Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#201  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 8:10 pm

Cali didn't answer my questions, but y'all will of course say he did, as you did. I think the questioner has the right to satisfaction, not the cali team members or cali himself. But in this "science" the answerers grade themselves.What fun.
How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations that demonstrate the invention, design, and assembly of complex bio-systems such as lung/heart/blood/vessel systems? That is unthinkable. You accept too easily. I don't. Why would you yourself not question that. You can think. And your demenaing of my thinking and education is a good strategy for you as you can't respond to the questions I pose. So you go to the "you don't understand" card. Good going. Also listing genetic changes is good. They have never been observed inventing and assembling complex bio-systems or even simple ones, but, again good strategy. Your only strategy.

The first thing I notice is you didn't actually answer any of my questions except the one about the evolution of nylonase.
The second thing is that you are again erecting a strawman of what exactly I myself accept or don't. I don't argue that because nylonase evolved, so did lungs, hearts or bloodvessels. So nice try there. Now, i happen to accept the provided evidence that hearts, lungs and blood vessels evolve, but this is completely unrelated to the evolution of nylonase. Nobody went to me and said "look, nylonase! Therefore : heart, lung and bloodvessel". There is a vast seperate litterature on those subjects, I propose you read it.

But while on the subject of nylonase, how is it that random mutations resulted in the existence of a new protein capable metabolizing nylon? I mean, you have several places on your blog where you say such mutations don't even exist and have never been observed. In addition to you above here erecting the claim that even simple biological systems cannot evolve.
Here's one such example from your blog:
SteveBee's blog wrote:1. Of course, number one is how many mutation are “good”, and would be beneficial for an animal. I have never seen or read about a good mutation, but if he says they exist, let’s see some evidence, or at least a current lab experiment that shows that they do. Can it be shown that mutations can bring about retinal cells,or lens cells? Usually mutants are aberrations, and not pretty. Also, considering the fact that according to evolution biologists, well over 50% of mutations are neutral or not “good”, each “good” mutation would have to be accompanied by many neutral or “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. But this is an old challenge which I am sure can be answered by Dawkins in some illogical way, but answered nonetheless.

You can now go modify that section of your blog please, because you have above effectively just admitted that nylonase exists and evolved.
I would also like to correct you here abou the part in red which is both factually incorrect and betrays a vast misunderstanding of mutations. Most mutations are neutral, a small portion are good and a small portion are bad. Not "well over 50% are neutral or bad"<- that's simply factually incorrect.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Additionally, beneficial mutations are not nessecerily accompanied by harmful mutations. This is just invented horseshit on your part and you can now consider yourself corrected. Please edit your blog accordingly or provide experimentally derived evidence to support your postulate because the link I provided above refutes this claim of yours.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13142
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#202  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 8:38 pm

robinhood wrote:wow, that was a dictionary definition of a dodge. What is it about scientifically peer reviewed papers that scare you? Are you just jealous that you can't produce any scientifically verifiable material of your own? Peer reviewed literature is the corner stone of scientific advancement. It does not mean that the content in the paper is infallible BUT if it has passed the proper scientific hoops it certainly adds credibility to the theory. No creationist has ever even TRIED to subject a paper to scientific review because they know about the intellectual bichslap from actual scientists that would ensue. I think this video would be helpful for you to watch

Right. Evo-peer reveiwed papers are the Bible here, and are not to be questioned. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke peer reveiwing John. I agree.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aU7zakKBs[/youtube]
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#203  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 8:49 pm

Oh for FUCKS SAKE. I just ruined my own mood. I wrote a huge post attempting to address several of your questions SteveBee, but I accidentially closed the fucking tab I was writing in. I might write it again tomorrow or but I can't be bothered now... I'm depressed. Shutfuckcuntfuckshitcrapfhuckis pgosdfhspåofksdfs....

:waah: :whine: :waah: :whine: :waah: :whine: :waah: :whine:

Rest assured there are answers for most of your shit. Have patience. I'll go punch holes in my wall somewhere... laterz.
Last edited by Rumraket on Jul 26, 2010 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13142
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#204  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 25, 2010 9:15 pm

I was asked by theropod : “What evidence would it take to convince you that the ToE explains the biodiversity found throughout the biosphere.”

I answered:

How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other species and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutations can form and transfer information to odontobasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?
There are so many questions on my blog. Feel free to visit and challenge me.
I'm sure these questions will be made great light of by your amigos. That is the typical response. The difficulty for you is that five years ago I would have been arguing with you. Until this science crashed for me. Badly. So I know where you are coming from much more than you would think.

Your multiple responses: (a good sampling of all of the responses on this entire thread)
I hope you are reading this SteveBee, because you have an opportunity to impress the hell out of me and gain some respect here if you display a willingness to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution and how these function as the underlying mechanics for the evolution of novel features.
The way you ask your question demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that you have no fucking idea how evolution works. The question you ask here above betrays a vast and fundamental lack of understanding the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
The crows are falling off of their roosts laughing at your shitty looking strawman.
Have you any evidence to back this bullshit claim up at all?
Are you honestly suggesting we aren't justified in learning from professionals who are better educated and actually qualified to teach relevant subject material?
If there is nothing we can do to convince you that the overwhelming evidence gathered over the past 300 years fully supports a naturalistic explanation for this biodiversity what is the point of continued conversation?
What is it about scientifically peer reviewed papers that scare you?
It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur.
Note: A continuing strawman. I don’t find anything compelling about dogs and wolves in proving evolution or not. Not big to me, but you keep harping on it like it is. If you are that hard up for evidence, you are hurtin’. And no I don’t know or care where Chihuahua’s came from.
Additionally, the more ignorant or dishonest they are, the less likely it is they even accept the possibility that they are wrong. Or will understand how or why they are wrong.

I gave the questions when asked, the answers are the same no matter what the question, and no matter who the responder is. So, adios. Thanks for the fun. I have better things to do with my time. Y'all are welcome over to my blog at any time if you want to try a different way of looking at this fascinating subject, try a little skepticism, or joust. You should change the name of this blog. Get rid of "skeptic" in the URL. There are none here. Or how about http://www.rationalreligionskepticism.org Because that is what you really are.
Over and out
Steve
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#205  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Care to tell us how those comments are in anyway incorrect, stevebee?
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#206  Postby theropod » Jul 25, 2010 10:30 pm

Steve,

You aren't going to bother hanging around so that I can address your response?

I call that bad form, especially since I made a real effort to exchange views in an civil manner!

Stay, or go, it makes no difference to me, although I'm sure there are others here that hold much stronger views.

Was your response supposed to cover new ground, or ask for what has not already been provided? Maybe I'm just unable to get a grip on whether you want to argue against actual evolutionary theory or this mixed up representation I don't recognize as approaching reality.

Come on Steve, don't run off in an emotional reaction to rebuttal of your position.

Can you freely tell us the last time you admitted to being completely wrong about anything, publicly? I'm quite sure there are plenty of errors within this posting to establish my imperfections. I have made gross errors in public fora, and if one can find a posting where I didn't own this error I'll buy a round for the entire board.

However when I talk to you about something in the fossil record I do my level best to make sure my facts are supported by other studies, my own observations and examinations which support my position. The reason I like peer reviewed work is that it gives me insight into areas where once we did not know how something works(ed) and now we do. Sure the publication system has changed since the time of Darwin, but rest assured the 150 years of follow-on work since Darwin establish his premise as surviving the peer review process.

Something to think about.

Take care if you're really outta here, or if ya stay. :coffee:

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#207  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 10:42 pm

LOL He ducked out now? That's excellent timing because the heat was being turned up now. I'm still going to post my post when I finish writing it tomorrow, too bad he won't be around to answer it.

I especially like how he now ducks out after I have told him to correct a direct falsehood on his blog.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13142
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#208  Postby Sityl » Jul 25, 2010 10:51 pm

Effectively, this whole thread has been.

Steve: "Blah blah blah goddidit, science is fake blah blah blah."

Forum members: "Here is the relevant scientific papers that show how it happened without the need of godly intervention."

Steve: (Fingers in ears) "God did it! You don't provide evidence! Changing subject! Ignoring what you said! God made teeth!"

Forum members: "Here are more relevant scientific papers."

Steve: "La la la la la la IM NOT LISTENING La la la la la la god did it la la la la."

So, for anyone who didn't want to read through the first 11 pages, you are now caught up.
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 38
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#209  Postby scruffy » Jul 25, 2010 11:10 pm

The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.
That natural selection was capable of inventing incredible bio-systems from a uni-celled earth. I know you evos don't like the notion of invention, but bio systems were inventions far more than any invention at the US Patent Office. There was no model or design or prior art for natural selection et al to go by. So how did that take place?
How did the designing and assembling of those systems take place in the species that the inventions formed in?
Being a dentist, this one has really bothered me: That mutaions can form and transfer information to odontolbasts, and ameloblasts so they will "know" when to turn on and turn off the knitting of enamel and dentin which will leave those incredible little sculptures that are our teeth. Since there are millions of odontoblasts and ameloblasts, each one must stop at a different point in time. Are NS and RM capable and powerful enough to originate and relay this information to the cells?


So you don't understand how an organism's genome carries the digital information for passing on traits to offspring? You don't understand how those traits came to be through millions of years of cumulative selection? And furthermore, you find it hard to believe that this genetic information can be used during embryological development?
And you majored in biological sciences? Forgive me for saying it, but you are either a poe or a liar.
User avatar
scruffy
 
Name: Jared Clark
Posts: 361
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#210  Postby Latimeria » Jul 26, 2010 12:13 am

Stevebee wrote:It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur.
Note: A continuing strawman. I don’t find anything compelling about dogs and wolves in proving evolution or not. Not big to me, but you keep harping on it like it is. If you are that hard up for evidence, you are hurtin’. And no I don’t know or care where Chihuahua’s came from.


Steve. Shrunk's point was there there is a contradiction, indeed a logical flaw in your thinking. It's a lack of consistency, and it was made crystal clear to anyone else reading it.
" [This space is for rent to "which ever version of POOF creates the largest cloud of obnoxious smoke following the POOF."[1] "- God
Works Cited:
[1] - theropod. Parsimony of the Miraculous. RatSkep Peanut Gallery Press, 2011.
User avatar
Latimeria
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1083
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#211  Postby robinhood » Jul 26, 2010 12:28 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
robinhood wrote:wow, that was a dictionary definition of a dodge. What is it about scientifically peer reviewed papers that scare you? Are you just jealous that you can't produce any scientifically verifiable material of your own? Peer reviewed literature is the corner stone of scientific advancement. It does not mean that the content in the paper is infallible BUT if it has passed the proper scientific hoops it certainly adds credibility to the theory. No creationist has ever even TRIED to subject a paper to scientific review because they know about the intellectual bichslap from actual scientists that would ensue. I think this video would be helpful for you to watch

Right. Evo-peer reveiwed papers are the Bible here, and are not to be questioned. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke peer reveiwing John. I agree.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aU7zakKBs[/youtube]


first of all, epic fail on trying to post inside my comment, second of all, you clearly didn't read where I said "scientific peer reviewed literature isn't infallible" Not everything related to evolutionary theory is simply passed through because it is evolution related. Getting passed through scientific peer review is sort of like a stamp of approval. It means that the chances of something being correct is higher once the idea is reviewed by others. EVERY SINGLE branch of science does this for every topic put forward. They CAN be questioned but it is feeble to do so because the best in the world have already tried to do so.
You can't reason with the religious. Otherwise there would be no religious people- Dr. House
User avatar
robinhood
 
Name: shawn (not vfx/pcs)
Posts: 329
Age: 27
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#212  Postby Latimeria » Jul 26, 2010 12:47 am

Rumraket wrote:
I especially like how he now ducks out after I have told him to correct a direct falsehood on his blog.


Yeah, he's really not into scientific accuracy. The only thing I recall him changing during our previous encounter with him was the estimated time frame during which T. Rex roamed the earth (because it was irrelevant to the point he was trying to make).

He didn't change his comments about the "Dawkins is stumped" video after he was made aware of its fraudulent nature, he didn't change his claim that the ONLY way two strands of RNA can be separated is by "enzymes and life", and I sincerely doubt he will change anything on his blog because of your argument regarding nylonase. I'm sure everyone who participated in the RDF thread that has been linked could point to something different that Steve clings to despite demonstrations of its falsehood.

The fact is, knowledgeable people are not fooled by his blog. He paints intellectually dishonest pictures in order to persuade the naive, the uneducated, and the fence-sitters. His blog does not need to be scientifically accurate, because his target audience doesn't know the difference.

And Steve, for all your bluster about how nobody here is really a skeptic... I arrived at the conclusion that the theory of evolution accurately describes reality precisely because I am a skeptic. At no point thereafter did I stop being a skeptic. I continue to seek out arguments against my own viewpoint. I'm sorry that your arguments all fail and don't stand up to scrutiny. You just want us to be skeptical of everything except what you say.
" [This space is for rent to "which ever version of POOF creates the largest cloud of obnoxious smoke following the POOF."[1] "- God
Works Cited:
[1] - theropod. Parsimony of the Miraculous. RatSkep Peanut Gallery Press, 2011.
User avatar
Latimeria
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1083
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#213  Postby iamthereforeithink » Jul 26, 2010 1:02 am

Steve: Peer-reviewed papers are being challenged all the time. The right way to do that is to publish papers of your own and submit them to peer review. If your ideas are robust, they can enter mainstream academic discourse, even if you don't provide conclusive evidence. There are plenty of examples of this happening in the past. There are plenty of cranks peddling conspiracy theories on the internet. If you think you're different, write a paper and send it to Nature for publication. If Nature is too "purist" for your liking, send it to an "alternative" journal. Maybe even to a popular science magazine. If there is any promise at all in your ideas, someone should agree to publish them.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
User avatar
iamthereforeithink
 
Posts: 3332
Age: 9
Male

Country: USA/ EU
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#214  Postby Shrunk » Jul 26, 2010 1:08 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:It's especially funny because, as pig-ignorant as that idea is, it also refutes the claim that he has been making all along here: If he thinks that it's possible for dogs and wolves to have separate ancestral origins, yet still be capable of interbreeding, then that is exactly the process that he claims must be possible for his bizarre version of evolution to occur.

Note: A continuing strawman. I don’t find anything compelling about dogs and wolves in proving evolution or not. Not big to me, but you keep harping on it like it is. If you are that hard up for evidence, you are hurtin’. And no I don’t know or care where Chihuahua’s came from.


From the horse's mouth, people, if anyone still doubted.

No. Steve. ADParker raised the ancestry between dogs and wolves in a quixotic attempt to help you understand some basic evolutionary concepts. Of course, it went sailing over your head.

My point in raising the topic, OTOH, was just to inform or remind everyone how utterly deficient your understanding of even grade-school level biology is. The average ten year old, I'm sure, could give a reasonable explanation for the origin of breeds of dogs, chihuahuas included. Somehow a genius inventor like yourself can't figure that out (Or how to operate the quote function, for that matter.)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#215  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 26, 2010 1:47 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali


You rang?

stevebee92653 wrote:The only person who is bitchslapped is you cali.


Oh I love it when people erect blind ex recto assertions such as this. Er, tell me, how many scientific papers did you present to support whatever weirdness you happen to subscribe to? Oh, that's right, zero. In the meantime, on the occasions I've been dealing, here and elsewhere, with the sad pretence at discourse you've been conducting, I've presented something like 11 scientific papers in detail, containing the hard empirical science that makes a mockery of your worthless assertions. In the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy parallel universe you happen to believe mistakenly to be the real world, this means you're bitchslapped.

stevebee92653 wrote:You did it to yourself when you forfeited your skepticism and reason to some teacher when you were younger.


HA HA HA HA HA! It''s projection time again!

Let me tell you something about the teachers I was fortunate to have. They would have run rings around you with respect to their command of rigour. And I didn't "forfeit" anything, because my science teachers included empirical work in their teaching, which meant that we could see for ourselves that what we were being taught actually worked. You do know what an experiment is, don't you? That's one of the reasons why I was able to expose the lies propagated by Arsewater in Genesis, when they lied about 14C dating, because part of my physics classes included deriving the decay law empirically with real radioactive sources. Yes, that's right, when I was fifteen years of age, I was handling real plutonium in the physics lab. Did you have that level of education at your high school?

stevebee92653 wrote:You became locked in and fully wired so there is no turning back to objectivity for you.


Oh please, spare me the blatant projection, it's so farcical to behold!

Read the above and weep. Oh, and as for my biology classes, they involved such things as actual dissections that I and the other pupils in the class performed ourselves. So spare me the "indoctrination" bullshit, because once again, it IS bullshit, because I was able to see for myself what organisms looked like from the inside and out, and learn how they functioned. Plus, I've been a keeper and breeder of tropical fish for 30+ years, and in that time, I've seen dozens of mutations in fish, and watched the inheritance mechanisms at work. NONE of what I've seen in 30+ years of fishkeeping supports fatuous creationist/IDist assertions.

stevebee92653 wrote:You can’t recover your skepticism. It’s long gone.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh right, I'm the one "lacking scepticism" because I don't swallow uncritically bullshit assertions that evolution can't happen, despite the fact that I've seen the mechanisms at work first hand, and you're the "sceptic", because you think that it can't happen on the basis of zero understanding of what evolutionary theory actually postulates. Please, you should take this to a stand up comedy venue in New York, they'd be rolling in the aisles.

stevebee92653 wrote:You think that anything written in a peer reviewed paper is infallible, and 100% true


Do you know WHY those papers appear in peer reviewed journals? I'll tell you. It's because other scientists have expended labour trying to find errors in those papers, and have found none. It's because other scientists have determined that the empirical work in those papers is replicable. Those papers have passed peer review because the peer review process is aimed at weeding out those papers containing errors. As you would know if you had ever submitted a paper to one of those journals. Speaking of which, have you ever conducted any genuine empirical research?

stevebee92653 wrote:and that has become your weapon


No, what has become my weapon is the fact that those papers inform me how REALITY works, as opposed to the fantasies entertained by creationists and their ilk. My weapon consists of the fact that REALITY says that creationists and their ilk are wrong, and those papers document how wrong they are in exquisite detail because they deal with REAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, something creationists never perform.

stevebee92653 wrote:along with the huge amount of noise you make.


As opposed to the hot air, bluster, cheap ad hominems and complete absence of any real science contained in your posts? Oh please! That sound you hear is the sound of me rolling on the floor laughing.

stevebee92653 wrote:You can’t look at these papers and see how they don’t answer the questions I pose.


Your stance is exactly the same as Michael Behe's stance at the Dover Trial - erect fatuous blind assertions to the effect that evolutionary theory will never have answers to your questions, then when the scientific papers turn up in quantity, erect more blind assertions that they somehow don't answer your questions. We all saw how Behe's epic fail in this regard became the subject of much mirth and merriment amongst those of us who paid attention in science classes, and the same is happening to your vacuous eructations.

stevebee92653 wrote:You throw them at me and demand acceptance, and celebrate your great victory.


I don't "demand" anything. I simply point to the fact that those papers document REALITY. That's what brings me my victories, the fact that REALITY agrees with me, because I base my view of the world on REALITY, as opposed to whatever nonsense you've swallowed. Oh, by the way, since I asked you to provide me with details of what you actually believe in, any chance you're going to provide this, so that I can aim the JDAMs with even greater precision? Only thus far, you've avoided telling people what you actually believe in the way Kent Hovind avoided paying taxes, which says rather more about you than your asinine ad hominem comments say about me.

stevebee92653 wrote:Discussion is out.


Well if you showed the basic understanding necessary to comprehend what the authors of those papers were telling you, perhaps you might be in a position to discuss them. Since it is manifestly obvious that you do not possess even that basic understanding, it's hardly surprising you assert the above, because you're manifestly not capable of engaging in a genuine scientific discussion. Your combination of ex recto blind assertions and cheap ad hominems are a pathetic simulacrum thereof.

stevebee92653 wrote:The only real evolution here is that papers written ABOUT and supporting evolution become the evidence FOR evolution in your mind.


No, what I regard as the evidence for evolution is the empirical work that those papers document. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

stevebee92653 wrote:Well, not mine. Sorry.


I'll leave the obvious retort unposted in the interests of decorum.

stevebee92653 wrote:Cali didn't answer my questions


Only in the television inside your head. What part of "the authors of that paper made explicit statements about the evolutionary origin of teeth, which refutes your assertion that they had ntohing to say on the subject" do you not understand?

stevebee92653 wrote:but y'all will of course say he did, as you did. I think the questioner has the right to satisfaction, not the cali team members or cali himself. But in this "science" the answerers grade themselves.What fun.


Well since some of the people posting in this thread happen to be tenured professional scientists, I think they're rather more likely to know what they're talking about than you.

stevebee92653 wrote:How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations


Try because they are?

You do realise that nylonase was the product of a frameshift mutation that resulted in a complete new metabolic capability that was not present before? And I have the papers that document the hard empirical research investigating nylonase and its origins, and once again, it won't take me long to drop them on you from 40,000 feet with laser guidance.

stevebee92653 wrote:that demonstrate the invention, design, and assembly of complex bio-systems such as lung/heart/blood/vessel systems? That is unthinkable.


Tell you what, why don't you fire up Google Scholar and type in the words "heart evolution"? You'll find about 2.3 million results returned. A large proportion of these are medical papers devoted to clinical conditions, but a significant proportion cover the evolution of the heart. As for lungs, they began as swim bladders. The molecular phylogeny of lung expressed genes, which have homologies with those expressed in swim bladders, is merely one of the pieces of evidence for this - indeed, there are modern fishes that exhibit the characteristics expected to be found if lungs arose from swim bladders - the Family Polypteridae providing a nice example.

stevebee92653 wrote:You accept too easily. I don't.


Oh look, it's projection time again ... yawn ...

And how much comparative anatomy have you actually performed?

stevebee92653 wrote:Why would you yourself not question that. You can think.


We are also capable of looking at the experimental work of professional scientists and deducing that those scientists are on to something. You have yet to demonstrate a like capability.

stevebee92653 wrote:And your demenaing of my thinking and education is a good strategy for you as you can't respond to the questions I pose.


We've flogged your questions to death. The only person who doesn't realise this is you. Once again, try removing the ideological blinkers and looking at REALITY.

stevebee92653 wrote:So you go to the "you don't understand" card.


Since you manifestly don't understand even the basics of evolution, it's perfectly proper to comment on this.

stevebee92653 wrote:Good going. Also listing genetic changes is good. They have never been observed inventing and assembling complex bio-systems or even simple ones, but, again good strategy. Your only strategy.


And once again, your basic biological ignorance is showing. You do realise that there exist modern day living organisms that possess examples of simpler antecedent systems? Caenorhabditis elegans has been used as a model organism for research into such systems for decades.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22008
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#216  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 26, 2010 2:01 am

I want just to highlight this for everybody else's benefit:

stevebee92653 wrote:How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#217  Postby ADParker » Jul 26, 2010 2:14 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
How about for a start:
The vid on this thread has a great one, and one that has been avoided like the plague: That a bio-system that formed in a single species was capable of spreading to other speices and how that took place. Or, did thousands of species all form all the same bio-system at about the same time? Not a plausible or possible scenario, of course. CA is not an answer but will be yours.

Don't you just love how he pretends to be the complete-sceptic (Ever hear the phrase "Open you mind to much and your brain will fall out"?) yet thinks he can just declare that CA (by which I assume he means Common Ancestry - the very cornerstone of evolutionary biology) is ruled out as an answer, with no justification whatsoever?!

It's like asking "What does 2x2 equal? 4 is not an answer but will be yours." :what: :lol:


EDIT: And yes Blitzkrebs, I did spot that little gem as well, hilarious! :roll: Thanks for highlighting it.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#218  Postby Made of Stars » Jul 26, 2010 8:05 am

The basis of all Steve's 'arguments':

Image
Don't waste your bandwidth arguing with this guy. If it's not 'I can't believe it's not butter', it's bullshit Zen 'unask the question' responses... :roll:
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#219  Postby GenesForLife » Jul 26, 2010 8:10 am

The bullshit on display here has made me think of actually writing a post on how "complex biological systems" can change due to changes in the underpinning molecular mechanisms governing the genome and the genes therein, I need to brush up on my Embryology.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#220  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 26, 2010 12:13 pm

Actually GfL, why not trawl through the literature on organisms such as Caenorhabditis elegans and Ciona intestinalis, whose genomes have been sequenced completely, and which possess simpler antecedent forms of the systems seen in mammals?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22008
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest