Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

I don't have the time to check right now, but I'm quite certain I've seen RickG and SFS having similar complaints, neither of whom are atheists.

But sure, if it makes you feel better, it's not any problem you have. It's just the mean, evil atheists picking on you.

Let me make this very clear, I don't think anyone is "picking on me" as if I am a victim here. I actually feel the absolute opposite of that. I believe that when faced with no logical argumentation based on actual natural evidence the atheist or naturalist or materialist (whatever label best fits) will always go into mocking mode, defamation of character, or deflecting the argument. It is a common tactic and I've been around long enough to confirm this. The fact is that a group of people that are biased against my position feel the need to make false accusations against me is no concern to me and in fact reinforces my argument due to their lack of actual evidence and the apparent need to discredit me personally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

simply because boxcar2d does not model all of the processes involved, that's why.
you have to take into account HGT, frame shifts, reverse reads, and all of the other things that was presented in table 1.

another thing. boxcar2d gives the impression of an linearly increasing fitness of the object, whereas the MA experiment i posted says exactly the opposite should happen.

Hey, I know why it doesn't mimic actual evolution, tell him.

 

[lasthero]

Let me make this very clear, I don't think anyone is "picking on me" as if I am a victim here. I actually feel the absolute opposite of that. I believe that when faced with no logical argumentation based on actual natural evidence the atheist or naturalist or materialist (whatever label best fits) will always go into mocking mode, defamation of character, or deflecting the argument. It is a common tactic and I've been around long enough to confirm this. The fact is that a group of people that are biased against my position feel the need to make false accusations against me is no concern to me and in fact reinforces my argument due to their lack of actual evidence and the apparent need to discredit me personally.

Has it ever entered your mind that there might be some kernel of truth to what they say about you?

 

[crjmurray]

Has it ever entered your mind that there might be some kernel of truth to what they say about you?

Ha!

 

[justlookinla]

Let me make this very clear, I don't think anyone is "picking on me" as if I am a victim here. I actually feel the absolute opposite of that. I believe that when faced with no logical argumentation based on actual natural evidence the atheist or naturalist or materialist (whatever label best fits) will always go into mocking mode, defamation of character, or deflecting the argument. It is a common tactic and I've been around long enough to confirm this. The fact is that a group of people that are biased against my position feel the need to make false accusations against me is no concern to me and in fact reinforces my argument due to their lack of actual evidence and the apparent need to discredit me personally.

Yep, that's standard behavior for them. Simply presenting the truth and refusing to participate in their frequent personal attacks seemingly infuriates them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, that's standard behavior for them. Simply presenting the truth and refusing to participate in their frequent personal attacks seemingly infuriates them.

Exactly.

Has it ever entered your mind that there might be some kernel of truth to what they say about you?

Yes. I have people that I respect from differing points of view that I ask about accusations concerning my arguments.

 

[lasthero]

Exactly.

Yes. I have people that I respect from differing points of view that I ask about accusations concerning my arguments.

I don't know what they're telling you, but I can't imagine they see what I - and many others - see. I asssure you, it's not as much as a case of atheists being mean to you as you seem to think.

But I understand that you're not going to recognize that coming from me, and while I'm sure that there have been thiests that have pointed this out to you, too, I don't have the time or energy to go back and check. So the next time a theist calls you out on your behavior, I'll be sure to point it out.

 

[crjmurray]

I don't know what they're telling you, but I can't imagine they see what I - and many others - see. I asssure you, it's not as much as a case of atheists being mean to you as you seem to think.

But I understand that you're not going to recognize that coming from me, and while I'm sure that there have been thiests that have pointed this out to you, too, I don't have the time or energy to go back and check. So the next time a theist calls you out on your behavior, I'll be sure to point it out.

Does a deist count?

 

[whois]

I believe that when faced with no logical argumentation based on actual natural evidence the atheist or naturalist or materialist (whatever label best fits) will always go into mocking mode, defamation of character, or deflecting the argument. It is a common tactic and I've been around long enough to confirm this.

they also go into the "consensus mode".
everyone believes in evolution, common descent, etc.
actually they are asking the wrong question.
the "consensus mode" would change drastically if the question was "do you believe life is more than what physical laws can account for".

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you don't know what deliberately designed means how do you claim that it is just an illusion?

I know what "deliberately designed" means.
What I'm asking you, is for an objective method and a null hypothesis on how to detect such.

You have just spent a massive amount of time and effort in claiming I don't define it but then in one swoop you have not only defined it in your own mind

Only because you refused to define it and then shifted the burden of proof to me to "prove" that "appearance" doesn't mean "actual".

So if you refuse to define it and then ask me to disprove it, the only think I can do is assume a definition myself and run with it.

Which, off course, opens the door for you for yet another moving of goalposts - since you can always say "no, that's not what I mean".

Well, sorry that I'm not a mindreader.

You can always clear up these misunderstandings by, you know........ answer the questions that were put to you several months ago (and afterwards off course): an objective method on how to detect design + a null hypothesis.

Aaaaaaaaand go.

but have set forth to refute any sense of deliberate design in living forms by an artificial program that does not even reflect evolution to do so. You then declare that if an animated, intelligently designed program using design that allows for blind random choices to occur from predetermined environmental, selection and populations equal natural occurring design. Mind blowing to say the least.

Still spewing anti-"controlled conditions" rethoric I see.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me get this straight, I haven't provided an objective method on how to detect design; although it was not me that put forth the assertion that the deliberate design seen in living organisms is an illusion produced by evolution.

Still lying about it I see.
Dawkins never said that there is "deliberate design" in living things.

I am suppose to define and conclude design of some other person's assertions? ASK DAWKINS.

This is kind of strange.
Dawkins doesn't claim AT ALL that there is deliberate design in life. So if all you are doing is repeating what Dawkins says, why are you claiming the exact opposite of he is saying?

Because you are claiming that THERE IS deliberate design.
Dawkins does not.

What's that about?

So no, you are not just merely repeating what Dawkins says. If you are going to claim that you do, I can only conclude that you are quote mining the dude and thereby misrepresenting what is actually saying.

My point which everyone would just love to ignore or deflect away from is if someone agrees with Dawkins it is incumbent upon them to support that assertion.

Read the Blind Watchmaker. You know. The book you quote mined him from and then pretended that he didn't make his case. Eventhough the entire book is literally doing that. It's called the blind watchmaker, for goodness sake.

Nevertheless, I showed you how a simple blind process is perfectly capable of producing the illusion of design.

You rejecting that doesn't change anything.

Also, when are you going to make your case for "appearance of design, therefor actual design"????

When are you going to meet your burden of proof?
Or is your entire case build on shifting it?

The burden is on all of you if you agree with Dawkins that the deliberate design observed in living forms is an illusion produced by evolution. GA will not cut it. Provide evidence from actual evidence and not that created by artificial programs.

That burden of proof has been met.
Blind processes can created appearances of design.
Black on white.

No matter how much you resist the point.

Also, if you want to claim that X is designed, you need to support your case. Can you?

 

[The Cadet]

You can always clear up these misunderstandings by, you know........ answer the questions that were put to you several months ago (and afterwards off course): an objective method on how to detect design + a null hypothesis.

Is now a bad time to point out that we've been asking for this since june?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...tific-consensus.7890889/page-57#post-68183275

June. That's just the first time I could find that specifically I asked you, @Oncedeceived, for this information - this information that is crucially important to any scientific idea. Since then, for almost two months, we've been doing this silly little dance where we ask you for a clear definition and objective criteria, and you scramble for excuses to avoid having to offer us something you already should have had before making the assertion to begin with. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Doubly so when we accept your burden of proof, prove you wrong on multiple counts (both in a simulated experiment and with the help of a natural "designed" mechanism that we know very well evolved), and you still won't accept it!

Please back up your assertions or give it a rest already. Because at this point, if I say "I see no appearance of design in the bacterial flagellum", my statement has exactly nothing to stand against it. What, you want to say there is? Well great, show me why you say that! Provide an objective criteria for the appearance of design! Then, once you've done that, you, me, and the sentient AI I built while waiting can discuss what those criteria mean and how well they apply. And please, for the love of whatever god you happen to believe in, do not shift your burden of proof again. I think I might fly into a blind rage and I don't think any of us want that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is now a bad time to point out that we've been asking for this since june?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...tific-consensus.7890889/page-57#post-68183275

June. That's just the first time I could find that specifically I asked you, @Oncedeceived, for this information - this information that is crucially important to any scientific idea. Since then, for almost two months, we've been doing this silly little dance where we ask you for a clear definition and objective criteria, and you scramble for excuses to avoid having to offer us something you already should have had before making the assertion to begin with. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Doubly so when we accept your burden of proof, prove you wrong on multiple counts (both in a simulated experience and with the help of a "designed" mechanism that we know very well evolved), and you still won't accept it!

Please back up your assertions or give it a rest already. Because at this point, if I say "I see no appearance of design in the bacterial flagellum", my statement has exactly nothing to stand against it. What, you want to say there is? Well great, show me why you say that! Provide an objective criteria for the appearance of design! Then, once you've done that, you, me, and the sentient AI I built while waiting can discuss what those criteria mean and how well they apply. And please, for the love of whatever god you happen to believe in, do not shift your burden of proof again. I think I might fly into a blind rage and I don't think any of us want that.

I approve of this post!!

And I second the request to finally be presented with objective criteria on how to detect design + a reasonable null hypothesis.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand go.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know what they're telling you, but I can't imagine they see what I - and many others - see. I asssure you, it's not as much as a case of atheists being mean to you as you seem to think.

Do you think they are being "mean" to me? I don't. I see them showing their frustration with their own positions being shown as self-defeating and without any evidence to support it. Frustration and sometimes anger are emotions people feel when what they believe is being shown to be irrational.

But I understand that you're not going to recognize that coming from me, and while I'm sure that there have been thiests that have pointed this out to you, too, I don't have the time or energy to go back and check. So the next time a theist calls you out on your behavior, I'll be sure to point it out.

I have theists and atheists that I ask about accusations being leveled against me on the forum. The people on this forum including those you mentioned have their own motivations and are very much invested in their own positions in the threads. I like to have non-invested neutral input into my posts. The people I discuss this with are very open and honest.

I have repeatedly said that Richard Dawkins claims that the deliberate design we see in living organisms is there due to evolutionary processes. This process produces living organisms that appear to be designed with a purpose. If you and others agree with that assessment, it is up to you all to provide natural evidence to support that assertion. Dawkins doesn't and no one else has either.

It may be what you believe to be true, it may be what some other biologists believe to be true but there is no evidence for that belief.

 

[lasthero]

Do you think they are being "mean" to me? I don't. I see them showing their frustration with their own positions being shown as self-defeating and without any evidence to support it. Frustration and sometimes anger are emotions people feel when what they believe is being shown to be irrational.

I just see them getting tired of you arguing around in circles. Dogma and Cadet both seem perfectly rational to me - I get their point just fine. It seems, to me, that you're incapable or unwilling to accept what they're saying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think they are being "mean" to me? I don't. I see them showing their frustration with their own positions being shown as self-defeating and without any evidence to support it.

The only thing I'm frustrated about is your total inability to get simple points, your continued intellectual dishonesty, your total failure of justifying your own claims and the continued attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Yes, stubborness in people I try to explain simply concepts to frustrate me a LOT.

 

[whois]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Doubly so when we accept your burden of proof, prove you wrong on multiple counts (both in a simulated experiment and with the help of a natural "designed" mechanism that we know very well evolved), and you still won't accept it!

by not including the processes involved, you have not proved boxcar2d even applies to biological evolution.

also, what is this natural "designed" mechanism that you speak of?
DNA?
it's 100% dishonest of you to say science KNOWS it evolved.
science has no clue how it came about, and you know it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

by not including the processes involved, you have not proved boxcar2d even applies to biological evolution.

The mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, fitness testing and reproduction with heredity ...doesn't apply to biological evolution? Not at all? lol, ok, then.

In any case: perhaps you still didn't understand it, eventhough we have said it about a few dozen times....

The point of it was to demonstrate that the "appearance of deliberate design" can and does occur without "actual design".

 

[The Cadet]

I have repeatedly said that Richard Dawkins claims that the deliberate design we see in living organisms

I reject the claim that we see deliberate design. Please demonstrate your claim or retract it. Saying "Dawkins said it" doesn't help you at all, because I don't care what Dawkins says in his own personal writings; if it doesn't make sense and is not backed by evidence, it doesn't matter. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It's been almost two months. This is getting ridiculous.

Dawkins doesn't and no one else has either.

...Did you read The Blind Watchmaker?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still lying about it I see.
Dawkins never said that there is "deliberate design" in living things.

Still trying to get the thread closed with your flaming I see. I am not lying I have provided his quote prior to this but I will do so again to show everyone how you always call people liars.

He said it mimics deliberate design which is what I claimed:
Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. Emphasis mine.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature1_lowres.html

This is kind of strange.
Dawkins doesn't claim AT ALL that there is deliberate design in life. So if all you are doing is repeating what Dawkins says, why are you claiming the exact opposite of he is saying?

Because you are claiming that THERE IS deliberate design.
Dawkins does not.

What's that about?

He says it mimics deliberate design. If something mimics something it has to be there to do so.

So no, you are not just merely repeating what Dawkins says. If you are going to claim that you do, I can only conclude that you are quote mining the dude and thereby misrepresenting what is actually saying.

I have not misrepresented him...that is a lie.

Read the Blind Watchmaker. You know. The book you quote mined him from and then pretended that he didn't make his case. Eventhough the entire book is literally doing that. It's called the blind watchmaker, for goodness sake.

I've clearly and without misrepresenting his position said that he provides stories, maybe's and could have been's in his assertions that the mimicking of deliberate design is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.

Nevertheless, I showed you how a simple blind process is perfectly capable of producing the illusion of design.

You rejecting that doesn't change anything.

No, you provided a program that does not reflect evolution.

Also, when are you going to make your case for "appearance of design, therefor actual design"????

The evidence is design, if you or others wish to claim that the design observed in living organisms is an illusion of the real thing then you and they must provide evidence that natural evolution produced it. A program that does not reflect true evolution is not evidence for natural evolution.

When are you going to meet your burden of proof?
Or is your entire case build on shifting it?

The positive claim is coming from those who claim that the deliberate design observed in living organisms is an illusion produced by natural selection. The burden is on you and them.

That burden of proof has been met.
Blind processes can created appearances of design.
Black on white.

I have shown you that this is not a true reflection of natural evolution, I've shown that I am not alone in that assessment by others that understand evolution and those who understand the programs. You and Cadet refuse to accept that even those who use the program don't feel it is.

No matter how much you resist the point.

Like I said, I am not alone in that assessment and you and Cadet are the ones that are resisting those who know evolution and know the programs well.

Also, if you want to claim that X is designed, you need to support your case. Can you?

It is not my burden. The design is the evidence and if one wants to claim that this design is an illusion it is their burden to provide evidence that shows it is just an illusion and not actual design.