The bombardier beetle

[Maggsy]

Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.

[RonO]

On 11/12/2017 9:18 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>

Look up the failure of scientific creationism in the 1980's. You are so
far behind the times that it is pathetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

The current ID creationist perpetrators don't even want to acknowledge
that scientific creationism ever existed. Even though some of them were
scientific creationists they just don't talk about that junk any more.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.

This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.

From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)

"The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus, which produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"

If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review

You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:20:05 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.

Perhaps before posting FAQ read the FAQ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Why the creationist arguments are always so weakly put up? Is the
intended audience of those not scientists but the gullible laymen?
Do they hope that science works on popular vote? Vote is not scientific
method.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 12, Öö Tiib wrote
(in article<e0ad3bb6-6a50-4609...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:20:05 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals
> > (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to
> > imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection.
> > one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle
> > blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error
> > can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from
> > the book. Creation. facts of life.
>
> Perhaps before posting FAQ read the FAQ?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
>
> Why the creationist arguments are always so weakly put up?

they’re stupid and ignorant and proud of it

> Is the
> intended audience of those not scientists but the gullible laymen?

only of those who are as stupid and ignorant and proud of it as they are
themselves. Anyone who is intelligent might, just investigate even a
little... and shortly would no longer be ignorant. And would have a very low
opinion of creationists.

>
> Do they hope that science works on popular vote? Vote is not scientific
> method.

‘Democracy’ is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
(Ooooh... mutton. _Roast_ mutton. Yesss...)

[Maggsy]

the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology. do you?

[Maggsy]

so roughly translated you can't refute anything about what i wrote and post a link about something else.

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:

> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>
> This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.

yes there is,its called Irreducible complexity

[Maggsy]

uccessful firing of the bombardier beetle’s cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), enzymes, pressure tanks, and a whole series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time, chance, and natural selection. One crucial mistake, of course, and “boom!” the would-be bombardier beetle blows itself up, and there’s surely no evolutionary future in that! Trial and error can lead to improvement only if you survive the error!

[Maggsy]

so the assumption is that they exploded because of air,but as usual no evidence is given.

[Bill Rogers]

Yes, a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology. But so what?

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
> >
> > This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
>
>
>
> yes there is,its called Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is only a problem for evolution is none of the components of the system has independent usefulness. But, as shown in the links I provided, that is *not* the case for the components of the bombardier beetles defense system.

[RonO]

What a rube. Roughly translated I was just telling you the facts of
life. Your stupid beetle argument never amounted to anything decades
ago. The creationists that replaced the scientific creationists that
you got the lame beetle argument from don't even what to acknowledge
that the scientific creationists ever existed.

This is the list of top evidence for creationism at this time.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7PsjXfKQvsc/Qw1IMjGJCwAJ

It has been put up by the intelligent design creationists that have been
looking at the science for over 22 years over at the Discovery
Institute. The ID creationists are the ones that took over from the
scientific creationists when scientific creationism failed in the 1980s.

The above evidence is so lame that you don't have to wonder why the bait
and switch has to go down on any creationist rube that still thinks that
there is any creation science worth teaching in the public schools.
They don't call it creation science for the current political scam, but
this is all creationism has amounted to.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

Fact is that the rapid reaction happens because of catalases and
peroxidases. Copy-pasting same untruth over several times is not
discussion. What evidence? References were well given.

Aneshansley, Daniel J. & T. Eisner, 1969. Biochemistry at 100C: explosive secretory discharge of bombardier beetles (Brachinus). Science 165: 61-63.

Aneshansley, D.J., T.H. Jones, D. Alsop, J. Meinwald, & T. Eisner, 1983. Thermal concomitants and biochemistry of the explosive discharge mechanism of some little known bombardier beetles. Experientia 39: 366-368.

Eisner, Thomas, George E. Ball, Braden Roach, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Maria Eisner, Curtis L. Blankespoor, & Jerrold Meinwald, 1989. Chemical defense of an Ozaenine bombardier beetle from New Guinea. Psyche 96: 153-160.

[Bill]

Your bait and switch technique is to argue that, since
Creationism/ID is false, the ToE must be true. This is not
only a garbled abuse of logic, it exposes your false
assumption that nature is just a simple machine.

Bill

[RonO]

Why lie to yourself like this? Just because ID has been a bogus scam
since it started 22 years ago for the Discovery Institute ID perps
doesn't even mean that creationism is false. It just means that IDiocy
is a bogus creationist scam. You know for a fact that it is just a
stupid scam that creationists are running on themselves. No creationist
rubes have ever gotten the promised ID science. The bait and switch
goes down and all they ever get is a switch scam that doesn't even
mention that ID nor creationism ever existed. You know this because you
recently claimed not to be an IDiot anymore, but you are obviously still
a creationist.

Why lie about something like this? What you need is an actual argument.
Bending over for the obfuscation switch scam is just something to
perpetuate denial. It leads no where. Why would you take a stupid
switch scam from the guys that sold you the ID creationist scam?

If you were honest with yourself, you would know what to do. If you
were ever interested in the science instead of just looking for an
excuse to lie to yourself, you should be looking at your alternative and
evaluating just where science fits in. Where Science fits you can
actually do some science and determine the bits that can be
scientifically determined. You don't want to do this for the same
reason that the ID perps never attempted to accomplish any science. You
IDiots never wanted to know the scientific answers. Scientific
creationism taught you enough to know that the answers that you would
get were not the answers that you wanted.

I can't do anything about that reality. It is you that have to decide
when the time is right for you to be honest with yourself about this
situation.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

As I said, your interest isn't science, that's just your
bait. You then switch to condemnation of alternate views.
Your purpose is simply to promote your atheism and
irrelevant to everything else.

Bill

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 02, Maggsy wrote
(in article<b6901c41-11cb-4696...@googlegroups.com>):

you haven’t bothered to actually do any research, have you? If you had,
you’d know exactly how foolish you appear. As you haven’t, you really are
as foolish as you seem.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:02:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

You keep saying this, yet refuse to provide a name or a cite
to what you claim he/she/it wrote.

Why the reticence?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

Why lie about something this stupid. Your interest was never the
science or you would have applied science to your alternative by now. I
just tell you when the ID perps are lying about the science that does exist.

What alternate views have I condemned? A bait and switch scam? What
kind of alternate view is that. You have never put up your alternative
so how could I condemn it? That is how lost you are. All I have done
is point out what reality actually is. All the stupidity and dishonesty
becomes apparent. If that is condemning alternatives you just have a
guilty conscience.

All that I have promoted is good science. If you consider that to be
Atheism that is your problem, and tells you why you have been lying
about being interested in the science for decades. I'm not even an
atheist. I just don't have the same religious beliefs that you
obviously do and all I have to do is consistently demonstrate how bogus
your anti science views are. That doesn't make me an atheist. It makes
your arguments as bogus as they are. If you want that the change come
up with some honest rational arguments.

What does Behe and Denton tell you? They admit that biological
evolution is fact, they just don't put it in their books because they
have to sell the junk to the creationist rubes. What do you not get
about Denton's alternative that his intelligent designer got everything
going with the Big bang and it all unfolded, just as science has
determined it to have. He adds nothing to the science, he just accepts
it. Behe and Denton are not atheists. They are both theistic
evolutionists and there are obviously many kinds.

Lying to yourself about reality isn't going to accomplish anything.

When your arguments are bogus they are just bogus no matter what your
beliefs are.

Have I lied to you? Have I ever said anything that could not be checked
out and verified? Why am I the atheist and not the guys that you know
have lied to you about the ID science for decades? Isn't it sad that
the guy that has been telling you the truth all these years is the guy
that you consider to be the atheist? Do theists have to be dishonest?
Why didn't you ever check out the clergy that signed the clergy letter
project and came out against the intelligent design creationist scam
over a decade ago? They weren't atheists. Only the guys that you were
getting your information from were the dishonest ones. It doesn't mean
that all theists are that way.

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 02, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<ug162d1qfg4pun96i...@4ax.com>):

‘cause he’s lyin’ out his ass.

[jillery]

No bait-and-switch is needed to dismiss Creationism/ID, as both are
incoherent in practice.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:11:00 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So what kind of evidence are you looking for? Be specific.

[jillery]

I hope your mystery biologist here isn't the same one from your other
posts. He sounds like he got his doctorate from homeschool.

[jillery]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:59:34 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

He's another troll wannabe who hasn't learned that it's better to stay
silent and let everybody think you're a fool, than to speak up and
prove it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 16:43:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, I suspect we all know that. But making it
crystal-clear by his failure to provide any support is,
IMHO, a Good Thing (tm).

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:29:48 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>As I said, your interest isn't science, that's just your
>bait. You then switch to condemnation of alternate views.
>Your purpose is simply to promote your atheism and
>irrelevant to everything else.

Just a hint: When the discussion is about evolution, neither
ID nor any other form of creationism isn't an "alternate
view", any more that geocentrism is a "alternate view" of
cosmology or astronomy. It is simply, based on the available
evidence, wrong. Ron tends to be more militant in expressing
this than most, but based on the available evidence he's
right.

Of course, if you consider all beliefs to be equal
regardless of their demonstrated validity or "refuted"
status, you're perfectly at liberty to do so; just don't
expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Bill]

I said alternative views because the ToE is assumed to be
the only possible view so all others must be false. The
alternatives may have a religious content or implication but
others may also exist that don't. We'll never know because
these alternatives will never make through the gauntlet of
ridicule.

The ToE is one of those things that is a collection of
appearances that are believed to be actually real. Since we
believe that appearances are real, we only examine the
appearances, not the reality. These beliefs my be true but
we'll never know because we refuse to think about it.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

"Whaddya mean 'we,' white man?"

[Öö Tiib]

Evolution happens and has happened for billions of years. Genetics of
life-forms can be altered with various technologies. Lifeforms can
be created from non-alive materials. So you are free to believe
whatever views, delusions and scenarios you want to. Only that if you
want it to become science then you need to labor out evidence not
more daydreaming fantasies. However if you demand that products of
your reveries matter without any evidence then you will be ridiculed.

> The ToE is one of those things that is a collection of
> appearances that are believed to be actually real. Since we
> believe that appearances are real, we only examine the
> appearances, not the reality. These beliefs my be true but
> we'll never know because we refuse to think about it.

You are wrong and you know it. ToE is believed to be real because of
mountains of evidence collected by thousands of specialists. Repeating
same lies over and over does not make these true.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 03, Bill wrote
(in article <p01ttd$3no$1...@dont-email.me>):

> I said alternative views because the ToE is assumed to be
> the only possible view so all others must be false.

nope. TheToE is not _assumed_ to be the only possible view. It merely has
evidence to support it. So far the multiple alternatives proposed all have
two things in common: a lack of supporting evidence, and a religious basis.

If you have an alternative to the ToE _which has supporting evidence_, by all
means trot it, and the evidence, out. The evidence has to be pretty damn good
to take on the evidence supporting the ToE, which is pretty damn good.
Overturning the status quo in science can be done, if the evidence is there
to do it. It has been done; the Steady-State Theory is dead, for example, and
that’s just one of the theories in physics which have fallen by the
wayside. the ToE itself overturned the status quo in biology; there was a
time when serious biologists put up serious resistance to it, and not on a
religious basis. (Well, not _entirely_ on a religious basis, anyway.) Lots of
strange ideas have been seriously proposed, and seriously studied. Some of
them (polywater, n-rays, cold fusion, many more) have, in the light of
further data, been shown to not be what they were thought to be if they exist
at all and have been dismissed. Others (black holes, quasars, the existence
of the platypus) have withstood the test of time. Things may have changed
(quasars were briefly considered to be possible evidence for aliens,
platypuses were thought to be elaborate hoaxes) but in the light of further
data positions were... modified. (Platypuses really are egg-laying mammals,
and male platypuses really do have venomous spurs...)

If you have actual data, then people will listen. The problem creationists
have is that they don’t have data. They try to tear down the ToE instead of
trying to build up an actual alternative position. They, like you, assume
that the only alternatives are the ToE and their version of creationism, so
that if they pull down the ToE, all that’s left is their beliefs. Nope. It
doesn’t work that way. Even if the ToE were to be falsified tomorrow, the
alternative would not necessarily be creationism. One reason why creationists
in general fail to convince is that they simply fail to understand this.

[Bill]

The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
dimensional.

Bill

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 03, Bill wrote

(in article <p023jm$4rc$1...@dont-email.me>):

again... nope. See other post this thread.

[jillery]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:07:15 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
>possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
>because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
>true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>dimensional.

Let's try another variation:

Bill is right because everybody else is wrong.
Everbody else is wrong because Bill is right.
Since nobody else is correct, there's no reason to listen to them.
Therefore, Bill is correct.
This can't be circular because Bill says it isn't.

Works for me.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/12/17 7:18 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>

So you support the idea that God deliberately created evil. Good to
know. I assume, then, that you will also agree that God should be
universally condemned, not worshiped.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Öö Tiib]

You can't read? I wrote that ToE is true because of mountains of
evidence that conform with it. The alternatives have no evidence.
The best "evidence" of creationism are 3 big "we don't know"s:
1. We don't know the Origin of the Universe
2. We don't know the reason of Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. We don't know the Origin of Life
Rest of their evidence are small "we don't know"s, little gap
in evolution, lack of transitional fossil here or there and the like.
How can any "we don't know" be evidence of anything
else but our ignorance?

> Since no other alternatives can be
> true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
> the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
> dimensional.

Oh there are strong reasons to investigate all alternatives,
but the creationists do not want to investigate those.
They even avoid putting those forward clearly. They mostly
concentrate on bashing ToE. Why? Because they do
not want to gather evidence for their alternatives. They
do not want to do science. Science is expensive. Research
is expensive. They want to do politics. They want to live on
taxpayers money. However meanwhile ToE gets only
stronger and gaps in it get filled with more evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:30:02 -0600, the following appeared

That is not quite correct, as has been noted (and ignored)
repeatedly, by you and others.

The current ToE (it's science, y'know, and changes when
additional data is discovered) is the best current
explanation for *all* the known data, and makes predictions
(not about specific mutations/speciations; that would be
both impossible and dishonest) regarding possible future
directions given current and projected environmental
conditions.

> The
>alternatives may have a religious content or implication but
>others may also exist that don't. We'll never know because
>these alternatives will never make through the gauntlet of
>ridicule.

Saying "that contradicts what we currently know", or "that
violates known laws of science", or even (the usual) "you
have no evidence for that assertion", may be "ridicule" to
you; if so, that is your problem.

>The ToE is one of those things that is a collection of
>appearances that are believed to be actually real. Since we
>believe that appearances are real, we only examine the
>appearances, not the reality. These beliefs my be true but
>we'll never know because we refuse to think about it.

Aaaaannnnnd...we're off on the "subjectivity" bandwagon
again, with all its inherent contradictions regarding
"examining reality" when "it's all subjective".

Pardon me if I get off and wait for the Rational Bus.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:07:15 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

You have a remarkable facility for ignoring what you read in
favor of posting yet more false assertions; there is no way
what you claim can be derived from his post. But once more,
for those apparently unable to understand plain English
without multiple repetitions:

The ToE is currently assumed to be correct, as are *all*
current scientific theories, because there is massive
evidence from multiple fields in support, there is no
objective evidence which contradicts it, and it makes
testable predictions. IOW, it's *science", not "opinion",
and that's how science works.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:25:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

>On Monday, 4 December 2017 02:10:02 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

I'd add, "or even if that's a valid concept", since we have
exactly one example of "universe", and no data whatsoever
regarding the physical possibility of the existence of other
values for those allegedly "fine tuned".

>3. We don't know the Origin of Life
>Rest of their evidence are small "we don't know"s, little gap
>in evolution, lack of transitional fossil here or there and the like.
>How can any "we don't know" be evidence of anything
>else but our ignorance?
>
>> Since no other alternatives can be
>> true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>> the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>> dimensional.
>
>Oh there are strong reasons to investigate all alternatives,
>but the creationists do not want to investigate those.
>They even avoid putting those forward clearly. They mostly
>concentrate on bashing ToE. Why? Because they do
>not want to gather evidence for their alternatives. They
>do not want to do science. Science is expensive. Research
>is expensive. They want to do politics. They want to live on
>taxpayers money. However meanwhile ToE gets only
>stronger and gaps in it get filled with more evidence.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:50:05 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 18:07:15 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
>>possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
>>because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
>>true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>>the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>>dimensional.
>
>
>Let's try another variation:
>
>Bill is right because everybody else is wrong.
>Everbody else is wrong because Bill is right.
>Since nobody else is correct, there's no reason to listen to them.
>Therefore, Bill is correct.
>This can't be circular because Bill says it isn't.

Just a minor point...

One can easily substitute "jonathan", or "Ray", or any one
of a number of others (DrDr, anyone?) while preserving the
accuracy of the analogy.

>Works for me.

Me, too.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

...

>>
>>I said alternative views because the ToE is assumed to be
>>the only possible view so all others must be false.
>
> That is not quite correct, as has been noted (and ignored)
> repeatedly, by you and others.
>
> The current ToE (it's science, y'know, and changes when
> additional data is discovered) is the best current
> explanation for *all* the known data, and makes
> predictions (not about specific mutations/speciations;
> that would be both impossible and dishonest) regarding
> possible future directions given current and projected
> environmental conditions.

This is really not very persuasive. The ToE is, as I pointed
out, the default view and excludes all others. This means
that other views are not examined but are simply ignored.

We know, as you explain above, the ToE , "is the best
current explanation for *all* the known data". What is not
known (or acknowledged) is that all data is explained in the
context of the ToE, no other explanations are considered.
This pretty much rigs all investigations to fit the only
explanation allowed (the ToE). This certainly appears
dogmatic.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

Yes, I meant we don't know why ordinary energy and matter (5% of
universe) has properties suitable for building persistent complex
automata of various sorts. Regardless how to call it ... it remains
merely something what we do not know, like we do not know if, how
and for what the rest 95% is "fine tuned".

[Öö Tiib]

You skew facts. ToE is the only known explanation to the data about
history of our biodiversity. Every other explanation of that data has
not been rejected. Every other explanation is MISSING! It has been
never put up.

Cdesign Proponentsists NEVER publish alternative scientific explanations
how it was, how it supposedly happened. They even dodge those
questions like a hell. They write books full of scienticy woo about
irreducible complexity of flagellum, specified complexity of pocket
watch, unknowability of origins of universe, beauty of reproduction
mechanics and appearancies of design there. After that dim crap they
nitpick about some little gap of evidence of ToE and thats it, done!

No explanations ... nothing ... just woooo. For example this whole
thread here is what Mark Isaak already answered in detail 20 years ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html So ... that IS
explanation. Where is alternative? Maggsy copy-pasted 3 lines from
somewhere that "can't be it evolved". That IS NOT alternative
explanation of origins of bombardier beetle.

That is the bait and switch what Ron Okimoto complains about from
day to day.

[jillery]

Specify a conjecture you believe explains the evidence at least as
well as ToE. Otherwise your objection above is just mindless noise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:25:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

Actually, that's not correct. Two major explanations, ID and
Special Creation, have been proposed. The problem for both
was a lack of objective evidence.

>Cdesign Proponentsists NEVER publish alternative scientific explanations

OK, my error; by "explanation" I didn't know you meant
"scientific explanation", a different, and far more
restrictive, thing entirely.

>how it was, how it supposedly happened. They even dodge those
>questions like a hell. They write books full of scienticy woo about
>irreducible complexity of flagellum, specified complexity of pocket
>watch, unknowability of origins of universe, beauty of reproduction
>mechanics and appearancies of design there. After that dim crap they
>nitpick about some little gap of evidence of ToE and thats it, done!
>
>No explanations ... nothing ... just woooo. For example this whole
>thread here is what Mark Isaak already answered in detail 20 years ago:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html So ... that IS
>explanation. Where is alternative? Maggsy copy-pasted 3 lines from
>somewhere that "can't be it evolved". That IS NOT alternative
>explanation of origins of bombardier beetle.
>
>That is the bait and switch what Ron Okimoto complains about from
>day to day.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:53:23 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>
>>>I said alternative views because the ToE is assumed to be
>>>the only possible view so all others must be false.
>>
>> That is not quite correct, as has been noted (and ignored)
>> repeatedly, by you and others.
>>
>> The current ToE (it's science, y'know, and changes when
>> additional data is discovered) is the best current
>> explanation for *all* the known data, and makes
>> predictions (not about specific mutations/speciations;
>> that would be both impossible and dishonest) regarding
>> possible future directions given current and projected
>> environmental conditions.
>
>This is really not very persuasive.

Frankly, I really don't care if you find it unpersuasive,
whether you're serious or not. It is what it is, and has
been since science became a different process from the
primitive thought experiments of "natural philosophy".

> The ToE is, as I pointed
>out, the default view and excludes all others. This means
>that other views are not examined but are simply ignored.

They have been examined (ID and Special Creation, for the
two most famous), and have been found to have no objective
evidence in support. It doesn't get clearer than that.

>We know, as you explain above, the ToE , "is the best
>current explanation for *all* the known data". What is not
>known (or acknowledged) is that all data is explained in the
>context of the ToE, no other explanations are considered.

Competing explanations *require* competing *objective*
evidence. So far, there is none. Speculation regarding
possible alternatives doesn't count as "evidence".

>This pretty much rigs all investigations to fit the only
>explanation allowed (the ToE). This certainly appears
>dogmatic.

That's because you understand neither the process used by
science nor the meaning of "objective evidence", and think
any even semi-rational opinion, with or without supporting
evidence, should be on equal footing. It shouldn't.

Science will *always* consider objective evidence. That's
how progress is made and deficient theories, no matter how
well-supported or well-regarded, become "former theories".

[Ernest Major]

On 02/12/2017 20:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:02:53 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:

>>> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
>>>> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>>>

>>> This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
>>>
>>> From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)
>>>
>>> "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus
> , which
>> produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"
>>>
>>> If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review
>>>
>>> You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.
>>
>> the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology. do you?
>
> You keep saying this, yet refuse to provide a name or a cite
> to what you claim he/she/it wrote.
>
> Why the reticence?
>

The assertion that bombardier beetles could not have evolved is
associated with Duane Gish, who WikiPedia informs me had a biochemistry
Ph.D.

https://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

It appears that Creationism/ID are cited as the only
"theories" competing with the ToE because they are easy to
refute. Since many here are atheists for whom all non-
naturalistic explanations are false, all objections to the
ToE will be automatically false.

There is a theory that the universe is a hologram which
makes nature as we know it, impossible. There is another
theory that the universe is a computer simulation and that
means, non-natural. Then there's my current favorite: the
existence of observers creates what is observed. Human
perception and intelligence creates human reality.

The ToE may be "true" in the sense that it doesn't matter;
reality doesn't care what we think about it so no harm done
by our theories.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

One way is to investigate how it actually works. Other way is to dream
how you want it to be. One way leads to better understanding and control
over it. Other way leads to being scammed by self-deception. Choice is
yours.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Several other posters have shown, in detail, that you are incorrect here. You seem to just ignore them.

This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that you know you are wrong, and that you cannot defend your position, and that you know that you cannot defend your position.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position with more than empty word salad. Perhaps you might make the attempt some time before the heat death of the universe?

[Bill]

The only thing said about my position is that it's wrong. No
one has cited anything about why it''s wrong. What do you
believe my position is? What's wrong with it, specifically?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:13:21 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

OK; thanks (one wonders if Maggsy knew that...).

A pity; it seems not only math has its share of credentialed
incompetents.

[jillery]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:05:46 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>> wrote:

Of course, your comment above is just another lie.

>What do you believe my position is?

Since you asked, your *stated* position, preserved in the quoted text
above, is that other posters argue that Evolution is true because all
other possibilities are false. I have no reason to doubt that is your
actual position. Right here would be a good place to confirm or deny.

>What's wrong with it, specifically?

Since you asked, as I and others have pointed out many times, that is
not what other posters argue. Instead, that's just your mangled
misrepresentation of what they post.

There is strong evidence for Evolution, independent of the veracity of
other explanations. If you had an alternative to Evolution which you
thought explained the diversity of life on Earth at least as well, you
would have posted it by now.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:28:11 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northe...@outlook.com>:

>On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

It's an ongoing process for him: Assert, be refuted, go away
for a while, come back, re-assert the same as before.
Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

>This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that you know you are wrong, and that you cannot defend your position, and that you know that you cannot defend your position.
>
>Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position with more than empty word salad. Perhaps you might make the attempt some time before the heat death of the universe?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:50:37 -0600, the following appeared

You are free to provide alternative conjectures. Do it here:

> Since many here are atheists for whom all non-
>naturalistic explanations are false, all objections to the
>ToE will be automatically false.

So "easy to refute", to you, means...what? "Anything which
isn't the ToE"? OK, I can live with that, since history
shows it to be correct; they *were* relatively easy to
refute, since there was no evidence supporting them, which
is all that's required.

>There is a theory that the universe is a hologram which
>makes nature as we know it, impossible.

Evidence? No? Pity...

> There is another
>theory that the universe is a computer simulation and that
>means, non-natural.

Evidence? No? Pity...

> Then there's my current favorite: the
>existence of observers creates what is observed. Human
>perception and intelligence creates human reality.

Evidence? No? Pity...

>The ToE may be "true" in the sense that it doesn't matter;
>reality doesn't care what we think about it so no harm done
>by our theories.

....or it may be the best explanation for the data, supported
by massive amounts of objective evidence, contradicted by
none, and with no alternatives supported by objective
evidence at all. Gee, I wonder what we should accept as the
best explanation?

We seem to be in a rut. You reiterate that you think that
any conjecture without objective evidence in support should
be treated as a viable alternative to existing
well-supported theory; the "open mind until brains fall out"
approach to research. I happen to disagree, as does any
competent researcher.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:28:11 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris
> Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>:
>
>>On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>>wrote:

Was I refuted? Your post here doesn't refute anything, just
like the others. Merely claiming to have made a point is
insufficient to make it. What do believe has been refuted
and by what argument?

Bill

[Bill]

The theories mentioned above have evidence or they would not
have been proposed in the first place. The problem is that
they either ignore the ToE or render it irrelevant. To the
True Believers in the ToE, this is impossible and therefore
these alternate theories must be false.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

You can have idea how you would like that someone proposed several
scientific theories that conform with evidence that we have and
contradict with ToE. So therefore you can indeed say that "there
are theories" and those "have evidence" in your idea. In reality
you can't give evidence of any of those theories.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 06/12/2017 21:06, Öö Tiib wrote:
> You can have idea how you would like that someone proposed several
> scientific theories that conform with evidence that we have and
> contradict with ToE. So therefore you can indeed say that "there
> are theories" and those "have evidence" in your idea. In reality
> you can't give evidence of any of those theories.

I think I've seen one of them (the holographic universe one) at least in
a pop science magazine. Also the computational universe one, I think,
though I think that one was described as more speculative. The last one
I don't remember seeing; it sounded more philosophy than science anyway
(I can't imagine what evidence there might be for or against it).

None of them seemed particularly relevant to ToE.

[Bill]

The discussion was that the ToE is the only possible
explanation for the way living things develop. I have merely
cited other possible explanations. Since the ToE is alleged
to be the only correct explanation, all others are
necessarily false. I have shown that alternatives exist so
that the ToE is just one one explanation among others.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/6/17 9:28 AM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

>>> [...]

>> The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
>> possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
>> because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
>> true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>> the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>> dimensional.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Several other posters have shown, in detail, that you are incorrect here. You seem to just ignore them.
>
> This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that you know you are wrong, and that you cannot defend your position, and that you know that you cannot defend your position.
>
> Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position with more than empty word salad. Perhaps you might make the attempt some time before the heat death of the universe?

For Bill's position to be wrong, he must first have a position, which he
does not. He has, instead, a resolute absence of position. And he
fiercely defends this lack of position by refusing to show anything
about anything.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Öö Tiib]

Yes, you have claimed that these vague hypotheses somehow contradict
with ToE. Where did you cite that? It was like claiming that flat
earth cosmology, astrology and numerology are 3 alternative
explanations for the way how species did develop.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 07/12/2017 01:43, Bill wrote:
> The discussion was that the ToE is the only possible
> explanation for the way living things develop. I have merely
> cited other possible explanations.

But those don't say much about the development of living things, do they?

The first two look like ways of getting the same physical laws we think
we have now (with, presumably, some exceptions or they'd be no point at
all). But even if they're true, ToE would still be correct. Nothing in
ToE says that it doesn't work in computational universes, for example
(indeed, that's a thriving way of solving optimization problems).

The last one sounded like your solipsist position that there is no
external reality apart from our observations of it. Maybe someone's
presented some form of that as an actual theory but without seeing
something a bit more concrete it's hard to see how that says anything at
all useful in trying to interpret observations.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You have said, and I quote:

"The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
dimensional."

This is not correct. Numerous other posters have pointed this out, in detail.
An example is:

">The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
>possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
>because the ToE is true.

You can't read? I wrote that ToE is true because of mountains of
evidence that conform with it. The alternatives have no evidence.
The best "evidence" of creationism are 3 big "we don't know"s:
1. We don't know the Origin of the Universe
2. We don't know the reason of Fine-Tuning of the Universe

3. We don't know the Origin of Life
Rest of their evidence are small "we don't know"s, little gap
in evolution, lack of transitional fossil here or there and the like.
How can any "we don't know" be evidence of anything
else but our ignorance?

>Since no other alternatives can be
>true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>dimensional.

Oh there are strong reasons to investigate all alternatives,
but the creationists do not want to investigate those.
They even avoid putting those forward clearly. They mostly
concentrate on bashing ToE. Why? Because they do
not want to gather evidence for their alternatives. They
do not want to do science. Science is expensive. Research
is expensive. They want to do politics. They want to live on
taxpayers money. However meanwhile ToE gets only
stronger and gaps in it get filled with more evidence."

Your statement that no-one has cited anything wrong with your position is, frankly, an out-and-out lie. You are attempting to evade the point. I strongly suspect that you know very well that you cannot defend your position and thus must resort to absurd, transparent, ineffective, evasions and lies.

I trust that this is now sufficiently clear for you.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 06, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <p0a7sg$a49$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 12/6/17 9:28 AM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
> > > possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
> > > because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
> > > true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
> > > the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
> > > dimensional.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > Several other posters have shown, in detail, that you are incorrect here.
> > You seem to just ignore them.
> >
> > This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that you know you are
> > wrong, and that you cannot defend your position, and that you know that you
> > cannot defend your position.
> >
> > Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position with more than
> > empty word salad. Perhaps you might make the attempt some time before the
> > heat death of the universe?
>
> For Bill's position to be wrong, he must first have a position, which he
> does not. He has, instead, a resolute absence of position. And he
> fiercely defends this lack of position by refusing to show anything
> about anything.

so... Bill (not Bill Rogers) is a know-nothing? I kinda thought so. He’s
certainly given no indication of knowing anything or of even trying to learn
anything.

[jillery]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:27:59 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Worse, he seems to be proud of it.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 8:20:05 AM UTC-7, Maggsy wrote:
> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:05:46 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>> wrote:

That was explained in detail; one such explanation is even
still visible above. Either you're genuinely clueless and
don't understand plain English, or you think everyone else
is and doesn't. Which?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:42:17 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:28:11 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Panthera Tigris
>> Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>:
>>
>>>On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>>>wrote:

>>>Several other posters have shown, in detail, that you are
>>>incorrect here. You seem to just ignore them.
>>
>> It's an ongoing process for him: Assert, be refuted, go
>> away for a while, come back, re-assert the same as before.
>> Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
>>
>>>This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that
>>>you know you are wrong, and that you cannot defend your
>>>position, and that you know that you cannot defend your
>>>position.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position
>>>with more than empty word salad. Perhaps you might make
>>>the attempt some time before the heat death of the
>>>universe?
>
>Was I refuted? Your post here doesn't refute anything, just
>like the others. Merely claiming to have made a point is
>insufficient to make it. What do believe has been refuted
>and by what argument?

Assuming this was intended to be a response to me, not to
PTA, your assertion that "ToE is true because all other

possibilities are false. These alternatives are false

because the ToE is true" (IOW, a circular argument) was
refuted by a simple listing of the reasons why the ToE, and
not other "alternatives", is accepted as correct. Once more,
*only the ToE has a significant amount (actually, a
*massive* amount, in multiple fields) of evidence in
support*; no other conjecture even comes close, and in most
cases (ID and Creationism being the two most prominent)
there is literally *no* objective evidence at all. And you,
and others have been shown much of the evidence, but
continue to whine that it doesn't exist, while providing
exactly *zero* evidentiary support for any alleged
"alternatives".

So yes, you've been refuted. Many times. The question is,
are you going to continue to claim you haven't, which would
change cluelessness to prevarication? The choice is yours.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:48:37 -0600, the following appeared

Nope; sorry; they were proposed because of religious
beliefs. That lizardmen run the world is also a "theory",
one with as much objective support as ID or Creationism. Is
it your honest contention that, since someone thought it up,
it is by that token true, or worthy of serious
investigation? If so, you have my sympathy.

And if you think *objective* evidence exists for either of
them (or for that matter, for lizardmen), post it, or a cite
to it. Remember, *objective* evidence, not some page of
conjectures, or quotes from religious texts.

> The problem is that
>they either ignore the ToE or render it irrelevant. To the
>True Believers in the ToE, this is impossible and therefore
>these alternate theories must be false.

Wrong. *OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE*.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:43:31 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bruce Stephens wrote:

>
>> On 06/12/2017 21:06, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>>> You can have idea how you would like that someone
>>> proposed several scientific theories that conform with
>>> evidence that we have and contradict with ToE. So
>>> therefore you can indeed say that "there are theories"
>>> and those "have evidence" in your idea. In reality you
>>> can't give evidence of any of those theories.
>>
>> I think I've seen one of them (the holographic universe
>> one) at least in a pop science magazine. Also the
>> computational universe one, I think, though I think that
>> one was described as more speculative. The last one I
>> don't remember seeing; it sounded more philosophy than
>> science anyway (I can't imagine what evidence there might
>> be for or against it).
>>
>> None of them seemed particularly relevant to ToE.
>
>The discussion was that the ToE is the only possible
>explanation for the way living things develop.

Not quite; stop trying to spin. The discussion was about the
fact that only the ToE has objective evidence in support.

> I have merely
>cited other possible explanations.

As noted, conjectures without support are a dime a dozen.
And worth even less.

> Since the ToE is alleged
>to be the only correct explanation, all others are
>necessarily false.

Nope. It's the only one with evidentiary support.

> I have shown that alternatives exist so
>that the ToE is just one one explanation among others.

Of course alternatives exist; no one has claimed otherwise.
Flar Earth is an alternative to our current knowledge, as is
Hollow Earth. And geocentrism. And they have as much
objective evidence in support as do ID or Creationism -
zero.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:09:19 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 12/6/17 9:28 AM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
>>> possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
>>> because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
>>> true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
>>> the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
>>> dimensional.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Several other posters have shown, in detail, that you are incorrect here. You seem to just ignore them.
>>
>> This leads to the suspicion that you are wrong, and that you know you are wrong, and that you cannot defend your position, and that you know that you cannot defend your position.
>>
>> Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend your position with more than empty word salad. Perhaps you might make the attempt some time before the heat death of the universe?
>
>For Bill's position to be wrong, he must first have a position, which he
>does not. He has, instead, a resolute absence of position. And he
>fiercely defends this lack of position by refusing to show anything
>about anything.

He has a position; he's stated it repeatedly:

[Paraphrased, but accurate] "Objective evidence is
irrelevant, and any conjecture is as valid as any other."

Pretty simple, in *both* senses.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:05:46 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>>> wrote:

The English used by posters here contains only declarative
sentences making nuance incomprehensible to them. All is
either black or white which ensures simplistic explanations.

I offered no position above, I merely commented on the
impossibility of any sensible explanation for any
alternative to the ToE. I've been told there are none but
the only evidence is that no one believes them. This is not
a position, it's an observation.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

You said that the ToE has been considered true because of
impressions. That is disinformation since ToE is considered true
because of mountains of evidence from various sides with what it
conforms and none evidence with what it contradicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Yes, it is very hard to confront something so sure and so rejection
of it is usually simplistic and groundless like yours.

>
> I offered no position above, I merely commented on the
> impossibility of any sensible explanation for any
> alternative to the ToE. I've been told there are none but
> the only evidence is that no one believes them. This is not
> a position, it's an observation.

Where are the alternatives to believe? How can we believe your
simplistic assertions without any citation? For example how the
hypothesis that our reality is computer simulation is supposed to
be alternative explanation to ToE? Common knowledge is that the use
of evolutionary principles for automated problem solving originated
already in the 1950s on very primitive computers of that time.
Evolution works well in computer simulations. Therefore if universe
is somehow simulated and if ToE is true seem totally orthogonal and
unrelated questions.

[Bill]

Öö Tiib wrote:

...

You admit an alternative exists yet are unable to see how it
might affect the ToE. Science is based on the assumption
(probably beyond proof) that nature fully explains itself;
no other input is necessary. If the universe is not natural
in the conventional sense then we need a new explanation.
What we call nature may just be very fleeting configuration
of space, a tiny spark without significance.


In this (and other) hypothesis nature doesn't exist in any
absolute way, it only appears real to those able to perceive
it. We have no way to know so our speculations are harmless.

> Common knowledge is that the use of evolutionary
> principles for automated problem solving originated
> already in the 1950s on very primitive computers of that
> time. Evolution works well in computer simulations.
> Therefore if universe is somehow simulated and if ToE is
> true seem totally orthogonal and unrelated questions.

We don't know what is real, only what we perceive so the
utility of the ToE is to employ those who perceive it as
real. Humans got along for about 250,000 years without our
theories so we know that they aren't essential to our
survival. Our very cool technological gadgets are
fascinating entertainment but, obviously, not an
evolutionary necessity.

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:22:04 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:05:46 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>>>> wrote:

To be accurate, it's an illusion. You share that confusion with Ray
Martinez.

[Öö Tiib]

Yes I am not psychic or omnipotent and so am unable to see and
to evaluate thoughts not said out and theories not proposed.
You mean that computer simulation is somehow not natural in the
conventional sense? We sure seem tiny spark in our universe
but there is still hope that we can make some significance.

> In this (and other) hypothesis nature doesn't exist in any
> absolute way, it only appears real to those able to perceive
> it. We have no way to know so our speculations are harmless.

That I do not understand. Computer simulation is real for me.
The data it takes is real, the instructions of code are real
and the rules these express are also real.

> > Common knowledge is that the use of evolutionary
> > principles for automated problem solving originated
> > already in the 1950s on very primitive computers of that
> > time. Evolution works well in computer simulations.
> > Therefore if universe is somehow simulated and if ToE is
> > true seem totally orthogonal and unrelated questions.
>
> We don't know what is real, only what we perceive so the
> utility of the ToE is to employ those who perceive it as
> real. Humans got along for about 250,000 years without our
> theories so we know that they aren't essential to our
> survival. Our very cool technological gadgets are
> fascinating entertainment but, obviously, not an
> evolutionary necessity.

Perhaps we were too simple hippies most of that time. However
in collective even tiny advantage in intelligence of only one member
can help to beat prepotency of strength of muscles of opposing group.
Perhaps evolution was searching for such lucky mutations that gave
such slight mental advantages most of those 250,000 years.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

It appears that Bill declines to reply to this.

I think that I know the reason why.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:22:04 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:05:46 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-5, Bill
>>>> wrote:

This was your stated position; it's still visible above:

"The logic is plain: the ToE is true because all other
possibilities are false. These alternatives are false
because the ToE is true. Since no other alternatives can be
true, there's no reason for investigating them. Therefore,
the ToE is true. This can't be circular because it is one-
dimensional."

It was explained why this position was incorrect, and why
the ToE is accepted, in detail. This is also still visible
above.

So again, either you're genuinely clueless and don't

understand plain English, or you think everyone else is and
doesn't. Which?

[Bill]

Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

...

>> >Since no other alternatives can be
>> >true, there's no reason for investigating them.
>> >Therefore, the ToE is true. This can't be circular
>> >because it is one- dimensional.
>>
>> Oh there are strong reasons to investigate all
>> alternatives, but the creationists do not want to
>> investigate those. They even avoid putting those forward
>> clearly. They mostly concentrate on bashing ToE.

This the most oft repeated dodge in this newsgroup and
exactly matches what I've been saying. Since alternate
explanations exist for the development of life and the ToE
is the only one accepted, these alternatives must be false.
The logic is clear.

To avoid considering any of these alternatives, they are
simply dismissed as some variation of Creationism as you've
done above. Ironically the people making this making this
mistake believe themselves to be more intelligent, better
educated are more rational.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Then go ahead and pick your favorite alternative to the TOE. Give the evidence in its favor. Show how it makes different predictions from the TOE and how those predictions have been borne out. Show how your alternative accounts for all the evidence that is claimed to support the TOE and then explains additional observations.

[earle]

*
That's asking for a lot.

I would settle for just a simple list of the alternatives.

Thanks,

earle
*

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 08, earle wrote
(in article<2017120818083150831-earlejones@comcastnet>):

You won’t even get that.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:25:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:

> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
> > >

> > > This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
> >
> >
> >
> > yes there is,its called Irreducible complexity
>
> Irreducible complexity is only a problem for evolution is none of the components of the system has independent usefulness. But, as shown in the links I provided, that is *not* the case for the components of the bombardier beetles defense system.
>

you have not addressed the central point.
Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!https://creation.com/the-amazing-bombardier-beetle

> >
> > >
> > > From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)
> > >
> > > "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus, which produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"
> > >
> > > If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.
> > >
> > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review
> > >
> > > You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 20:00:03 UTC, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Dec 02, Maggsy wrote
> (in article<b6901c41-11cb-4696...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 18:35:02 UTC, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 2017 Nov 12, Öö Tiib wrote
> > > (in article<e0ad3bb6-6a50-4609...@googlegroups.com>):

> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:20:05 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> > > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two
> > > > > chemicals
> > > > > (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to
> > > > > imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection.
> > > > > one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle
> > > > > blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and
> > > > > error
> > > > > can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from
> > > > > the book. Creation. facts of life.
> > > >

> > > > Perhaps before posting FAQ read the FAQ?
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
> > > >
> > > > Why the creationist arguments are always so weakly put up?
> > >
> > > they’re stupid and ignorant and proud of it
> > >
> > > > Is the
> > > > intended audience of those not scientists but the gullible laymen?
> > >
> > > only of those who are as stupid and ignorant and proud of it as they are
> > > themselves. Anyone who is intelligent might, just investigate even a
> > > little... and shortly would no longer be ignorant. And would have a very low
> > > opinion of creationists.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do they hope that science works on popular vote? Vote is not scientific
> > > > method.
> > >
> > > ‘Democracy’ is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
> > > (Ooooh... mutton. _Roast_ mutton. Yesss...)
> >
> > uccessful firing of the bombardier beetle’s cannon requires two chemicals
> > (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), enzymes, pressure tanks, and a whole
> > series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. Try to imagine
> > all those parts accumulating by time, chance, and natural selection. One
> > crucial mistake, of course, and “boom!” the would-be bombardier beetle
> > blows itself up, and there’s surely no evolutionary future in that! Trial
> > and error can lead to improvement only if you survive the error!
>
> you haven’t bothered to actually do any research, have you? If you had,
> you’d know exactly how foolish you appear. As you haven’t, you really are
> as foolish as you seem.

i don't feed trolls.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 20:05:02 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:02:53 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:

> >> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> >> > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
> >>

> >> This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
> >>

> >> From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)
> >>
> >> "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus
> , which
> >produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"
> >>
> >> If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review
> >>
> >> You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.
> >

> >the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology. do you?
>
> You keep saying this, yet refuse to provide a name or a cite
> to what you claim he/she/it wrote.
>
> Why the reticence?

> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

keep saying what? you edited the original post.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 17:00:03 UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 17:15:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:45:05 UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:

> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:20:05 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
> > >

> > > Perhaps before posting FAQ read the FAQ?
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
> > >

> > > Why the creationist arguments are always so weakly put up? Is the

> > > intended audience of those not scientists but the gullible laymen?

> > > Do they hope that science works on popular vote? Vote is not scientific
> > > method.
> >

> > so the assumption is that they exploded because of air,but as usual
> > no evidence is given.
>
> Fact is that the rapid reaction happens because of catalases and
> peroxidases.

where is your evidence for this assertion?


Copy-pasting same untruth over several times is not
> discussion.


yes it is,saying its not is not evidence.


What evidence? References were well given.

where,the central point has not even been dealt with as usual.


>
> Aneshansley, Daniel J. & T. Eisner, 1969. Biochemistry at 100C: explosive secretory discharge of bombardier beetles (Brachinus). Science 165: 61-63.
>
> Aneshansley, D.J., T.H. Jones, D. Alsop, J. Meinwald, & T. Eisner, 1983. Thermal concomitants and biochemistry of the explosive discharge mechanism of some little known bombardier beetles. Experientia 39: 366-368.
>
> Eisner, Thomas, George E. Ball, Braden Roach, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Maria Eisner, Curtis L. Blankespoor, & Jerrold Meinwald, 1989. Chemical defense of an Ozaenine bombardier beetle from New Guinea. Psyche 96: 153-160.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 20:10:02 UTC, Ron O wrote:

> On 12/2/2017 1:29 PM, Bill wrote:
> > RonO wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/2/2017 11:25 AM, Bill wrote:
> >>> RonO wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/2/2017 9:00 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 15:30:05 UTC, Ron O wrote:

> >>>>>> On 11/12/2017 9:18 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> >>>>>>> Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon
> >>>>>>> requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and
> >>>>>>> hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine
> >>>>>>> all those parts accumulating by time,chane and
> >>>>>>> natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse
> >>>>>>> boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up
> >>>>>>> and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and
> >>>>>>> error can lead to improvment only if you survive the
> >>>>>>> error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts
> >>>>>>> of life.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>

> >> Ron Okimoto

> >
> > As I said, your interest isn't science, that's just your
> > bait. You then switch to condemnation of alternate views.
> > Your purpose is simply to promote your atheism and
> > irrelevant to everything else.
> >

> > Bill
>
> Why lie about something this stupid. Your interest was never the
> science or you would have applied science to your alternative by now. I
> just tell you when the ID perps are lying about the science that does exist.
>
> What alternate views have I condemned? A bait and switch scam? What
> kind of alternate view is that. You have never put up your alternative
> so how could I condemn it? That is how lost you are. All I have done
> is point out what reality actually is. All the stupidity and dishonesty
> becomes apparent. If that is condemning alternatives you just have a
> guilty conscience.
>
> All that I have promoted is good science. If you consider that to be
> Atheism that is your problem, and tells you why you have been lying
> about being interested in the science for decades. I'm not even an
> atheist. I just don't have the same religious beliefs that you
> obviously do and all I have to do is consistently demonstrate how bogus
> your anti science views are. That doesn't make me an atheist. It makes
> your arguments as bogus as they are. If you want that the change come
> up with some honest rational arguments.
>
> What does Behe and Denton tell you? They admit that biological
> evolution is fact, they just don't put it in their books because they
> have to sell the junk to the creationist rubes.


source please?


What do you not get
> about Denton's alternative that his intelligent designer got everything
> going with the Big bang and it all unfolded, just as science has
> determined it to have. He adds nothing to the science, he just accepts
> it. Behe and Denton are not atheists. They are both theistic
> evolutionists and there are obviously many kinds.
>
> Lying to yourself about reality isn't going to accomplish anything.



you broke my irony meter,again.



>
> When your arguments are bogus they are just bogus no matter what your
> beliefs are.
>
> Have I lied to you? Have I ever said anything that could not be checked
> out and verified? Why am I the atheist and not the guys that you know
> have lied to you about the ID science for decades? Isn't it sad that
> the guy that has been telling you the truth all these years is the guy
> that you consider to be the atheist? Do theists have to be dishonest?
> Why didn't you ever check out the clergy that signed the clergy letter
> project and came out against the intelligent design creationist scam
> over a decade ago? They weren't atheists. Only the guys that you were
> getting your information from were the dishonest ones. It doesn't mean
> that all theists are that way.
>
> Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

So what is wrong with these articles? Do not these describe the
mechanism? What other "evidence" you are looking for? What "point"
these do not deal with?

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 8:10:06 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:25:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> > > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
> > > >
> > > > This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > yes there is,its called Irreducible complexity
> >
> > Irreducible complexity is only a problem for evolution is none of the components of the system has independent usefulness. But, as shown in the links I provided, that is *not* the case for the components of the bombardier beetles defense system.
> >
>
> you have not addressed the central point.
> Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!https://creation.com/the-amazing-bombardier-beetle

Common sense tells you many things, that a heavier than air contraption could never fly, that time goes at the same rate for everyone, no matter how fast they are moving, that with fine enough instruments you could measure the position and speed of a particle to arbitrary precision, that a foam composed entirely of liquid and gas will behave like a fluid. And yet all of those things your common sense tells you are wrong.

You haven't addressed the central point, which is that each component of the bombardier beetle's defense system has independent utility. There is absolutely no reason why the full system could not have evolved by incremental changes. No matter how hard you find it to believe.

[jillery]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:09:08 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 15:25:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
>> > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>> > >
>> > > This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > yes there is,its called Irreducible complexity
>>
>> Irreducible complexity is only a problem for evolution is none of the components of the system has independent usefulness. But, as shown in the links I provided, that is *not* the case for the components of the bombardier beetles defense system.
>>
>
>you have not addressed the central point.
>Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!https://creation.com/the-amazing-bombardier-beetle

Your argument above assumes 1) that the only configuration which would
provide benefit is the bombardier defense system as it currently
exists, and 2) the separate parts couldn't provide benefits
independent of their use in a bombardier defense system.

Bill Rogers' cites show that both of your assumptions are not only
false, but contrary to common sense.

>> > > From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)
>> > >
>> > > "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contra
ctus,
>which produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"
>> > >
>> > > If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.
>> > >
>> > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review
>> > >
>> > > You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.
>

[jillery]

Since you asked, and to refresh your convenient amnesia:

"the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology"

You're welcome.

>you edited the original post.

AFAICT Bob Casanovoa didn't edit the post to which he replied,
certainly not enough for you to convincingly claim you can't recognize
your failure to identify your authorities.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

No, he didn't.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 8:15:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:

Translated: you have no answer.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 7:55:05 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

> Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> >Since no other alternatives can be
> >> >true, there's no reason for investigating them.
> >> >Therefore, the ToE is true. This can't be circular
> >> >because it is one- dimensional.
> >>
> >> Oh there are strong reasons to investigate all
> >> alternatives, but the creationists do not want to
> >> investigate those. They even avoid putting those forward
> >> clearly. They mostly concentrate on bashing ToE.
>
> This the most oft repeated dodge in this newsgroup and
> exactly matches what I've been saying.

No. it does not. And it is not a 'dodge'. You have failed to address the point, repeatedly. You are still not addressing the point. I am quite convinced that you will never, ever, address the point.

> Since alternate
> explanations exist for the development of life and the ToE
> is the only one accepted, these alternatives must be false.

Multiple posters have pointed out that the reason why the ToE is accepted is because it has data to support it. Multiple posters have requested that you provide an alternative which also has data to support it. You have refused to do so.

> The logic is clear.

It is quite clear that you are, in the vernacular, a lyin' mofo.

>
> To avoid considering any of these alternatives, they are
> simply dismissed as some variation of Creationism as you've
> done above.

Provide some data to support some alternative. Many posters have made this request. You have never even attempted to comply.

> Ironically the people making this making this
> mistake believe themselves to be more intelligent, better
> educated are more rational.
>

Certainly more honest than you are.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:13:04 -0800 (PST), the following

>keep saying what?

That your information comes from "someone who has a
doctorate in biology"; it's still right there above.

>you edited the original post.

Nope.

Name. Cite. Now.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:12:17 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

Trolls don't feed trolls? Why not?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:11:08 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 17:00:03 UTC, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 17:15:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:

>> > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:45:05 UTC, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:20:05 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
>> > > > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps before posting FAQ read the FAQ?
>> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
>> > >
>> > > Why the creationist arguments are always so weakly put up? Is the
>> > > intended audience of those not scientists but the gullible laymen?
>> > > Do they hope that science works on popular vote? Vote is not scientific
>> > > method.
>> >
>> > so the assumption is that they exploded because of air,but as usual
>> > no evidence is given.
>>
>> Fact is that the rapid reaction happens because of catalases and
>> peroxidases.
>
>where is your evidence for this assertion?

Chemistry.

> Copy-pasting same untruth over several times is not
>> discussion.

....and my IronyMeter passes yet *another* severe test from
the current Master of Unsupported Assertions.

Ignored references left in below...

>yes it is,saying its not is not evidence.
>
>
> What evidence? References were well given.
>
>where,the central point has not even been dealt with as usual.
>
>
>>
>> Aneshansley, Daniel J. & T. Eisner, 1969. Biochemistry at 100C: explosive secretory discharge of bombardier beetles (Brachinus). Science 165: 61-63.
>>
>> Aneshansley, D.J., T.H. Jones, D. Alsop, J. Meinwald, & T. Eisner, 1983. Thermal concomitants and biochemistry of the explosive discharge mechanism of some little known bombardier beetles. Experientia 39: 366-368.
>>
>> Eisner, Thomas, George E. Ball, Braden Roach, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Maria Eisner, Curtis L. Blankespoor, & Jerrold Meinwald, 1989. Chemical defense of an Ozaenine bombardier beetle from New Guinea. Psyche 96: 153-160.
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 09:20:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 05:13:04 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
><davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 20:05:02 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 07:02:53 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>> >On Sunday, 12 November 2017 16:30:03 UTC, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>> >> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:20:05 AM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
>>> >> > Successful firing of the boombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones)enzymes ,pressure tanks .Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time,chane and natural selection. one crucial mistake and of corse boom.. the would be bombardier beetle blows itself up and there's no evolutionary future in that. Trail and error can lead to improvment only if you survive the error. This is taken from the book. Creation. facts of life.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is an old argument. It only holds water if the components of the system have no independent usefulness. But, in fact, other species of beetles have defense mechanisms that use various individual components of the bombardier beetle's defense system. There's no reason at all why they could not have evolved separately and then been combined.
>>> >>
>>> >> From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle (in which you can find further references)
>>> >>
>>> >> "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8] Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9] Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement. Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contra
c
> tus
>>> , which
>>> >produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10] In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"
>>> >>
>>> >> If you want to read a more detailed article about the various defence mechanisms of beetles related to the bombardier beetle, which demonstrate that the complete bombardier mechanism is not required for a useful defensive system, and that the chemical components are chemicals that are normal products of metabolism, you could find it through this link.
>>> >>
>>> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235921556_The_evolution_of_defence_mechanisms_in_carabid_beetles_a_review
>>> >>
>>> >> You are getting bad information from your creationist sources.
>>> >
>>> >the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology. do you?
>>>
>>> You keep saying this, yet refuse to provide a name or a cite
>>> to what you claim he/she/it wrote.
>>>
>>> Why the reticence?

>>keep saying what?
>
>
>Since you asked, and to refresh your convenient amnesia:
>
>"the info comes from someone who has a doctorate in biology"
>
>You're welcome.
>
>
>>you edited the original post.
>
>
>AFAICT Bob Casanovoa didn't edit the post to which he replied,
>certainly not enough for you to convincingly claim you can't recognize
>your failure to identify your authorities.

Thanks, but it's probably fruitless. He'll continue to post
unsupported assertions and run away when challenged; it's
"what he does".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:18:22 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Well?