13T13:14:14.191-04:00"...publish another flop like Coyne's. &q..."...publish another flop like Coyne's. "<br /><br />"Why Evolution is true"<br />#1 Best Sellerin Organic Evolution<br />Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,528<br /><br /><br />"Darwin's Doubt"<br />#41 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic<br />Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #137,457<br /><br /><br />I do wonder how you rate Meyer's pathetic creationist tome since you claim Coyne's book is a flop...<br /><br />Never trust a creationist.<br />nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54183764859109905342015-08-13T13:09:35.732-04:002015-08-13T13:09:35.732-04:00"Bad design "argument" is not a pro..."Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist."<br /><br /><br />Then 'good design' is not proof that the designer does exist.<br /><br />You simple Sals want to have your Little Debbie snack and eat it, too.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55784115670481696732015-08-12T14:15:15.446-04:002015-08-12T14:15:15.446-04:00The whole truth asks: Did you make the words '...<i>The whole truth asks: Did you make the words 'Discovery Institute website" a link so that it's easy for 'onlookers' to go there and see what your leaders are preaching?</i><br /><br />The link is for those who would right away wonder which website I'm talking about.<br /><br /><i>How does that nonsense apply to what Diogenes said about the lack of a comment box at ENV?</i><br /><br />I had to disable comments on my <a href="http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Theory of Intelligent Design</a> site after it became another way to spew the usual religion laced insults at me. The internet already has way more than enough of that garbage.<br /><br /><i>And what's with the "Darwinian theory" label?</i><br /><br />You need to study how the phrase is commonly used by scientists: <br /><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Darwinian+theory" rel="nofollow">https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Darwinian+theory</a><br /><br /><i>Haven't you heard, evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin.</i><br /><br />I heard that several hundred times. Possibly over a thousand by now, but I did not keep an accurate count.<br /><br />The reason for my having to be specific is that the theory I defend explains the systematics of the process that is generalized using the word "evolution". Darwinian (evolutionary) theory is an outside view that is unable to cover that and many other things especially the origin of intelligence and how it works.<br /><br />Only a fool would make intelligence related predictions from a theory that is not even for intelligence related predictions. Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90348424990265235512015-08-12T09:32:10.177-04:002015-08-12T09:32:10.177-04:00lies,
"Bad design "argument" is no...lies,<br /><br />"Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist.<br /><br />If anything, it is an argument that the designer did a bad job with his design."<br /><br />Bad design is not proof that there is a designer either. But just out of curiosity, what is your ad hoc rationalization for why an omnipotent designer did a b ad job?<br /><br />"Or that the design has deteriorated since its original form due to many errors of replication and accumulation of deleterious mutations."<br /><br />So we were once perfect, with no appendix, no dental problems, functioning vitamin C synthesis enzymes, etc? Did the designer later give us an appendix and leave broken vitamin C synthesis genes in our genome to be cruel? Why do whales have little degenerate pelvic bones? And why did (s)he/it design malaria, cancer etc? What kind of psychotic sadist is this designer?<br /><br />"By acknowledging that something was badly designed one confirms the existence of a designer; good or bad depending on ones view."<br /><br />That doesn't follow logically at all. If we were in fact perfectly designed you claim that was proof of a designer. So no matter how good, bad, or in between the design, you conclude at the end that this is proof of a designer.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35959809740744252942015-08-12T09:28:22.507-04:002015-08-12T09:28:22.507-04:00Gary said:
"The official Discovery Institute...Gary said:<br /><br />"The official Discovery Institute website does not have a public forum to post comments in."<br /><br />Which is what Diogenes pointed out. The theocrats at the discotoot/ENV are too cowardly to allow comments. Did you make the words 'Discovery Institute website" a link so that it's easy for 'onlookers' to go there and see what your leaders are preaching? <br /><br />"Uncommon Descent and others are affiliated in the sense that they exist to support ID, but they are separate entities the Discovery Institute would publicly distance themselves from if they fail to stay in-spirit with the premise of the theory."<br /><br />The theocrats at UD are also cowards, and only allow a few 'opponents'. They wouldn't allow any, but they have realized that when no 'opponents' were allowed to comment their site quickly withered and nearly died. <br /><br />The only things that anyone has to do "to stay in spirit with the premise of the theory" are demonize and fight against Darwin, "Darwinists", evolutionists, atheists, evolutionary theory, science, free speech, secular government and education, and anything/anyone else that doesn't obediently bow down to the malignant narcissism of IDiot-creationists. <br /><br />"It's scientifically OK to cover the religious implications of a theory like BioLogos does for Darwinian theory, therefore I really have no scientific reason to complain."<br /><br />How does that nonsense apply to what Diogenes said about the lack of a comment box at ENV? And what's with the "Darwinian theory" label? Haven't you heard, evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin. Like the other IDiot-creationists, you're WAY behind. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29850942568883990102015-08-12T09:08:47.461-04:002015-08-12T09:08:47.461-04:00In any event, I'd be willing to bet that, if ...In any event, I'd be willing to bet that, if Larry writes a book on the subject, he will have it reviewed by knowledgeable scientists who believe most of the genome is functional. That may well not include Wells and Luskin, however Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45198996989630373432015-08-12T09:06:27.498-04:002015-08-12T09:06:27.498-04:00I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, et al ...I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, et al had their books reviewed by evolutionary biologists before publishing them. It's hard to understand how the books still contain so many obvious and simple errors. It's almost as if no one who actually understood evolutionary theory so much as looked at the manuscripts.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89946000121337750832015-08-12T08:15:02.276-04:002015-08-12T08:15:02.276-04:00Gary said;
"If all understand that the outco...Gary said;<br /><br />"If all understand that the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion then it can be a wonderfully educational experience, for all involved."<br /><br />The "outcome of the debate" (actually, anything in regard to "the debate") "leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion" for you and your fellow IDiot-creationists, but not for me and a lot of other people, so don't even begin to presume that you can speak for "all". <br /><br />"I'm not ashamed of myself for having helped to stir that one up."<br /><br />What the hell is that supposed to mean? That you're proud of making things up by arrogantly claiming that "the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion" for "all"? <br /><br />And don't your remarks go totally against the claim that so-called 'ID theory' is scientific, not religious? <br /><br />By the way, in regard to the "religious (but not scientific) conclusion" that "the outcome of the debate leads to", whose religious beliefs will the outcome of the debate lead to, yours? The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22679651573310388352015-08-11T18:01:50.764-04:002015-08-11T18:01:50.764-04:00Larry,
Before you publish your book on junk DNA, ...Larry,<br /><br />Before you publish your book on junk DNA, I recommend you leak it to someone like J. Wells or Luskin.<br /><br />If you don't, I will have a lot of fun with it, IF, some publishing house wants to committee a public suicide and publish another flop like Coyne's. <br />Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4886797555182999182015-08-11T17:26:57.749-04:002015-08-11T17:26:57.749-04:00Bad design "argument" is not a proof tha...Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist.<br /><br />If anything, it is an argument that the designer did a bad job with his design. <br /><br />Or that the design has deteriorated since its original form due to many errors of replication and accumulation of deleterious mutations. <br /><br />By acknowledging that something was badly designed one confirms the existence of a designer; good or bad depending on ones view.Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23795039935322215972015-08-11T16:39:58.085-04:002015-08-11T16:39:58.085-04:00How do you think Alternative Splicing has contribu...How do you think Alternative Splicing has contributed to evolution?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23680423050864810822015-08-11T14:34:28.842-04:002015-08-11T14:34:28.842-04:00I have never heard of Father Michał Chaberek befor...I have never heard of Father Michał Chaberek before, but I know the host well enough -- an ultracatholic bigot, holier than the Pope (especially the current one), a notorious homophobe and anti-IVF activist. <i>Rzeczpospolita</i> is a newspaper with rightwing sympaties (influential but not the largest one in the country, pace Klinghoffer), and <i>Gość Niedzielny<br /></i> is a conservative Catholic Sunday magazine, totally controlled by the Church. TV Republika supports conservative, nationalist and religious values (the less said the better|).<br /><br />I have just checked that Chaberek is already the author of a book entitled <i>Creation or Evolution? -- The Catholic's Dilemma</i>. Summary: According to the Bible, man was made from dust, and did not evolve from any mythical hominids. The book of nature and God's revelation complement each other, but if they seem to conflict, trust the latter because those who don't go to hell. End of dilemma.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75847177773288367622015-08-11T13:51:05.678-04:002015-08-11T13:51:05.678-04:00This is off-topic, but Piotr may find it of intere...This is off-topic, but Piotr may find it of interest: the DI's "Explore Evolution" textbook has been translated into Polish, so Klinghoffer is crowing about this great achievement:<br /><br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/explore_evoluti098441.html<br /><br />The funny part is that Klinghitler links to a video of a guy talking about their book in Polish, and Klinghitler doesn't know Polish, but he's somehow sure they're treating ID with the respect it deserves.<br /><br />Teach the controversy!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52340541659069770902015-08-11T13:26:36.830-04:002015-08-11T13:26:36.830-04:00Diogenes wonders:
That is a "bad design"...Diogenes wonders: <br /><i>That is a "bad design" argument, but it's OK and total science-y science when THEY do it. It's only bad when WE use their assumptions!</i><br /><br />It's only a bad thing when you use religious/philosophical arguments as a scientific test for a premise (essentially a hypothesis that requires explaining how something works or happened) that states "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<br /><br /><i>Yes, it's OK when they do it because they worship the same god as you. #$%^ you, you #$%^ing hypocritical fraudulent non-scientist posing-as-a-scientist assclown POSER. You have no position of authority from which to distinguish science from your coreligionists' bone-waving voodoo. $%^&ing assclown poser hypocrite.</i><br /><br />Logically speaking: we were all created by the same thing. I worship whatever that is by searching for scientific answers to the origin of intelligent life. It's nice to have others who are genuinely helping, even though it seems like all of us have our own way on getting on each other's nerves.<br /><br /><i>Why have you, Gary, not gone over to Evolution News & Views to write a comment and complain that THEIR, not our, '"Bad Design" arguments are entirely religious, not scientific' and tell them that THEY, not we, 'are then fabricating your own religious deity.'</i><br /><br />If all understand that the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion then it can be a wonderfully educational experience, for all involved. I'm not ashamed of myself for having helped to stir that one up.<br /><br /><i>After all, it should be easy to submit a comment to the Discovery Institute's website. You just look for the "comment" box on their blog.</i><br /><br />The official <a href="http://www.discovery.org/" rel="nofollow">Discovery Institute website</a> does not have a public forum to post comments in. Uncommon Descent and others are affiliated in the sense that they exist to support ID, but they are separate entities the Discovery Institute would publicly distance themselves from if they fail to stay in-spirit with the premise of the theory. It's scientifically OK to cover the religious implications of a theory like BioLogos does for Darwinian theory, therefore I really have no scientific reason to complain.<br /><br />I can honestly say that the ID websites are now more help than ever keeping up what's happening in science that I need to know about. And Larry helps alert me to what I absolutely need to carefully study. So with all considered, all is still going as well as I hoped it would go.<br /><br />Verse and Music:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc9u3Iaz2Iw" rel="nofollow">17 - Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra</a><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36522498895597393852015-08-11T11:04:54.807-04:002015-08-11T11:04:54.807-04:00Before long ENV will probably post a sermon claimi...Before long ENV will probably post a sermon claiming that life forms (and everything else) are gradually (or rapidly) falling apart. Some terms that IDiot-creationists like to use in those claims are genetic entropy, atrophy, degradation, degeneration, etc. (due to 'the fall' of course but they won't publicly admit that). IDiot-creationists (and other versions of creationists) have a tendency to bounce back and forth and all around in their claims (uh, yeah!). Even if they realize and were to admit that there are or may be imperfections in 'God's creation' they obviously don't believe that there were imperfections 'in the beginning', and any suggested 'junk' isn't 'junk' and never was 'junk'. God don't create junk! To creobots, imperfections in 'creation' aren't actually imperfections. They're the deserved result of righteous punishment for the first sin and continued sins, like worshiping false gods (e.g. Darwin the anti-christ). To creobots, everything that God does is perfect, even when it causes imperfections. <br /><br />Repent now, Darwinist sinners, before it's too late! LOL The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20551950288365881542015-08-11T10:06:07.318-04:002015-08-11T10:06:07.318-04:00SRM says: It would be easy to rationize that an in...SRM says: <i>It would be easy to rationize that an intelligent designer may make mistakes, or at least not come up with a perfect design, especially since this might have been its first or only kick at the can. </i><br /><br />Right. One reason we know that the Egyptians invented the pyramid technology (as opposed to getting it from a pre-Flood civilization, or Atlantis, or aliens) is that their earliest attempts were screwups, like the Bent Pyramid and the incomplete pyramid (of Zhoser IIRC). Likewise their mummification technology: the early attempts were more primitive.<br /><br />By contrast, with the IDers' Grand Omniscient Designer, all DNA in all species has to be perfect right out of the box.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53654818584776957632015-08-11T09:35:26.638-04:002015-08-11T09:35:26.638-04:00Correction: That should say "Darwinian"...Correction: That should say "Darwinian"....Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79048684805196934762015-08-11T09:34:35.625-04:002015-08-11T09:34:35.625-04:00Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, and a...<i>Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, and all other IDiots say they know the Intelligent Designer would not create bad design in DNA. They know the Intelligent Designer must make all DNA functional.</i> <br /><br />Or, they say that evolution ("Darwininan" evolution in particular) <i>must</i> result in junk DNA. Which is also incorrect.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4216300654427041592015-08-11T09:30:40.973-04:002015-08-11T09:30:40.973-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6578045939561326292015-08-11T09:29:57.813-04:002015-08-11T09:29:57.813-04:00Just as the null hypothesis in evolutionary biolog...Just as the null hypothesis in evolutionary biology is neutrality, the null hypothesis in analyzing people's actions is that where mere incompetence suffices there is no need to invoke grand conspiracies or cunning plans until evidence to the contrary accumulates. Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52275961925352494702015-08-11T09:24:17.376-04:002015-08-11T09:24:17.376-04:00I think it's to easy to overanalyze the creati...I think it's to easy to overanalyze the creationists' tactics and try figure out their subtle and cunning plan. Really, all there is, is that they see science as their enemy and so they fling as much poo at it as they can, hoping at least some of it will stick. Formulating a coherent and testable hypothesis is not even on their radar.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8420832377273401952015-08-11T09:14:03.505-04:002015-08-11T09:14:03.505-04:00...and another example
A few years ago Luskin wr......and another example<br /><br /> A few years ago Luskin wrote a piece disputing the evidence for selective sweeps. This struck me as odd at the time since even YECs shouldn't have a problem with sweeps. They could dismiss it with the same rhetorical tricks that they dismiss antibiotic resistance as significant. But Luskin realized that if they accept selective sweeps are real, then as soon as examples turn up ( and there probably already were examples) of selective sweeps within sequences involved in complex IC structures and processes, they have a big problemAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com