Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

"Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
"Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, when it was pointed out that creationists accept hyper-evolution, you were wrong to disagree and only mounted an argument based on word games. Got it. Again, glad we can agree.

:)


sure with that "all inclusive" definition of evolution, then yes I would agree.


you can not accuse me for playing word games, because I explain what I meant when I used the term "evolution"
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:Even the mechanisms Creationists allegedly possess are a faith position for LEROY.

He doesn't know what those mechanisms are - although he thinks declaring they exist makes a counter-argument - so it's kind of hard to understand quite what he thinks he's doing here.

Oh yeah, God is proven to be false?

What?

:


these mechanism exist, feel free to google them and learn about them.

but sure there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that these mechanisms can account for all the changes creationists claim that have occurred since the ark.

- I don't have the proof, but I know it exists! :lol


once again you are making an irrelevant comment, but for this one time I will fall in to your red hearing and comment on it....


yes it is possible to know something even if you cant prove it

the doctrine of Verificationism has been abandoned in academic circles, only Sparhafoc and stupid atheist from forums and youtube support this doctrine.



note that I am not calling you stupid nor atheist


would you like me to open a new thread on why verificationism fails?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:sure with that "all inclusive" definition of evolution, then yes I would agree.


you can not accuse me for playing word games, because I explain what I meant when I used the term "evolution"



You either use the term evolution to mean what it actually means, or you don't use it at all.

Not sure why you would think that Creationists - people hostile to evolution - would get to define it, but that's clearly batshit.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:these mechanism exist, feel free to google them and learn about them.


No, you claimed them, you feel free to google them and tell me about them.

Or do you want to muster the basic human decency to acknowledge that you were wrong.

Feel free not to - it just lets others show that your agenda outweighs your honesty dramatically.


leroy wrote:but sure there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that these mechanisms can account for all the changes creationists claim that have occurred since the ark.


What mechanisms, LEROY?

You claimed they exist. I don't believe you.

Consequently you admitted you don't even know what they are.

But you want to make it perfectly clear that even though you claimed they exist and don't know what they are, that they still provide a serious point for you to introduce into the discussion and insist people take seriously.

Nope. Cite or retract.

That's how the credible world works.


leroy wrote:
- I don't have the proof, but I know it exists! :lol


once again you are making an irrelevant comment, but for this one time I will fall in to your red hearing and comment on it....


Once again you are wiggling out of being exposed.

You tried to pretend that there are alternative mechanism for evolution which are offered by Creationists.

So cite them already.

No?

Can't cite them?

Looking a bit like your evidence for god, and for all the other horseshit you routinely spout. All mouth, no trousers.



leroy wrote:yes it is possible to know something even if you cant prove it


The usual word salad of horse poop.

No, you can't know that Creationist mechanisms exist without actually knowing the creationist mechanisms. No one - no really, NOT ONE PERSON HERE, expects you to be an expert on them, LEROY.

But if you claim they exist, why won't you cite them?

Why are you writing more words to distract from your failure to cite something you claimed exists?

Why are we playing your game again, LEROY?



leroy wrote:the doctrine of Verificationism has been abandoned in academic circles, only Sparhafoc and stupid atheist from forums and youtube support this doctrine.


More assertions, more attempts to shake the burden of proof.

Not going to work, LEROY.

Either you show that these exist, or you can stuff them back in the orifice from whence they sprang.

Actually, I am more than happy if you keep wiggling. Every time you reply on this topic without providing those alleged Creationist mechanisms, you show any honest reader how your position lacks any credibility whatsoever.

So please continue your transparent evasions.



leroy wrote:note that I am not calling you stupid nor atheist


Note that I couldn't give a flying fuck if you did because I am neither.


leroy wrote:would you like me to open a new thread on why verificationism fails?


No, because it's you who is failing. Why would I want you to open another avenue of unfettered bullshit?

How many evasion cards have you got up those sleeves?
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:48 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:sure with that "all inclusive" definition of evolution, then yes I would agree.


you can not accuse me for playing word games, because I explain what I meant when I used the term "evolution"



You either use the term evolution to mean what it actually means, or you don't use it at all.

Not sure why you would think that Creationists - people hostile to evolution - would get to define it, but that's clearly batshit.


usually words have many definitions, why should I use the particular definition that you personally like?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:52 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:these mechanism exist, feel free to google them and learn about them.


No, you claimed them, you feel free to google them and tell me about them.

Or do you want to muster the basic human decency to acknowledge that you were wrong.

Feel free not to - it just lets others show that your agenda outweighs your honesty dramatically.


I already did the research and shared my sources with you, ether reed my sources or do you own research, or do whatever you what I honestly don't care


leroy wrote:but sure there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that these mechanisms can account for all the changes creationists claim that have occurred since the ark.


What mechanisms, LEROY?

You claimed they exist. I don't believe you.


what mechanisms? Natural genetic engineering, jumping genes and some plastic responses,

Consequently you admitted you don't even know what they are.


of course I don't know hat they are, I simply listed a few mechanism that could have accounted for those changes,

But you want to make it perfectly clear that even though you claimed they exist and don't know what they are, that they still provide a serious point for you to introduce into the discussion and insist people take seriously.


No I don't think I am making a serous point, this is just a secondary point you are the one who is making a big deal out of it


Fact> there are some non random mechanisms that cause hereditable changes, I already provided examples and sources

Creationist say (not me) that these mechanisms are largely responsable for the variation that we see within created kinds
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:usually words have many definitions, why should I use the particular definition that you personally like?



Because, as I explained in the post you are supposedly responding to, Creationists are hostile to biological evolution, so it's very much like a white racist labeling a person of African origin. No one cares about your vapid prejudice - you do not have the authority to redefine science to suit you.

Not one person here accepts it, LEROY, so if you expect to have your written word taken as gospel, go find some mindless sheep.

They're going to need to be startlingly stupid to follow your ad hoc bullshit.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:09 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:I already did the research and shared my sources with you, ether reed my sources or do you own research, or do whatever you what I honestly don't care


And where did you do this LEROY?

WHERE?

Only, it seems you are once again warping the truth beyond any form of reality.

And if you did cite those sources, how is it you just told me you couldn't cite your sources and told me to go and do it?

Regardless, if you refuse to cite your sources, that's fine.

Your assertion is dismissed as bullshit.

Next canard.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:10 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

of course I don't know hat they are, I simply listed a few mechanism that could have accounted for those changes,


Which aren't relevant as I already informed you. And as you've just admitted you don't understand them, why are you trying to tell me that they are relevant?

Also, they're not 'Creationist' mechanisms so you were spouting your usual bollocks.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:12 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

LEROY wrote:it is an uncontroversial fact that big changes can occur in a few decades or even in a few months, as Dawkins puts it, you evolved from a single celled organism in 9 months....... the question is .............where this changes where caused by random genetic change ? or by some other preexisting and already complex mechanism ?


LEROY wrote:the point is that creationists don't believe in super evolution, they believe that big changes occurred in a small amount of time doe to a preexisting mechanism, not by Darwinian mechanisms.


LEROY wrote:yes and a big portion of these big changes are caused by none random genetic changes. this is what creationists would say.


LEROY wrote:what a surprise, Sparhafoc once again playing stupid and pathetic semantic games.

the point is that some genetic hereditable changes are caused by non random mechanisms, if you what to argue that this is still evolution feel free to do so, this is just semantics



So I am playing word games, but there ARE certainly genetic hereditable (sic) changes caused by non random mechanisms, asserted half a dozen times by LEROY, but when pushed to cite them he writes:

LEROY wrote:I don t claim to know what mechanisms cause them, but it is obvious that random mutations and natural selection by themselves cant account for all the changes YECs claimed to have occurred, some other mechanism would have to be responsable for some changes


So you don't know what those mechanisms are, don't understand what you are talking about, but will still write 50 times about how certain you are that these represent a point worthy of contribution.

LEROY, you are absolutely on another planet. Maybe even dimension, where logic works in different ways.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:19 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:
So I am playing word games, but there ARE certainly genetic hereditable (sic) changes caused by non random mechanisms, asserted half a dozen times by LEROY, but when pushed to cite them he writes:

LEROY wrote:I don t claim to know what mechanisms cause them, but it is obvious that random mutations and natural selection by themselves cant account for all the changes YECs claimed to have occurred, some other mechanism would have to be responsable for some changes


So you don't know what those mechanisms are, don't understand what you are talking about, but will still write 50 times about how certain you are that these represent a point worthy of contribution
.


there are mechanisms that are not based on random mutations (or random genetic change), that cause hereditable genetic changes. But I don't know if these mechanisms can account for all the changes that creationists claim that happened since the Ark.

is my position now clear?


an example of these mechanisms would be natural genetic engineering
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1334920
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:39 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Yes, I've explained to you in this thread why this isn't an 'alternative mechanism' occurring here. It is still just evolution, the mechanism.

And, as I've already addressed, your Shapiro strawman is already debunked.

No one suggests that mutations are wholly random, LEROY.

I explained to you at least 5 or 6 ways in which mutations are not wholly random, LEROY.

I also showed that Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, explained to Shapiro in the 90's that the modern evolutionary synthesis included from its outset the knowledge that not all mutations are strictly random, LEROY. And the example he gave to Shapiro was 'mutagens' LEROY.

So, I know your stalking horse argument, and I have exposed your strawman, and yet you still want to claim that these represent something other than evolution, and that they are linked to Creationist denial of biological science.

It's bullshit layered on bullshit layered on bullshit, LEROY. Obviously, you are not going to convince me because I know you are talking bullshit. I am perplexed that you still seem to think you're going to find a way to convince me that anything you've said here has any merit at all.

You are wrong. Being wrong is a great place if you want to learn and be right. But it's a terrible place to be in if your whole world is founded on unwarranted confidence.

Like all Creationists, you think that the way to establish credibility of a claim is to make more claims, and more, and more and more and more until people can no longer be bothered to follow the labyrinthine contortions you've devised to continuously cover your arse.

99% of posts in reply to you would be perfectly justified in simply copying and pasting what was already said, and to which you've completely failed in any way to address, yet still want to make the same assertion.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:45 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:Yes, I've explained to you in this thread why this isn't an 'alternative mechanism' occurring here. It is still just evolution, the mechanism.

[


yes and we already agreed, you can call it evolution if you what, but the mechanisms is not based on random mutations.


I explained to you at least 5 or 6 ways in which mutations are not wholly random, LEROY


this is what me and everybody means with when they use the term "random mutation"
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.


this is what scientists usually mean when the use the term "random mutation" in their books and papers,

you are simply using the term random mutation with a different connotation.

Sparhafoc
It's bullshit layered on bullshit layered on bullshit, LEROY. Obviously, you are not going to convince me because I know you are talking bullshit. I am perplexed that you still seem to think you're going to find a way to convince me that anything you've said here has any merit at all.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

no ofcourse I don't think I am ever going to find a way to convince you you are too stupid and to arrogant to admit that your mistakes,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:30 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:yes and we already agreed, you can call it evolution if you what, but the mechanisms is not based on random mutations.


How can you declare that I agree with you when you write a rambling incoherent ignorant statement?

No, I don't fucking agree with you for the thousands of words I've written explaining why you are wrong.

Don/'t tell me again I agree with you or I will devote some actual effort to showing what a tool that would make you.


leroy wrote:this is what me and everybody means with when they use the term "random mutation"


No, as per my citations from the scientific literature.

Remember me posting them?

No?

Funny how your Morton's Demon seems to think it can make me ignore what I wrote! :lol:

You're wrong. I've explained why you are wrong.

As such, repeating yourself just makes you look batshit.

You say X, and you have no relevant knowledge which is why you say X.


leroy wrote:
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.


this is what scientists usually mean when the use the term "random mutation" in their books and papers,


No, that's complete idiocy.

You are once again citing a source but quotemining that source and ignoring the rest of the source that contradicts you.

That equates to moral bankruptcy, LEROY - you are showing what kind of character motivates such bullshit.


leroy wrote:you are simply using the term random mutation with a different connotation.


LEROY, this is another lie on your part. You keep lying LEROY, it's like you can't address the truth, like it's anathema to you.

I gave you examples of mutation that isn't random.

You can't address it because you lack the competence and knowledge. Even though I've dumbed it down for you to truly dumb levels, you still refuse to read anything that contradicts your vapid beliefs.

Tough titties - anyone reading can see you are lying, and that you pretend I say X when I say NOT X just means you are an untrustworthy person when it comes to reporting reality.

Please do continue providing the rope that hangs you.


leroy wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

no ofcourse I don't think I am ever going to find a way to convince you you are too stupid and to arrogant to admit that your mistakes,


Otherwise knows as vastly more knowledgeable than you.

Case in point: I cite a series of scientific papers talking about the biochemical mechanisms for non-random mutations, stochastic variation in genetic interaction partners, and stochasticity in the evolution of mutations - all published in real journals, all with citations, all credible.

Meanwhile, you post a comic strip for kids that comprises about 40 words, and think you're winning.

When pushed, you just cited that same comic strip again.

The fact that the comic strip expressly agrees with what I said on another page, that I have cited it back to you, and you have ignored it... really underscores what a morally reprehensible stunted worm you are.

And you still think you're going to convince me that your head isn't neck deep in your arse, or that other people here are equally intellectually challenged as you so they believe you.... utter delusion.

Are you related to Donald Trump, by any chance? Same cluelessness, same unwarranted confidence, same challenges in formulating coherent sentences.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1330Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Because of Leroy's wiggliness, I have to cite the link so he can't pretend it didn't happen, which you can see he's trying to pull....

viewtopic.php?p=179999#p179999

Sparhafoc wrote:This is what we'd be discussing if you possessed the competence. You don't, we can't talk about this with you because you don't even understand extremely simplified and abridged explanations which you'd need to implicitly comprehend to have a seat at the table.

http://jb.asm.org/content/182/11/2993.full

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution. Wright, Barbara. Journal of Bacteriology

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v ... 10665.html

Predicting mutation outcome from early stochastic variation in genetic interaction partners. Burga, Alexander et al, Nature 480

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/artic ... -7007-9-41

Stochastic dynamics and the evolution of mutations in stem cells. Dingly, David, BMC Biology 2011


Perhaps a pop science source might get through to you where otherwise perfectly clear English fails.


https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolu ... andom.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... y-random-/

Or perhaps even that's too tough? Maybe just dumping all the reading stuff written for non-specialists for you to work through first, then you can come back and have sufficient understanding to propose whatever crap it is you're proposing. Note, you won't be able to if you process what we do know via evidence, rather than the guff you thought up in your hostile armchair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatio ... expression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_silencing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_allele
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationi ... ion_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

Once you're done, I've got 8 more, and another 8, and many more 8's before you possess the competence to continue.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:54 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3317Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, when it was pointed out that creationists accept hyper-evolution, you were wrong to disagree and only mounted an argument based on word games. Got it. Again, glad we can agree.

:)


sure with that "all inclusive" definition of evolution, then yes I would agree.


you can not accuse me for playing word games, because I explain what I meant when I used the term "evolution"


Thus, when dandan/leroy acts pedantic and wants to add nuance to a discussion, he is not playing word games. However, when others act pedantic and add nuance, dandan/leroy will accuse them of word games. Got it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:40 pm
YIM WWW
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests
cron