Are You Intelligently Designed?

Are You Intelligently Designed?

There are 409 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 23, 2012, titled Are You Intelligently Designed?. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#82 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What experiment thwarts total genomic decay?
1. Take a population and breed it with no natural selection (be randomly selecting pairs regardless of fitness and breeding them to create the next generation). Fitness is found to drop 1-3% per generation, exactly as per genetic entropy would predict.

2. However, GE acts according to Muller's Ratchet. Fitness lost cannot be recovered according to this, because continuing new mildly deleterious mutations continue to build up faster than natural selection can ever eliminate them. Sanford to the core.

3. Therefore natural selection can merely slow, but not ever reverse the process. If it could, the whole GE argument would be falsified. Sanford's thesis is testable.

4. Guess what. When such populations as in (1) above, still isolated, are allowed to compete freely by natural selection, fitness RETURNS within a few generations. Sanford meets his Waterloo.

This is an elegant experimental refutation of Sanford's GE.

I have argued for ages about the logical shortfalls in his arguments and the selective use of data and assumptions that led him to a wrong conclusion. However, these experimental results render all that unnecessary now.

Empirical observation has proven him wrong, and this is the final arbiter in science: WHETHER PIN HEADED ABSTRACTION LOVING PRIESTS AT THE SACRED ALTAR OF MATHEMATICS SUCH AS YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

Likewise, into the dustbin goes your cherished variation on Sanford's theme, that robustness must decrease over time. No, Eugene, robustness recovered under natural selection. Lights out for you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>What's so servile about having the intelligence and honesty to recognize one's assumptions and to admit that there is no observation of a molecular machine getting more robust over time? Obviously, there are no empirical tests of just-so stories.
<quoted text> You obviously don't know anything about the history of Einstein and Hilbert.
<quoted text> We're in the same boat here. The simplest forms of life are extraordinary complex machines and molecular machines don't get more robust by randomly changing the mechanical code of their design.
Gee Shoob. 12 months later and you're still ignoring the theory of evolution in favour of criticizing a straw-man. No wonder you never get anywhere.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. John C. Sanford of http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf fame has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. What have you invented, discovered and published?
Sanford is also a reality-denying YEC liar for Jesus who has been incapable of falsifying evolution via peer-reviewed scientific research. The guy could have invented the starship Enterprise for all we care, but that has diddly squat to do with the validity of evolutionary biology, which neither of you have been able to deal with.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#85 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it does. It mean that you are a reject by your own standards.
Not really. Since we have published nothing, you have published nothing. That puts us on an equal playing field.

Well, except for the part where your references do not actually support the falsification of evolution nor invisible Jewmagic, and our references do actually in fact support evolution in peer-reviewed published scientific literature, which includes literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers on the subject. Your apparent response to this is that it's all a big conspiracy.

This is why no-one takes you seriously.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#86 Jan 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Take a population and breed it with no natural selection (be randomly selecting pairs regardless of fitness and breeding them to create the next generation). Fitness is found to drop 1-3% per generation, exactly as per genetic entropy would predict.
2. However, GE acts according to Muller's Ratchet. Fitness lost cannot be recovered according to this, because continuing new mildly deleterious mutations continue to build up faster than natural selection can ever eliminate them. Sanford to the core.
3. Therefore natural selection can merely slow, but not ever reverse the process. If it could, the whole GE argument would be falsified. Sanford's thesis is testable.
4. Guess what. When such populations as in (1) above, still isolated, are allowed to compete freely by natural selection, fitness RETURNS within a few generations.
Your facts are certainly not the least bit surprising since evolution/devolution isn't really detectable within a few generations. Consequently, the experiment you have outlined hasn't proven anything.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#87 Jan 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Sanford meets his Waterloo.
This is an elegant experimental refutation of Sanford's GE.
I have argued for ages about the logical shortfalls in his arguments and the selective use of data and assumptions that led him to a wrong conclusion. However, these experimental results render all that unnecessary now.
Empirical observation has proven him wrong, and this is the final arbiter in science: WHETHER PIN HEADED ABSTRACTION LOVING PRIESTS AT THE SACRED ALTAR OF MATHEMATICS SUCH AS YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
Likewise, into the dustbin goes your cherished variation on Sanford's theme, that robustness must decrease over time. No, Eugene, robustness recovered under natural selection. Lights out for you.
It's difficult for me to even imagine that you read Sanford's book.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#88 Jan 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford is also a reality-denying YEC liar for Jesus who has been incapable of falsifying evolution via peer-reviewed scientific research.
Dr. John C. Sanford and I agree that evolution occurs. We simply interpret it as devolution. However, since our arguments are purely conceptual, and since no experiment has yet been devised to settle the dispute, thus I'm content to identify the axioms that you religiously embrace by faith alone.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. John C. Sanford and I agree that evolution occurs. We simply interpret it as devolution. However, since our arguments are purely conceptual, and since no experiment has yet been devised to settle the dispute, thus I'm content to identify the axioms that you religiously embrace by faith alone.
We don't have faith alone. That's why every time we point out that evolution (not devolution) passes successful testing you are unable to address it. We even saw you run away from Nuggin when he demonstrated (again) common ancestry for you the other day. Your arguments may be conceptual, but ours aren't.(shrug)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#90 Jan 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
evolution (not devolution) passes successful testing
You don't even understand what you profess to believe. Respected Darwinists frequently say that evolution is directionless. So obviously, in your religion, devolution occurs. You just don't want to accept that it's always the case.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#91 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You don't even understand what you profess to believe. Respected Darwinists frequently say that evolution is directionless. So obviously, in your religion, devolution occurs. You just don't want to accept that it's always the case.
Sorry bub, but your pathetic caricatures are nothing more than a prime indication of your extreme intellectual cowardice. Fundies like you are a dime a dozen around these parts.(shrug)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#92 Jan 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
... a prime indication of your extreme intellectual cowardice.
I just don't fit the profile of intellectual cowards, as summarized by Noam Chomsky. http://everythingimportant.org/

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#93 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. John C. Sanford of http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf fame has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. What have you invented, discovered and published?
I have published just over 30 papers and hold patents on new insect control technology including the discovery of proteins and the creation of plants that kill a number of key insect pests. The technology for killing sucking insect pests has a value of between 30 and 50 million dollars alone.

What have you done that is so important?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's difficult for me to even imagine that you read Sanford's book.
I find it difficult to believe that you have actually accomplished anything. You sound like a wanna be that has hooked his wagon to science in a desperate attempt for attention, relevance and to some extent fame. I don't have the credentials to dig into your pathology and come up with what is really wrong with you, but I know some that could.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#95 Jan 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
What have you done that is so important?
http://everythingimportant.org/ is obviously extremely important.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#96 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
http://everythingimportant.org/ is obviously extremely important.
Obviously.

[/EYE-ROLL]

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#97 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
http://everythingimportant.org/ is obviously extremely important.
Only to you. I read enough to know that it wasn't important to me.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#98 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> You don't even understand what you profess to believe. Respected Darwinists frequently say that evolution is directionless. So obviously, in your religion, devolution occurs. You just don't want to accept that it's always the case.
You like to lie by manipulating and misrepresenting, don't you. We don't need a devil, we have a Shube.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#99 Jan 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I read enough to know that it wasn't important to me.
You must have been offended by the first demon's message.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#100 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You must have been offended by the first demon's message.
No, it was me that offended me. I will never forgive myself for wasting the time I will never get back.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#101 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Your facts are certainly not the least bit surprising since evolution/devolution isn't really detectable within a few generations. Consequently, the experiment you have outlined hasn't proven anything.
I would have thought you would be capable of more logical discussion than this.

GE makes a specific prediction - loss of fitness is a one way street that cannot be recovered.

The experiment is not about the whole of evolution, its about the specific prediction above.

The experiments show fitness can be recovered in a population that has lost fitness rapidly (through the removal of natural selection fro several generations, then its reintroduction).

Thus the SPECIFIC prediction of GE which is at the foundation of Sanford's whole hypothesis is falsified. We do not need to prove all of evolution to falsify Sanford's view that genetic entropy is inevitable and irreversible.

His theory goes into the dustbin, and your theory which is derivative of his in its core mechanisms, goes the same way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min Dogen 142,836
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr MikeF 172,070
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 20,748
Evolutionists are monkeys 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 12 hr Paul Porter1 306
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? Mon Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program Mon Zog Has-fallen 2
More from around the web