Posted: Jan 22, 2011 11:07 am
by Царь Славян
This wibble will get you nowhere. Everyone here knows where ID came from, who set it up and for what purpose.

You only avoid naming the designer in order to try and sneak religious bullshit into public schools. ID is creationism and no amount of lying or obfuscation is going to change this elementary fact.

You took a pig, dressed it up in a labcoat and told it to shut up about where it came from. GJ, but it's still a pig. Deal with it
And if that's true, you will have no problem deriving a creation story from the main postulates of ID. I'm waiting.

What an infantile comment. We aren't here to pick cherries, we are discussing why ID doesn't qualify as science. You have effectively demonstrated that it is unfalsifiable and that any discovery would be consistent with a design claim and no amount of banana plucking is going to chance that fact.
Wrong. Snowfalkes are not designed. Design can be falsified.

Oh let's see... how about your TOTAL FAILURE in understanding the relationship in the whole DNA -> mRNA -> Protein translation process. How about the fact that you didn't know the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus? How about the fact that procaryotes don't even have a cell nucleus?
And based on what evidence do you claim that I didn't know any of those?

Your attempt to equivocate a sequence independent process (mRNA Capping by GTP) to a sequence-dependent process in a single transport protein, RanGTP.
What followed was a textbook example in discoursive dishonesty, when you attempted to lie your way out of the fact that you COLOSALLY failed to comprehend the litterature you yourself first presented, and I later had to explicitly educate you on, resulting in you hilariously pretending you knew all along.
You asked me for an example where somethign could lose it's ability to bind to GTP, I provided you with that, and equivocated nothing.

Or how about your complete inability to comprehend the fact that evolution has been duplicating, mutating and shuffling functional domains(folds, reducible to patterns of polarity) ever since their origin, massively deflating the size of your strawman caricature of sequence space and the probability of evolving said functional folds?
You have been conveniently ignoring these statements in the paper for about 25 pages of this thread now.
Urgh... Evolution doing all that doesn't do anything for the sequence space! Please learn the language of probability theory.

All the fucking papers and articles on what GTP is and how it relates to mRNA, not proteins, and the papers on protein sequence space I presented to you, including the fact that the totality of your response to the Schneider Lab links and critique of Dembski's bullshit presented therein consisted of you saying "It's all wrong". That was it, that was your response.
No, I explicitly stated every single time why your articles were false.

Dembski even tried to address Schneider's critique by making testable claims about Schneider's work, which Schneider subsequently PUT TO AN EMPIRICAL TEST AND THEREFORE UNDENIABLY, PRACTICALLY REFUTED.
Show me where.

Every time we have presented articles by scientists working in the fields of information theory and computational evolution, that show problems for your probabilistic model and Demski's horribly mangled useage of their work, you have pretty much responded that "you aren't arguing with them, you are arguing with us".
Show me those articles. And CITE the relevant parts that refute my claims.

I read your posts and came to the same conclusion. Heck, when you simply INVENTED an explanation for the evolutionary development of function demonstrated in the Hyashi paper GFL provided, you effectively lost the debate. When asked for evidence to support your claim, all you could come up with was "I inferred it" and a link to the the wikipedia article on genetic redundancy.
Asking for evidence in support of your claim was simply ignored thereafter. Plain, totally ignored.
Behe's paper that you linked actually explains that pretty well. Only when certain genes are deleted can they be evolved again. Not in any other case. Therefore, it is a case of genetic redundancy.

And let's not even get into your attempt at dodging the evidence in support of common descent. When GFL presented you with papers demonstrated the validity of the common descent by submitting the genetic data to a statistical test, your responses was "statistics can't prove common descent".
That's funny when one considers that you are effectively trying to use statistics to refute it.
Wrong. It's true that statistics can't prove common descent. How could they? What I'm showing you, is not evidence agains common descent, but evidence agains a particular mechanism that is said to have produced common descent.

I think the underlying problem is that you have no fucking clue what the statistical test consisted of and how it demonstrates the validity of the evolutionary postulate. You can of course impress the HELL out of me by going back through the thread, find the paper with the statistical test GFL provided and demonstrate in precise scientific and mathematically rigorous terms, why your probabilistic model of evolution is correct while the statistical weighing of probabilites presented in the test is not.
The test is meaningless. There is no possibility to statistically test for common descent. The whole concept is flawed.

Funny how you are the guy who constantly reverts to claiming someone believes humans came from rocks. You are the one who brought it up. Rarely do I argue with someone this scared of natural origins.
I'm simply saying it becasue it's true. You believe that, don't you?

But you ARE equivocating them, constantly. Your fear of a natural origins explanation is knocking on the door everywhere we look. Grow up and get over it.
Combination is not equivocation.