Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Those bluffing evolutionitwits

I don't know. Perhaps it is the rising popularity of Texas hold'em. Perhaps it is just the inherent decption and dishonesty that permeates from evolutionism.

Either way it is very entertaining to watch evolutionitwits try to bluff their way through a debate.

The most recent bluff was made by James "Momma's boy" Wynne:

Then why not take one of the many research papers that deal with the evolution of the flagellum, read it (ha!) and then tell us specifically what your problem with it is, and also tell us about an experiment that you might design to test the hypotheses you think are wrong.

Unlike Texas hold'em calling this bluff doesn't take any $$$, just common sense:

Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.

Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).

You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question.


perfesser Scotty Page is another who loves to posture, accuse, assert- IOW he is another puffer bluffer. Each time is is called on his bluffs he runs away, only to return with more of the same.

Don't they realize is all they have to do is substantiate their claims with real data? Or is it that they realize they cannot and bluffing (postering, accusing, assertions, etc.) is all they have left in the bag?

I almost forgot the evolutionitwits have a documented history of bluffing:

One Long Bluff:
The Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article


(content edited to fix a typo- It appears that Momma's boy James Wynne has found a purpose in life. You go girl!)

14 Comments:

  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And it just continues.

    James I am more than aware of the alleged evidence for the theory of evolution. I am also more than aware there aren't any details.

    For example I am aware there isn't any data that demontrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria.

    Don't ask which articles I have read, present ONE that substantiates your claim or SHUT UP!

    Then and only then will we have something to discuss.

    The data in "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt any attempt at a non-ID approach to the issue is.

    That ID has been "hijacked" is meaningless. Atheists hijacked the theory of evolution. So what?

    And I wonder what "fruit" the theory of evolution has given us? That is one of the main issues- it is worthless.

    As I pointed out several times, "The Privileged Planet" AND "Unlocking..." are based on scientific research. What is about that research that YOU don't understand?

    STOP BLUFFING

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You KNOW someone has lost when they start picking on typos.

    Truly pathetic, even for a Momma's boy.

    Now run along and go play in heavy interstate traffic.


    (I take it there is no chance of you presenting this blog with that scientific research paper that demonstrates a bac flag can "evolve" via some blind watchmaker-type process. Another prediction fulfilled. Thanks.)

     
  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James,

    What is preventing you from presenting ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates what you are claiming?


    As for "What's a "blind watchmaker-type process"?"- we have been down that road already. No need to feign ignorance or dishonesty. You have already established your propensity for both.


    Present ONE paper James.

    All honest people understand that neither IC nor ID is anti-evolution. I take it that is your problem- you are too dishonest to understand what is being debated and too stupid (or ignorant) to understand what is involved.

    As for specific criticisms-watch the video. It's all there...

     
  • At 7:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James,

    All I am asking is that you give it your best shot. However it appears even your best shot is a bluff. Typical...

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    James Wynne:
    Yes Joe, you're right.

    It usually works out that way.

    James Wynne:
    Arguing against an IDiot is the same as arguing against ID;

    How is arguing against an idiot like you arguing against ID? How was what you are doing determined to be arguing?

    You have yet to present anything to debate. I keep asking for the data and your just keep on keeping on.

    Unless of course you are equating my continued corrections of your stupidity with arguing, but that is rather naive.

    James Wynne:
    definitions change with the question,

    As do your vague accusations and bald assertions.

    What definitions changed?

    And all you do is question- how about some answers?

    James Wynne:
    no one knows what the "theory" is, blather and dissembling are characterized as "intelligent reasoning," and no research ever gets done.

    That's a good summary of the arguments against the "theory" of evolution.

    What research is being done that would demonstrate bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria?

    James Wynne:
    Of course I was only bluffing and posteuring.

    Of course that is what reality has, and continues to, demonstrate.

    Your infatuation with typos just further exposes that fact.

    Is that it? Is your best shot tantamount to a child's tantrum? Thanks.

    Youa dopa ;)

     
  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JT,

    Which artocledemonstrates that bacteria without a flagellum can evolve into bacteria with a flagellum via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    I noticed your list contains some Ken Miller papers. Miller has been refuted.

    However this is a prime example of the sort of bluffing evolutionists employ. They throw out many papers but upon close inspection not one substantiates their claims.

    Charles Darwin didn't even know what was inside of a cell. Putting his work in the list just screams of desperation.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G. said,
    ...this is a prime example of the sort of bluffing evolutionists employ. They throw out many papers but upon close inspection not one substantiates their claims.


    James Wynne baldly asserts:
    You haven't closely inspected anything on the list, Joe.

    Yes I have James. That is why I am asking anyone to present ONE that meets my requirements.

    Why is it that neither you nor JT can do that?

    We know Darwin didn't deal with the evolution of the bac flag. Why is he on the list?

    Did JT read what he listed? Check this out-

    Darwin, C., 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection. 6th edition. John Murray, London. Online text.

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."


    I am still aware there isn't any data that demontrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. I am also still aware there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria with a flagellum can evolve into bacteria with via some blind watchmaker-type process.

    James, you have yet to demonstrate that that evo #6 has augmented anything. That is what you should concentrate on- substantiating YOUR claims.

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A great deal of intelligence may be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.--Saul Bellow

    Again James portrays the evolutionitwits perfectly. THEY need the obvious design to be an illusion. That is their deep conviction. And it is a conviction borne of ignorance...

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JT:
    They all, taken together, provide incremental evidence that supports the concept of evolution of the flagellum.

    Perhaps to you they do. However I noticed a mechanism is missing. This debate is all about the mechanism. So which papers on your list demonstrate, incrementally, that a bac flag can "evolve" via some blind watchmaker-type processes?
    With a rudimentary understanding of how natural science research works, you would know that.

    joe g:
    I noticed your list contains some Ken Miller papers. Miller has been refuted.


    JT:
    I am sorry but Ken Miller has not been "refuted".

    Actually he has:

    Still spinning just fine- Miller refuted

    Anyone with a basic understanding of biology can see Miller is just full of it.

    Add to that fact his "papers" (on your list) never went through peer-review and you get non-scientific diatribe.

    joe g:
    Charles Darwin didn't even know what was inside of a cell. Putting his work in the list just screams of desperation.


    JT:
    Excuse me but this is a reference list. Since the topic is evolution, I think Darwin is appropriate.

    The topic isn't evolution. The following is the topic of this thread:

    Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.

    Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).

    You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question.


    Try to follow along. That way you don't appear so dishonest when you are exposed.

    Also I take it you missed the fact that Darwin admitted he is a Creationist. If life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes.

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To FishyFred,

    The link you provided does NOT discuss a mechanism. Also just about anything can work on paper. Reality is another story.

    One more time for the learning impaired- IC does not mean the structure could not have evolved. The debate is about the mechanism of evolution- design vs. willy-nilly (culled by NS).

    An experiment has been proposed. Why are evolutionitwits so afraid of that experiment?

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An experiment has been proposed. Why are evolutionitwits so afraid of that experiment?

    FishyFred:
    Before scientists do your dirty work for you, please explain why those at the Discovery Institute, with their insane amount of funding, can't be bothered to do it.

    I have already explained it, as has Dr. Behe. Simple common sense really. The experiment would validate the claims of evolutionitwits and refute an ID icon. If IDists did the experiment and it failed to produce a flagellum who would believe it?

    Anyone with a basic understanding of biology can see Miller is just full of it.

    Add to that fact his "papers" (on your list) never went through peer-review and you get non-scientific diatribe.


    FF:
    Wow, your ad hominem is showing.

    As is your dishonesty.

    FF:
    Miller only co-wrote one of the leading textbooks on the subject. He sounds really "full of it" to me.

    Miller co-wrote a book on the evolution of the bac flag via some blind watchmaker type process?

    FF:
    Of course his papers went through peer review,

    Not the two listed in this thread. Can you follow the discussion?

    FF:
    and I'd think twice about accusing someone of bypassing the peer review process while ID proponents did it with Meyers' paper. Why do you think Sternberg was "Sternberged?"

    Reality demonstrates Meyer's paper went through peer-review.

    FF:
    Regarding the Pharyngula post: The mechanism to get to an IC system in that post is random mutation in a member of the population that reproduced. Nothing more, nothing less. And it does happen in reality, as PZ pointed out. It happens ALL THE TIME.

    Again perhaps PZ will take his work to the lab and demonstrate his premise works. Until then it is nothing more than a very un-scientific just-so story.

    FF:
    You have absolutely no understanding of evolution if you think of it as "willy-nilly."

    Let's see- the mutations are allegedly random- that fits "willy-nilly". Natural selection is allegedly blind and without purpose. Yup, willy-nilly is correct- that is in your accepted scenario.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g:
    Also I take it you missed the fact that Darwin admitted he is a Creationist.


    JT:
    Now you are resorting to urban myths as arguments. Look it up.

    What's a matter? Can't you read? I provided the quote from YOUR refernce. Here it is again:

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

    By the logic of anti-IDists that makes Darwin a Creationist (for the same reason Dr. Behe is labeled a Creationist).

    The response to Miller refutes his claims. That makes it a refutation.

    joe g:
    The topic isn't evolution.


    JT:
    OK the topic is "...provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved"..."

    Your dishonesty cut off my sentence before the relevant part. Go figure.

    JT:
    But papers about evolution are off topic?

    As I have stated several times "evolution" isn't being debated. The mechanism is.

    JT:
    Hard to argue with that logic - or understand it.

    I doubt you can understand anything.

    JT:
    Is the problem that you just want one and only one?

    I want one that fits my criteria. And I am still waiting.

    JT:
    Is the problem that you cannot assimilate more than one?

    No. The problem is you can't present one (that fits the criteria)

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JT's list of references comes from the Matzke diatribe:

    Evolution in (Brownian) space:
    a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum


    Notice that this paper has not been submitted for peer-review. Also it has been responded to and shown to be lame:

    Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:
    A Response to Nicholas Matzke
    :

    "Matzke, throughout his article, invokes gene duplications and mutations at key points where the Darwinian mechanism is supposed to effect transitions that are reasonably probable. But what gene exactly is being duplicated? And what locus on a gene is being mutated? Matzke never says. Indeed, his model is so unspecific that he cannot answer these questions. But unless we know the answer to such questions, there's no way to know whether the transitions Matzke describes are reasonably probable and therefore of the type required by Darwin's theory."

    Gene dupications? How were gene dupications determined to be "random"?:

    Dr. Spetner discussing mutations:
    "The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great blog! I live in a community filled with "evolutionitwits" My only refuge is my art.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home