Michael, you ignorant bastard.


From the discussion, Evolution by Randomness [abridged]:

Michael: “If you have a set of spheres that never stick together and you randomly blow them around for a million years… what are the chances that they will form any kind of organized structure??? ZERO … Randomness is CONSTRAINED by the limited behavior of the thing randomized.  Anything contrary to the inherent behavior is IMPOSSIBLE. ”

Tim: “… Natural selection therefore is non-random. It FILTERS the random mutations …”

Michael: “DNA is data. Can you believe that data happens by chance, especially really complex data? You just said DNA could not form by chance. If not chance then what?”

Tim: “… Natural selection is the NON-RANDOM survival of randomly generated variables …”

Michael: “Nonrandom survival? You are saying that variables that are randomly generated survive? As cells? As frogs? survive as what? Order does not just come out of thin air apart from any external force. So what is it that non-randomly survives? If we are talking about random mutations then survival IS by chance. Otherwise, they cannot be “random” mutations.”

Michael: “Some things are impossible with random behavior of matter and energy regardless of duration.”

Tim: “RANDOMNESS GENERATES RANDOMNESS, HOWEVER EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.”

Michael: “In order for survival to be non-random, which you admit it must be, mutations cannot be random. So which is it? Do you honestly think that random mutations will create nonrandom DNA, especially since DNA is so much like actual data? And will randomly generated DNA non-randomly survive? In what form? A non-random form? Can that be generated by random mutations, in a data-like structure?”

Dan: “Using examples from medicine… people with high blood pressure have greater risk of stroke (non-randomly), people with certain mutations have certain diseases (non-randomly), and so on. Don’t you know anything???”

Tim: “You are absolutely clueless, aren’t you? You need to go away and study the theory of evolution all over again, preferably from a non-creationist website or from a science textbook. This article was written out of ignorance and it attacks a strawman of a perfectly sound scientific theory.”

Michael: “this conversation is over. All you can say is its mythology and Im clueless. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS. I’m going to spend time fighting the communism that is trying to take over my country. I’m not going to waste any more electricity. The best advice I can give to you is to stop trusting your feeling SO MUCH. My country did and LOOK WHO WE ELECTED … Let me tell you why atheism offends me. abortion, nontraditional marriage, sexual leudness, putting reason ahead of common decency ect ect. YOUR atheist Bible offends me. Please, it is people like you that elect democrats. nough said.”

Dan: “Calm down, and go get an education. You just got done proving that you don’t know the first thing about biology OR chemistry. Go back to school, and get an education, because your comments this whole time have ranged from the clueless to the completely insane. You should do better.”

Michael: “YOUR A BIG FAT HYPOCRIT

Dan: “Tim, why do we bother? I’m a molecular biologist having studied biochemistry, genetics and cell biology for the better part of two decades, and you seem to know a bit yourself. So why are we here again, trying to correct this kid who’s trying to tell us that we don’t know the first thing about biochemistry and genetics???”

Michael: “You really need to explain why you don’t believe I have a clue. You have not.”

Dan: “Haven’t you been paying attention???? I guess not, especially after on two occaisions you already completely misread my comments. We patiently explained why each and every one of your arguments, from the ping pong strawmen to the end – and you even at one point recognized how absurdly wrong the ping pong argument was – and now you’re trying to pretend that you didn’t make yourself look clueless (or worse)????”

Dan: “Did you forget? I already explained (with two brief examples above) how that’s absurd. Many (most, actually) natural phenomena have non-random outcomes. As additional examples, take chemical reactions for instance – for any given chemical reaction and reaction conditions, you have a regular/non-random chemical product.”

Michael: “As for randomness, randomness is chance. The closer you are to things happening by chance, the more random the thing is.”

Dan: “No, you say quite clearly in the title to this post, and in the text, that you think evolution (a natural process) = total randomness. If you’re saying that you believe that natural does not = total chance, you’re admitting that the basis for your blog post is completely wrong.”

[Dan then explains astrobiology, catalysts, metabolism, oligonucleotides and RNA world.]

Michael: “I have not heard of any of these because I have not studied evolutionary chemistry, not because I have not studied ANY chemistry.”

Dan: “Surprise surprise.”

Michael: “… the bases must be ‘preferentially selected‘ say the article. Oh course they must.”

Dan: “There you go again trying to assert that anything non-random = supernatural or mystical. No – ‘preferential selection’ is perfectly compatible with ‘natural selection‘ (of chemicals, in this case).”

Michael (one month later): “… This supposes that some rather nonrandom force must be at work filtering out the bad DNA. Without said force, everything I have said up unto this point is true. So there must be such a force for so called super natural selection to work. If not, then there can be no such selection. Got ya there atheists.”

Thanks for wasting our time, asshole.

Advertisements