In spite of the crystal clear message from science that evolution is not a good hypothesis evolutionists continue to add confusion and uncertainty to promote their mythology. One tactic evolutionists use is to interpret evidence in terms of evolution and then claim the result as evidence for evolution. That is not only bad science, it is fallacious. Conclusions cannot also be premises. Yesterday’s installment from evolutionist Dennis Venema is yet another example of this never ending display of petitio principia. Read more
37 Replies to “Dennis Venema Begs the Question and Warns the Church That it Must Come to Terms With Human-Chimp Common Ancestry”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It reminds me of the interpretation by the US journalist, John Strawberry, of the findings of a certain commission of enquiry and similar commissions: ‘The lamp broke…’ A kind of childish misattribution.
Very clearly put Dr. Hunter! I think it might even be fair to say that with the stunning lack of actual empirical evidence for Darwinian processes to actually generate functional information over and above what is already present in molecular life, then entire Darwinian enterprise can rightfully be called a gigantic exercise in ‘begging the question’ i.e. Conclusions cannot also be premises!
Note:
Assuming the very thing that needs to be tested in an old evolutionary ploy. And one that seems to be fooling evolutionists into thinking their position is being tested.
Dr Hunter,
Guess who has shown up at my blog spewing vulgarities?
Ms spellchecker herself- thorton.
Life is good…
Dear me, Joe!
Could you at least try and disguise your sycophancy?
Jeepers!
Just how dark is it inside Dr. Hunters colon, Joe?
Dear you fartax- could you at least disguise your flatulence?
I guess you have never heard of “toungue and cheek”? Ya see the reason why Dr Hunter closed comments was that I was exposing the lies and cowardice of evos, they didn’t like it, attacked me and I hit back. It got messy.
Then, knowing that the tards who started all of this mudslinging read my blog, I posted that little bit.
And now you, being the obvious jerk you are, jump all over it and make something out of nothing.
Get a life…
Are there any moderators available?
I seem to remember ‘Joe’ (aka Joe-G) being banned from Uncommon Descent for, shall we say, behavioural issues.
It would be extraordinary if Uncommon Descent were to allow ‘Joe’ to continue posting here given his prior conduct. Indeed, it would be a direct slap in the face to the administrator who had previously banned him.
I’ve no doubt that the staff at Uncommon Descent will maintain their high standards and do what is necessary.
Thankyou.
fartax you obviously have memory issues as I never posted here as Joe G. And could you please reference this alleged banning or are you just flatulating again?
From the biologis article:
> I realize that Behe has already been shown to have been mistaken about HIV not forming any new protein-protein interactions, though this is usually blunted by appealing to the very large mutation rate that HIV has.
Can anyone provide more information on this? I believe that SIV -> HIV was a loss of specificity, but I think they’re talking about something else?
JoeCoder-
Nope, it looks like Behe was wrong, by one, wrt HIV. He said 0 (page 143 of EoE) and it appears there has been one. One new protein binding site generated by random mutation in 10^20 viruses. And that is an evolutionary triumph.
But we’re idiots for being skeptical of the power of time, death (to get rid of the bad) and accumulations of random variations being able to produce an upright biped from a knuckle-walker or quadraped.
“Can anyone provide more information on this?”
Here you go
Michael Behe defends the one ‘overlooked’ protein/protein binding site generated by the HIV virus, that Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave had found, by pointing out it is well within the 2 binding site limit he set in “The Edge Of Evolution” on this following site:
In fact, I followed this debate very closely and it turns out the trivial gain of just one protein-protein binding site being generated for the non-living HIV virus (leaky cell membrane), that the evolutionists were ‘crowing’ about, came at a staggering loss of complexity for the living host it invaded (People) with just that one trivial gain of a ‘leaky cell membrane’ in binding site complexity. Thus the ‘evolution’ of the virus clearly stayed within the principle of Genetic Entropy since far more functional complexity was lost by the living human cells it invaded than was ever gained by the non-living HIV virus. A non-living virus which depends on those human cells to replicate in the first place. Moreover, while learning about HIV, that it is a ‘mutational powerhouse’ which greatly outclasses the ‘mutational firepower’ of the entire spectrum of higher life-forms combined for millions of years, and about the devastating effect HIV has on humans with just that one trivial binding site being generated, I suddenly realized that if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only ‘life’ that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the ‘fittest’ are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here:
Further notes:
This following link has a nice overview of the classic self-replicating experiment in 1967 by Spiegelman in which the self-replicating molecule got simpler and simpler in a artificial environment,(i.e. Spiegelman’s monster), instead of evolving any new complexity that might have led to a self sustaining capability;
Darwinists simply have no evidence that any functional complexity, above the exceedingly trivial, can be had by natural processes, moreover the overwhelming rate of ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ renders the point moot as far as hard science is concerned!
Notes to that effect:
Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them from any given genome:
Here is a very nice interview of Dr. John Sanford:
It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:
Whereas, neo-Darwinian evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation:
Ya see JoeCoder and bornagain77, in the evo mind if Behe is wrong once, no matter how trivial the issue, he is wrong all the time.
I see Bornagain77 is back to spamming UD with his cut ‘n’ paste drivel now that Joe has managed to wreck Hunter’s blog for him.
Hey fartax- What happened, did your fat mouth spew flatulence again?
You must be the sock puppet of a sock puppet that was beanned from UD and now has reappeared. My bet is that you are from California…
Also it appears that I have fixed Dr Hunter’s blog- no more evoTARD white trash- like you and your twin thorton- can mess with it.
Herv! Clean-up on aisle 13- fartax messed itself again. Better bring the hazmat suits…
Everybody, a sing-a-long:
This is about the one new protein-to-protein binding:
They got one new binding
On their side
They got one new binding,
On their side
They got one new binding,
On their side
It’s all imagination after that
They have a bunch of sock-puppets
On their side
They have a bunch of sock-puppets
On their side
They have a bunch of sock-puppets
On their side
That’s where all the lost socks must be
Moderators,
Is Joe really someone you want representing intelligent design at Uncommon Descent? He has, once again, resorted to invective; it is only a matter of time before he starts issuing threats of violence. Joe has a long history of threatening violence.
Uncommon Descent will no doubt remember the heated but civil debate with Elizabeth Liddle? Well, if you don’t let’s allow Joe to refresh our memories;
How long will Uncommon Descent continue to allow Joe to pollute the cordial atmosphere with his rude, obnoxious and threatening behaviour? Imagine a young student interested in intelligent design happening upon one of Joe’s comments. What must she think? That Joe is representative of the intelligent design movement?
The solution is obvious.
Herv- clean up on aisle 14- fartax is on the loose, better call the animal control…
And call Captain Kirk- it appears that I have cling-ons….
Joe:
Please, watch tone and language.
KF
My tone is jovial- I’m sitting here laughing at my attacker. The language, yes, no more evoT…. apologies
But anyway what do you do when someone craps in your living room? Don’t ya see that is what is happening here? Did I ever engage the sock puppet except when I was attacked? It went out of its way to try to shame me. So please, I am out of cheeks….
Joe,
that what a healthy attitude seems to look like. laughter is best medicine 🙂
sergio
Moderators,
The commenter, Joe, seems hell-bent on misrepresenting my words for his(?) own benefit. He says,
Notice how Joe describes my post as crapping in his living room. Only someone like Joe could describe my genuine concern for Uncommon Descent as crapping on. Notice also that Joe describes Uncommon Descent as his living room. This should raise red flags with the administration at UD.
Joe has a long history of being thrown off blogs and message boards for uncivil and threatening behaviour, and now he has taken up residence here. Does Uncommon Descent want to be known as Joe’s last refuge?
Joe describes my post as an attack on him. And yet my post was clearly borne out of concern for Uncommon Descent to maintain its usual high standards. With Joe, these turnabout tactics are nothing new but it is instructive to have them on display.
Hopefully the administrators of Uncommon Descent will do the right thing before the blog’s reputation falls into disrepute.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA- breath- BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA
Talk about misrepresenting my words
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA
Captain Kirk, the cling-ons are attacking
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA
Someone please spray some Lysol….
Another song- by Cat Stevens-
I’m being hounded by a sock puppet
sock puppet sock puppet
A creepy and slimely little sock puppet
sock puppet sock puppet
And if it ever makes some sense, has a clue or evidence
Oh if it ever makes some sense, Oh if…. I won’t have to laugh no more
And if it ever says goodbye, leaves today or even dies
Oh if it ever says goodbye, Oh if… we all could rejoice some more
Joe,
your ability to “roll with the punches” is much evident. perhaps such jolly attitude can relieve so much distress. do you have comedic experience?
sergio
Sergio- dealing with evos for decades has given me decades of comedic experience
@BA: I got my copy of Genetic Entropy a few days ago, and I already have most of your entropy notes. Have you considered starting a wiki so it’s easier to share them? I think we could really use an ID wiki of some sort. I even wish EV News and biologic would organize their articles more categorically (ERV’s, Chromosome 2, sediba, etc.), instead of having multiple articles on each with some overlap. Or just a centralized ID wiki.
@Joe
I actually had p.143 of edge open right before I read your response. Here he states, 10^20 organisms needed to generate one protein binding site, which is the same estimated population size of HIV, p.137. So it seems he’s actually on the mark with his probability estimates, just incorrect for listing it as 0 on that table.
But your critics are right about your tone. Your arguments will have far more weight if you stay near the top of the pyramid: http://i.imgur.com/3LL3E.png
“When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff” –Cicero
“I always think it’s a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem” –Christopher Hitchens
JoeCoder-
Interesting that you quote Hitchens. I follow his rule of “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
And you do realize that they are always the first to move to the ad hominem. So by the time I get to them they have already admitted defeat so there isn’t anything more to do but pound them with their tactics.
That’s the way I see it anyway…
JoeCoder, Yes that Genetic Entropy book by Sanford is really a eye opener. I read both that one and ‘The Edge’ by Behe both around the same time and knew right then and there that Darwinists had no empirical basis in which to build their case. If you are interested here is the main argument for Genetic Entropy condensed in a nutshell in this following video:
and here is a short sweet overview of the Mendel’s Accountant computer program and the main, widely accepted by population geneticists, insurmountable problems of neo-Darwinism:
Perhaps someone else can tell you if there is a place where articles for ID or more thoroughly organized on the web, but I can help you with a few places that have peer-reviewed articles for ID:
JoeCoder, if you are interested in more resources for ID, here is the Intelligent Design video trilogy:
@Joe
> And you do realize that they are always the first to move to the ad hominem.
I don’t follow enough of your debates to know who descends first; but from the quotes above it seems you descend the furthest.
> isn’t anything more to do but pound them with their tactics
Which does nothing for the argument the argument and wastes screen space. Whenever I see someone ad homineming, I assume they’ve already lost and scroll past the whole ordeal. And I’m an ID proponent. I wonder what ID critics think when they see it.
@bilbiography77 🙂
I already have my own very large pages of notes http://www.reddit.com/r/JoeCod...../my_notes/ , I just think it would benefit the ID community as a whole if there was a centralized place for consolidated summaries/sources organized by category.
JoeCoder:
How do you come to that conclusion?
Again the argument is already over- they lost by spewing the ad homs.
And again, it is the ID critics who spew the ad homs, so I already know what they think.
Well it appears you are going to say whatever you want dspite the evidence. Good luck with that.
To JoeCoder- the following is a perfect example of what happens when I present positive evidence for ID:
How to Test and Falsify Intelligent Design
1- I presented the criteria for assessing evidence
2- I then presented the evidence
3- I get told the evidence isn’t evidence for ID (as predicted) because it wasn’t proven that non-intelligent processes couldn’t do it
Note that Kevin never even discussed the OP, he flat-out refused to excpet to handwave it away. I told him that before we discuss the evidence we have to discuss how it is assessed.
All he can do is say I am attacking a strawman version of evolution, even though “my” version is the same version that evolutionary biologists use- ya see Kevin has ignored all of the many references I have provided to support “my” version- IOW he lies, and then he equivocates “evolution” in order to use any change, no matter how trivial, to be evidence for his position and contra ID.
Tell me JoeCoder, how do you deal with someone like that? This guy has an input into Texas education- hopefully he is just a copy-boy/ errand-boy- so what would you do? Do you allow this person to keep spewing lies and misrepresentations without doing anything?
Joe,
“Do you allow this person to keep spewing lies and misrepresentations without doing anything?”
beyond doubt defense of I D must keep doing. Joe and friends to I D display recommendable efforts. very much of interest to me certainly.
sergio