Posted: Jan 22, 2011 12:41 pm
by Rumraket
Царь Славян wrote:
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.

Same shit all over again. It's like you pick out a single sentence and ignore the rest. ID is a cheap trick to avoid the first amendment to the constitution, so you can sneak religious bullshit into public school. You intentionally avoid naming the designer in order to achieve this goal. Problem is, this tactic was exposed ages ago and it's not going to work. You aren't fooling anyone.

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.

You don't know if an invisible designer designed snowflakes. A supernatural designer. An extremely technologically superior designer we don't currently know how to detect might be doing the design. Any observation is compatible with a design claim and therefore unfalsifiable. Deal with it.

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 fucking idiotic claim that "proteins need to bind to gtp to leave the nucleus" is a manifest demonstration of this total lack of knowledge you suffered from. I'm just happy I could contribute a little to your education.

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.

No, I asked you for evidence that ALL proteins need to bind to GTP to be considered functional. The paper you provided was a demonstration of your failure to understand the relationship between GTP, mRNA and proteins.
Your subsequent attempt at obfuscation further exposed your lack of knowledge that the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus.

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.

How about YOU learn the fucking language of probability theory, and supply it with a fucking proper understanding of evolutionary genetics?

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.

A straight out fucking lie.

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.

Read it and weep.

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.

You can start here :
All of it is relevant. Deal with it.

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.

Blind assertion.
We all await the evidence.

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.

We could ask ourselves "What is the probability that the genomes of extant life would fall on a hierarchical tree of life?"
For example, Human are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and Humans are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Gorillas. Etc. etc.
So we look at the sequenced genomes for a line of organisms we postulate are related by common descend in a specific order, and we calculate the probability that their genomes sequences should happen to randomly align with this postulated tree of life. We go on and do this for every genome of every organism we have sequenced, and we happen to find that their genomes fall exactly as expected on this postulated evolutionary this tree of life we derived from comparative anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, embryology and paleontology.

What are the fucking odds that the genomes of every organism we sequence, should happen to fall in perfectly with the predicted evolutionary tree of life? Incomprehensibly infinitesimal. (Go back and find the fucking paper if you want the actual numbers, I can't be bothered doing all your work for you).

There it is, the statistical test that demonstrates common descent. Evolution happened. GET OVER IT.

** I should add here that the actual statistical test is a little more complicated than the way I have explained it. They also compared the accepted evolutionary model with different scenarios like multiple independent origins with convergent evolution etc.
Read the actual paper.

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?

No, I don't belive people came from rocks. I don't know how life began, but I have never even seen a hypothesis that suggests people sprang out of rocks.

I HAVE seen people claim that a magic space wizard made it out of dust by wishing it into existence. I laughed alot when I heard it.

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.

Combination? Please elaborate...