I think that you should go to mental hospital for you cannot define and explain the topic of intelligence.
I gave you a simple definition: Intelligence is the ability to learn. Go ahead and tell us what is wrong with that definition.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
You have been asked many times, how do YOU tell the difference between guided and unguided. What is the answer?
Lol! So, you are asking me the differences between
guided X to un-guided X?
That was the claim of TAQ, since he concluded that in the experiment that he had been sharing through links, he and the other scientists had concluded that the change was not guided.
But you are asking me to answer my own question, because you cannot asnwer it?
I gave you a simple definition: Intelligence is the ability to learn. Go ahead and tell us what is wrong with that definition.
Good.
It is wrong since it cannot answer a real scientific question in biology, like:
Is biological cell intelligently designed or not?
WHICH means, that the definition above that you had given is not scientific, not even realistic, but just freely invented by someone who was ignorant of reality and ignorant of science, without any basis from reality.
FREEDOM is good, but we are not free to make our own reality, since that is fantasy.
False. It is evidence. It includes OBSERVATIONS!!!! You continue to avoid the evidence, as expected. I also explained how we know that mutations aren't guided. Here it is again: "For example, in the plate replica experiment we see that mutations that confer antibiotic resistance are not triggered by the presence of antibiotics. Instead, there are random mutations changing DNA without guidance, and some of those mutations just happen to produce antibiotic resistance." If mutations were guided then nearly all of the mutations in the experiment would confer antibiotic resistance once the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, but that's not what happens. The mutations happen randomly with respect to fitness. In other words, mutations are blind to the needs of the organism. That is what makes them unguided.
Once again, we have Scientific Method. In the links that you had given, they made/conducted an experiments and the conclusion was that mutation, or simply, "change" was not guided. But how about the "control"? If you claimed guided X, then, the "control" is unguided X, obviously. You must have both in experiment, or at least, you knew the two: guided X and unguided X, beforehand. If you cannot provide the two, then, you are not following the Scientific Method. Thus, you are violating science, thus, wrong. It is so simple, right?
So, the correct question would be: how do you tell/know between guided X to unguided X?
That's the entire point of science. You follow the evidence to a conclusion, and throw away the conclusions that aren't supported by evidence. You are the one who doesn't understand how science works. You seem to think science is just believing whatever you want to. That's not how it works.
You cannot have the correct conclusion if you do not have the correct experiment.
Evolution has answered that question. I have been giving you those answers for multiple posts now. Please, use you intellectual mind, you too studied in schools, right? Then, use your mind. Follow your own advice.
I do use my educational and intellectual mind, thus, I cannot accept your explanations since they are not part of science. Thus, let us agree to something: do you have the dividing line or any lines between guided X to unguided X? Please, be honest as professional.
For example, what is a freq allele or a frequency allele? Why can't you answer that question?
I am just making fun of supporters of Evolution since most of them are not good in details.
I had been talking with other people in many online forums, you are the fist one who noticed that, meaning, that 98% of supporters of Evolution are really not good in details.
Oh my... I really pity those supporters of Evolution...
Oh, why is that? If you ever do come up with something, we would celebrate, but that's pretty unlikely considering that we have museums and libraries overflowing with supporting evidence and you have made up crap like freq alleles.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
But you are asking me to answer my own question, because you cannot asnwer it? Can you answer it or not?
Yet again you fail to understand what we are asking of you. Let me rephrase it:
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
If someone were to ask us, "What effect does changing the firkel on the fizzbin have on the lateralization of the trunbulator?", we could never possibly answer that question without first discovering just what the hell that stupid word salad is supposed to mean. At the very least, we would need definitions for " firkel", "fizzbin", and "trunbulator" as well as an explanation of just what "lateralization" entails, most especially on a "trunbulator".
IOW, just what the F**K is he talking about?
So before we can address any question you would pose to us, you would have to tell us just what the F**K are you talking about?
You have made up your own nonsensical terminology that you then insist that we explain it. HOW?Only you could ever possibly have any knowledge at all of what your stupid bullshit nonsense is supposed to mean. All we could ever possibly do would be to try to make a best guess ... which would invariably be the wrong guess.
So just stop all your stupid bullshit and tells us JUST WHAT THE F**K YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
If you are able to do that, then do it already!
If you are not able to do that, then shut the fuck up already!
But you are asking me to answer my own question, because you cannot asnwer it?
YOU have already drawn the conclusion that "it was designed". How did YOU draw that conclusion? How do YOU tell designed from not designed so YOU can draw a conclusion.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Can you answer it or not?
It doesn't matter whether i can answer it or not. YOU are trying to push YOUR conclusion, so YOU have to be able to explain HOW you drew your conclusion.
But you can't. So your conclusion is invalid.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
I gave you a simple definition: Intelligence is the ability to learn. Go ahead and tell us what is wrong with that definition.
It is wrong since it cannot answer a real scientific question in biology, like: Is biological cell intelligently designed or not?
How is that a "real question" in biology?
I googled "Is life intelligently designed?"
Wikipedia calls intelligent design "a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God". The ACLU calls inelligent design "a pseudoscientific set of beliefs". The Center for American Progress calls intelligent design "a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory".
There don't seem to be many actual scientists who think it is a "real question in biology".
So try again. What's wrong with my definition?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
WHICH means, that the definition above that you had given is not scientific, not even realistic, but just freely invented by someone who was ignorant of reality and ignorant of science, without any basis from reality.
On the contrary, my definition does not disagree in any way with science, reality, the US Constitution, The Lord of the Rings, etc.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
FREEDOM is good, but we are not free to make our own reality, since that is fantasy.
As long as your "designer" can't be put on a lab bench and analyzed, your idea of "intelligent design" is a fantasy.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
We have the scientific method. You have yet to use it. We can add the scientific method to the long list of concepts you don't understand.
So, the correct question would be: how do you tell/know between guided X to unguided X?
If the mutations are guided, then the mutations would occur when the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics. In other words, guided mutations are those that are specifically produced in response to the specific needs of the organism.
For the Lederberg experiment, the control was indirect selection.
All of the bacteria on the plate with the original culture came from a single bacterium, meaning all changes are due to mutations that happened during the experiment. They stamped the bacteria on a plate with antibiotics and without antibiotics (the control). Since the bacteria came from the same place in the original culture they could sample the region on the control plate that was resistant on the antibiotic test plate. The control bacteria have never seen antibiotics.
You then replate the bacteria from the regions on the control plate that correspond to the resistant colonies on the test plate and repeat the process. If mutations are unguided then repeating this process with bacteria from the same region as the resistant colonies should produce a LOT more resistant colonies on the second go around. AND THEY DO!!! If the mutations were guided, then we would see the same results as the first go around, with just a handful of resistant colonies. They didn't see that.
This experiment demonstrated that mutations for antibiotic resistance are not created in response to antibiotic challenge. They are unguided.
Here is an excerpt from the Lederbergs' paper:
quote:
Replica plates were used in an approach to the problem of preexistence of adaptive mutants prior to their selection by specific environments. Replicas to agar containing bacteriophage or streptomycin showed that mutants of Escherichia coli resistant to these agents existed in clones on the initial plates of indifferent agar medium. In addition, concentration or enrichment for such mutants was accomplished by taking inocula from the bacterial films at sites demonstrated to contain mutants by replica plates. After several stages of enrichment, each type of resistant mutant was isolated in pure culture. The procedure at no time exposes the indirectly selected populations to the specific agent. These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...82/pdf/jbacter00003-0114.pdf
Confirmation of spontaneous mutations that are not the result of being exposed to the specific challenge. Those are unguided mutations.
You cannot have the correct conclusion if you do not have the correct experiment.
The experiment is correct.
I do use my educational and intellectual mind, thus, I cannot accept your explanations since they are not part of science.
They have been a part of science for 70 years now. Your refusal to accept them does not make them go away.
do you have the dividing line or any lines between guided X to unguided X?
Yes. Those lines are found in the multiple experiments I have given you.
I am just making fun of supporters of Evolution since most of them are not good in details.
The problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know how biology works, how evolution works, nor how genetics works.
AronRa is very afraid of me intellectually. I had been calling him in Atheist Experience to fight me in science, since I told him that I wrote a book for his Phylogeny Challenge, but he was very afraid.
No, he just doesn't have the time to waste with you and all the other idiotic creationists who have no clue what they're talking about.
Today he posted a new video:
At about the two-minute mark, he talks about you and your ilk (though not by name). Paraphrasing (instead of taking dictation directly -- watch the video yourself!), on the average he wastes an hour a day trying to correct "some anonymous internet nobody who really doesn't seem to know anything, nor do they even care what the truth is, and for what? The very next day I get the same sort of nonsense from another set of randoes."
Yeah, I read your "refutation" of AronRa' Phylogeny Challenge which consisted of nothing but your rant that he's getting paid for his work.
Obviously you are nothing more than yet another "anonymous internet nobody" rando who only wants to waste his time with nonsense the demonstrates nothing more than your abject ignorance of evolution or of anything else.
Why would you ever think that he would want to waste any more time with idiots like you than he already has? He has much more important things to work on.
™ Version 4.2
