(push!) (squeeze!) There’s gotta be a way to fit God into those gaps in our knowledge! There’s just gotta be! (shove!) (grunt!)
Given this deflection you are resorting to he looks quite alive and well Do you have a comment to the Turing issue or are we going to let the goal posts continue to circle the field
Heh. See, told you Bill runs from all scientific evidence like the evolving soft robots EA application. It’s really quite amazing to watch.
Isn’t it ironic that english evolved from non-english ancestral languages without anyone deliberately working with the extant english language as a goal? People heard new words and started using them, gradually replacing old ones or simply adding more to their vocabulary, without having the slightest care for or foresight about the long-term consequences of this gradual transition.
Heck, the Danish language is being constantly infused with british and american english words simply because of the various cultural influences like music, films, and tv-shows, greatly facilitated by spreading through internet, radio, and TV. There is no plan anywhere for this to occur, and nobody is intentionally working towards any goal of language replacement and evolution. Yet it happens. It’s basically just blindly proceeding because individual people see and hear these words and start using them themselves.
That “problem” was solved in 1939.
ID Creationism is never exactly on the cutting edge of science.
While I did see the enraptured fans pull the goalposts down and dump them in the Schuylkill river several times while at Penn, I have never seen goalposts move with the force and rapidity that they do in the hands of ID proponents. I make an uncontroversial statement: that we know of processes which account for genes arising and changing. You can say nothing to the contrary, so you demand that I get out my time machine, fill it with lab equipment, and go back and find out exactly how a particular genetic change occurred billions of years ago.
When you do this thing, I hope that you are aware just what others see. The hopelessness of the ID argument is underlined and put in bold face by this sort of thing.
And if that isn’t bad enough, Rumraket comes around (post 575) and shows that even this goalpost-shifting question isn’t as vexing as you think it is.
Now, I am curious. When do you and your fellow travelers get around to producing evidence? Evidence that bears upon the mechanisms you claim, doing work of the character you claim it does, acting upon real biological organisms? Not human design of buildings, computer programs or ditherwhimsies, but design AND manufacture by the unnamed-but-oh-so-nameable entities alleged to do the biological design and manufacturing work? Do you understand that ONE example in your favor would silence many of these objections once and for all? Hadn’t you better look for it?
Gil can you clarify in a bit more detail what you are doing? You say you are blasting the astroactin 2 protein of some species “against different animals”. What databases are you using and so on?
Sorry but it is a controversial statement and it is the term « arising » that makes it such. Indeed, how genes arise has never be demonstrated.
Now, as for the idea that genes can change, yes, you’re right, it’s uncontroversial.
So, you didn’t notice all of those times people mentioned genes arising from noncoding sequences? That genes do arise naturally, de novo, is absolutely uncontroversial.
So you didn’t see any of the recent threads on the subject around here, such as this?
How about this one?
And I take it you simply reject any inference of de novo gene-birth based on phylogenetic methods, is that correct?
I was replying to your mention of Dembski’s argument. I don’t need to add my voice to all those who pointed out where the rest of your arguments failed.
I understand your assertion… I was confused why you thought boxcars had anything to do with Dembski’s argument.
All of evolution is non controversial to those who buy into the dogma. The reality is a new gene arising experimentally is rare and they usually come from functioning genes. @Art please correct me if you see this differently.
Does rare mean never in Bill-speak?
You mean to all those who value honesty over religious dogma.
(facepalm) Bill demonstrates his understanding of the Boxcar2D evolutionary algorithm demonstrator.
That depends upon what you mean by “rare.” It is, however, a million miles from the claim that they do NOT arise.
“Usually” is the important word there. So, I said genes do arise naturally. You said, yes, they do. I said genes sometimes arise other than from functioning genes. You said, yes, they do. In what way are you actually disagreeing here?
Bill contradicts himself quite a bit. He’s claimed many times evolutionary processes can’t produce de novo information, except when they can. New genes can’t arise de novo either except when they do. Good luck getting something coherent.
When one describes a motor metaphorically, one simply refers to it as a motor. Perhaps you’re thinking of simile?
And every one of those squeezes diminishes the Christian God.
Delete an essential protein, variation and selection coopt something else IN FOUR DAYS:
You aren’t observing, Bill. You are avoiding the vast majority of evidence.
It has it. You just ignore the evidence.