Creationists

[LOki]

I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.

I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.

This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.

Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change.

True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.

B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.

Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.

But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.

The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.

 

[LOki]

Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS???

All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.

Are you serious right now?

Yes.

You were absolutely wrong.

No.

Everything I claimed about evolutions claims, which you REFUTED, were proven true by the Wiki quotes.

Wrong. All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.

I see how this goes.

No, you really don't. For those of the faithful paradigm, believing is seeing. You just "see" it goes the way you believe it goes.

Just like everything else in the TOE, you think if you repeat something over and over enough, people will start to believe.

This is what you believe. It is made-up nonsense.

You were WRONG and the strawman was a figment of your vivid imagination.

This is what you believe. It is made-up nonsense.

Why can't you admit it?

I do not accept your made-up nonsense as validly real. That's why.

 

[LOki]

Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.

I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.

Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!

Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins.

What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?

Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth?

What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?

You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.

Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?

I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.

Ah. No doubt true--only in your made-up "UltimateReality."

 

[LOki]

The lies are strong with this one.

 

[LOki]

Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.

Oh good!

You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.

 

[LOki]

Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

Hello everyone. Meet Parrot. Loki just changed the players and repeated back what I posted a few pages back:

"I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"

Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"

Whereas the application of the Hovindist paradigm is patently inappropriate to scientists, it is unquestionably appropriate to apply it to you and your superstitious tribe who just CANNOT MANAGE to come up with an explanation of their "God" thing that is not some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God."

 

[LOki]

God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Says Loki as he goes about his business in a 7-day week in a year referenced by the time Christ lived and sipping on a cup of coffee he paid for with a piece of paper that says "In God We Trust" on it while he chats online with Andrew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Martha, David, Ben, James, Matt, Joe, Zach, Ruth, Sam, etc., etc.

What's your point?

I take it that you are referring to something that is real. Should I not?

If I should, then I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?

You think the cell was designed incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:

NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION

Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.

You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.

You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.

The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.

 

[Youwerecreated]

8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.

You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???

What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?

That cut and paste deals with known facts hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???

What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?

UR lives his life by a douche book of fairy tales and can't think for himself but can only quote a book of fiction, written generations, and sometimes hundreds of years after the events. Give it up Hollie, he reached his intellectual limit a long time ago.

If you wish to talk science then do so but quit resorting to talking points and rhetoric.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

What you determine happened by chance and luck ...

... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Superstition.

Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.

I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.

This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.

True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.

I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.

Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.

But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.

The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.

Loki your attempt is really wrong. If what you say is true why is that we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations ?

Loki you need to consider not just the one problem but all 9 to understand why these conditions present a major hurdle to mutation fixation.

 

[Hollie]

What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?

You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.

Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by “we” having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment.

People used to “marvel” over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.

Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.

That people “marvel” over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume the gods did it™. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.

 

[Hollie]

What you determine happened by chance and luck ...

... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Superstition.

Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?

"Molecular machines"?

You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.

 

[Hollie]

You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???

What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?

That cut and paste deals with known facts hollie.

That cut and paste is standard boilerplate superstition furthered by those who prey on the superstitious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki ask yourself why these defense mechnisms are in place to repair copying errors ? please explain why more copying errors known as mutations get into the population then beneficial mutations getting into the population ? we have 6,000 genetic disorders and counting but your side can only point to a few beneficial mutations but once you dig a little deeper these benficial mutations are not all that beneficial because affect proper function.

 

[Hollie]

You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.

You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.

The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?

You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.

Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by “we” having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment.

People used to “marvel” over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.

Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.

That people “marvel” over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume the gods did it™. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.

Hollie let's see if you can stay on topic.

 

[Hollie]

You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.

Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by “we” having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment.

People used to “marvel” over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.

Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.

That people “marvel” over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume the gods did it™. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.

Hollie let's see if you can stay on topic.

You are not on board with the topic. You're hoping to introduce some level of supernaturalism and magic into a thoroughly natural configuration.

There's no need to invoke your gods where they are not needed.