Who said so? Show me the evidences.
I’ve replied to a similar argument in the earlier thread. See comment number 82
And people subsequently pointed out that the SOS response is not biased toward adaptive mutations. You seem to be parroting a host of “third way” nonsense and paying no attention to objections.
4 Likes
You did.
BTW, outside of India, “evidence” is a collective noun.
And more importantly, when challenged you copied/pasted text. What people say or write about the evidence isn’t the evidence.
As an illustration, according to my Google Scholar page, I’ve been cited 5391 times. Only one of those citations involved quoting what I wrote, to give me credit for a metaphor (another term you appear not to comprehend).
Why do you think that a scientific citation means copying/pasting text? Isn’t that extremely silly, given that English is not your native language?
Yes, but over multiple generations. Essentially, it’s natural selection. Though it’s actually a product of differences in the diffusive properties of monomers compared to polymers.
You did but you seem to have completely forgotten the responses you got. Please go and re-read them and try to remember them in the future so we don’t have to have this discussion again and again.
4 Likes
Congratulations! You’ve just provided a classic illustration of “If you can’t win an argument, correct their grammer instead.”
Considering your inability to provide any evidence, I assume you have nothing to offer.
I’ll go through the article and reply later
People may read both my comment and your response and assess the merit of each.
And I suspect that assessment will be reflected in the number of ‘likes’ the two posts get. I also suspect the result will not be favorable to you.
7 Likes
Your argument is obviously dead in the water, as others have thoroughly demonstrated–and I predict you will thoroughly ignore, just as you did the last time.
BTW, science tends to progress by testing hypotheses, not by laypeople pompously composing arguments. Do you have a hypothesis?
My contribution toward demolishing your argument is that I also noted that you avoided evidence, in classic pseudoscientific fashion:
Do you not know what more importantly means?
And “grammar” does not have an “e.” 
1 Like
You’ve just provided an even better illustration of “if you can’t win the argument, pretend that there was no argument, and respond only to an irrelevant side-comment.”
Meanwhile:
Remember this post from upthread?
So by your own standards your inability to provide any evidence means you have nothing to offer.
There nothing left to do but 
and 
. You’ve just doubly demonstrated you’re no good for anything else.
2 Likes
It’s unsurprising because those who liked those posts are the very people I’m arguing against.
I’ll share screenshots of some ‘very interesting’ “likes” I’ve come across in this thread.
Rumraket misunderstood my 3rd criterion, and the study he mentioned in the screenshot above is unrelated to my 3rd criterion. However, the funny thing is that his comment received three “likes.”
John_Harshman wrote it as if I had claimed that the SOS response is biased toward adaptive mutations. My argument was about the advantages of SOS-mediated evolution compared to the traditional model, without stating that SOS is biased toward adaptive mutations. Whether SOS is biased in this way remains uncertain and therefore I haven’t made that argument in my previous post. Nevertheless, his comment also received three “likes.”
You, not me, are the one who didn’t provide evidence and substantiated your initial claim.
You’ve presented only the negative argument here – that is, the absence of evidence for a design process, therefore evolution. Where is your positive argument?!
There’s nothing funny about that. IIRC I ‘liked’ it because he pointed towards some interesting research of which I was previously unaware.
Wait, how is that a problem? Your argument is literally that you find evidence of FDI coming about naturally lacking, therefore designer. Where is your positive argument? I guess negative arguments are only no-fair if someone else does them, that about right?
3 Likes
I didn’t present that argument. Specifically, I didn’t say “therefore evolution”, or anything equivalent. I said there was no evidence of any process other than evolution having taken place.
You are substantiating that by not producing any such evidence, and I am substantiating it by noting that your posts (and other ID writings) are devoid of any evidence for a design process.
In fact, not only are your posts devoid of any evidence for a design process, they’re also devoid of any of the details necessary to identify, evaluate or validate any evidence. You don’t know what was designed, when it was designed, how it was designed (or manufactured), and you refuse to say who the designer is.
You started this thread by claiming you had “evidence for the activity of a designing intelligence”. I don’t need to make a positive argument for evolution in response, I only need to poke holes in your arguments - which I’ve done so successfully that you’ve given up trying to defend them.
4 Likes
I’m willing to accept that your inability to state your claims clearly is unintentional, but you should understand that it’s pervasive. If SOS response isn’t so biased, your purpose in bringing it up is unclear. And it’s not really a departure from “the traditional model”. Vague hints and insinuations in the direction of some point are not helpful.
1 Like