Annoying creationists

[Mr. Scott]

Annoying Evolutionists

(Subtitle: Mountain of evidence -- meet bronze age manuscript.)

Inspired by Ev and its fans who claim Ev proves macro-evolution is impossible, I've written a simulation (line of logic) to see if god exists and hereby invite godists to critique it:

God, as we are led to understand him, is omnipotent. He created the universe and everything in it, created all the genes of life, watches our every move and knows our every thought (all 6 billion of us at once, and probably the trillions of other living things as well), and is capable of arbitrarily controlling anything, from individual quarks to galaxy clusters, at any time in any way to any extent. The complexity of such a being has to be nearly infinite, and must also be irreducable (if it were reducible, it could not be omnipotent). The probability of something infinitely complex appearing de novo from nothing is, obviously, zero -- it is infinitely improbable. So, given that theogenesis can be shown to be mathematically impossible, why would we choose it as an explanation for the origin of life rather than what is mathematically infinitely more probable: spontaneous generation as suggested by evolutionists?

There is a growing mountain of consistent evidence that evolution, both micro- and macro-, successfully explains the origin of species, but there is not even the smallest speck of evidence that any kind of god exists. All the godists can show is a bronze age manuscript full of inconsistencies, authored by people obviously ignorant of the most basic concepts of physics, astronomy, and biology. And, why any thinking person would follow a book that's foundation is built on circular logic* is astonishing.

Given the choice between an extremely unlikely event that a mountain of evidence supports actually happened, or an impossible event for which not a shred of evidence exists, who in their right mind would choose the latter?

Godists, I await your refutation.

* How do we know the bible is true? It says it is, so it must be.

 

[Kotatsu]

Since your theory of evolution is based on mutation and selection, there is no other point to be made until you describe what the selection mechanism is.

"My" theory of evolution is based observations of actually occuring evolution, which are described by, among other things, mutations and selection.

The selection mechanism can be the preferance of, or disinclination to mate with, individuals displaying a certain feature or behaviour corresponding to a certain set of alleles or genes.

It can be the increased success, diminished success or complete failure of reproduction between individuals with certain genotypes, including factors influencing the morphological properties of one or both of the mating individuals, chemical or physical limitations, or other factors.

It can be an increased or decreased percentage of any of the following: stillborn, progeny with morphological, physiological, or other properties either inferior or superior to those of their peers, progeny which are unable to reproduce with other members of the parent species, or which can do so only under certain conditions or at a lower rate of success, and other forms of progeny dissimilar from the parents.

It can be any number of factors influencing the behaviour, morphology, physiology and other properties which make the individual more or less likely to survive to reproductive age, to attract a mate (if necessary) and mate or otherwise produce offspring.

In the present case, as I described it above, any of the following could be a valid selection mechanism, as I only sketched a theoretical example without limiting myself to a certain gene. However, let us take a specific example and see what happens:

The region that codes for the FMRFamide precursor in the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis contains more than one copy of the sequence needed to produce one copy of the neuropeptide it codes for (Loi & Tublitz, 1997). This is not unusual; in Lumbriculidae, the same region generally codes for at least three copies (Price, pers. comm.). These coding sequences are 12 base-pairs long, and are separated by non-coding regions of various length.

However, to be entirely truthful, not all copies in this region are identical. The FMRFamide precursor region in S. officinalis codes for one FIRFamide, one ALSGDAFLRFamide (which is naturally longer than 12 bases), one FLRFamide and 11 FMRFamides. Let us for the sake of argument focus on one of these. I shall assume that FMRFamide is the "original" form, as it is most common in this region.

To produce a sequence coding for FIRFamide, only one random point mutation is needed: the AUG of methionine is replaced by any of AUU, AUA and AUC, which all code for isoleucin. This change occurs in the third codon position, which is the change most common in protein-coding sequences. Both FMRFamide and FIRFamide function as neuropeptides, but, Loi & Taublitz suggest, may have different physiological functions in the body.

If we imagine a sequence which only codes for FMRFamide, and allow one of the copies of the FMRFamide-coding sequence to undergo the point mutation described above, what happens? The gene, when translated, now produces one less FMRFamide and one more FIRFamide. It still produces FMRFamide, though, so it may not have a very large influence on the ocuttlefish. However, everytime the animal produces FMRFamide, it also produces FIRFamide. Depending on the specificity of the receptors and the efficiency of this new peptide, this may have no, little, or great effect, negative or positive, on the organism.

If there is an effect, at least locally, then there is your selection mechanism for retaining this new neuropeptide. Loi & Taublitz suggest that FIRFamide --- and the other aberrant FaRPS of the cuttlefish --- are used in the chromatophore system.

A slogan does not constitute a scientific proof

Then I take it that your repeated claim of having disproved the theory of evolution mathematically does not constitute scientific proof, and should not be treated as such? Likewise with, oh, perhaps 80% of the rest of your posts?

---
Loi & Tublitz, 1997. Molecular analysis of FMRFamide- and FMRFamide-related peptides (FaRPS) in the Cuttlefish Sepia officinalis. J. Exp. Biol. 200, 1483-1489.

 

[Kotatsu]

If lunacy you must defend
The moving goalpost is your friend.

Curiously, I am having exactly the same kind of discussion in another forum over RPGs with a young man whose habit it is to move the goalposts before I even get an attempt to pass the latest one. If the need arise, may I quote parts of your poem in that thread?

 

[Kotatsu]

Haha, it's the inadequate doctor! I was wondering when you'd join the fray.

I think perversions of DrAdequate's forum name into something suggesting he is, in fact, not, are the most hilarious jokes ever.

 

[Mercutio]

Curiously, I am having exactly the same kind of discussion in another forum over RPGs with a young man whose habit it is to move the goalposts before I even get an attempt to pass the latest one. If the need arise, may I quote parts of your poem in that thread?

If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.

 

[Kotatsu]

If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.

This is by far the greatest text-based gift I have ever received.

If the poem wins the language award --- and I do believe someone nominated it previously --- who will get all of the money and the car filled with hot chicks which are traditionally handed out to the victor?

 

[The Atheist]

No; and no.

Hey, now that's really funny.

Your own post proves beyond any doubt that you confused two simple words, but keep denying it.

 

[The Atheist]

I think perversions of DrAdequate's forum name into something suggesting he is, in fact, not, are the most hilarious jokes ever.

The bad news is that the good doctor made that comment about himself a little while back.

Intellectually, he is comfortable with his adequacy, but there are other areas of life and at least he's honest enough to admit his own inadequacy in them.

Anything outside of maths and poetry.

Let's see if he remembers...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.

How can you not love this guy?

~~ Paul

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How can you not love this guy?

~~ Paul

He supports plagiarism?

 

[kjkent1]

This is by far the greatest text-based gift I have ever received.

If the poem wins the language award --- and I do believe someone nominated it previously --- who will get all of the money and the car filled with hot chicks which are traditionally handed out to the victor?

You would own the award.

A public offer of a reward in return for a member of the public satisfying the conditions of the offer, becomes an executory contract between the offeror and any person who begins performance required by the offer, within a reasonable time in reliance on the public offer.

Here, because the poem was nominated under terms of the offer, prior to transfer of the copyright license to you, Mercutio would be entitled to the benefit of the bargain.

However, because Mercutio expressly stated that he has assigned, not just the copyright license, but also the right to "claim" the poem "as your own," Mercutio has impliedly transferred the right to the executory contract to you

Therefore, you are entitled to any award, even though it is well known that you are not the actual author.

And so on and so forth...

 

[The Atheist]

Again, you appear to be speaking gibberish.

Your spade must almost be worn out.

Maybe you're not used to reading such short, simple sentences. No matter to me.

Will you either say what you meant by your nonsense about "writing my own version of the bible", or explain why you're so afraid of saying what you meant by it, or confess that you were talking gibberish?

Or if that scares you so much, try to explain what you meant by this:

Darling. Of all the feelings I have about you - and I'm sorry to say they are limited by the small amount I know about you - fear comes into none of them. I wouldn't even class it as dislike at this stage. Pity; probably. Pity that such a seemingly smart lad has such an unhappy, lonely life that he is kept awake by his own, self-admitted, physical inadequacy.

Puzzlement, perhaps, that someone whose self-described intellect is "immeasurable" is having such difficulty understanding plain English. Still, if you're looking for it to be "meaningful", I don't blame you.

Scared, never. Not mentally, and indisputably not physically, so I'm a little perplexed that you keep bringing fear into it. You must have the wrong bloke. If you can't figure out what I mean about something as simple as those sentences you claim to have trouble with, then I begin to doubt both your intellect and your qualifications. I actually don't think you are that stupid, but hell, feel free to keep surprising me.

In the meantime, I'll take the explanation further when it suits me, not you.

Now that is funny! I'm keeping a screen-shot of that. Classic.

If you are incapable of debating me, I have a great idea: don't.

Hey a debate is the one thing you might be able to beat me at, don't knock it.

The only reason you're having trouble so far is because you need remedial English lessons. You must have a young cousin or nephew who can assist you by reading my past posts for you.

However, the more moderate views of "Jon The Geek" struck a chord with me, and so his words are now included in my "sig".

That weak tirade is hardly befitting someone whose giant intellect enabled them to produce a book of poetry. That's the kind of poopie-throwing I expect from my 16 year olds. Your English isn't as flash as you like to believe, is it?

Break it down: - a/hole, full of/eats faeces and has sex with pigs. Just boring.

In fact, now that I do break it down, even my 16 year olds could do better. Crikey doc, Marquis de Carabas and Shemp make a career out of sexual activities with goats, using it as an insult is very lame and not really worthy of what I'd been led to expect.

Even Articulett did a far better job of flaming and she's not only almost illiterate, but also American.

And the final admission?

The one clever line belongs to someone else.

Sorry doc, but you're a joke. I'd been led to expect a decent flame, instead, I get an old Zippo, its flint almost worn away, struggling to pitifully create even a visible flame.

Keep trying, young chap.

 

[The Atheist]

It seems a shame that effort is wasted on such stuff when what is really needed is sensible discussion.

Sensible discussion? In here?

Mate, you really do need to wise up. For sensible discussion, you need to go to Internet Infidels, or somewhere where people are able to have actual debates. At IIDB they have rules and rooms for just that - sensible debates.

This is the Randi Forum, where a small clique of posters rule and the word "sensible" has no place. (Most beautifully described as "The Kool Kids Klique^TM) If you want to start a cheerleading team, this is the right place, but it's clearly not the one for sensible discussion - unless, of course, you wish to agree with every word uttered by a bunch of boring twats*.

*I am NOT applying that term universally, or excepting me from it, but there are - as I'm sure you've noticed - people here worthy of debate. This place is a lot like Stormfront - none of those worthy of debate belong to the KKK. Here, it's just a different KKK.

 

[The Atheist]

I just went to the chatroom, ...

Surprise level that Dr Adequate visits internet chat rooms/

0.0000000

 

[articulett]

Then I suggest you demonstrate that understanding by sensible debate.

This would imply that you would understand sensible debate. There is no evidence that you have engaged any. This forum is filled with back and forth discussion of Dr. Adequate--no one but those whom no one else seems to even understand has made accusations about his debating skills or his science.

You have demonstrated no social competence, no debating competence, no scientific competence, no credibility, and not even a comprehensible "hypothesize" that anyone can sum up.

Irony. I see it as evidence of a creationist.

 

[articulett]

Then I suggest you demonstrate that understanding by sensible debate.

This would imply that you would understand sensible debate. There is no evidence that you have engaged any. This forum is filled with back and forth discussion of Dr. Adequate--no one but those whom no one else seems to even understand has made accusations about his debating skills or his science.

You have demonstrated no social competence, no debating competence, no scientific competence, no credibility, and not even a comprehensible "hypothesize" that anyone can sum up.

Irony. I see it as evidence of a creationist.

 

[The Atheist]

Time: 20**/4/15. USA. UT 17-40
Location: Internet chat board/forum

Articulett: Did you enjoy the game on Sunday?
Poster: Nah, I thought the 49ers sucked. Threw backwards all day
Articulett: You're full of crap and therefore a creationist.

Genius.

 

[kjkent1]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!

 

[delphi_ote]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!

Yes. Please. Let's get back to the incredibly productive discussion about ev and evolution. We were so close to a breakthrough with our creationist friends. All we need now to show them once and for all they are wrong is a time machine and a notebook big enough to write the complete history of every molecule in the universe in. Don't let personal quibbles get in the way of such reasonable evidentiary standards. We only need to know everything there is to know about everything to prove to them the world wasn't created by a giant imaginary being. That seems perfectly fair to me and has yielded such an interesting discussion so far.

Oops. My sarcasm knob must be stuck on "maximum" again.

 

[The Atheist]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!

No worries, mate!

If you feel that now, after a mere 54 pages of it, it's the appropriate time to stop, I'm into that. Maybe a couple of thousand posts late, but better late than never!

Cheers.