Atheistoclast wrote:
I have authored and submitted a paper on this very subject. It is currently under review. It should come out in the next few months - be patient.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Ahh, argument by strawman, your favorite apologetic trick. Pretend the opposition is making a specific claim(in this case, that "gene regulatory networks determine specific morphological structures"), then attack it, wait for someone to try and defend it and produce a silly little quotemine in support of your original claim.

Here's what you need to do:
Produce, by citation of peer reviewed literature, a consensus by scientists that developmental biology does not (and can not) explain morphology.

Here's what you can't do:
Exactly that.

As a corollary, here's what happened:
You lost.

I have authored and submitted a paper on this very subject. It is currently under review. It should come out in the next few months - be patient.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Except that they constitute adaptations and thus the "degenerative" bullshit is simply a rethorical trick. The evolution of whale flippers was a degeneration of legs. Another useless strawman argument.

No. The point is that many adaptations, such as the loss of the pelvic spines and armor on freshwater stickleback fish (which prevent them from being grabbed by dragonflies living at the bottom of lakes) are degenerative and thus show how selection promotes functional loss in many instances.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rigorously define "biological information".

Testable prediction: You won't.

Sequence motifs (be they in coding or non-coding DNA).

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You're scared shitless and your almost pathological need to attack that very progress everywhere on the internet works as a perfect testament to this fact. Your >99 sockpuppets on the old RD.net forums still sit there as a monument to one guys paranoid delusion.

No. I did not set up 99 concurrent sockpuppets over on RD. I was repeatedly banned for allegedly "insulting" scientists according to moderators like Calilasseia who reveres them. I just kept setting up new usernames after each suspension. In the end, I resorted to proxy servers and IP hopping techniques to avoid being identified. I am satisfied that I played a part in the demise of the RD forum. One of the reasons Dawkins closed it down was the vile abuse directed against people like me.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Ahh yes, soon... soon it will happen.

The next 20 years will see the final nails in the coffin hammered in.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Really? When did that happen? Why hasn't this been pronounced on TV?

It will - be patient.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:The Blind Watchmaker dealt with this silly argument better than any book before it.

Funny. The BW actually made me more convinced of the argument for design when it described the sophisticated instrumentation present in bats and how the best engineers seek to replicate it in military technology.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Prove it. How much money are evolutionary biologists making?

I know that a professor at a university can receive a grant of $500,000, of which he only need spend half on research and the rest ....well...

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Then it's really weird you have to willfully misrepresent that physics in your catastrophically ignorant pronouncements on thermodynamics on Pandasthumb.org or outright deny the papers on Turing morphogenesis.

I have yet to see how Turing's models are in any way realistic and applicable to actual biological morphogenesis.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:For example, I predict that you will either ignore or outright misrepresent this paper:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/turings-next-steps-mechanochemical-basis-morphogenesis/#page-1

No, I cited it in my latest paper.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You mean lots of space, sand, rocks, gas, dust and black holes?

No, the physical constants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Galdalf the white?

That's one way of interpreting, I guess.

Rumraket wrote:
Yeah, let's wait and see what your paper actually says, and whether it passes review before we ejaculate on ourselves. You've been arguing before that evolution is false on the basis of your papers, which turn out to say something entirely different.

How many citations you up to now? 1 in all your papers? They all reference each other?

Spearthrower wrote:Also, having personally witnessed Atheistoclast's repeated obnoxious and vitriolic abuse of members on RDF, I will happily take him to task on these absurd attempts at rewriting history by reposting a thread listing said abuses... either that or he can stop lying through his teeth.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Also, having personally witnessed Atheistoclast's repeated obnoxious and vitriolic abuse of members on RDF, I will happily take him to task on these absurd attempts at rewriting history by reposting a thread listing said abuses... either that or he can stop lying through his teeth.

You lot have only yourselves to blame. I complained to RD and within a matter of weeks he shut you down. The amusing thing is that Spearthrower was considering legal action against me before it happened. Yes, there is a God and he is just!

Atheistoclast wrote:As for sequence motifs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_motif

The best example of one is the homeobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

Spearthrower wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Also, having personally witnessed Atheistoclast's repeated obnoxious and vitriolic abuse of members on RDF, I will happily take him to task on these absurd attempts at rewriting history by reposting a thread listing said abuses... either that or he can stop lying through his teeth.

You lot have only yourselves to blame. I complained to RD and within a matter of weeks he shut you down. The amusing thing is that Spearthrower was considering legal action against me before it happened. Yes, there is a God and he is just!

Once again we see the same solipsism permeating every one of your claims.

Not only did Dawkins close down the site because you asked him, but it was also the intention of the almighty creator of everything. Talk about public masturbation fantasies.

Secondly, I was not considering legal action - how on earth would I be able to do that when I did not own the site? I did, however, say that it was clearly a possibility given that you were breaking the law. Something you will undoubtedly respin in a heroic motif.

Rumraket wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:As for sequence motifs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_motif

The best example of one is the homeobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

So tell me in what way it constitutes information and produce an example of the quantity.

Technically, my prediction has now been confirmed.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

You lot have only yourselves to blame. I complained to RD and within a matter of weeks he shut you down. The amusing thing is that Spearthrower was considering legal action against me before it happened. Yes, there is a God and he is just!

Once again we see the same solipsism permeating every one of your claims.

Not only did Dawkins close down the site because you asked him, but it was also the intention of the almighty creator of everything. Talk about public masturbation fantasies.

Secondly, I was not considering legal action - how on earth would I be able to do that when I did not own the site? I did, however, say that it was clearly a possibility given that you were breaking the law. Something you will undoubtedly respin in a heroic motif.

You wanted to prosecute me. But God have other plans, and intervened to close down the Sodom and Gomorrah of cyberspace. If you mess with Clastie, you mess with the higher power that protects him. You have been warned.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:As for sequence motifs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_motif

The best example of one is the homeobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

So tell me in what way it constitutes information and produce an example of the quantity.

Technically, my prediction has now been confirmed.

It is qualitative, not quantitative. Data is a quantity, information is a quality.

The homeobox motif is information because it confers functional specificity that allows proteins to perfectly bind to the major and minor grooves of the DNA molecules, as one would expect from an intelligently designed sequence.

Rumraket wrote:
Oh how I hope you meant that as a joke..

Atheistoclast wrote:... The Almighty chooses to intervene to smite the enemies of this servant. It was perfectly divine justice. I hope he will free me and all prisoners of conscience from the cyber-dungeon on the Pharyngula site:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/dungeon/

It would be wonderful if Paul Zachary Myers had a similar "Road to Damascus" moment as that of Paul of Tarsus.

Rumraket wrote:
A sequence of information is quantifiable. Data is information. In any case, I see you're desperate to avoid uttering anything of substance on this subject. Prediction: Confirmed.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Oh how I hope you meant that as a joke..

No way. The Almighty chooses to intervene to smite the enemies of this servant. It was perfectly divine justice. I hope he will free me and all prisoners of conscience from the cyber-dungeon on the Pharyngula site:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/dungeon/

It would be wonderful if Paul Zachary Myers had a similar "Road to Damascus" moment as that of Paul of Tarsus.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
A sequence of information is quantifiable. Data is information. In any case, I see you're desperate to avoid uttering anything of substance on this subject. Prediction: Confirmed.

Idiot . Data is not information. Understand the difference:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... formation/

You're not very smart, are you? Too much beer, butter and bacon in your diet, methinks.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
A sequence of information is quantifiable. Data is information. In any case, I see you're desperate to avoid uttering anything of substance on this subject. Prediction: Confirmed.

Idiot . Data is not information. Understand the difference:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... formation/

You're not very smart, are you? Too much beer, butter and bacon in your diet, methinks.