M: I Debate Cdk007 and ExtantFrodoM
In June of 2010, I was directed by an evolutionaut to a video made by cdk007 on YouTube. The vid was about common ancestry and common designs made by single designers and multiple design sources. The title: Common Design, Common Designer=Fail.
The author is a PhD in molecular neuroscience, a very well educated guy. I was referred to his vid by another evolutionaut who let me know that cdk007 REALLY knows what he is talking about….unlike me, of course. So I ventured over and watched. What really astounds me about this “science” is the fact that no one seems to really think it out. They accept the good, and completely ignore the bad…rational challenges. Their strategy is the “sigh”, the demean, and the attempt to make challengers look silly. Another big gun on YouTube is a guy named ExtantFrodo. I of course left a comment for . ExtantFrodo chimed in first, followed by Cdk007. Cdk007’s CV is below.
My degrees:
High School Diploma
Minor Chemistry
Minor Physics (Astro-physics)
Bachelors (B.A.) Degree Botany
Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience
Currently postdoc at an Ivy League University
Quote: “To deny evolution is to deny a direct observation. It’s like denying the sky is blue while refusing to look up.”
ExtantFrodo’s interests are:
nanotech 3dprinting VR AR immortality gaming space habitation ecology design terraforming robotics genetics biological engineering DIY and more
ExtantFrodo and Cdk007 are obviously very intelligent evolutionauts, and very well known in evolution YouTube circles. My first comment had to do with how common ancestry is just a smokescreen that prevents scrutiny of the invention, design, and assembly of bio-systems:
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
Proving “common ancestry” is light years away from what you really need to prove. CA is a smokescreen that blocks out the fact that bio-systems had to be invented on a uni-celled earth. When there was no notion what a pump was, evolution had to invent a heart that could pump blood, which also had no notion. Forget your CA evidence. Prove that nothing can invent natural digital cameras, audio systems, flight, bat sonar. You of course can’t, so you use the CA smokescreen and a typographical error. (In the Dover trial, (p.18 in this blog) it was brought up by evolutionauts that the writer of a pro-ID book replaced the word “Creationist” with “Intelligent Design”, and accidentally left a few letters of Creationist in an early draft of the text, sending evolutionauts into a swoon. They actually think this proves that ID is Creationism in disguise. Have they no notion of the immensity of this discussion? That this “error” isn’t a flea not only on the back of an elephant, but of the UNIVERSE?)
ExtantFrodo jumps in and answers:
None of those things had to be invented. Their utility from their most basic form via the advantages conferred set their position for advancement though descendants that gained and built upon them. I spit on your challenge. “prove that nothing” You prove yourself a moron for asking. I challenge you, I fucking DARE you to ask the question legitimately.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
You are so full of shit. They are far more “inventions” than any human made invention. There was no “prior art”, no previous designs to go off of. NOTHING. And our uni-celled world invented digital cameras, pumps, ball and socket joints, sonar, teeth, brains (computers) from NOTHING. You can’t account for these except to “declare” they are not inventions. Get a brain. They are hugely better inventions than any patented at the USPTO, and done from NOTHING. Your fucking dare answered.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
try this google search
inventions using “evolutionary algorithm”
let me know when you’ve tapped all the links.
see you next year. 🙂
In so much as that all biology follows the same CA patterns of building on prior forms through slight additions, you’ll have to make up a better lie.
Yet you repeat the same stupid challenge? Wording it the same way? If you don’t bother to learn the argument why flaunt your ignorance? It was never “from nothing”. Burn your strawman.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Oh goodie. I get to look it up on Google. They know for sure. If some evolutionaut wrote it on Google, that makes it real. har har har You can’t be that naive, can you?
You are just a tape recording: “algorithms, alleles, slight changes, selected for, advantage….” You have no idea what you are talking about. You think NOTHING did what nothing cannot do today or ever in your or any persons experience EVER. Sterile earth to uni-celled to incredible inventions. That kind of nothing.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
Actually no steve. I’ve written many such genetic algorithms myself. I know how they work. I know what they can do. I know their limitations. I know stupid when it asks of the processes that include the combination of replication with variation and iterative non-random attrition:”How does nothing…?” because it is not a nothing process. It is a process that builds on itself. WOW you get to talk first hand with someone who can handle your questions.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
What did you make those algo’s with? Your ID (intelligently designed) AND IC (irreducibly complex) computer? Your own intelligence? How about the math equations that took man tens of thousands of years to discover and figure out? Are those equations intelligent? The equations used in quantum physics? Is E=MC2 intelligent? It was there all along, but it took man tens of thousands of years to come up with one genius who discovered it. You believe BS that someone taught you, just like any religion. You have been fooled bigtime.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
“What did you make those algo’s with?”
It doesn’t matter. As I stated, (and you ignored or missed or failed to appreciate) The evolutionary process works regardless of the substrate. You could do it on paper. You could do it in your head. The output will go the in the same manner.
Let’s say you were right and it required someone to think up the process of evolution to implement it. It is evidently occurring and without means for stopping. Do we deny undeniable facts?
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
You can deny the power of the process all you want but the fact is not disputable. That our intelligence is also a product of evolution is neither mysterious nor supernatural. Especially given what we’ve been able to glean about early man’s development. (particularly once it was far enough along that the women could weed out the morons)
E=MCC is not intelligent. It is a formula describing a relationship.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
You believe a process that has never been demonstrated. Ever. Tis’ your brain and choice. E=MC^2 isn’t intelligent? wow You have to go against all reason, of course, so you can support your indefensible belief which you will ’til hell freezes over. adios
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
Never demonstrated? I just told you of my own extensive experience in the subject. You’re a little slow, eh?
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Frodo, you are a little tricky.. Eh? Again, your own extensive experience with your IC/ID fingers and your ID brain on your IC and ID computer? Sorry, that doesn’t count.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
The Italian wall lizard evolved a new organ, a cecal valve that allows them to better digest a food which is native to their new territory but foreign to their ancestors. They’re not expected to be infertile with the parent species because it takes more than a few generations and many more accumulated genetic incompatibilities for that to happen. But it does belie your claim that no new organs have evolved. How many unexamined species have also gained new organs lately?
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Get serious. You have to go to the Italian wall lizard’s cecal valve to get your proof? THAT doesn’t qualify as pathetic. I would LOVE the REAL story behind that one. How the hell did any scientist do a series of dissections on a wall lizard…..never mind. What is really pathetic is that you fall for it. Invention and newly forming organs should be all over for ALL of us to see. What a laugh. You should be skeptically asking questions yourself. But you can’t. You can only defend. Why?
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
“How the hell did any scientist do constant dissections on a wall lizard”
Why do you imagine that is necessary? Their isolation on the island is sufficient, but sadly for you I guess, the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analysis completely confirms the parent stock. So I guess you have to own up to being wrong for once.
“Invention and newly forming organs should be all over for ALL of us to see.”
So you have X-ray vision too? You see the gross outer anatomy and gloss the microsize
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
“Invention and newly forming organs should be all over for ALL of us to see.”
Funny, I can’t figure out whether you expect evolution to fill that role ( which in fact we do observe as it has produced ALL organs and bodies and brains on the planet ) or if you are merely confused about the rate at which, in only your opinion, it should occur. Since you don’t grasp the process, why do you think you are pro enough to state what the rate of acquired changes ought to occur?
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
The rate? What does the rate have to do with anything? Humans should be able to experience evolution in mid stages. All over the place. It should be HUGE since it formed all of nature. It fails to show up. Your belief is invisible just like any religion.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
There are many examples of such ring species. Does what nature presents and what you think it should don’t mesh? Do you think it’s reality or your expectations that are out of whack? Don’t ever think that more education will help you. It’s better for you to be an example of how obsessively grasping only the shallowest aspect of a concept and stubbornly avoiding getting any deeper with it can somehow give you the impression that you understand it all while knowing you don’t get it
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
So I can get back “in whack”, I am going to try to believe what you and the other indoctrinates believe. I am going try REALLY hard.
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
The rate has quite a lot to do with it. The rate at which species fail and are factor. In a very real sense all species are ring species to each other ( only with the in between species we see in extant ring species having gone extinct ) The fact is this effect of “evolution in mid stages all over the place” is not what we expect in the course of natural selection. But you’ve probably never tried to track the entire worlds insect populations through the billions of novel features they evolve.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Actually, last week I did track the entire world’s insect population. What a tough job that was!
Not what we “expect”? I love this science. All you do is describe what is already there, and say “that is what we expected. We didn’t expect what isn’t there which would certainly prove evolution. We expect what would make evolution a fable. THAT is what we EXPECT. Therefore the theory is FACT!”
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
Did I write ‘we’? Sorry bud, I certainly emphatically meant and intended to indicate the educated scientific community with whom I would never insult by including you among their ranks.
Why are those ‘mid-beings’ not there when they’re not there (because sometimes they are there)? Through NS which we see operating throughout nature. The blind have eyes and can not see. I’M TALKING ABOUT YOU.
“all you do..” as if? Are you truly this stupid? Ignorant of the predictions fulfilled?
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Re: “we see operating throughout nature” Right. You and your fellow “educated scientific community members”?. That’s fine. When do you “see” NS operating throughout nature? On a nature hike or something?
RE:”Why are those ‘mid-beings’ not there when they’re not there (because sometimes they are there)?” What?
“The blind have eyes and can not see” Isn’t this a Bible verse?
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
Oh you’ve lost it completely. Now you are denying natural selection? You are in a class by yourself bud. All I can say now is I hope you can dig yourself out of this one. You are too far gone for me to handle. Maybe the guys at AIG or ICR can help you with this.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
Yes, I am a natural selection denier! What a laugh. You are really groveling.
Extant, you have found your best strategy for sure. Demean me and my education. Right on. That is the one I would go for If I were you. Your only hope, since you are making a fool of yourself trying to push that NS and one “non-occurring good mutation at a time” can invent and assemble all the bio-systems in nature. Why the hell would anyone believe that? THAT is the big question.
Cheerio
ExtantFrodo to stevebee92653
yes, it’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all year. You get the boobie prize of all boobie prizes. The strongest healthiest fastest most fit have equal chance of reproducing as the worst. You’ve made my day.
stevebee92653 to ExtantFrodo
You are really hurtin’ if your fake misconception about me is your biggest laugh of the year? My gawd. You need to get out and have some fun!
ExtantFrodo needs help so Cdk007 jumps into the fray:
cdk 007 to stevebee92653
What is one to make of a burger flipper at McDonalds with little more than a high school education telling a theoretical physicist that atoms don’t exist, that’s it makes no sense that solid objects are made primarily of empty space, that’s just silly talk.
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
My gawd. cdk, your comment is pathetic. I expected more of you. What a disappointment. Try my vid, Atoms Forces and Stars Pt. 2. Pt. 1 is also fun.
“When you have no argument or answer you must demean the questioner.” from: Rules of Engagement With Evolution Deniers by Charles Dawkins.
Come by and have a burger sometime.
Cdk007 to stevebee92653
When evidence is presented to you and you ignore it, there is nothing more than to show how you as a person are flawed, since we’ve already taken care of your questions. My analogy stands. As for the points you raise:
New structures: cecal valves.
New information / beneficial mutation / new gene: nylonase (Me: Bacteria that change their eating habits? Why is the evidence always invisible to the naked eye, completely absurd, and invisible to 99.99999% of all humans?)
Multicellular Life: Chlorela vulgaris (Me: a SINGLE celled green algae. This is the brightest guy on YouTube?)
Complex structures: even Darwin knew how the eye evolved, and I suggest you watch my video on the flagellum. (Me: Actually Darwin was dazzled by the eye, and admitted he had no idea. He was worried the formation of the eye and other complex bio-systems would kill his theory. He couldn’t imagine how such a structure could evolve. )
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
You mean Italian wall lizard cecal valves? Yea, that’s great evidence for the gullible.
Darwin had no idea how the eye evolved (formed) and admitted it. Neither do you or any person who ever lived on the face of the earth. You like to fool yourself.
I have seen your vid on the flagellum. How dozens of proteins formed themselves and inserted themselves in just the right places to form an injector then a 100,000 rpm reversible electromagnetic motor. Gawd. You evos live in dreamland.
Cdk007 to stevebee92653
Evolution is not up for debate. That ended over a century ago. If you have any shred of verifiable evidence that refutes any of the over 240,000 scientific peer reviewed papers supporting evolution, then be my guest, submit it for publication. As I’ve said before, put up or shut up. All you’ve brought here is, “it doesn’t make sense to me”, so therefore all scientists must be wrong. Maybe you’re just uneducated on the topic.
Cdk007 to stevebee92653
It was a metaphor (burger flipping) for someone who clearly is not educated in an advanced field. Did I call you a burger flipper. No. Like I’ve said, we’ve addressed your scientific questions, whether or not you decide to accept those answers is your prerogative. But your actions and comments on this channel remain as a testament to your stubbornness and ignorance.
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
The “science” of evolution answers questions: “That was answered 150 yrs ago.” “That has already been debunked.” “Your question has been answered over and over (sigh).” “We have peer reviewed papers, piles of them.” “I have addressed your question.”
I expected more from you. I am disappointed. What really disappoints is that an obviously intelligent person (you) has absolutely no skepticism. You believe and indoctrinate like any priest or reverend. You can’t wonder if what you say is pure BS.
Cdk007 to stevebee92653
Do I have skepticism that germs are bacteria and viruses, do I have skepticism that atoms are made of subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons, do I have skepticism that gravity is dues to the warping of space time? Until someone provides evidence that contradicts these ideas, I will accept them. Should people keep investigating these phenomena, yes. If a better theory comes along, I’ll accept that.
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
You forgot one or two really tiny things. Do you have skepticism that natural selection et al can INVENT incredible bio systems like bat sonar, ball and socket joints (and invent ligaments, tendons, and muscles to go with them) heart/lung/blood/nerve/brain/vessel systems, vision. INVENT from scratch? When there was no notion of what pumps, computers, motors, wires, vision et al were? Then DESIGN, ASSEMBLE, SUSTAIN these devices? Have any doubt there? You do but you won’t admit it.
Cdk007 to stevebee92653
Natural selection is not the source of variation, mutations are. Mutations are what “invent” things. NS is one mechanism that causes them to spread throughout a population. Am I open to the idea that NS and other known mechanisms might not cause complex structures to form. Absolutely. Every scientific study involves tests designed to refute their hypothesis. The problem is, no evidence has yet surfaced to refute evolution.
stevebee92653 to Cdk007
Know what et al means? My gawd. Do I have to list them all for you to not give an absurd lesson?
ZERO scientific studies show INVENTION of complex bio-systems. ZERO peer reviewed papers. ZERO. It must be proven that NS/RM DID doit.That is mature science. You have painted yourself in a corner by ignoring the point I made. Mutations never invented a bio-system. NEVER. Not brains,hearing, vision,sonar,heart/lung systems.You choose to believe despite. You can’t question. You’re brainlocked.
Me: That was the end of the conversation. CDK didn’t respond further. I was blocked from his channel. His smartest move. Much better than being shown up to be the charlatan that he is. Oh well. I really hope someday I will run into an evolutionaut that can actually discuss the problems of evolution honestly, with an open mind. And actually recognize the fact that there are problems instead of making up endless excuses, then demeaning the questioner when that fails. I am beginning to doubt I ever will.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
SuperAntiCreationaut said,
July 13, 2010 at 2:40 am
“That was the end of the conversation. Oh well. I really hope someday I will run into an evolutionaut that can actually discuss the problems of evolution honestly, with an OPEN MIND. And actually recognize the fact that there are problem instead of making up endless excuses, then demeaning when that fails. I am beginning to doubt I ever will.”
Little Stevie sure is full of himself, even after getting his burgers flipped for him because he lacks the capacity to do it himself. It might be wise for you to watch this video on open mindedness before accusing people of the opposite simply because facts are on their side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=related
stevebee92653 said,
July 13, 2010 at 3:56 am
Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. You couldn’t have done it better. Take your stupid video to a religious/superstitious site.
SuperAntiCreationaut said,
July 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. You couldn’t have done it better. Take your stupid video to a religious/superstitious site.”
Look, it’s really quite simple.
You either have testable evidence against evolution, or you don’t.
You can backtrack and correct your own blunders, or you can unintentionally throw the debate by accusing your opponents of being “indoctrinated”.
You can accept the reality that you’re no match for PHD people and STFU, or you can waste their time by attacking them with arguments that not even nut-nick organizations like AiG would use.
That’s really all it boils down to.
stevebee92653 said,
July 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm
All it boils down to is YOU are not intelligent enough to think on your own. And not educated enough to make your own critiques. You depend on others to do that for you. You are nothing but an indoctrinated believer and fan of the thinking of others. The “testable” evidence is all throughout this blog. Just sitting there waiting for challenges. You have none.
“Steve makes bad arguments. He is wrong. They are right. Steve is no match for PhD’s. Now my brain is tired, and I am too uneducated to think or comment on my own.”
That is what your thinking and your comment boils down to. But don’t feel bad. You are the norm.
CreationautBuster said,
July 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
“All it boils down to is YOU are not intelligent enough to think on your own. And not educated enough to make your own critiques. You depend on others to do that for you.”
Mostly just you accusing him of being unoriginal just because everyone who disagrees with you points out the same flaws in your asinine arguments because they’re so painfully obvious to everyone but you.
“You are nothing but an indoctrinated believer and fan of the thinking of others.”
He said something about how accusing a detractor of being “indoctrinated” is a sure sign that you’ve thrown the debate without knowing it. All this sentence does is further prove his point.
“The “testable” evidence is all throughout this blog. Just sitting there waiting for challenges. You have none.”
None of your articles present anything other than brainwashing conspiracy claims and accusations that evidence is being misinterpreted by properly trained scientists, all of which fall under the category of baseless conjecture. Hardly what any sane person would call evidence.
““Steve makes bad arguments. He is wrong. They are right. Steve is no match for PhD’s. Now my brain is tired, and I am too uneducated to think or comment on my own.””
Seriously, is this really any way for an old man who claims to have studied evolution for a few decades to behave? Talk about juvenile. Actually, this is exactly how you handled yourself against CDK007 and ExtantFrodo just now. Mostly just you insisting that they were wrong all along while providing not one shred of evidence other than your word against theirs. That’s no way to win an online debate, and it’s sure-as-hell no way to disprove evolution.
“That is what your thinking and your comment boils down to. But don’t feel bad.”
Feel bad about what? The overall debate over evolution really was settled over a century ago but it’s not the biological community’s fault that you won’t accept that. Sure they’ll give you some credit for being persistent but if you’re not going to learn from past mistakes, then they’re just going to ignore you and write you off as another troll.
“You are the norm.”
If you can’t even hold your own against a “norm” then you should probably find a hobby that doesn’t involve harassing biology majors for no reason other than your own petty amusement.
stevebee92653 said,
July 16, 2010 at 1:23 am
everyone who disagrees with you points out the same flaws in your asinine arguments
None of your articles present anything other than brainwashing conspiracy claims
(You say) they were wrong all along while providing not one shred of evidence other than your word against theirs.
The overall debate over evolution really was settled over a century ago
then they’re just going to ignore you and write you off as another troll.
find a hobby that doesn’t involve harassing biology majors for no reason other than your own petty amusement.
My gawd, how could you actually write another unbelievably trite comment that says absolutely nothing. Don’t you evo-indoctrinates get embarrassed? There are so many points in this blog, and you couldn’t possibly have the slightest idea what any say. You are completely incapable of thinking on your own and challenging my challenges. You think CKD was real intelligent? His best argument was calling me a burger flipper. Or that I had no idea about atomic forces, when I have a YouTube vid on just that subject, which I notified him of; and which he ignored. And when I asked him about invention, design, and assembly, his rant went on as sub-intelligently as yours.
Somewhere out there in cyberspace there has to be an intelligent non-indoctrinated evolutionaut that can actually discuss the problems with evolution rationally. It sure isn’t you, CDK007, or ExtantFrodo. This science is made up of a bunch of believers.
CreationautBuster said,
July 16, 2010 at 3:55 am
“My gawd, how could you actually write another unbelievably trite comment that says absolutely nothing.”
This coming from a guy who can’t even say anything but “you’re indoctrinated” as an ultimate defense.
“Don’t you evo-indoctrinates get embarrassed?”
There’s nothing for us to be embarrassed about so why should we be?
“There are so many points in this blog, and you couldn’t possibly have the slightest idea what any say.”
That’s great. Where are they? And are they consistent with the evidence and facts presented at legitimate college biology websites? I doubt it, especially since you never sight a single one of your sources in any of your articles.
“You are completely incapable of thinking on your own and challenging my challenges.”
You are completely incapable of coming up with new material so all you can do is accuse a detractor of being beneath your sub-layman level.
“You think CKD was real intelligent? His best argument was calling me a burger flipper.”
He was clearly speaking metaphorically which is something that most creationauts have trouble dealing with. You’re no exception.
“Or that I had no idea about atomic forces, when I have a YouTube vid on just that subject, which I notified him of; and which he ignored.”
And rightfully so. That video is barely at the grade-school level in terms of scientific sophistication and it crumbles to the ground when you insist that the carbon atom had to be invented and designed by some unknown entity.
Sorry little Stevie but the natural formation of the elements is already very well understood as the result of stellar and supernova events of the distant past. Scientists know for a fact that heavier elements than hydrogen can form through nuclear fusion that occurs within stars and that the fusion can produce even heavier elements when a star’s core goes critical.
Let’s face it. We’re all the result of a spectacular supernova event that produced all the heavy elements that make up this planet as well as our own bodies. To say that the trillions upon trillions of carbon atoms all had to be designed is teleological at best and proves nothing.
“And when I asked him about invention, design, and assembly, his rant went on as sub-intelligently as yours.”
He answered the correct way by pointing out genetic variations and natural selection that sorts them out through the generations. He was willing to accept an alternative theory provided there was sufficient evidence and rather than provide a viable theory with evidence to support it, you decided to simply repeat the same empty assertions that only revealed how little you know about the subject matter.
“Somewhere out there in cyberspace there has to be an intelligent non-indoctrinated evolutionaut that can actually discuss the problems with evolution rationally.”
This sentence is self-contradicting because you usually insist that anyone who supports evolutionary biology is “indoctrinated” to begin with. This typically leads to you making a lot of hasty accusations and generalizations.
“It sure isn’t you, CDK007, or ExtantFrodo.”
I support and trust these people because they’re able and willing to test their claims and demonstrate what they know. You on the other hand can’t even come close. All you can do is attack them and pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist. You’re obviously not educated enough to understand the basic principles of evolution so it’s unlikely that you’ll understand the evidence for it either.
“This science is made up of a bunch of believers.”
Sorry, but you lost this fight 150 years ago which is why CDK insisted that it wasn’t up for debate. It’s time for you to grow up and accept reality for what it is. You need to EVOLVE.
stevebee92653 said,
July 16, 2010 at 6:51 am
My challenges are on this blog. I don’t think it’s necessary to rewrite them for you in the comments. Actually, for you, it is. You have no idea what any of them are. The big question is why are you here? You have nothing to say, and the information in this blog is beyond you. So what’s the skinny.
The video on forces isn’t meant for physics majors. It’s meant for the 99.999% of people who have no idea. What a dumb criticism. You are groveling. Go ask your neighbors about the four forces, and see what percent have any idea what you are talking about. I would bet zero.
The “little Stevie” thing is a great demonstration of your intelligence. Thanks. That and the fact that you have no idea what is in this blog, and you can’t refute any of it. You can only spout demean/dogma.
“The matter was settled 150 years ago.” If you had a scientific bone in your body you wouldn’t relay such incredibly unscientific dogma. If that was the case with all of science, we would be in the Dark Ages still.
Ah, the answer to all questions: “genetic variations and natural selection”. Great to have one answer that does every question. Right?
Re: “I support and trust these people…” This one makes me ill. You have given up your skepticism, reason, and wonder to them. If there ever was a phrase that indicated the depth of your indoctrination, this one is it.
This is another in a series of your comments without a lick of you own thinking, with the exception of trying to demean me. Can you think? Do you accept challenges? I know the answer. If you want to comment again, try the rules on page one. Otherwise, Bye
CreationautDestroyer said,
July 16, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“My challenges are on this blog. I don’t think it’s necessary to rewrite them for you in the comments. Actually, for you, it is. You have no idea what any of them are. The big question is why are you here? You have nothing to say, and the information in this blog is beyond you. So what’s the skinny.”
This paragraph doesn’t address a single thing nor does it point in the directions that CreationautBuster had in mind. It’s mostly just you refusing to answer and going off on another “I R smart, You am not!” rant.
“The video on forces isn’t meant for physics majors. It’s meant for the 99.999% of people who have no idea. What a dumb criticism. You are groveling. Go ask your neighbors about the four forces, and see what percent have any idea what you are talking about. I would bet zero.”
So basically, you think 99.999% of the general population is not yet finished with grade-school. This definitely says a lot about you and not in a good way. You also completely fail to explain why elements should be designed rather than naturally produced through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.
“:The “little Stevie” thing is a great demonstration of your intelligence. Thanks. That and the fact that you have no idea what is in this blog, and you can’t refute any of it. You can only spout demean/dogma.”
Demeaning value is in the eye of the beholder. If us calling you uneducated hurts your feelings so much than maybe you should just say so, but what can I say? You’re an easy target with a strange phobia towards facts.
I’ve read all your articles and they’re flat-out hysterical LOL. They’re mostly just PRATT, PRATT, and more PRATT.
(Points Refuted A Thousand Times)
““The matter was settled 150 years ago.” If you had a scientific bone in your body you wouldn’t relay such incredibly unscientific dogma. If that was the case with all of science, we would be in the Dark Ages still.”
Darwin lived during the Victorian Era which started in 1837 and ended in 1901. This was a great time for science as mathematical models were being refined and the extensive taxonomic classification of animal life was well under way. Medical breakthroughs were very common in the printed media and the careful study of birds and the mechanics of flight were setting the stage for the Wright brothers in 1904.
The Dark Ages on the other hand started with the fall of the Roman Empire and didn’t really come to an end until about 1000AD with the start of the Middle Ages as the cultural and economic deterioration was coming to a close and people were becoming more secure. The Catholic church was still in charge and if you were to go back in time and tell everyone that birds had to be designed by an invisible engineer, you’d probably get torched for being a heretic. They don’t use the term ‘invisible engineer’, they prefer the word ‘god’.
“Ah, the answer to all questions: “genetic variations and natural selection”. Great to have one answer that does every question. Right?”
If you continue to have trouble understanding how genetic variations can accumulate over time and lead to dramatic changes from one species to the next, you’re welcome to go back the the RD forums but you might have to use a different log-in name and use a different debate style. I know that you’re not welcome there anymore.
“Re: “I support and trust these people…” This one makes me ill. You have given up your skepticism, reason, and wonder to them. If there ever was a phrase that indicated the depth of your indoctrination, this one is it.”
Sigh, this is just pathetic. You’re told repeatedly not to accuse people of being “indoctrinated” because all it does is make you look like a desperate moron. I don’t even know why I’m responding to this but if ignorance is bliss, then you must be the happiest person on the planet.
“This is another in a series of your comments without a lick of you own thinking, with the exception of trying to demean me.”
I said it before and I’ll say it again. You’re an easy target, and I think the real reason I do this is just to relieve stress from having a busy day.
“Can you think?”
Yes, but the real question is whether or not you can.
“Do you accept challenges?”
Sure, I love a challenge. I’m still waiting to see you present one that’s worth the science community’s time, but I’m optimistic.
“I know the answer.”
If it’s another “you’re indoctrinated” rant, I’ll be more than happy to poke at it.
“If you want to comment again, try the rules on page one.”
All your enemies have been doing is pointing out the killer flaws in all your arguments while you’ve consistently failed to correct a single one. If you want to run an intellectually honest blog, you’ll have to delete everything here and start from scratch.
“Otherwise, Bye”
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
stevebee92653 said,
July 16, 2010 at 9:21 pm
The big question is are your wobbles still wobbling?
AfghanMAN1 said,
August 16, 2010 at 5:51 am
SCREW these evolutionats, even and afghan man can figure out that mutations and natural selections cant form all of nature, the guy you are aruging with even says that most mutations are neutral in his video yet they can form all these systems hahhaah all of them are neutral , mutations formed everything , wow in all the movies i watch mutated things generally dont look very good….. also are the cecal valves that he was talking about legit?
stevebee92653 said,
August 17, 2010 at 3:43 am
What makes the cecal valve of the wall lizard so absurd is the length evolutionauts have to go to demonstrate SOMETHING. My gawd, if all of nature evolved, major examples would be all over the place. We would see a VERY different world. You wouldn’t need scientists to point out the examples. Did the evo-scientists that “discovered” the cecal valve have pre- and post- complete genomes? I kinda doubt it. It’s not ligit. It’s pathetic. Embarrassing.
CheetahKing said,
October 9, 2010 at 8:31 pm
“ZERO scientific studies show INVENTION of complex bio-systems. ZERO peer reviewed papers. ZERO.”
Ha ha ha! You wish.
That’s reality for you Stevebee, and why blank assertions simply don’t work. If you can’t show that such studies and papers don’t exist to your critics, you’re better off just keeping your mouth shut and fingers away from the keyboard.
Like CDK said, it’s either put up or shut up.
“It must be proven that NS/RM DID do it.”
It has been proven; so many times in fact that my brain is fit to burst. I’d point you to a lovely link but your rules page unfairly prevents anyone from backing up their arguments. Somebody’s being one-sided and it’s not me.
“That is mature science. You have painted yourself in a corner by ignoring the point I made. Mutations never invented a bio-system. NEVER.”
Since your “point” is a total fabrication, it’s easy to just ignore it.
“Not brains,hearing, vision,sonar,heart/lung systems.”
If RM and NS didn’t form those than what did? You never provide any answer to your own “conundrum”.
“You choose to believe despite. You can’t question. You’re brainlocked.”
Cry me a river kid, just cry us all a river.
BTW, I don’t care one bit if you think this comment is repetitive in any way shape or form, nor do I care if you think I’m being unoriginal. Independent thought has nothing to do with determining truth anyway.
stevebee92653 said,
October 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm
You are right: “This comment is repetitive in EVERY way shape or form and…….unoriginal.”
OK so forward the link if you like so I can learn how NS and RM invented and assembled……I can’t wait. I really will give a look. What I would expect is the link will have no idea, but you won’t be able to see it. Just like all the peer reviewed papers exampled on this blog. (p. 5), and evo-YouTube vids. No person who ever live has any idea, so I am not too worried. But I certainly will look with an open mind.
I love the “what did” question. You obviously haven’t read any of this blog, including p. 1.
CheetahKing said,
October 10, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“OK so forward the link if you like so I can learn how NS and RM invented and assembled……I can’t wait. I really will give a look.”
I’m not that naive Steve. Most people online who deny science never actually research anything tangible because they’ve decided beforehand to reject any and all evidence that may contradict their personal views.
Besides, you probably won’t read anything I point you to anyway. For all those papers you went over, you clearly didn’t read any of them in their entirety but that didn’t stop you from smearing them.
“I love the “what did” question. You obviously haven’t read any of this blog, including p. 1.”
I did. You proposed the idea of building a new theory to replace evolution but provided zero framework for how that new theory should pan out, other than saying that there had to be a designer; an obvious supernatural agent of some sort.
For a new theory to replace evolution, it has to take an insane amount of factors into account.
There’s genetics that include endogenous retrovirus’s, chromosomal fusion, and genetic markers.
There’s comparative anatomy or homology where animals alive today are morphologically compared to creatures that only exist in the fossil record.
There’s observed speciation and genetic isolation.
There’s the phylogenetic organization of all life on earth.
The list goes on and on.
Basically, all you’d be doing is relabeling evolution.
But let’s suppose just for the sake of this comment that evolution is totally wrong and the incorporeal engineer is the only option.
How in the world can such a claim be tested? Science is limited in that it can only base its theories on observations that take place in perceptible reality.
And if this mysterious entity was such a master of engineering, how does it justify giving us humans such weak eyesight with a blind-spot? The majority of humans have to wear glasses or some form of image enhancement to see properly.
And then there’s our teeth. Some people have to be fitted with braces or have their wisdom teeth pulled out. Why would any engineer give us wisdom teeth and the need for braces?
Our other senses such as hearing and smelling are extremely weak compared to other animals so why didn’t the engineer give us better senses?
Physically, we humans are weak compared to other apes, and our skeletons break way too easily compared to a solid steal frame. The engineer who designed us must have been totally drunk at the drawing board.
Evolution on the other hand is only interested in whether or not an organism can reproduce. So perfection is clearly not evolution’s goal, it only deals with something far more basic. Our eyesight is just good enough and so is our hearing and sense of smell. We’re an intelligent race so there’s no need for us to be super-robust like a gorilla, or acrobatic like a gibbon. Humans can invent and develop theories to explain what is not fully understood so why would an invisible omnipotent engineer want to create a race that can advance on its own and outgrow the need to believe in him?
The engineer obviously didn’t think things through very far.
stevebee92653 said,
October 10, 2010 at 7:30 pm
So, the bottom line is no link showing how evolution invented from nothing. Oh well. You had me excited for a minute. I thought your link would solve the problem for me and really show me. Your list of evo-evidence is given completely thoughtlessly by you. Like someone who finds a treasure chest and complains about the scratches on the gold coins.
Evolution is “interested”? Boy, that sounds intelligent!
“We are an intelligent race”? Did the intel come from natural selection?
Your list is clobbered on this blog. So I won’t waste my time answering here.
A hint: Natural selection can’t invent. Your phylo-tree prevents the spread of bio-systems (p. 36). NS/RM can’t “teach” ameloblasts and odontoblasts where to locate themselves, and when to turn on and shut off the knitting of enamel and dentin to produce those incredible tiny sculptures that you so freely complain about. These are items that you evolutionauts must blind yourselves to. So blind yourself and believe away. You will no matter what.
I sure want to see that link about the invention of bio-systems. I’m dying see how that can be done without intel, since nature’s inventions are millions of times more complex, and far better than intelligent man can come up with.
CheetahKing said,
October 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm
So, to summarize your entire response, you’d rather go into some incoherent rant about how natural processes could not have done anything and accuse me of being close-minded instead of answering a single question I asked.
So much for “an objective look”.
Oh, well. As long as you’ve got nothing to offer science in any way, evolution will continue on as usual and people like you will continue to be ignored.
stevebee92653 said,
October 11, 2010 at 3:48 am
C’mon. I want that link! Puleeze! I really do.
A single question? What question did you ask? The source? The same source that put together the universe and atomic particles and their forces so incredibly intelligently, which of course you think is just random not intelligent, is most likely the source of life and it’s designs. On a scientific basis of course. So don’t bother going into your religion blather.
You threw out a list, which is typical. But every item on your list fails. I gave you reasons for a few, which you have blinded yourself to. For good reason. That is your best strategy. Ignore that which you can’t answer.
Other than the above, I have no idea what of your “questions” are.
C’mon. The link. Or were you bullshitting me. Or is your link a failure, and you know it so you don’t want to embarrass yourself and forward it.
CheetahKing said,
October 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“You threw out a list, which is typical. But every item on your list fails. I gave you reasons for a few, which you have blinded yourself to.”
You didn’t address anything about speciation, homology, taxonomic classification, OR genetic similarities. Instead you said something about a treasure chest with scratched coins in it, and what that has to do with anything is something that you’ll have to explain, not me.
“For good reason. That is your best strategy. Ignore that which you can’t answer.”
All your challenges have been shown to based on faulty presuppositions about how evolution works and questions like that are NEVER going to be answered the way you want them to be answered, nor will they ever be worth a damn to qualified experts.
You want to know why the T-rex’s arms stayed small? Maybe because it relied mostly on its powerful jaws as a weapon and had no need for bigger arms that only would have weighed it down.
Teeth fitting together is nothing special and it’s not restricted to us humans. In case you haven’t noticed Gnathostomes in general, or vertebrates with a jaw bone, have teeth that fit together which is a clear indication of common ancestry which you refuse to recognize as the reason “bio-systems” spread from one creature to the next.
There are even some great articles on the evolution of dentin. Seriously, you’re a dentist and you don’t even know that this kind of research is happening in your own supposed field of expertise?
“Other than the above, I have no idea what of your “questions” are.”
The questions I asked are really simple ones. Why did some invisible intelligence give us poor eyesight with a blind-spot? Why did it give us wisdom teeth and the occasional need for braces? Why didn’t it design us to be stronger and more robust?
Your claim that teeth fitting together implies intelligent forces at work makes about as much sense as saying that since we can breath air, that must mean that air was created exclusively for us and that we didn’t need to develop lungs that were adapted to the atmosphere.
““We are an intelligent race”? Did the intel come from natural selection?”
Yes. Do you have a problem with that?
“Your list is clobbered on this blog.”
Your entire blog is clobbered by a little thing called ‘objective reality’. And here’s why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentin#cite_note-5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1594990/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html
I know I run the gambit of getting this response either deleted and later posted on your list of deleted comments.
Also, if you respond with some line about how none of the sights answer any of your faulty challenges, then that’s your problem, no the scientific community’s.
“So I won’t waste my time answering here.”
Translation: “I won’t answer because I don’t know how.”
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2010 at 12:14 am
Re: “a treasure chest with scratched coins in it, and what that has to do with anything is something that you’ll have to explain, not me.” Way over your head. I won’t waste my time.
The following, nuff said:
“questions like that are NEVER going to be answered the way you want them to be answered, nor will they ever be worth a damn to qualified experts.”
“You want to know why the T-rex’s arms stayed small? Maybe because it relied mostly on its powerful jaws as a weapon and had no need for bigger arms that only would have weighed it down.”
(How about because evolution didn’t change things much. Is that a possible answer? One you wouldn’t consider? Because you might go to evo-hell if you did?)
“Teeth fitting together is nothing special and it’s not restricted to us humans.” (The formation of one tooth is beyond imagination. You show complete lack of knowledge here.)
“There are even some great articles on the evolution of dentin.” (I have read all the big ones. They have no idea. None whatsoever. Any article satisfies you.)
The questions I asked are really simple ones……(Refer to the treasure chest. Never mind. I forgot, you admit it’s over your head. You forgot these: “Why can’t we fly? Why don’t we have superpowers?)
Re: natural selection forming intelligence: Yes, I have a huge problem with that. HUGE, got it?
Re: “none of the sights answer any of your faulty challenges” (Hey, where’s the link on natural selection’s ability to invent and design??? You said you had it. Is this some sort if fake? Just a list of random pro-evolution links? See why links are a waste? Yours is a perfect example.)
CheetahKing said,
October 12, 2010 at 11:50 am
Well now, let’s see if I can properly summarize your response in the most logical manner possible.
Overall, it looks like you’d rather quote me out of context than address anything at all.
Your arguments are in the following order:
Ad Hominem
Appeal to Ignorance
Ad Hominem
(An appeal to Ignorance followed by another Ad Hominem)
(Another appeal to ignorance and an Ad Hominem)
(Ad Hominem followed by some nonsense about superpowers)
Personal Credulity, and like I said, that’s YOUR problem not mine or evolution’s
The reason I point these foibles out is because they become meaningless the very instant they’re exposed, but if I know your debate history based on how you handled the PHD people, then it’s almost certain that you’ll keep on using them anyway.
Then there’s the last paragraph where you, as usual, would rather blow off all the evidence than actually look into it.
“Hey, where’s the link on natural selection’s ability to invent and design??? You said you had it. Is this some sort if fake? Just a list of random pro-evolution links? See why links are a waste? Yours is a perfect example.”
Maybe instead of calling some critics repetitive and “trite”, you should take a good look at yourself. If recycled PRATT rhetoric is the best kind of response you can give then evolutionary science has nothing to fear.
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I actually read your links. My favorite was: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1594990/ Which concludes: “Simplistically, the evolution of teeth is believed to have occurred by one of two different mechanisms: (1) teeth evolved independently from jaws from pharyngeal denticles, similar to those found in many extant species of ®sh such as zebra®sh (Smith & Coates, 1998, 2001); (2) teeth evolved at the same time as, or after, jaws by internalisation of skin denticles (dermal armour) similar to those found on modernday sharks (Reif 1982, reviewed by Smith & Coates, 2001).”
Me: So we can conclude that teeth evolved before, during or after the evolution of jaws. What a laugh. You should try reading your own links before referring them to me and looking foolish doing it. This paper was already reviewed by me on this blog, BTW.
Tell you what. Just keep believing your nonsense, and I will just keep wondering why normally intelligent people choose to do that.
You have no links on the ability of natural selection to invent and assemble bio-systems as you said you did. Which makes you a………never mind.
Everything you say is repetitive, trite, unoriginal, done before on this blog dozens of times, and worthless as evidenced by your last comment.
Bye
CheetahKing said,
October 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“Me: So we can conclude that teeth evolved before, during or after the evolution of jaws. What a laugh.”
The order of which came first, the teeth or the jaws, is irrelevant, and it was clear that you didn’t actually read the entire paper or check its sources for accuracy.
“You should try reading your own links before referring them to me and looking foolish doing it.”
I did. You obviously didn’t. Otherwise you would have at least made some effort to address anything in those links.
“This paper was already reviewed by me on this blog, BTW.”
And quoting a paper out of context while throwing in some heckle-text disproves the paper how? You gotta do more than just take a snippet of text and poke at it like it’s the Achilles Heel of the paper. Try looking at the experiment that they did and see if you can replicate it like other scientist were able to do. If you find a fatal flaw that no other group noticed, then you might be onto something.
“Tell you what. Just keep believing your nonsense, and I will just keep wondering why normally intelligent people choose to do that.”
Allele frequency change in a dynamic environment is certainly more plausible than anything you’ve proposed, assuming you even proposed anything yet.
“You have no links on the ability of natural selection to invent and assemble bio-systems as you said you did. Which makes you a………never mind.”
Natural selection does NOT invent. All it does is decide which changes stay stay and which ones get eliminated. It’s not that hard to figure out, and because you have the definition wrong, it’s the reason your challenge is flawed.
“Everything you say is repetitive, trite, unoriginal, done before on this blog dozens of times, and worthless as evidenced by your last comment.”
Everything you’ve said on this blog has been disproved by legitimate scientific sites so much that it’s mind-boggling that ANYONE would still use such claims.
Remember Stevie, nobody is attacking you personally, but they are attacking your lack of progress in disproving evolution.
For a consolation, here’s Aronra on Natural Selection.
stevebee92653 said,
October 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Irrelevant which evolved first, jaws or teeth? You are truly amazing.
What context did I take it out of. What was missed?
Re: “Natural selection does NOT invent. All it does is decide which changes stay stay and which ones get eliminated.” So you say God invented bio-systems, and natural selection improved them? I WAS wondering. Now I know. Thanks
Hard to believe you would try to post an anti-religious vid by AronRa. Hard to believe.
His airplane example is priceless. INTELLIGENT people inventing and improving the design of airplanes only proves MY point. What a dunce. And another strategic mistake on your part.
stevebee92653 said,
October 13, 2010 at 2:37 am
“Natural selection does NOT invent. All it does is decide” Doesn’t “decide” take intelligence?
“If you ignore what he said about NS being deterministic” Deterministic? NS then IS the inventor of vision and electronic pumps.
One minute you say NS doesn’t invent. The next you say it does. You are one very confused evolutionaut.
AntiAntiChrist said,
October 13, 2010 at 11:25 am
I said that NS was deterministic in that it drives the competition for newer and better systems. If the best counter-argument you have is to just screw around with someone’s words, then there is clearly no hope for your crusade against evolution.
stevebee92653 said,
October 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm
If you and AronRa said it, that’s certainly all the proof we need. So what entity of evolution initiated the invention of bio-systems. I’m still not really clear on that.