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 3 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
"Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

We need more of this:



Some of them may be atheists, and some of them may not be atheists.... because, engaging in specious, arrogant, self-pleasuring bullshit where you wank off your ego in public is not something either atheists or Christians (or in fact, any honest, mentally normal person in the world) would appreciate.

This isn't about theism, isn't about Christianity, it's about Creationism and the type of ideology that produces people like LEROY who spend vast amounts of energy going around fucking with people cos he gets a disturbing boost to his own sense of self-worth by being an asshat to people he's made his boogeyman enemies.

Most Christians are not Creationists. Most reject this bullshit on the same grounds all sensible, rational, honest people do - because it's evidently, and unarguably bullshit.

Whereas, science ain't, and that's all Creationists really have up their sleeves: anger that their pet belief system isn't given the time of day in our knowledge enterprises.

Doesn't matter how many times I unequivocally state to LEROY that I am not talking about Christians, or Theists or, whatever... he's still pretending like he's part of that set. He's not. In environmental terms, he's in the parasite group, feeding off the host, but offering nothing of utility at all except his own selfish ends.

Fortunately, chap, there's an evolved behavior that all primates, and most mammals engage in. It's where we sit together picking off ticks and squashing them. It brings us all together, whether we're atheists, Christians, or any other person who is prepared to accept the primacy of evidence over an ideology.
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.
Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:13 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:Effects sex cells = evolution, because where is that change found? In the population of alleles of a species,
t.



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
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Effects sex cells = evolution, because where is that change found? In the population of alleles of a species,
t.



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



Gods, you are dense and proud of it.

No, moron. It's not a 'word game' it's exactly what evolution is, and you are pretending that it's not evolution.

Again, I am perplexed that you think you can pull the wool over my eyes.

You are trying to claim that not all change is evolution, and I have been quite clear that this is a pointless fucking numptyism because no one is talking about 'all change' in the sense of having a hair cut, or chopping off your finger. That's because the change we're talking about, i..e 'macroquackaduckfuckmeyourcreationistsareinsaneevolution' which you claim evolution can't account for.

So when I showed you unequivocally that you were wrong, you tried to pretend that there were other mechanisms of this change other than evolution.

However, the truth is that you don't have a fucking clue what you're wittering about because it doesn't matter if genes are edited by humans, cosmic rays, by epigenetic factors, or by random reshuffling - the thing that's actually happening, the actual only point that has any bearing here, LEROY, is the change in the consequent gene pool in which that species resides which is, what we call, the distribution of alleles in a population, and it is that which is the express definition of evolution.

That last statement is quite specifically the entire point of this thread and every conversation we've had on evolution because it's what you are trying to deny. So I have shown you it, and you have denied it, then you have provided examples that actually contradict your own position, then you still think you are doing something coherent. You are literally clueless, you don't know what you are talking about. You will do the Trump thing of pretending it's an ideological rejection, whereas it's not at all, it's because you are literally spouting inanities at someone who is teaching a class on the evolution of primates right at this moment!

There are only two options here, LEROY: that you either don't understand or that you don't want to understand that the ideas you've forwarded that you think exemplify 'not evolution' when they are factually exactly as I already said, shifts in allele frequencies in a population, and which I obligated you to engage in a gedanken that you then agreed with, and you still think that I haven't shown you that you were wrong, and then you actually make a sentence which means that you think real factual mechanisms are 'semantics' - it's nonsensical, LEROY - you are like Trump spouting about 'fake news' whenever he's caught being a moron.

LEROY, you need to pop your bubble, chap. You have a seriously warped sense of your own abilities.


leroy wrote: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


You don't have a point LEROY, you just have a sad need to pretend you are doing something worthwhile, and even sadder, you're doing it to complete strangers on the internet.

Of course, no conversation was ever about 'non-random mechanisms' , LEROY, not least because even natural selection is not a 'non-random mechanism', LEROY - just another way for you to pretend you weren't shown wrong by pretending you said something different, but you're only pretending to yourself and you just look pathetic to me.
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.
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:04 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

In the real world, this is the only time LEROY brought up this bullshit, and it was when he was shown wrong before:

In reply to csvan, LEROY wrote:


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 ?


To which I replied and dismissed his incoherent rambling:


Sparhafoc wrote:Changes caused by random genetic change? Aren't tautologies already sufficiently tautologous without tautologizing them?

Sorry, why don't you talk about evolution instead of whatever notion you've spontaneously coined this time?


Could I have been any clearer that we are not talking about 'changes caused by random genetic change' whatever that is supposed to mean, but instead want to talk about evolution, the practical topic, rather than the incoherent gibbering of someone antagonistic to the topic?

It might be nice to lend LEROY the benefit of the doubt - maybe he didn't see my reply or understand it...

But no, just like Trump Jr, he has his own words to blame:

In direct reply to that post above:


leroy wrote:whatever, .......

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.


So the point is whatever LEROY says is the point at the time he says it's the point, and even if you've been holding an extended conversation on a different topic he was engaged in and he was shown wrong repeatedly, then it doesn't matter because that wasn't the point!

:lol:

Trump type clown in the house.

Narcissim, sure - but are you also sociopathic, LEROY? You seem to have a raging hard on for 'atheists'.
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.
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:09 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2946Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Greetings,

We dealt with all this in this thread.

To save yourself a painful read, just search within the topic for "Behe" (IC), "Dembski" (CSI), "Hough" (SDG) [see here, and here], and "Shapiro" (NGE).

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:28 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:In the real world, this is the only time LEROY brought up this bullshit, and it was when he was shown wrong before:

In reply to csvan, LEROY wrote:


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 ?


To which I replied and dismissed his incoherent rambling:


Sparhafoc wrote:Changes caused by random genetic change? Aren't tautologies already sufficiently tautologous without tautologizing them?

Sorry, why don't you talk about evolution instead of whatever notion you've spontaneously coined this time?


Could I have been any clearer that we are not talking about 'changes caused by random genetic change' whatever that is supposed to mean, but instead want to talk about evolution, the practical topic, rather than the incoherent gibbering of someone antagonistic to the topic?

It might be nice to lend LEROY the benefit of the doubt - maybe he didn't see my reply or understand it...

But no, just like Trump Jr, he has his own words to blame:

In direct reply to that post above:


leroy wrote:whatever, .......

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.


So the point is whatever LEROY says is the point at the time he says it's the point, and even if you've been holding an extended conversation on a different topic he was engaged in and he was shown wrong repeatedly, then it doesn't matter because that wasn't the point!

:lol:

Trump type clown in the house.

Narcissim, sure - but are you also sociopathic, LEROY? You seem to have a raging hard on for 'atheists'.




yes thanks for that summery, now people can read the stuff and understand the context.



anyone can note that the point that I am making is that creationists attribute most of the genetic variation to non random and preexsting mechanisms whether if you call them evolution or give it an other name is irrelevant, the point is that creationists don't atribute these changes to random mutations and natural selection.

Evolutionists are suppose to believe that most of the diversity that we observe (including the origin of complex stuff like eyes, wings and brains) are a product of random genetic change, genetic drift and natural selection
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:34 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:anyone can note that the point that I am making is that creationists attribute most of the genetic variation to non random and preexsting mechanisms whether if you call them evolution or give it an other name is irrelevant, the point is that creationists don't atribute these changes to random mutations and natural selection.


And someone is supposed to give a ha'penny jizz what Creationists think about biological science?

Just why on Earth would you think that.

You're not a fucking partner at the table, you're the dogs snarling below.

You don't get to pretend that Creationists or Creationism represent a valid position with respect to anything.

Instead, if you want to make a claim about anything in science, you will provide empirical evidence to support any contention you make - any single claim you make is worth only so much as you can support it. That's the rules, you see - the actual definition of science, and you don't get to slap your perverted and distorted wankery in as if it were equivalent.

Not one scientific advance has ever been made because someone strung some words together into a sentence and declared it fait accompli.

I have already told you what the evidence shows and how evolution works and even what that means to your ex-recto claim, and your 'position' is in contradiction to that.

As such, your 'position' is wrong. No other bleating will elevate your status from being wrong, only changing your position will make you right.

Creationists make up bullshit as they go along, and yes, I have ample evidence of that, even tables if you want to see?

You are just one little fundie-bot out of thousands I've encountered, and not one of you had a coherent position, not one of you shared the same form of denial, you all just think your opinion is automatically valid just because you think you're the fucking special sauce splurted out by Yahweh.

Well, oh besplurged one, if you want to talk science, then you will follow the methods of science, and you will never ever be permitted to just dry hump your way through an argument. You either cite, or you go pop your cock back up your rectum.



leroy wrote:Evolutionists are suppose to believe that most of the diversity that we observe (including the origin of complex stuff like eyes, wings and brains) are a product of random genetic change, genetic drift and natural selection



Evolutionists = idiotic canard

Evolutionist canard is now reclaimed: it really means 'scientifically literate', really means 'biologists', really means 'accepts empirical evidence'.

And you have just capitulated yet another new iteration of the 'what I am supposed to believe' written by a barely literate ignoramus - fuck off LEROY, if you want to know what I believe, I will fucking inform you, not the other way round. You see, I know what I am talking about, and you fucking don't, so I will explain myself, thanks all the same. Learn some elementary respect if you hope to garner any for yourself.
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.
Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:47 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:[
And you have just capitulated yet another new iteration of the 'what I am supposed to believe' written by a barely literate ignoramus - fuck off LEROY, if you want to know what I believe, I will fucking inform you, not the other way round. You see, I know what I am talking about, and you fucking don't, so I will explain myself, thanks all the same. Learn some elementary respect if you hope to garner any for yourself.




Well then inform me...........do you believe that the diversity of live is attributed mainly to random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:04 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3308Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:anyone can note that the point that I am making is that creationists attribute most of the genetic variation to non random and preexsting mechanisms whether if you call them evolution or give it an other name is irrelevant, the point is that creationists don't atribute these changes to random mutations and natural selection.


Thus, since evolution is change in allilic frequency in a population over time, the only person here arguing semantics is you. This explains why you ignored my previous three posts asking about this. Beyond that, since these "non random and preexisiting mechanisms" appear to work very fast in the minds of creationists, you would also agree that calling it hyper-evolution is fine. Glad we can agree.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:25 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:Well then inform me...........do you believe that the diversity of live is attributed mainly to random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection?


I have before, and I continue to do so here:

viewtopic.php?p=179965#p179965
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:50 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:anyone can note that the point that I am making is that creationists attribute most of the genetic variation to non random and preexsting mechanisms whether if you call them evolution or give it an other name is irrelevant, the point is that creationists don't atribute these changes to random mutations and natural selection.


Thus, since evolution is change in allilic frequency in a population over time, the only person here arguing semantics is you. This explains why you ignored my previous three posts asking about this. Beyond that, since these "non random and preexisiting mechanisms" appear to work very fast in the minds of creationists, you would also agree that calling it hyper-evolution is fine. Glad we can agree.



again you can call it evolution if you what, but creationists atribute these changes to mechanisms different from random genetic changes.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:53 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2946Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Greetings,

Yet, unlike scientists with evolution, are unable to provide sufficient evidence for these "other mechanisms".

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:again you can call it evolution if you what, but creationists atribute these changes to mechanisms different from random genetic changes.


1) No one cares what lazy Creationists make up because they're incapable of looking at evidence, and use ideology instead of rationality.

2) Go on then, put your money where your overly large mouth is: what 'mechanism'? :D
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:54 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

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



Again, shown wrong, again shown to be talking out of his arse, again LEROY has taken his dump on the table of discourse then simply flaunts off no longer bothering with another contrived argument that was really just shit thrown at a fan in the hope of something sticking.

As explained, although it would be an unnecessary explanation for anyone capable of following an argument, that it is categorically not semantic games, pathetic or not, but expressly the mechanism of evolution you are denying.

No acknowledgment, no apology, just more blather.

Why should anyone give you the time of day, LEROY. Please explain.

What is in it for us to be dry-humped by you on the internet?

Or to put it in my typically crude 'atheiamstalisticimic' (i.e. not actually an atheist) way: if you want to fuck me up the arse, LEROY, you could at least tickle my balls.
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:57 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:again you can call it evolution if you what, but creationists atribute these changes to mechanisms different from random genetic changes.


1) No one cares what lazy Creationists make up because they're incapable of looking at evidence, and use ideology instead of rationality.

2) Go on then, put your money where your overly large mouth is: what 'mechanism'? :D


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


..but there are many non random mechanisms that generate hereditable traits, (natural genetic engineering, some plastic responses, jumping genes etc.)

I personally don't believe in the ark (as describen by YEC) but form the point of view of a YEC, in my opinion it is fare to assume that these none random mechanism where stronger and more abundant 4,000 years ago.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

leroy wrote:again you can call it evolution if you what, but creationists atribute these changes to mechanisms different from random genetic changes.



Sparhafoc wrote:1) No one cares what lazy Creationists make up because they're incapable of looking at evidence, and use ideology instead of rationality.

2) Go on then, put your money where your overly large mouth is: what 'mechanism'? :D



leroy wrote:I don t claim to know what mechanisms cause them, ....



:lol: :lol: :lol:

You jizz rag.

It's like when you were calculating probabilities without knowing any of the factors or numbers involved.

You don't know the mechanisms, but you know that there are mechanisms Creationists have made up. Even THAT is a faith position you have no reason whatsoever to lend credence to.

You are a first class idiot, LEROY. Of course, one of the primary handicaps of being an idiot is that you don't know you're an idiot.
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

..but there are many non random mechanisms that generate hereditable traits, (natural genetic engineering, some plastic responses, jumping genes etc.)


And in the other thread, LEROY's trying to scornfully tell me that when I educated him that not all mutations are strictly random, that I was wrong! :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's the Muppet Show!

DA DA DA DA DA DA dumb


And ooh yeah baby, I am gonna get me some of that fine natural loving genetic engineering.

Jumping genetic Jesus on a pogo-stick! Didn't I already explain all this to him 5 times before? Well, yes, yes I did - but the Weeble got right back up again.
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

As an aside to the remaining adults in the thread, if they haven't all just walked away in despair...

What's amusing here is that LEROY's latching onto Shapiro (because Creationists fucking love him!) and he's even mimicking a thread of Shapiro's claims which were roundly debunked the moment he poked his head out into the peer-review world.

Namely, Shapiro wanted to provide a different theory of evolution, one which contested the synthesis approach. To do this, Shapiro set up a strawman of the evolutionary synthesis: that only 'random' mutation is accepted as the root of evolutionary change.

This is why LEROY keep repeating the same line whenever he can find the mental stability to coordinate pressing both his control and v keys.

Obviously, he's contradicted himself above, but that's because he's LEROY and is just parrotting uncritically swallowed bullshit.

Of course, the modern evolutionary synthesis makes no claims that 'only random mutations' are at the root of evolution - that's got to be.... I don't know... maybe 80 years out of date? :lol:

What people like Francis Crick immediately pointed out was... umm, well we already knew about instances that aren't 'only random mutation' and these were known about and included in the formulation of the modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, mutagens.

Now, as far as I recall, Shapiro forward this to peer review in the 90's and it gained no traction, not least because it was inherently flawed in its evaluation of evolutionary biology. Basically, other scientists looked a bit baffled then said 'no, that's not what we say at all' so Shapiro had to then go to publish a book which is how Creationists got hold of it, cherrypicked it, then churned it out through the propaganda outlets to be uncritically swallowed by ignoramuses like LEROY, the wannabe Stormtroopers for doctrine!
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.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3308Joined: 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, since evolution is change in allilic frequency in a population over time, the only person here arguing semantics is you. This explains why you ignored my previous three posts asking about this. Beyond that, since these "non random and preexisiting mechanisms" appear to work very fast in the minds of creationists, you would also agree that calling it hyper-evolution is fine. Glad we can agree.



again you can call it evolution if you what, but creationists atribute these changes to mechanisms different from random genetic changes.


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.

:)
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:47 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: "Dawkins lizards" and hyper-evolution

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?

Show the evidence? But I don't need to - I don't have the proof, but I know it exists! :lol:
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 9:20 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 76 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
cron