Punctuated Equilibria theories

[paultrr]

Keep going on this and perhaps in a Month or so when I get back from a trip I may have some more to add to the discussion.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

...Any of these things ring a bell?

Sure. They just confirm your inconsistency.

1) You have agreed previously that I am not a Creationist.
2) Now you elect to associate me with Creationism (by false association, in violation of standard debate rules and forum rules) because you think will somehow disadvantage my argument.

All this does is support the obvious point that you need to add emotional argument to your position in place of fact. And it supports my previous point that you are holding to a faith-based position, since you continually revert to type by personally attacking opponents on emotion rather than attacking arguments on fact.

You aslo continually return to refuted arguments, and contend they were not refuted (another classic faith-based position) rather than acknowledge a credible opposing point of view.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith-based positions. But it is hypocritical to contend that you are resting on science, when you are resting on faith. You are doing just that.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

So you're saying "God did it"? Or maybe magical space aliens?...

I never asserted any such position. In fact, I ruled those items out in a previous post. I am pretty sure that you were the one that brought theism into this discussion, although Paultrr had some comments in response to your assertions as well.

My position was based solely on the dearth of evidentiary support for mutation-based speciation. Everyone else in this thread seemed to recognize that.

But many individuals with faith-based positions often read biases into other's comments. Your posts seem to fit that mold pretty well.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by paultrr

PE, by itself is not some creationist's development or theory.

I know, but that's not what Biochemist is discussing: he's discussing anti-science religion masquerading as science.

PE doesn't say mutations can't add information ... anti-science religion, and Biochemist, do.

PE doesn't say that no mutations are beneificial ... anti-science religion, and Biochemist, do.

PE doesn't say all mutations are harmful ... anti-science religion, and Biochemist, do.

PE doesn't say that no species has ever been formed by mutation ... anti-science religion, and Biochemist, do.

And so on.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Sure. They just confirm your inconsistency.

1) You have agreed previously that I am not a Creationist.

No I have not. I remained non-commital.

But now you have made a statement as if it were a fact. You have an obligation to support it.

BUT YOU DO BRING UP A GOOD POINT. OTHER PEOPLE HERE HAVE CALLED YOU A CREATIONIST BECAUSE OF YOUR ANTI-SCIENCE, CREATIONIST STATEMENTS. IT'S NOT JUST ME WHO NOTICED!

Biochemist: 2) Now you elect to associate me with Creationism (by false association, in violation of standard debate rules and forum rules) because you think will somehow disadvantage my argument.

No, I point out that your arguments are based on anti-science, religious/Creationist beliefs, because your arguments ARE based on anti-science, religious/Creationist beliefs.

Science doesn't say that no mutations are beneficial ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that all mutations are harmful ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that mutations can't add information ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that no species every arose by mutations ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

and so on.

You aren't talking science - you are talking anti-science religion, masquerading as science.

Biochemist: All this does is support the obvious point that you need to add emotional argument to your position in place of fact.

Excuse me, but I am the only who has actually supported his positions in the last several pages! Remember my support for founder-flush, my support for beneficial mutations, my support for a new species of plant arising by mutation, my support for genomic duplications in animals, my support for "most mutations are deleterious", my support for "all mutations are harmful" is a Creationist (anti-science, religious) position?

Where's your support for "no mutations are beneficial"? Where's your support for the "Fact" that all mutations are harmful? Where's you support for "no new species every arose by mutation"? Where's your support for "mutations can't add information"? And so on...

I have supported my statements. But of course a Creationist like yourself buries his head in the sand and pretends evidences don't exist, and then turns around and claims the other person only has blind faith in evolutionary dogma.

Biochemist: And it supports my previous point that you are holding to a faith-based position, ...

Exactly what one would expect a Creationist to say!!!!

Biochemist: You aslo continually return to refuted arguments ...

An empty, and false, assertion.

You really have no idea that you are supposed to SUPPORT what you say? Do you?

Biochemist: There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith-based positions. But it is hypocritical to contend that you are resting on science, when you are resting on faith. You are doing just that.

... said the anti-science, Creationist ...

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: I am pretty sure that you were the one that brought theism into this discussion ...

No, it was you, way back in post #2. Remember your anti-science hypothesis of a front-loaded prokaryote?

Somehow, the massive amount of genetic information needed to code for eyes and ears, teeth and bones, muscles and nerves, hair and feathers, wings and legs, brains and hears, fins and blowholes, penises and vaginas, tentacles and so on, all appeared at once in the first prokaryote, even though it itself did not have any of the features coded for. That's a big enough miracle, but then, somehow - completely unknown to science, and only explainable by magic or the supernatural - this massive amount of genetic information remained intact for 3 billion years, even though it was never used during that time.

Your scenario is not explainable by science - in fact, science directly refutes it. Your position was religious.

And since then, you've shown your anti-science, religious bias over and over: no mutations are beneficial, all mutations are harmful, no species has ever formed from mutations, mutations cannot add information, etc.

No, it wasn't me who INTRODUCED religion into this thread, it was me who POINTED OUT IT'S EXISTENCE in the thread. It was YOU who INTRODUCED religion into the thread, though, as usual, you attempted to dress it up as if it were science.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

No, it was you, way back in post #2. Remember your anti-science hypothesis of a front-loaded prokaryote? ...

It is convenient when you prove my point so graphically. There is nothing in post #2 about theism. You created it because of your bias. In fact, I mentioned (in post #2) that my hypothesis makes the ID argument much more difficult for any case except the first prokaryote.

In your case, you have an anti-religion bias. But it is bias nonetheless. Your bias consistently blinds you to credible facts in opposition to your position.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

.. Science doesn't say that no mutations are beneficial ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that all mutations are harmful ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that mutations can't add information ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

Science doesn't say that no species every arose by mutations ... anti-science religion, and you, do.

...

Proving my point yet again. You are making it very conveient.

Science does not say anything. Science is a methodology for obtaining facts. Facts are then interpreted. Then people offer an interpretaion of facts. In your case, you consistently interpret ALL facts to support your biased point of view, a position that is ludicrous. You are the only one on this thread that has done that.

And you don't even notice. Again, bias blinds from facts.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: It is convenient when you prove my point so graphically.

You're hallucinating again.

Biochemist: There is nothing in post #2 about theism.

If you mean religion, it's in there.

From post #2 of this thread.

Biochemist: This would suggest that the majority of animal and plant kingdom information content was reflected in the first prokaryote. Go figure. But I think this model better reflects our current state of biochemical understanding and our current state of paleontological knowledge than any mutation-based model. Mutations actually might occur, but they have nearly nothing to do with speciation.

Doesn't stike me as a whole lot more difficult to swallow that the entire mass of the universe being squashed into a space the size of a Planck length.

Feel free to name my theory. I think I like "Biological Big Bang". Do keep in mind that if my heretical theory is true, then the IDers would have to prove an incredible level of CSI in the first prokaryote. Everyting after that would be a natural consequence of that information load, and a fundamentally "natural" process.

It’s YOUR theory, you said so yourself, explicitly, more than once. Therefore, YOU – not IDists - have to explain how YOUR theory works.

Now, YOUR theory cannot be explained using science – in fact, science directly refutes it. And YOUR theory requires the supernatural. YOUR theory is religious.



PS: I've challenged multiple people to show otherwise - to show that YOUR theory can be explained with science and in keeping to the natural world - and no one, including yourself, has taken up the challenge. Why do you suppose that is?

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: In your case, you consistentloy interpret ALL facts to support your biased point of view, a position that is ludicrous.

Gee, maybe when presented with an obvious example of a beneficial mutation, I should be more like you - I should close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, turn my head from side to side, and chant "La la la la la la la" over and over again, then finish it all off by continuing to claim that no mutations are beneficial! How silly of me to accept that which should be accepted. Gee, I should be unbiased like you! <snicker> <giggle> <snort>




PS: You're doing it again Biochemist. Making vague and unsupported accusations. What position of mine is SUPPOSEDLY ludicrous?

That beneficial mutations occur?

That it is false that all mutations are harmful?

That we do have solid evidence of a species arising by mutations?

That mutations can add information to a genome?

That lysosomes don't use phagocytosis?

That autophagy isn't a form of phagocytosis?

That DNA isn't read by ribosomes?

That proteins aren't transcribed?

That a host cell can "blindly" synthesize viral proteins from viral genetic material?



Which one of these scientific "dogmas" - to use your terminology - that I have stated do you find ludicrous?