Sunday, October 17, 2010

Shortcuts to new protein folds.

There are some possible shortcuts.
1. The changes that are known to occur which change how specific an enzyme is for a particular reaction thus allowing it to use a slightly different chemical.
These are where a small change in the structure of an existing protein means that it can use a slightly altered substrate.
Examples of this kind of change are the oscillations in the antibiotics battle.
People discover an antibiotic --> microbes die
a microbe develops resistance by a small change in protein structure --> people die
People develop a slightly changed antibiotic --> microbes die.
Etc.
In these cases there is a shortcut to other similar functions by a relatively small number of mutations.
(Usually it is this kind of change that is presented as evidence for evolution.)
Why aren’t this kind of shortcuts sufficient to reassure us that evolution can solve the problem?
Not all proteins have this kind of relationship with each other. Protein databases have 1777 classes of structural domains These are the “superfamilies” of protein structures. There may be recognisable similarities between domains within a superfamily … but the superfamilies themselves are not related.
Even if all the proteins within a superfamily can be derived from one original sequence this does not explain the origin of all the 1777 plus classes of superfamily.
2. If a relatively few changes causes a change in function and this is followed by subsequent sequence divergence in the new protein. Axe considers an example of this from PA Alexander published in PNAS….. and argues that this will not get us very far.
3. If proteins are made up of a relatively small set of “chunks” rather like a lego kit. This would simplify the problem of building a new protein superfamily. Gene fusion events can be used to build a new structure.
But Axe states that…”The binding interfaces by which elements of secondary structure combine to become units of tertiary structure are predominantly sequence dependent, and therefore not generic.”
Thus enzymes with an identical function and 50% sequence similarity do not have chunks which are interchangeable. Even when this similarity is increased to 90% equivalent chunks are not interchangeable. Graziano and his co-workers constructed and tested a huge library of 10^8 variants of gene segments and found none that formed a folded structure.

Axe concludes that all of these putative shortcuts are dead ends. The Darwinian search mechanism is not capable of finding new protein folds by random sampling and all the shortcuts to new folds are dead ends.

37 Comments:

Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

18/October/2010

Axe concludes that all of these putative shortcuts are dead ends.

This could be big.
Very big.
I'm sure we all look forward to Axe doing some work in the lab and demonstrating that this is indeed so.
His Nobel Prize Awaits.

Less talky-talk, more worky-worky.

1:10 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cedric Katesby
“I'm sure we all look forward to Axe doing some work in the lab and demonstrating that this is indeed so.”

.......There are numerous examples of what improperly folded proteins lead to – Alzheimer’s disease, CJD, cystic fibrosis, nephropathies & even cancer. There are confirmatory lab tests (histological & biochemical) demonstrating that this is indeed so. I am a doctor & have seen patients with such unfolded proteins and their lab results.

I can confidently say that all key proteins must be properly folded & there is no room for non-functional intermediates. In the wild, organisms with such proteins simply die. So evolution to be true (or even possible) must account for how mutations in:

(1) Nuclear codes which simply produce amino acid sequences &

(2) Ribosomal codes which fold the amino acids into proteins

are co-ordinated so that corresponding-matching changes are made to each code.

10:33 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

23/October/2010

.......There are numerous examples of what improperly folded proteins lead to – Alzheimer’s disease, CJD, cystic fibrosis, nephropathies & even cancer. There are confirmatory lab tests (histological & biochemical) demonstrating that this is indeed so.

What has this to do with ID scienciness?

. So evolution to be true (or even possible) must account for...

Ah, evolution.
Gosh darn it.

For a minute there I thought you has something interesting to say about ID.
Oh well.

(...walks away in disappointment...)

11:44 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cedric Katesby
The diseases I mentioned show that putative intermediate proteins required for an evolutionary pathway are dead ends as Andrew Rothwell says. I've given real life examples of what changes to protein folding does to organisms. You did ask if there was any empirical evidence of badly folded proteins.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that there's ID science & Evolution science. The reality is there simply is science, it doesn’t matter if the practitioners are evolutionists or believe ID. It’s the results that count. The results I've given show that modification of proteins by evolution leads to disease. In other words evolution does not work, it cannot produce new enzymes. The only cause capable of producing functional proteins from an almost infinite search space is intelligence.

5:42 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

24/October/2010

You did ask if there was any empirical evidence of badly folded proteins.

Actually, no. I didn't.
Read what I said, not what you think I said.


In other words evolution does not work, it cannot produce new enzymes. The only cause capable of producing functional proteins from an almost infinite search space is intelligence.


The reality is there simply is science, it doesn’t matter if the practitioners are evolutionists or believe ID.

ID?
Did you say ID?
Yay.
Another one.
Happy, happy me.
:)

What's ID?
I say that it's a meaningless buzzword that has no scientific definition and that you can't take it into the lab and do something useful with it.

What do you mean when you say "ID"?
What is it?

Do you have a scientific definition for it or is it just a meaningless, vague buzzword?

What do you say?
What's ID?
Let's hear it.
Don't skimp on the details.

I say that ID is just vague, fluffy nonsense to fool the gullible into believing that something sciency is going on.
Dig patiently past the purile word-games and hapless hand-waving and you end up with a big, fat fraud.
ID is a joke.

Yet that's just me and the scientific world.

Let's have your opinion.
Let's talk about the magical, mysterious, sciency world of ID.
Do it.

5:19 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cedric Katesby
I shall rejoin when you decide you want to have a serious discussion.

11:26 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

29/Oct/2010

I shall rejoin when you decide you want to have a serious discussion.

About ID?
Wonderful.

I'm really, really looking forward to it.
I ALWAYS want to talk about ID.

ID for breakfast.
ID for lunch.
ID for dinner.

Let's do it.
:)

(...twiddles thumbs patiently...)

(...checks the thread again...)

(...time passes...)

(...checks the thread again...)

(...time passes...)

(...twiddles thumbs patiently...)

2:44 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

"Axe concludes that all of these putative shortcuts are dead ends.

This could be big.
Very big.
I'm sure we all look forward to Axe doing some work in the lab and demonstrating that this is indeed so.
His Nobel Prize Awaits."

"You did ask if there was any empirical evidence of badly folded proteins.

Actually, no. I didn't.
Read what I said, not what you think I said."

What DID you mean?


-------
"Let's talk about the magical, mysterious, sciency world of ID"

Let's talk about the amazing, mysterious, sciency world of ID...irreducible complexity.. (no, not non-existent worlds).

11:52 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

27/Nov/2010

What DID you mean?

Axe's conclusions.

I'd like him to go to a lab and demonstrate that his conclusions are correct.
I want him to enter the scientific arena.

I don't care about "evidence of proteins", badly folded or otherwise.

Clearly, if this conclusion (A dawinian search is insufficient to find new protein folds) is correct...

The key word here is "if".
Go forth, Mr Axe.
Enter the lab.
Solve this riddle.
Do it.

...it calls for a serious rethink of how we explain protein origins, and that means a rethink of biological origins as a whole.

No doubt, no doubt.
Let the rethinking commence...just as soon as you come up with something solid in the lab.
Go off and work.

Drawing on some of the points developed here, I presented an earlier version of this case several years ago to two prominent experts in the field.

Yes, yes, yes.
"Drawing" and "developing" is all very nice but less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
Let your research be your focus as opposed to "reviews".

Bothered by my conclusion, both felt that it must be in error.

Hmm, yes.
But clearly they are wrong!
So get back to the lab and...do it.
Get cracking.
Earn that Nobel Prize.
It's within your grasp.

Let's talk about the amazing, mysterious, sciency world of ID...irreducible complexity.. (no, not non-existent worlds).

Oooh let's...
:)

What's ID?

2:27 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where do we go from here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

Dear Andrew,

Hope this falls within the remit.

12:13 am  
Anonymous decode said...

As a 'layman', I would say that ID says that from the evidence we have of: the solar system, the geographical world of mountains and seas; plants, animals and humans, the form and fine tuning, beauty, purpose, interaction, meaning, communication and morality we have, we can safely say that there is a designer who has put all this together.


If I gave you a cat and said to you can you prove to me (scientifically) that this is a cat, what work in the lab would you do?

9:48 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

1/Dec/2010

I would say that ID says (...) we can safely say that there is a designer who has put all this together.

No beating around the bush?
You are a rare one.
You may well be the first here on this site.

Cool.
You have just earned points.

A couple of things to get started...

Do you believe that "looking around" and saying there must have been a "designer" who "put all this together" and that this is ID, that this is...science?

Or is it better to describe what you have just claimed as something else?

How is this any different from, say,...creationism?

These are not trick questions.
I'd really like to know your opinion.

If you want to revise or retract your answer, no problem.
Just make it clear and honest that that's what you want to do.
No biggie.

4:51 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

First of all and fitting in with your question of 'science', leave the word science out of the question about cats - if I said to you, is this (cat) a cat, SURELY you would not go into a lab to prove to me that it was a cat? could you not *look* at it's retractable claw, it's fur, it's paws, it's whiskers, it's eyes, it's shape, it's actions, it's habits etc.?

So, with the world and design - we need to know what designed things are like - they are not random, they have things like shape, form, purpose, interaction - cars, tables, coats etc.; so with the world, you can categorize things - cats, dogs, humans, - everything in this world is categorized. Now that's scientific, surely? I don't know who came up with classification in living things (recently), but as far as I am aware, he was a biologist. And much was by looking at things with the eyes - not under microscopes...(obviously there's 'another world' under the miscrosope).

How is that different from creationism? Yes creationists believe the world was designed and that includes Muslims, Jews, those of many other beliefs and those who would say they don't believe anything very strongly about spiritual things.

It seems to me that those who don't believe that there was a designer, believe that the complexity and form in this world just happened to come together to end up with cats, dogs, humans....

Which is scientifically more convincing?

8:20 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

5/December/2010

(Hmm, my last post has vanished…again)


First of all and fitting in with your question of 'science', leave the word science out of the question about cats…

I’d rather just talk about ID directly. Let’s not get distracted by clumsy analogies.

How is that different from creationism? Yes creationists believe the world…

Then you agree that ID isn’t really different from creationism, right?

3:42 am  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

ID is all about 'seeing' - observing the world. Do you agree?

9:30 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

You decided that "looking around" is an activity undertaken in the study of ID, then you unscientifically (?) decided not to pursue this any further. Why is this, Mr. Cedric Katesby.

2:27 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

Hmm.
Again my post has vanished.

8:31 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

14/Dec/2010

ID is all about 'seeing' - observing the world. Do you agree?

I don't see what my agreement about you defining ID has to do with anything.
(shrug)

I'm asking you "what is ID?"
Define it.

How is that different from creationism? Yes creationists believe the world…

Then you agree that ID isn’t really different from creationism, right?

(Or do you what to answer my question with another question and play word-games?)

2:05 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

(apologies if this is a repost)

14/Dec/2010

ID is all about 'seeing' - observing the world. Do you agree?

I don't see what my agreement about you defining ID has to do with anything.
(shrug)

I'm asking you "what is ID?"
Define it.

How is that different from creationism? Yes creationists believe the world…

Then you agree that ID isn’t really different from creationism, right?

(Or do you what to answer my question with another question and play word-games?)

2:06 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

"I don't see what my agreement about you defining ID has to do with anything."

you *defining* ID?
Why do you then go on to ask me to define it if you feel that I have?

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed. The consensus is with the activity rather than where the lines are delineated.

in contrast,
Evolution says all living matter evolved from one source (I presume - how many times can all these things plants - animals 'just appear' at the same place?).

However, we have gone back on ourselves. We were discussing whether ID is scientific or not. Therefore, my next question is,

science is "trying to make sense of the world" - right?

6:57 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

(apologies if this is a repost)

16/Dec/2010

Why do you then go on to ask me to define it if you feel that I have?

(And so the stupid word games begin)

Why do you then go on to ask me to define it if you feel that I have?


I don't feel you have defined it all all.
You haven't even bothered to start.

What I said was that I don't see what my agreement about you defining ID has to do with anything.

Get on with it and define ID by yourself.
Times a-wasting!
My agreement or non agreement is neither here nor there.

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

So...Intelligent Design says that stuff is intelligently designed?
That's it?
Hmm.
Ah, yes....well....
(shrug)

The consensus is with the activity rather than where the lines are delineated.

Huh?

in contrast,
Evolution says...


No thanks.
We can discuss Evolution another time.
Let's just focus on ID.
That way we will avoid silly distractions.

We were discussing whether ID is scientific or not. Therefore, my next question is,...


No.
Stop answering questions with questions.
Focus on the topic of ID.

What is ID?
Define it.

Do you think that ID is science?
How is it different from, say, creationism?

How does ID define a "kind" and how is that different from the YEC creationist "kind"?

4:26 am  
Anonymous decode said...

"So...Intelligent Design says that stuff is intelligently designed?
That's it?
Hmm.
Ah, yes....well....
shrug")

Dear Cedric,

"That's it?" yes.
I'm so glad it is obvious to you. Sadly it is not obvious to Mr. Dawkins whose video talking about 'the blind watchmaker' you 'posted' recently.

"Stop answering questions with questions." Sometimes, dear Mr. Katesby, in order to reach a conclusion, one has to go in steps. It is often easier to agree the steps as one progresses... (hence the questions in my case.)

I will proceed with my steps anyway, because you are not compliant. See below. (*)

"Do you think that ID is science?
How is it different from, say, creationism?"
Yes. Creationism (which you no doubt can find out about), can be specific about what happened years ago. That is it's sphere. ID *looks* at the world as it is now and makes conclusions about it. The workings of living organisms, the fossil record (e.g. lack of finds of any 'ancestors' to man and generally the specificity of the whole animal kingdom), the order of the planets, fine tuning, morals, the ability to make sense of the world etc., confirms that the world was designed.

"What is ID?
Define it." Andrew has done that in a later post to mine.

"by yourself" If I asked you to define astronomy, black holes, gravity, a bicycle.... there would come a point where you would look in a dictionary to find an adequate comprehensive meaning. I trust Andrew. Go with his definition.

(*) Anyway, I will complete my thoughts.

We have so far said that ID is to do with 'seeing' - observing the world.

We have also suggested that science is "trying to make sense of the world" - as far as I can see, anyway.

And science makes sense of the world very well. It has told us a lot about how the world is.

Humans learn about the world through the intellect (I would have asked you to agree with me on this point but I fear a breakdown in communication so I will hope that you do). Our faculties help us to do that - we have our senses: sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing. (Again a question would have been asked but I will forgo asking for your agreement and press on).

If we can make sense of the world with our intelligence, then it must be intelligible. It's able to be made sense of. However it got here, there's something intelligible about it. Using our senses implies a logical progression. You look at something and you can make conclusions about it.

If you can make sense of something, there must have been thought when it was being put together.

At this point you may be tempted to say - but there are things that we can make sense of, like snowflakes and sand-dunes behind which there is no thought.

I agree that if a person takes a lump of clay and dumps it on a table, that at that point no thought has gone from the person to have made something of that clay - yet (that is yet to come). However, I would say that the snowflake is the shape it is because of the qualities of the ice particles that make it up; the sand-dunes are the shapes they are because of the qualities of the wind that blows them in those directions and the fact that they are separate - their qualities (grains of sand). The clay also CAN be made sense of.

I would therefore say that the world is the way it is because of the "building blocks" that make up the world. There is logic about them. Where there is logical order, there is intelligence. In the logical order of the qualities of the building blocks of physical life, we see intelligence. In other areas too, we can see intelligence.

I'm going to be busy for the next few weeks.

8:05 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

17/Dec/2010

I'm so glad it is obvious to you.

You have said nothing.

"Intelligent design says that stuff is intelligently designed."

Word games. Vapourware. Useless nonsense.

Focus.
Do you think that ID is science?

Yes.

Ok, how?
Where's the science part?

ID *looks* at the world as it is now and makes conclusions about it.

Huh?
What do you mean by "*looks*"?
Are you suggesting there is something sciency going on?
Oh goodie!

What?

Where's the science?

...confirms that the world was designed.

ID confirms that the world was designed?
Really?
Ok.
How?
How do you go about confirming such a thing?
Where's the science part?

Define it.
Andrew has done that in a later post to mine.

Fail.

...there would come a point where you would look in a dictionary to find an adequate comprehensive meaning.

Yeah, but you can't do that with ID. There's no science textbook on ID. No papers explaining ID. No actual work on ID.
There is no scientific definition of ID.
There's bugger all.
That's where you come in.

I trust Andrew. Go with his definition.

Well, that's...um...nice in a hapless, flabby sort of way that just oozes intellectual cowardice.
A-grade handwaving on a grand scale.

(..awkward silence...)

Double fail.

Anyway, I will complete my thoughts. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

(..looks at watch, waits for the wind to pass..)

....blah, blah, blah I'm going to be busy for the next few weeks.

Gosh darn it.
And here we were all set up to start talking about ID.
We were so close to you actually coming to grips with what ID is and how it's really sciency and then explaining it to the rest of us...and now you are going to be busy for the next few weeks.

Oh the frustration.
;)

Well, hurry back real soon.
I'll be here.
Ready and willing to talk about the hard-core sciency that is "ID".

Maybe you could get around to explaining how ID defines a "kind" and how is that different from the YEC creationist "kind"?
You missed out on that one.

Make sure you come back now!

(..waits patiently...)

11:03 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Mr. Katesby

(busy but will check).
The ID claim is a good one. Science has not rested on the idea for no good reason. It makes sense to all of us. Think of gravity. When the apple (supposedly) fell on Mr. Newton's head, were there some Mr. Katesbys saying to him "ah, but is it science". When Archimedes (hope I'm not wrong) said "eureka", did a Mr. Katesby look alike say, ah, but is it science? and so on. Where does science "start"? with people "observing" something in the world and commenting about it.

People say we evolved from other species.

Those who say we are intelligently designed say from what we "see" around us - like the apple falling, like water rising, we can tell that we are intelligently designed. I've listed some of them for you Mr. Katesby.

The questions now for you are:

1. Does the world "look" random or meaningful?
2. What is intelligence?
3. What is design?
4. From looking at the world would you say that these two factors came into play to bring it about?

That's enough for the moment. I wonder how much of this you will respond to rationally.

11:33 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

18/Dec/2010

It's amazing how much effort ID supporters will put into not actually talking about ID.

Science has...

Let's talk about "science" some other time.
Focus on ID.

Think of gravity.

I have a better idea.
Let's have you talk about ID.
Specifically, a scientific definition of ID.

People say blah, blah, blah...

Don't care.
ID.
Hello?

In all the waffle, there was only one time you bothered to mention "ID".

The ID claim is a good one.

What ID claim?
That stuff is intelligently designed?

Not much to go on.
Where's the science part?
Where's the work?

Maybe you could get around to explaining how ID defines a "kind" and how is that different from the YEC creationist "kind"?
You missed out on that one, again.

11:38 am  
Anonymous decode said...

Why should ID define kind? (as I said before, the delineation is not the issue: the issue is that where there are irreducibly complex parts, there is ID - not evolution).

12:34 am  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

21/Dec/2010

Why should ID define kind? (as I said before, the delineation is not the issue:

I didn't bring up the word "kind".
You did.

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

There it is in black and white.

From you.
Not me.
You.
Your words.
Not mine.
Yours.

So what does a "kind" mean in ID terms?
Or is it just more of the same meaningless, mindless bafflegab that you just invented on the spur of the moment because you have no idea what you are talking about?

Let's start with something simple:
Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?
Quote and citation, please.

Put up or shut up.

1:06 am  
Anonymous decode said...

Decode:

The questions now for you are:

1. Does the world "look" random or meaningful?
2. What is intelligence?
3. What is design?
4. From looking at the world would you say that these two factors came into play to bring it about?

Any help in considering holidays we all have? have a happy one.

Cedric:
Maybe you could get around to explaining how ID defines a "kind"


First things first. I'm waiting.

5:29 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

I WILL give you my version of "kind"...

In the meantime,

"Let's start with something simple:
Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?
Quote and citation, please."

a book on [how man is *designed*] gives this: "the public is generally taught that scientists have proven that man has evolved from an ape-like creature. However, the *actual* (stars mine) fossil *evidence* (stars mine) does not support this conclusion at all." It goes on to assess and explain the fossil finds claimed to be ape-men.

8:44 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

25/Dec/2010

More meaningless wordgames from you. How dishonest.

I WILL give you my version of "kind"...

That's not what you said before.
Really.
Scroll up a little.
Pay attention to your own words.
They have not magically disappeared.

Here they are again like a fat wart of stupid:

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

There it is in black and white.

Let's start with something simple:
Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?
Quote and citation, please.

"ID", remember?

Put up or shut up.

11:19 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

If I remember correctly, Mr. Katesby, I asked you some questions (first).

1. Does the world "look" random or meaningful?
2. What is intelligence?
3. What is design?
4. From looking at the world would you say that these two factors came into play to bring it about?

ID remember?

12:48 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

ID says that creatures contain irreducibly complex parts which did not evolve but were intelligently designed.

12:54 pm  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

Reference my phrase "biological 'kinds' (like species)"

and your comment:
Let's start with something simple:
Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?
Quote and citation, please.Importance in biological classification

I'm pleased to see you will find both these terms in this short excerpt taken from a definition of species on Wikipedia.

"The idea of species has a long history. It is one of the most important levels of classification, for several reasons:
It often corresponds to what lay people treat as the different basic kinds of organism – dogs are one species, cats another.

It is the standard binomial nomenclature (or trinomial nomenclature) by which scientists typically refer to organisms.
It is the highest taxonomic level that cannot be made more or less inclusionary.

After years of use, the concept remains central to biology and a host of related fields, and yet also remains at times ill-defined."


The beauty of a good theory is that when we look at reality, we can see how it works/applies..

given a lack of a 'missing link', we must *include* the issue that man is intelligently designed. (This is not accepted by *all* who advocate ID. As mentioned before many advocate/accept ID.) For you to ignore the fact that the demarcations are not the central issue of ID would be disingenious.)

1:23 am  
Anonymous decode said...

Dear Cedric,

Cedric: "Let's start with something simple:
Where EXACTLY does "ID" say ANYTHING AT ALL about "kinds"?
Quote and citation, please."

"Decode: where there are irreducibly complex parts, there is ID - not evolution)."

This clip talks of the mammal rather than more detailed 'kinds' (as mentioned in Wikipedia under species). However, it is the sort of thing I am referring to.

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand?mediaid={A69D5E30-B7AE-4600-AE46-806820099ECD}

(52:10 - 54:45 - 55:25)

2:07 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

(re-post from a few days ago)

04/Jan/2011

If I remember correctly, Mr. Katesby, I asked you some questions (first).

I don't care about your questions.
Really, I don't.

(...thinks about it carefully for a good long time...)

Nope.
I honestly don't give a flying fig.

It's not relevant to the topic at hand.
Trying to deflect the conversation away from ID won't work with me.
It's an old trick.
Happens with people like you all the time.
I know fully well what to expect.
Won't work.
Sorry.

Playing "once more around the merry-go-round" avoiding the topic of ID just displays your intellectual bankruptcy.
It's desperate and silly and, unfortunately for you, ineffective.

ID.
The topic is ID.
"Intelligent Design"
ID.

Focus, now there's a good ID supporter.

ID says that creatures contain irreducibly complex parts which did not evolve but were intelligently designed.

That's not what you said before.
Notice the total absence of the word "kind"? I did.
Not a mention of "kind" at all.

Remember what you said...

Intelligent Design says that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

Hmmm.
Double hmm.

I'm pleased to see you will find both these terms in this short excerpt taken from a definition of species on Wikipedia.

I understand the word "species".
That's not the problem.
Don't evade (again).

The word is "kind".
As in (how did you specifically put it?) biological "kind".

As in Intelligent Design saying that the biological 'kinds' (like species) on earth and the whole world was intelligently designed.

Quote and citation.
Put up or shut up.

This clip talks of the mammal rather than more detailed 'kinds'...

(giggle)

Yes, of course. That's very special of you.

Now where were we?
Ah yes.

Quote and citation.
Put up or shut up.

...given a lack of a 'missing link'...

Huh?.
A "what"?

...given a lack of a 'missing link'...

Wonderful.
It's almost too perfect.
All science, all the time.
:)

1:29 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

07/Jan/2011

Andrew,
You and I know exactly where the terms "kind" and "missing link" come from.
This is not exactly a new thing.

Decode isn't talking about ID.
He can't.
There's nothing to talk about.

The ID movement has bent over backwards to put as much distance between themselves and your grandfather's creationism for legal purposes.

However, people like Decode come along and ruin the effect every time they open their mouths.
They can't stay "on message" and follow the Discovery Institute memos.
Happens all the time.

Nothing has changed. ID has nothing new to offer.

At Pandasthumb.org, they have posted a new thread called "The 1981 Miller-Morris Debate".

At the thread they say...

"Question for commenters: What arguments, if any, do contemporary ID proponents offer that Morris does not? (When commenting on specifics from the debate please give a video number (of four) and an approximate time in the video or transcript so others can locate it,)"

The entire debate is very interesting and brings on a strong sense of deja-vu to anyone who has closely followed the ID movement.
The comments section is well worth a read too.
Hope you'll check it out.

11:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Cedric Katesby a sock puppet? I ask because the nature of his posts have all the hall marks.

10:28 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home