Krause, Dawkins Don't "Understand Biology": Moran.

[Steady Eddie]

Laurence Krause's recent debate with Stephen Meyer showed his true colours - an embarrassing bigot and
Darwinist zealot that only knows insults cloaked in logical fallacies.
Check out how he used up the first five minute of his argument:

KRAUSS, MEYER, LAMOUREUX: WHAT'S BEHIND IT ALL? GOD, SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuy58DaqOk

Richard Dawkins felt the need to defend Krause by (indirectly) responding to Meyer's claim that the Darwinian
process (including natural selection) is essentially RANDOM:

DAWKINS'S DILEMMA: MISREPRESENT THE MECHANISM...OR FACE THE MATH
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html

Poor Larry Moran, in turn, felt it necessary to make an embarrassing contradiction to BOTH of them
(to Krause because of his mindless acceptance and parroting of Dawkins).
His post, hilariously, is titled:

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN
CREATIONIST
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/03/you-need-to-understand-biology-if-you.html

LOL!
Since Moran admits that Dawkins doesn't understand Biology, you guys have some problems to deal with.

[Ernest Major]

Did you bother to read Larry's blog before posting?

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Stockwell]

The facts are these ....

"Darwinists"--those who claim that natural selection is the only game in town--were opposed to the idea that most of our genome is junk. They still are.
Today, the majority of experts believe that most of our genome is junk in spite of the ENCODE publicity campaign from 2012.
The ENCODE Consortium has backed off it's original claim and now agrees that they misused the word "function." Some of them blame the media for distorting their position.
The ID "prediction" has been falsified.

A competent biologist would have known all this and could have challenged Meyer's statement. A biologist would have then demanded that Meyer explain how a genome that is 90% junk fits with Intelligent Design Creationism.

I talked to Denis Lamoureux after the debate to let him know that he was wrong about ENCODE and he was very gracious. I promised to send him more information. A genome full of junk DNA poses no threat to his version of Theistic Evolution.

Lawrence Krauss is an expert on cosmology but he's very weak on biology. I know it's common for physicists to think they are experts in everything but that's just not true. It was demonstrated in last night's debate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:17:50 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

Eddie? Don't be silly.
--

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

[Steady Eddie]

Yes. Do you accuse me of cite-mining?

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 13:53:59 UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:

Or, more likely, cite-bluffing?

[jillery]

At least this time you added some commentary to your cites, although
my impression is you copied those comments as well as the cites.

That Meyer knows more biology than Krauss is nothing to get too
excited about. After all, even Neil Tyson recently tripped over his
biological tongue, saying that pleasurable sex is a matter of
evolution.

The real issue here is how Meyer toed the same IDiot line as the two
IDiots, Paul Nelson and Wolf-Ekkehard, did in your previous IDiot
cite.

Let's see if you can use your brain for something other than keeping
your ears apart. Imagine that you took a time machine to visit one of
your ancestors 6,000 years ago. From that point in time, for just the
right sequence of events necessary to happen so that every one of your
male ancestors mated with every one of your female ancestors at just
the right time so that just the right gametes fused together so that
6,000 years later, you would be born, the probability is so incredibly
low, like Meyer's impossible protein folds, it might as well be zero.
And yet you exist.

Does that make you special? Not really, because every single one of
the 7 billion-plus people alive today have the exact same story, only
with different actors.hhhh How do you think all these people were so
lucky as to be the end result of one of 7 billion-plus highly unlikely
sequences of events? Why do you think Meyer doesn't as get excited
about these incredibly improbable events as he does his incredibly
improbable protein folds?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
SERIOUSLY???

Can anyone help me by identifying the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?

[Peter Nyikos]

Why do you ask for help, when you so seldom acknowledge my help?
Seems like every time I post something that helps you out, you
just go on LOLing in reply to others. It's as though, after seeing
what I wrote, you were thinking, "Good, that lets me
off the hook on that one, so I'll turn my attention elsewhere."

Anyway, the obvious analogy to what jillery is claiming is the hoary
old fallacy that there is nothing interesting in being dealt a hand
of 13 spades in bridge, because every hand in bridge has the same
astronomical odds against it as a hand of 13 spades.

However, not having had the time to wade through what Moran has
written, I cannot be sure how relevant or irrelevant jillery's
long spiel is to what is going on there.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>LOL!
>SERIOUSLY???
>
>Can anyone help me by identifying the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?

Ok, so you can't use your brain for anything other than keeping your
ears apart. I apologize for challenging you beyond your abilities.
You make an excellent village idiot.

[Steady Eddie]

Peter,
I'm sorry to have offended you with my blatant inattention to your sensibilities.
In future I will relish opportunities to heartily congratulate and thank you for your excellent
contributions to this newsgroup.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 19:58:58 UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Don't worry; Moron didn't write much.
Just doubled down on his bet that most of the genome will prove to be junk.

BTW, that was a NICE account of Jillery's fallacy.
I bet it has a name, but for now you revealed how ludicrous it is.
Nice work.

[jillery]

Since I mentioned no cards, and since the person who made the relevant
claim here is Meyer, it's apparent that you have no idea what this
thread is about. I'll give you half a point for recognizing it's
about probability, but only that, since my use of the word
"probability" is a rather obvious hint. You're setting yourself up
for another "bats don't use sonar" hole-digging.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:37:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

That's the way to get one kind of BS degree. Keep it up and you too
can get the kind of PhD degree rockhead has; Piled higher and Deeper.
Then you would be qualified for government work, and you would
actually be paid to be the official Village Idiot.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:42:01 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Really? rockhead didn't even mention my fantasy. AIUI the trick to
being a good sycophant is you can't be so obvious about it.

>I bet it has a name, but for now you revealed how ludicrous it is.
>Nice work.

Come on, clown, and school me about my fallacy. It might even be
worth a few laughs.

[RonO]

What about those immune system papers that you put up?

Why is this different?

Demonstrate it.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Did you even have to ask?

[RonO]

Projection is stupid.

What were those immune system references you put up?

Who was cite-bluffing?

Who likely doesn't have a clue about what this thread is about?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uga0QaKsdCk

Feel free to point out where Dawkins goes wrong in this lecture on evolution.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:43:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

No. The term is "quote mining", and by failing to provide
context that's exactly what you did. Of course, you also
provided a link to the article, so it wasn't *egregious*
quote mining; perhaps you didn't even realize that the
article doesn't support your oft-stated position WRT ID
(although it takes Krauss, and by extension Dawkins, to task
for sloppiness), but further refutes it.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

Perhaps you'd be so good as to spell out that "hoary old
fallacy", and explain the unique mathematical (not social,
or game) significance (IOW, "interest") of such a hand? You
can also explain how it's more unique than a hand of 13
clubs, or a hand in which *any* particular preselected group
of cards appears, all instances of which are equally likely.
Or unlikely. And how it refutes jillery's claim that all
genomes are equally likely. Or unlikely.

>However, not having had the time to wade through what Moran has
>written, I cannot be sure how relevant or irrelevant jillery's
>long spiel is to what is going on there.
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 19:58:58 UTC-6, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Excellent analogy, Peter. The point is, the hand of all spades has a unique FUNCTION in its
context.

[Steady Eddie]

Go to that thread and argue your head off, clown.

[Steady Eddie]

Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian process is not random.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 18:44:00 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

Why?
Because the incredibly improbable protein fold happens to make the exact protein needed
for an exact, specified FUNCTION.

Your analogy is fallacious.
A more accurate analogy would be winning a lottery.
Any combination of numbers on a lottery ticket would be equally improbable.
The ticket you would "get exited about" is the ticket that happens to match a specified,
FUNCTIONAL combination, i.e. the combination that wins you the jackpot.

Now, any particular winning lottery ticket may be randomly selected.
This is analogous to ONE functional protein fold occuring at the right place and time -
perhaps it was indeed randomly generated.

But what about the same person winning THOUSANDS of jackpots, in virtually EVERY lottery
she enters?
Would that not be something to "get exited about"?
Surely the police would investigate whether there was some collusion, or DESIGN, behind
this good fortune.

So what about a CORRECT, FUNCTIONAL protein fold "appearing" THOUSANDS OF TIMES,
which has happened in the history of life?
Definitely something to investigate, for this points strongly to "collusion", or DESIGN.

The question is very simple:
For every DNA sequence that generates a functional protein of, say, a modest 150 amino
acids in length, how many amino acid arrangements are there that will NOT fold into a
stable, three-dimensional protein structure capable of performing that function?

"FOUR DECADES AGO, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any
evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein
sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-THE
SAMPLING PROBLEM-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on
guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances
since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised."-Douglas Axe
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

The answer is approximately:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

or 10^77.

Look it up in the peer-reviewed literature:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds
Douglas D. Axe
Journal of Molecular Biology
Volume 341, Issue 5, 27 August 2004, Pages 1295-1315:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

This has been know for over a decade, yet Darwinists are desperate to ignore and supress
this information.
Watch the video (previously posted) describing the findings and what it means for Darwinism:

INFORMATION ENIGMA:
https://youtu.be/aA-FcnLsF1g?t=12m46s

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:27:23 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>> > LOL!
>> > SERIOUSLY???
>> >
>> > Can anyone help me by identifying the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?
>>
>> Why do you ask for help, when you so seldom acknowledge my help?
>> Seems like every time I post something that helps you out, you
>> just go on LOLing in reply to others. It's as though, after seeing
>> what I wrote, you were thinking, "Good, that lets me
>> off the hook on that one, so I'll turn my attention elsewhere."
>>
>> Anyway, the obvious analogy to what jillery is claiming is the hoary
>> old fallacy that there is nothing interesting in being dealt a hand
>> of 13 spades in bridge, because every hand in bridge has the same
>> astronomical odds against it as a hand of 13 spades.
>>
>> However, not having had the time to wade through what Moran has
>> written, I cannot be sure how relevant or irrelevant jillery's
>> long spiel is to what is going on there.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
>Excellent analogy, Peter. The point is, the hand of all spades has a unique FUNCTION in its
>context.

Actually, it's an irrelevant analogy, and shows rockhead's inability
to read for comprehension, a problem the two of you share.

But even if his analogy were relevant, and even if the point of his
analogy were that the hand of all spades has a unique function, that
still doesn't show any logical fallacy in my analogy, or supports
Meyer's claims of impossible protein folds. So rockhead's reply
didn't help you here at all.

And to address your irrelevant point, any FUNCTION of all spades comes
not from the cards, but instead from the users. When the users play
different card games, having all spades may have no FUNCTION at all.

So no, the point is not as you say above. The point of my analogy is
that Meyer calculates his impossible probabilities based on what it
would take to re-create an existing protein from scratch. That is
mathematically equivalent to figuring out what it would take to
re-create an existing hereditary lineage from scratch.

But what Meyer et al ignore is that neither proteins nor hereditary
lineages start from scratch, but instead build on prior events. And
because those prior events already happened, their probabilities are
exactly 1, a certainty. So the probability of the next protein fold
is generally the same as the probability of any prior single fold. And
the probability of any next generation in a genealogy is generally the
same as the probability of any prior single generation.

And to include rockhead's irrelevant analogy for completeness, the
probability of the next card in a shuffle isthe same as any prior
single card in a shuffle, allowing for the number of cards already
dealt. That's why the odds of any particular hand is exactly the same
as any other particular hand, even all spades. What makes any
particular hand special isn't the odds of it, but what the users
define as special. And the users define all spades as special in part
because that's a whole lot easier to notice than some particular hand
of 13 cards with nothing in common.

This is something rockhead should know, as he claims some expertise in
math. My impression is rockhead does know this, but he's too
dishonest to admit it, so instead he changes the subject and/or runs
away, just like he did above.

And that's what I call documenting my claims. You and rockhead should
try doing that with your own claims, if only as a refreshing change of
pace.

[jillery]

It's your claim. Do your own work.

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Why?
>Because the incredibly improbable protein fold happens to make the exact protein needed
>for an exact, specified FUNCTION.

And each one of those 7-billion plus sequences I mentioned happens to
result in an exact, specified human being. So no difference there.
Care to try again?


>Your analogy is fallacious.


Still waiting for a explanation on how my analogy is fallacious.

>A more accurate analogy would be winning a lottery.
>Any combination of numbers on a lottery ticket would be equally improbable.
>The ticket you would "get exited about" is the ticket that happens to match a specified,
>FUNCTIONAL combination, i.e. the combination that wins you the jackpot.
>
>Now, any particular winning lottery ticket may be randomly selected.
>This is analogous to ONE functional protein fold occuring at the right place and time -
>perhaps it was indeed randomly generated.

The above is a very poor analogy of protein folding. The winning
combination for the next lottery is (supposed to be) independent of
the winning combinations for the previous lotteries. That is not the
case with creating new proteins, which results from modification of
existing proteins. The variations of new proteins necessarily centers
around the patterns from previous proteins.

If lotteries were comparable to proteins, you would increase your
chances of winning merely by basing your picks on the previous winning
combination. Do you really think that's how lotteries work?

>But what about the same person winning THOUSANDS of jackpots, in virtually EVERY lottery
>she enters?
>Would that not be something to "get exited about"?
>Surely the police would investigate whether there was some collusion, or DESIGN, behind
>this good fortune.

I don't know about getting "exited", but I suppose it's reasonable to
get excited about it.

>So what about a CORRECT, FUNCTIONAL protein fold "appearing" THOUSANDS OF TIMES,
>which has happened in the history of life?
>Definitely something to investigate, for this points strongly to "collusion", or DESIGN.

You're comparing apples and machine screws. All life is not
comparable to one person. OTOH thousands of people have won lotteries.
Of course, not as many as the number of functional proteins, but then,
life has been working on its version of a lottery for almost 4 billion
years and throughout the world.

>The question is very simple:
>For every DNA sequence that generates a functional protein of, say, a modest 150 amino
>acids in length, how many amino acid arrangements are there that will NOT fold into a
>stable, three-dimensional protein structure capable of performing that function?

That's not a relevant question at all. If a DNA sequence doesn't
generate a functional protein, then whatever organism with that DNA
sequence doesn't use that function. If that function is critical to
life, and it may not be, then that organism, or at least that cell,
dies.

But if a DNA sequence does generate a functional protein, and
functional is defined in part by the current environment, then
whatever organism with that DNA sequence *does* get to use that
function. If that function has an adaptive advantage, and again
that's defined in part by the current environment, that organism is
more likely to live and reproduce more offspring than those organisms
without that functional protein. And it's offspring will also have
that functional protein. That's how natural selection works.

>"FOUR DECADES AGO, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any
>evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein
>sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-THE
>SAMPLING PROBLEM-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on
>guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances
>since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised."-Douglas Axe
>http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
>
>The answer is approximately:
>
>100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>
>or 10^77.
>
>Look it up in the peer-reviewed literature:
>
>Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds
>Douglas D. Axe
>Journal of Molecular Biology
>Volume 341, Issue 5, 27 August 2004, Pages 1295-1315:
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
>
>This has been know for over a decade, yet Darwinists are desperate to ignore and supress
>this information.
>Watch the video (previously posted) describing the findings and what it means for Darwinism:
>
>INFORMATION ENIGMA:
>https://youtu.be/aA-FcnLsF1g?t=12m46s

Life doesn't have to sample all of the possible protein sequences, and
it's not looking for any particular protein sequence. But when it
stumbles across a variation of existing protein sequences that does
something slightly better, depending on the environment, it *might*
have an advantage to its fellow organisms and so better reproduce
itself. That's what AOTA ignores. Don't reproduce their mistake.

[Bill Rogers]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014172

[Steady Eddie]

Correct, as I pointed out when I said the unique function is "in its context".
Try to keep up.

> So no, the point is not as you say above. The point of my analogy is
> that Meyer calculates his impossible probabilities based on what it
> would take to re-create an existing protein from scratch. That is
> mathematically equivalent to figuring out what it would take to
> re-create an existing hereditary lineage from scratch.
>
> But what Meyer et al ignore is that neither proteins nor hereditary
> lineages start from scratch, but instead build on prior events.

How do YOU know proteins are "built on prior events"?
You're just begin the question, assuming that they evolved.

And
> because those prior events already happened, their probabilities are
> exactly 1, a certainty.

LOL!
Just because something happened doesn't mean it was a certainty.
You obviously know less about biology than even Richard Dawkins.

So the probability of the next protein fold
> is generally the same as the probability of any prior single fold. And
> the probability of any next generation in a genealogy is generally the
> same as the probability of any prior single generation.

Again, begging the question, assuming that proteins arise from evolution in order to argue
that proteins arise from evolution.

Try to find ONE CASE where any extant functional protein is shown to have arisen from any previous
functional protein.

Short of that, you're just blowing smoke.

> And to include rockhead's irrelevant analogy for completeness, the
> probability of the next card in a shuffle isthe same as any prior
> single card in a shuffle, allowing for the number of cards already
> dealt. That's why the odds of any particular hand is exactly the same
> as any other particular hand, even all spades. What makes any
> particular hand special isn't the odds of it, but what the users
> define as special. And the users define all spades as special in part
> because that's a whole lot easier to notice than some particular hand
> of 13 cards with nothing in common.

And what makes a particular string of amino acids special is that it performs the EXACT FUNCTION
needed for that situation.
Try to keep up.

> This is something rockhead should know, as he claims some expertise in
> math. My impression is rockhead does know this, but he's too
> dishonest to admit it, so instead he changes the subject and/or runs
> away, just like he did above.
>
> And that's what I call documenting my claims. You and rockhead should
> try doing that with your own claims, if only as a refreshing change of
> pace.

What, and assume my conclusion like you do? No thanks.
I prefer to stick with the math.

> This space is intentionally not blank.

Your problem is that you just help yourself to the presumed pre-existence of "some other (unidentified,
unseen) protein", but you can't explain its existence except by invoking yet another unidentified,
unseen protein.

At some point, you still have to face the probabilistic odds of the first cell arising by chance, which
happens to include MANY proteins working together, all with the probability of arising of 1 in 10^70.

Moran was right, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY IN ORDER TO DEBATE AN ID PROPONENT.

Try to learn something before embarrassing yourself again.

[Steady Eddie]

This study begs the question of whether extant proteins arose by Darwinian evolution. For example:
"Fourth, even very distant sequences can have the same fold [10], [11]. If two such sequences have the
same common ancestor, they are often referred to as members of the same protein family."

Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseous.

These researchers have their heads so far up their asses they're not even wrong.

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:11:15 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

No, you don't understand the point here at all. The FUNCTION to which
you refer isn't intrinsic to the cards. The FUNCTION is applied
extrinsically by the players. The players could as easily apply the
FUNCTION to 13 hearts, or 4 Aces. The FUNCTION is an arbitrary and
artificial construct and has nothing to do with the cards themselves
or their arrangement.

In order to apply your point to proteins, you would be saying protein
FUNCTIONS could happen with any arbitrary sequence. But protein
FUNCTIONS are intrinsic to their sequence. Change the sequence enough
and their FUNCTION will change. This is basic molecular biology.

>> So no, the point is not as you say above. The point of my analogy is
>> that Meyer calculates his impossible probabilities based on what it
>> would take to re-create an existing protein from scratch. That is
>> mathematically equivalent to figuring out what it would take to
>> re-create an existing hereditary lineage from scratch.
>>
>> But what Meyer et al ignore is that neither proteins nor hereditary
>> lineages start from scratch, but instead build on prior events.
>
>How do YOU know proteins are "built on prior events"?
>You're just begin the question, assuming that they evolved.

No, I do not assume my argument here. Instead, I know and understand
what scientists agree has happened. They know and agree what has
happened based on hard work and reason and years of observation. All
you do here is handwave all that away.

>> And
>> because those prior events already happened, their probabilities are
>> exactly 1, a certainty.
>
>LOL!
>Just because something happened doesn't mean it was a certainty.
>You obviously know less about biology than even Richard Dawkins.

Again, you're not reading for comprehension. I don't talk about the
odds of what could have happened, or what might happen. Once again
when something has happened, it's a certainty that it has happened.
It's a truism. This does not say anything about the probabilities of
what could have happened. There's a difference.

Another way to say it is the probability that you don't exist is zero.
That's different than considering the probability of the existence of
some person yet to be. One is past tense and certain, the other is
future tense and probable. This is basic logic.

> So the probability of the next protein fold
>> is generally the same as the probability of any prior single fold. And
>> the probability of any next generation in a genealogy is generally the
>> same as the probability of any prior single generation.
>
>Again, begging the question, assuming that proteins arise from evolution in order to argue
>that proteins arise from evolution.

No, I am not begging the question. This is proved to be the case. It
is demonstrated that new proteins are similar to existing proteins,
and older proteins are more different than newer proteins. Proteins
don't appear de novo, any more than species do.

>Try to find ONE CASE where any extant functional protein is shown to have arisen from any previous
>functional protein.

I could cite the very same paper Bill Rogers cited, or the articles
Ron O cited, but you just handwave them all away. My impression is
you haven't even read them. You haven't given any evidence that you
know what they say.

>Short of that, you're just blowing smoke.

I realize that you're desperate to draw an equivalence between my
argument and yours, but it's simply not the case. My argument is
based on evidence and reason. Your argument is based on denial of
that evidence and reason. There is no equivalence between your style
of argumentation and mine.

>> And to include rockhead's irrelevant analogy for completeness, the
>> probability of the next card in a shuffle isthe same as any prior
>> single card in a shuffle, allowing for the number of cards already
>> dealt. That's why the odds of any particular hand is exactly the same
>> as any other particular hand, even all spades. What makes any
>> particular hand special isn't the odds of it, but what the users
>> define as special. And the users define all spades as special in part
>> because that's a whole lot easier to notice than some particular hand
>> of 13 cards with nothing in common.
>
>And what makes a particular string of amino acids special is that it performs the EXACT FUNCTION
>needed for that situation.
>Try to keep up.

You're still not reading for comprehension. Nobody assigns FUNCTIONS
to proteins extrinsically. Proteins FUNCTION is intrinsic to the
protein sequence. That's why cells use so many different proteins,
because each one does a very specialized task. Your card analogy has
nothing in common with protein FUNCTIONS.

>> This is something rockhead should know, as he claims some expertise in
>> math. My impression is rockhead does know this, but he's too
>> dishonest to admit it, so instead he changes the subject and/or runs
>> away, just like he did above.
>>
>> And that's what I call documenting my claims. You and rockhead should
>> try doing that with your own claims, if only as a refreshing change of
>> pace.
>
>What, and assume my conclusion like you do?

I don't assume my conclusions. My conclusions are based on the
results of scientists' hard work and detailed analysis of decades of
observations. The only thing you do here is handwave all that away.

>No thanks.
>I prefer to stick with the math.

You don't even understand the math. You offer no mathematical
argument here. The most that you do is point to somebody else's math
without knowing how the math works or how they came to their
conclusions.

>Your problem is that you just help yourself to the presumed pre-existence of "some other (unidentified,
>unseen) protein", but you can't explain its existence except by invoking yet another unidentified,
>unseen protein.

Those pre-existing proteins to which I refer are documented to exist.
Nobody made them up. That's the whole point of all those cites you
handwaved away.

>At some point, you still have to face the probabilistic odds of the first cell arising by chance, which
>happens to include MANY proteins working together, all with the probability of arising of 1 in 10^70.

The number to which you refer, and the arguments which use it, have
nothing whatever to do with abiogenesis. Your willful conflation of
two different arguments speaks poorly of your ability to reason
coherently.

>Moran was right, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY IN ORDER TO DEBATE AN ID PROPONENT.

Who do you think Moran would agree with, you or me?

>Try to learn something before embarrassing yourself again.

And here is where I document you blowing smoke out of your ass.
--

[Ernest Major]

Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
claims that the Darwinian process is random?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:56:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>>On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-4, Steady Eddie wrote:

>>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 18:44:00 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

<snip>

>>> > ...every single one of

>>> > the 7 billion-plus people alive today have the exact same story, only
>>> > with different actors.hhhh How do you think all these people were so
>>> > lucky as to be the end result of one of 7 billion-plus highly unlikely
>>> > sequences of events? Why do you think Meyer doesn't as get excited
>>> > about these incredibly improbable events as he does his incredibly
>>> > improbable protein folds?

>>> LOL!
>>> SERIOUSLY???
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me by identifying the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?

>>...the obvious analogy to what jillery is claiming is the hoary

>>old fallacy that there is nothing interesting in being dealt a hand
>>of 13 spades in bridge, because every hand in bridge has the same
>>astronomical odds against it as a hand of 13 spades.

>Perhaps you'd be so good as to spell out that "hoary old
>fallacy", and explain the unique mathematical (not social,
>or game) significance (IOW, "interest") of such a hand? You
>can also explain how it's more unique than a hand of 13
>clubs, or a hand in which *any* particular preselected group
>of cards appears, all instances of which are equally likely.
>Or unlikely. And how it refutes jillery's claim that all
>genomes are equally likely. Or unlikely.

Well?

[Steady Eddie]

..."Down the Rabbit Hole" with Jillery.

[Steady Eddie]

The latter.

[Sean Dillon]

> > Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
> > that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
> > claims that the Darwinian process is random?
> >
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major
>
> The latter.

Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.

[jillery]

"Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random"
— Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker (1996), page 41

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And here is where I document you blowing smoke out of your ass.
>

>..."Down the Rabbit Hole" with Jillery.

Apparently that's a preCambrian rabbit hole.

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>..."Down the Rabbit Hole" with Jillery.

So you can't tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the
ground.

I apologize to the village elders for double-posting, but I couldn't
resist the opportunity.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-04-28 19:56:10 +0000, jillery said:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ..."Down the Rabbit Hole" with Jillery.
>
>
> So you can't tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the
> ground.

*
A burro is an ass.
A burrow is a hole in the ground.

You should know the difference.

earle
*

[Bill Rogers]

It's hard to understand why you are here. You have already proven to your satisfaction that the theory of evolution is false, that evolutionary biologists are laughably silly, and that creationism is correct. You have called every evolution-accepting T.O. regular an idiot several times over. You've said that it's not your goal to change anyone's mind. You've schooled the opposition to your heart's content.

Meanwhile, you are doing nothing to reconcile with your congregation (or meeting hall, or whatever it's called in JW). Why not bend your stiff, unrepentant neck, say your sorry, and ask for forgiveness and re-integration into the JWs? I, myself, am quite sure that there's Nobody Up There who cares one way or the other about your following along with the JW rules. You, on the other hand, as far as you let on, seem quite sure that there is Somebody Up There who not only cares about such things, but for Whom your obedience to the JW is a Very Important Thing. So what are you doing fiddling around here while your soul burns?

[Steady Eddie]

LOL
Nice.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
The answer is neither.

[Steady Eddie]

For me, speaking the truth is a reward in itself.
Since you asked, though, I first posted on this site in response to a question like:
'Why would anyone convert to Creationism?'
I was simply trying to share, in good faith, what I had learned about Creation vs. Evolution, and what
had convinced me of the former.
Go back and look for yourself.
I don't remember the initial exchanges, but I'll wager that I wasn't the one that started the insults.

As time went on, it became clear to me what you Darwinists are doing to prop up your theory in the public
eye.
I was disgusted.
Now, I'm just amused.

> Meanwhile, you are doing nothing to reconcile with your congregation (or meeting hall, or whatever it's called in JW). Why not bend your stiff, unrepentant neck, say your sorry, and ask for forgiveness and re-integration into the JWs? I, myself, am quite sure that there's Nobody Up There who cares one way or the other about your following along with the JW rules. You, on the other hand, as far as you let on, seem quite sure that there is Somebody Up There who not only cares about such things, but for Whom your obedience to the JW is a Very Important Thing. So what are you doing fiddling around here while your soul burns?

Were you aware that, according to the Bible, nobody suffers a fiery hell after their death?
Or were you using the term 'burn' symbolically?

But, to answer your question:
I've learned that a lot of people know the truth but ignore it in one way or another...
I'm just doing it another way.

[Steady Eddie]

To be fair, though, it's hard to understand why Darwinists are still here.

A lot of tough work has been done now; we can see the very workings of life at the rock bottom level of
biology.
We KNOW, now, that life is a work of staggering integrated, specific complexity.
You idiots have been trying to ignore the implications of this information since the Wistar conference 50
years ago:
"FOR DARWIN ADVOCATES, WISTAR CONFERENCE REMAINS A PAIN IN THE MASTER NARRATIVE"
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/for_darwin_advo102798.html

Or watch the video:
"50 Years of Scientific Challenges to Evolution: Remembering The Wistar Symposium"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQy12X_Sm2k

[jillery]

Yeppers.

[jillery]

A proper answer wouild be for you to say what you *are* claiming, not
what you are *not* claiming. Just sayin'.

[Steady Eddie]

No, a proper answer would be to answer the question, which I did.
A proper question, on the other hand, would not be of the "Finished beating your wife?" variety.

[jillery]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:08:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 28 April 2016 23:38:38 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> > > Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
>> >> > > that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
>> >> > > claims that the Darwinian process is random?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > alias Ernest Major
>> >> >
>> >> > The latter.
>> >>
>> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
>> >
>> >Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
>> >The answer is neither.
>>
>>
>> A proper answer wouild be for you to say what you *are* claiming, not
>> what you are *not* claiming. Just sayin'.
>

>No, a proper answer would be to answer the question, which I did.

You posted a reply, but you didn't answer the question.

>A proper question, on the other hand, would not be of the "Finished beating your wife?" variety.

Right here would have been a good place to say how Ernest Major's
question even remote resembles what you suggest above. Failing that,
you're just blowing smoke out of your ass, just like your strange
bedfellow rockhead.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 29 April 2016 22:43:35 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:08:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 28 April 2016 23:38:38 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> >> > > Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
> >> >> > > that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
> >> >> > > claims that the Darwinian process is random?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > alias Ernest Major
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The latter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
> >> >The answer is neither.
> >>
> >>
> >> A proper answer wouild be for you to say what you *are* claiming, not
> >> what you are *not* claiming. Just sayin'.
> >
> >No, a proper answer would be to answer the question, which I did.
>
>
> You posted a reply, but you didn't answer the question.

?

[Ernest Major]

You previously wrote (inspiring my question above)

"Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian
process is not random."

In context the implication is that either succeeding or failing to find
Dawkins insisting that the Darwinian process is not random supports your
claim that Dawkins does not understand biology.

How can that be the case if the answer to my question is "neither"? Or
was your challenge a red-herring?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 28/04/2016 23:17, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>> Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
> >>>> that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
> >>>> claims that the Darwinian process is random?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>>
> >>> The latter.
> >>
> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
> > The answer is neither.
> >
>
> You previously wrote (inspiring my question above)
>
> "Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian
> process is not random."
>
> In context the implication is that either succeeding or failing to find
> Dawkins insisting that the Darwinian process is not random supports your
> claim that Dawkins does not understand biology.

IN CONTEXT, you say?
?

Look at the context for yourself, clown (and now you earned the slur):
[quote]

> > LOL!
> > Since Moran admits that Dawkins doesn't understand Biology, you guys have some problems to deal with.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uga0QaKsdCk
>
> Feel free to point out where Dawkins goes wrong in this lecture on evolution.

Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian process is not random.

[end quote]

So, if you bothered to PROVIDE THE CONTEXT, you would have shown how stupid you are to bring this
up (though that doesn't reflect on your intelligence in other areas).
I was clearly pointing out that, if you time-stamp me the spot where Dawkins claims that the Darwinian
process is NOT RANDOM, I would show you where Dawkins had gone wrong in your cited lecture.

What part of that didn't you understand?

> How can that be the case if the answer to my question is "neither"? Or
> was your challenge a red-herring?

Start from the beginning, fix your mistakes, and this part'll straighten itself out.

> alias Ernest Major

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:

...and don't forget to THINK FOR YOURSELF and don't let the Jillery Jiggle throw you off the chain of thought.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:

If you guys (especially Jillery) were half as interested in discussing origins as you were in conflating
arguments, you might learn something...

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 28/04/2016 23:17, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>> Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
> >>>> that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
> >>>> claims that the Darwinian process is random?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >>>
> >>> The latter.
> >>
> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
> > The answer is neither.
> >
>
> You previously wrote (inspiring my question above)
>
> "Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian
> process is not random."
>
> In context the implication is that either succeeding or failing to find
> Dawkins insisting that the Darwinian process is not random supports your
> claim that Dawkins does not understand biology.

Oh, and it's not my claim; it's Moran's.
Try to keep up!

[Ernest Major]

So, are you now claiming that the correct answer was the former, that
you were falsely claiming that the Darwinian process is random (but
perhaps you're denying the falsity of your false claim)?

>
>> How can that be the case if the answer to my question is "neither"? Or
>> was your challenge a red-herring?
>
> Start from the beginning, fix your mistakes, and this part'll straighten itself out.
>
>> alias Ernest Major
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 28/04/2016 23:17, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >>>> Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
>> >>>> that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
>> >>>> claims that the Darwinian process is random?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> alias Ernest Major
>> >>>
>> >>> The latter.
>> >>
>> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
>> >
>> > Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
>> > The answer is neither.
>> >
>>
>> You previously wrote (inspiring my question above)
>>
>> "Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian
>> process is not random."
>>
>> In context the implication is that either succeeding or failing to find
>> Dawkins insisting that the Darwinian process is not random supports your
>> claim that Dawkins does not understand biology.
>
>Oh, and it's not my claim; it's Moran's.

No, it's not Moran's claim. It's your mangled misrepresentation of
Moran's claim.


>Try to keep up!


You first.

>> How can that be the case if the answer to my question is "neither"? Or
>> was your challenge a red-herring?
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

Don't be insulted that I don't wait for you to teach anybody anything.

[RonO]

On 4/27/2016 11:29 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 April 2016 05:08:56 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 3:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 13:53:59 UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:17:50 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

>>>>
>>>>> On 22/04/2016 17:01, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>> Laurence Krause's recent debate with Stephen Meyer showed his true colours - an embarrassing bigot and
>>>>>> Darwinist zealot that only knows insults cloaked in logical fallacies.
>>>>>> Check out how he used up the first five minute of his argument:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KRAUSS, MEYER, LAMOUREUX: WHAT'S BEHIND IT ALL? GOD, SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSE.
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuy58DaqOk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Dawkins felt the need to defend Krause by (indirectly) responding to Meyer's claim that the Darwinian
>>>>>> process (including natural selection) is essentially RANDOM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DAWKINS'S DILEMMA: MISREPRESENT THE MECHANISM...OR FACE THE MATH
>>>>>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor Larry Moran, in turn, felt it necessary to make an embarrassing contradiction to BOTH of them
>>>>>> (to Krause because of his mindless acceptance and parroting of Dawkins).
>>>>>> His post, hilariously, is titled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN
>>>>>> CREATIONIST
>>>>>> http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/03/you-need-to-understand-biology-if-you.html
>>>>>>

>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>> Since Moran admits that Dawkins doesn't understand Biology, you guys have some problems to deal with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Did you bother to read Larry's blog before posting?
>>>>
>>>> Eddie? Don't be silly.
>>>
>>> Yes. Do you accuse me of cite-mining?
>>
>> What about those immune system papers that you put up?
>>
>> Why is this different?
>>
>> Demonstrate it.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>
> Go to that thread and argue your head off, clown.
>

The old thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/talk.origins/Abzyme/talk.origins/uFMq6VJNYgY/xCEzzExFJgAJ

The post that you are currently running from:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uFMq6VJNYgY/xCEzzExFJgAJ

I went back to that thread and crickets are still chirping. It looks
like you are still running from your cite bluffing attempt.

Sad, but true. We both know who is so sad that calling you a clown
would be a blessing.

When are you going to apologize for lying about me to another poster.
Have I ever lied about you? Another point that separates us besides
your total incompetence. Really, Eddie, it turns out that you have been
arguing this stupidity for at least a decade in other forums and you
haven't got a clue as to what you are arguing about. What happened to
the ID scam? Can you even be that honest with yourself? Explain the
demise of the ISCID and ID Networks in plain and simple English so that
even you might understand what you are saying. What happened in Dover a
decade ago? What happened to Louisiana and Texas IDiots, already three
years ago? What has happened to every IDiot group that needed the ID
science for well over a decade?

You have lived through it all and you still haven't got a clue.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

I'm claiming nothing "now" that I didn't claim back then.
The difference is, this time I forced you to THINK about what I claimed back then, and quit letting
Jillery jerk you around on her leash.

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 01:33:33 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:03:37 UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> On 28/04/2016 23:17, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, 28 April 2016 13:28:41 UTC-6, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> >>>> Could you clarify a point for me - are you (implicitly) falsely claiming
> >> >>>> that the Darwinian process is random, or claiming that Dawkins falsely
> >> >>>> claims that the Darwinian process is random?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> alias Ernest Major
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The latter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except that is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins claimed. He claimed the process is NON-random. And he's right.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, sorry, I misread the question.
> >> > The answer is neither.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You previously wrote (inspiring my question above)
> >>
> >> "Feel free to time-stamp where Dawkins insists that the Darwinian
> >> process is not random."
> >>
> >> In context the implication is that either succeeding or failing to find
> >> Dawkins insisting that the Darwinian process is not random supports your
> >> claim that Dawkins does not understand biology.
> >
> >Oh, and it's not my claim; it's Moran's.
>
>
> No, it's not Moran's claim. It's your mangled misrepresentation of
> Moran's claim.

Yes, of course, the Jillery Jiggle...
Black is white, etc.

Anything to avoid a frank discussion of WHY MORAN accused KRAUSE, and, by extension, DAWKINS, of
NOT UNDERSTANDING BIOLOGY...

Enjoy Wonderland, Jillery...

[Steady Eddie]

Well then post your shit there, idiot!
What are you waiting for?

[RAM]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 11:03:31 AM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

> Well then post your shit there, idiot!
> What are you waiting for?

John 11:35

[jillery]

Blaming me for your inability to make a coherent point, and for your
unwillingness to back up your claims, shows how infantile you are.

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

You can't cite anything to support your claim above, that Moran said
that Dawkins doesn't understand biology, because Moran never said nor
implied any such thing. Your "by extension" is an entirely incoherent
invention of your delusional mind. So you push The Big Lie just like
your strange bedfellow rockhead. Is anybody surprised?

[Steady Eddie]

?

[Steady Eddie]

Let me quote for you, then you can look it up yourself:

"During the debate, Stephen Meyer emphasized random nature of evolution and it's inability--according to
him--to come up with new protein folds and new information in a reasonable amount of time.

Krauss misunderstood the argument, which was based on the frequency of mutations, and tried to dismiss
it by pointing out that evolution is not random--it's directed and guided by natural selection.

Meyer corrected him by pointing out that the issue was the probability of mutations and not the probability
of fixation once the mutation occurred. (This was when he was struggling with a migraine so he didn't do
as good a job as he could have.)

Krauss stumbled on for a bit emphasizing natural selection and the fact that evolution is not random.

That was embarrassing. I think Krauss gets most of his information about evolution from Richard Dawkins
so he (Krauss) probably doesn't know about random genetic drift or historical contingency or any of the
other features of the history of life that make it "random" (in the colloquial sense)."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/03/you-need-to-understand-biology-if-you.html

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 22:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Let me quote for you, then you can look it up yourself:
>
>"During the debate, Stephen Meyer emphasized random nature of evolution and it's inability--according to
>him--to come up with new protein folds and new information in a reasonable amount of time.
>
>Krauss misunderstood the argument, which was based on the frequency of mutations, and tried to dismiss
>it by pointing out that evolution is not random--it's directed and guided by natural selection.
>
>Meyer corrected him by pointing out that the issue was the probability of mutations and not the probability
>of fixation once the mutation occurred. (This was when he was struggling with a migraine so he didn't do
>as good a job as he could have.)
>
>Krauss stumbled on for a bit emphasizing natural selection and the fact that evolution is not random.
>
>That was embarrassing. I think Krauss gets most of his information about evolution from Richard Dawkins
>so he (Krauss) probably doesn't know about random genetic drift or historical contingency or any of the
>other features of the history of life that make it "random" (in the colloquial sense)."
>
>http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/03/you-need-to-understand-biology-if-you.html

You're still exercising your bad habit of using cut-and-pastes without
explaining how you think they support your claim. Hopefully, you
won't also pull your troll trick here of claiming that you didn't post
the above to support your point.

So where is there anything that says Moran *says* Dawkins doesn't
understand biology? Let me help you: nowhere.

So where is there anything that says Moran *thinks* Dawkins doesn't
understand biology? Let me help you again: nowhere.

Apparently you think the above supports your claim, otherwise you
wouldn't have posted it. But since you don't say, one is forced to
guess what would trigger your delusions. Hopefully, you won't pull
your troll trick of saying that my guess is wrong without saying what
is right.

My guess is that you think because Moran identified Dawkins as Krauss'
advisor of things biological, then Krauss' misunderstanding must also
be Dawkins' misunderstanding.

One problem for you is that Moran also identified the source of
Krauss' misunderstanding, that Krauss didn't recognize Meyer's point
was based on the frequency of mutation, not the frequency of fixation.
It's right there in your cut-and-paste. I'll wait while you find it.

Actually, Krauss' mistake is a subtle logical point, so missing it as
doesn't really reflect a failure to understand biology. For example,
that you didn't notice it either, even after you cut-and-pasted it,
has nothing to do with the fact that you don't understand biology.

So in your twisted view of reality, you imagined Moran said something
he never said. And you imagined Moran implied something he never
implied. And you ignored Moran's own explanation for Krauss' gaff.

Instead, you blamed Moran for your own delusional inference. My
guess is you made an illogical leap, that Krauss' failure to recognize
a point is Dawkins' failure, as if the teacher is responsible for all
of his students' mental lapses.

This is why it's important for you to back up your claims, so that
other posters can at least understand your thinking and where it's
coming from, whether or not they agree with you, whether or not your
thinking makes any sense.

BTW you rely overmuch on the opinion of someone you repeatedly labeled
"Moron" in the past. Or did your opinion of him change but you don't
want to admit it?

And anytime you want to apologize for pushing The Big Lie about me, I
will just as graciously accept it. Just don't be insulted that I
don't wait for you to act like an adult.

[RonO]

What an idiot IDiot. You are the one that is running from those posts.
The cricket's are still chirping there and here. I guess that it may be
too much to think that you can comprehend reality as incompetent as you
seem to be. As you like to say, you were caught cite bluffing. There
is no excuse, but you might want to offer up one. You might even want
to address reality once in a while. It would be something different,
and you might like the change.

Ron Okimoto

[RAM]

?

[Steady Eddie]

More trolling...
I'm content to let the sane reader decide what Moran meant.

[jillery]

!

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:27:59 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>More trolling...


Well, you are the expert on trolling. That's what you do.

>I'm content to let the sane reader decide what Moran meant.

No sane reader had any doubt that Moran knows that Dawkins knows about
biology. And even after I prove it to you, you're too cowardly to
admit it. Don't you just hate it when you prove me right all the
time?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 21:57:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

It's in the Bible, and is used as a fairly common expletive
indicating exasperation (cf "rolls eyes" and "throws up
hands in disbelief"). HTH.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:27:59 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>More trolling...
>I'm content to let the sane reader decide what Moran meant.

We have. You're wrong; everything jillery posted is correct,
as shown in your own cut/paste. Learn to read for
comprehension. HTH.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh, I'm sorry. I said the SANE reader.
You don't qualify.

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:11:55 -0700 (PDT), the following

>Oh, I'm sorry. I said the SANE reader.
>You don't qualify.

Still unable to read for comprehension? My condolences.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:04:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:56:04 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:54:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>>On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-4, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
>>>> On Friday, 22 April 2016 18:44:00 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> > ...every single one of
>>>> > the 7 billion-plus people alive today have the exact same story, only
>>>> > with different actors.hhhh How do you think all these people were so
>>>> > lucky as to be the end result of one of 7 billion-plus highly unlikely
>>>> > sequences of events? Why do you think Meyer doesn't as get excited
>>>> > about these incredibly improbable events as he does his incredibly
>>>> > improbable protein folds?
>
>>>> LOL!
>>>> SERIOUSLY???
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone help me by identifying the logical fallacy in this line of reasoning?
>
>>>...the obvious analogy to what jillery is claiming is the hoary
>>>old fallacy that there is nothing interesting in being dealt a hand
>>>of 13 spades in bridge, because every hand in bridge has the same
>>>astronomical odds against it as a hand of 13 spades.
>
>>Perhaps you'd be so good as to spell out that "hoary old
>>fallacy", and explain the unique mathematical (not social,
>>or game) significance (IOW, "interest") of such a hand? You
>>can also explain how it's more unique than a hand of 13
>>clubs, or a hand in which *any* particular preselected group
>>of cards appears, all instances of which are equally likely.
>>Or unlikely. And how it refutes jillery's claim that all
>>genomes are equally likely. Or unlikely.
>
>Well?

Guess there isn't one...

OK.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
Bob, give your head a shake and THINK ABOUT IT.

It's not any "mathematical" significance, but the CONTEXTUAL significance that matters.

THINK!
Suppose two kids devise a code with which to write to each other, and one kid receives a garbled string of
characters that, after intelligently applying the code, translates into a coherent sentence.
Now, a bully-boy intercepted the next letter, and wants to try sending a "coded" letter to one of the kids. He writes out a random string of, say, 30 characters.
Regardless of the ridiculousness of the story, how likely is it that the bully-boy would send a string of 30 characters
that can be translated into a coherent sentence?

[RAM]

LOL

Kindergarten logic.

And it is poor quality kindergarten logic.

It's orthogonal to Bob's example.

Couldn't find something to quote-mine?

LOL

[jillery]

You first. In the case of a hand of cards, the CONTEXTUAL
significance is arbitrarily defined by the rules of the game. In the
case of one's ancestry, the CONTEXTUAL significance is defined by the
certainty of the existence of that person.

>Suppose two kids devise a code with which to write to each other, and one kid receives a garbled string of
>characters that, after intelligently applying the code, translates into a coherent sentence.
>Now, a bully-boy intercepted the next letter, and wants to try sending a "coded" letter to one of the kids. He writes out a random string of, say, 30 characters.
>Regardless of the ridiculousness of the story, how likely is it that the bully-boy would send a string of 30 characters
>that can be translated into a coherent sentence?

What does your argument above have to do with anything in this thread?
Your answer has the appearance of a coherent reply, but in reality
it's completely irrelevant to anything posted previously. There's no
secret code involved in the order of a deck of cards, or in one's
ancestry.

Here's an idea; answer your own question, and say what alleged
logical fallacy you think is in my line of reasoning, if only as a
refreshing change of pace? I dare you.

[Steady Eddie]

Please explain.
And answer the question, while you're at it.

[jillery]

Why should anyone answer a question that makes no sense?

>> Couldn't find something to quote-mine?
>>
>> LOL

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 May 2016 20:28:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RAM
<rmathers%macom...@gtempaccount.com>:

>> LOL!
>> Bob, give your head a shake and THINK ABOUT IT.
>>
>> It's not any "mathematical" significance, but the CONTEXTUAL significance that matters.
>>
>> THINK!
>> Suppose two kids devise a code with which to write to each other, and one kid receives a garbled string of
>> characters that, after intelligently applying the code, translates into a coherent sentence.
>> Now, a bully-boy intercepted the next letter, and wants to try sending a "coded" letter to one of the kids. He writes out a random string of, say, 30 characters.
>> Regardless of the ridiculousness of the story, how likely is it that the bully-boy would send a string of 30 characters
>> that can be translated into a coherent sentence?

>LOL
>
>Kindergarten logic.
>
>And it is poor quality kindergarten logic.
>
>It's orthogonal to Bob's example.
>
>Couldn't find something to quote-mine?
>
>LOL

Hell, he couldn't even find where I specifically restricted
my question to math.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 May 2016 17:55:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>LOL!

Still lolling around and posting ignorance, huh? OK.

>Bob, give your head a shake and THINK ABOUT IT.

>It's not any "mathematical" significance, but the CONTEXTUAL significance that matters.

Not to the math, it doesn't. In fact, I even stated that I
wasn't asking Peter, a mathematician, about anything other
than the math, and why *mathematically* a 13-spades hand was
any more significant than any other hand. But you missed
that in the rather short question I asked him. See where I
posted "...the unique mathematical (not social, or game)
significance". What do you think I might have meant by that?

>THINK!

You first. But read the context before shooting yourself in
the foot with irrelevancies. Again.

[Steady Eddie]

I think you've forgotten what you're talking about.
You can lead a Darwinist to water, but you can't make it think.

[jillery]

<PING!> Dang it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 21:44:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

I guess you have no idea. OK.

>> >THINK!
>>
>> You first. But read the context before shooting yourself in
>> the foot with irrelevancies. Again.

>I think you've forgotten what you're talking about.

My IronyMeter is immune to such mild idiocies, but thanks
for playing. I stated *exactly* what I was talking about,
and you failed to note it even *after* I took you by the
hand and reiterated it. Lack of comprehension much?

>You can lead a Darwinist to water, but you can't make it think.

Ooooh, *clever*! I'll bet that impresses all the other
third-graders...

[Steady Eddie]

Crickets...

[jillery]

Liar. I replied to you not a half-hour after you posted it. Instead,
you're the one who never answered me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 21:59:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>>> > > LOL!
>>> > > Bob, give your head a shake and THINK ABOUT IT.
>>> > >
>>> > > It's not any "mathematical" significance, but the CONTEXTUAL significance that matters.
>>> > >
>>> > > THINK!
>>> > > Suppose two kids devise a code with which to write to each other, and one kid receives a garbled string of
>>> > > characters that, after intelligently applying the code, translates into a coherent sentence.
>>> > > Now, a bully-boy intercepted the next letter, and wants to try sending a "coded" letter to one of the kids. He writes out a random string of, say, 30 characters.
>>> > > Regardless of the ridiculousness of the story, how likely is it that the bully-boy would send a string of 30 characters
>>> > > that can be translated into a coherent sentence?
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>> >
>>> > Kindergarten logic.
>>> >
>>> > And it is poor quality kindergarten logic.
>>> >
>>> > It's orthogonal to Bob's example.
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>> And answer the question, while you're at it.
>>>
>>> > Couldn't find something to quote-mine?
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>
>>Crickets...
>
>
>Liar. I replied to you not a half-hour after you posted it. Instead,
>you're the one who never answered me.

Don't feel slighted; I'm still waiting for Peter's
explanation, the one in which I specifically asked Peter, a
mathematician, what the *mathematical* significance is,
something Eddie ignored in his initial response in his
apparent haste to continue LOLling around.

[Steady Eddie]

I wasn't referring to you.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

I don't feel slighted by Steadly. I neither suggested nor implied that
I do.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>I wasn't referring to you.

Your "Crickets" didn't refer to anybody, liar. That's the difference
between knowing what the words mean, and aping them in the futile hope
that makes you look clever.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 7 May 2016 21:33:11 UTC-6, RAM wrote:

Crickets chirping up a storm...

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 22 April 2016 10:03:59 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Laurence Krause's recent debate with Stephen Meyer showed his true colours - an embarrassing bigot and
> Darwinist zealot that only knows insults cloaked in logical fallacies.
> Check out how he used up the first five minute of his argument:
>
> KRAUSS, MEYER, LAMOUREUX: WHAT'S BEHIND IT ALL? GOD, SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSE.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuy58DaqOk
>
> Richard Dawkins felt the need to defend Krause by (indirectly) responding to Meyer's claim that the Darwinian
> process (including natural selection) is essentially RANDOM:
>
> DAWKINS'S DILEMMA: MISREPRESENT THE MECHANISM...OR FACE THE MATH
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html
>
> Poor Larry Moran, in turn, felt it necessary to make an embarrassing contradiction to BOTH of them
> (to Krause because of his mindless acceptance and parroting of Dawkins).
> His post, hilariously, is titled:
>
> YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN
> CREATIONIST
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/03/you-need-to-understand-biology-if-you.html
>
> LOL!
> Since Moran admits that Dawkins doesn't understand Biology, you guys have some problems to deal with.

For Jillery:

"During the debate, Stephen Meyer emphasized random nature of evolution and it's inability—according to
him—to come up with new protein folds and new information in a reasonable amount of time.

Krauss misunderstood the argument, which was based on the frequency of mutations, and tried to dismiss

it by pointing out that evolution is not random—it's directed and guided by natural selection.

Meyer corrected him by pointing out that the issue was the probability of mutations and not the probability
of fixation once the mutation occurred. (This was when he was struggling with a migraine so he didn't do
as good a job as he could have.)

Krauss stumbled on for a bit emphasizing natural selection and the fact that evolution is not random.

That was embarrassing. I think Krauss gets most of his information about evolution from Richard Dawkins
so he (Krauss) probably doesn't know about random genetic drift or historical contingency or any of the
other features of the history of life that make it "random" (in the colloquial sense)."

-Moran's comments on the blog.

[jillery]

How is it possible, even after all this time, that you still equate
random mutation and biological evolution. Go back to this thread and
this time actually read the posts, and at least try to understand what
you're reading, if only for the novelty of it.

[jillery]

You really should stop digging these holes you keep putting yourself
in.

>> LOL
>>
>> Kindergarten logic.
>>
>> And it is poor quality kindergarten logic.
>>
>> It's orthogonal to Bob's example.
>>
>> Couldn't find something to quote-mine?
>>
>> LOL