Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Good thing nobody thinks that's how the panoply of life aroseu.Or perhaps you have a mainstream source that thinks that random arrangements of atoms is how it happened?Didn't think so.Big numbers of based on faulty premises are meaningless. See Big Numbers Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He's definitely an incel.

quote:

---

Though Donald Trump promised his followers they'd win so much they'd be tired of winning, one thing that has plagued them since he first stepped on the national stage is their abject failure on the dating scene. As it turns out, for the rest of the population, being a person who thinks it's super swell to tear-gas children is kind of a bonerkiller.

​

There's been a slew of articles about how super hard it is for Trumpists to get anyone to date them -- and my personal favorite, an essay in The Federalist about how women were to blame for Trump because of their refusal to bone down with conservative men. Cassandra Fairbanks got banned from OKCupid for sending pro-Trump/anti-Clinton messages to people like a weirdo; Christopher "Crying Nazi" was also banned from OKCupid for ... being an actual Nazi; and Jack Posobiec, who is married, got banned from Bumble. Bumble has also banned people for fat-shaming women on their app, and has banned pictures of guns in profile photos.

​

It's been hard out there for these jerks, and, in response, a number of dating sites have popped up over the past two years aiming to help them out.

​

There was Trump Singles. There was the dating site for Trump lovers that made a convicted child molester the face of their brand. There was Donald Daters, which exposed all of its users' data the very week it launched.

​

And now we have Righter. Righter is a new conservative dating app created by Trump supporter Christy Edwards Lawton, who says she came up with the idea after meeting a very attractive lady at a party in New York who said no one wanted to date her because she's a Republican. Appalled that men would take something other than looks into account when choosing a prospective mate, she decided to create a dating app where women like the one she met at that party would be able to connect with other people lacking any kind of human decency or empathy. Lawton is so serious about creating a safe space for deplorables (has anyone come up with DEPLORADATE yet?) that she said the company will sue any liberals who try to sign up

---

Oh Look! Another Dating App For The Basket Of Unf*ckables! - Wonkette. Trigger warning:lots of liberal snark and dick jokes.

Tragic, but nothing to do with the ToE. Also check King Leopold of the Congo, and the 2-100 million knocked off in the conquest of the Americas.

ID does not predict a nested hierarchy. But of course it can account for a nested hierarchy, since it can account for anything. Which means it can't predict anything, especially the result of any experiment. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Beta-lactimase activit is a particular function. He didn't test for any of the near-infinite number of other possible functions. So his result does not support the claim that there is no function; it only means that it lacks that particular function. Note that essentially all of the enzymes involved in life lack Beta-lactimase activity, yet they do have functions.

Why would nobody claim design for a totally random process? Your designer can't flip coins?It is nice that you acknowledge that ID makes no predictions. Thank you. Therefore ID is ubfalsifiable and not science.But then you claimed ID predicted little or no junk DNA. How is that derived without lots of assumptions about the designer's abilities and motives? Do you contend that your designer was constrained to produce life with little or no junk DNA? If so, how? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

People have designed random number generators that are truly random, based on when radioactive isotopes decay or random electrical noise. Hard to believe your designer can't.From your Message 121 "ID doesnt claim to be able to predict anything or Everything." seems to me that means it can't predict anything.

quote:

---

one would not expect that there could never be something akin to 'junk' (no function) in DNA. But design principles would suggest that in a designed semiotic system, there would likely not be a majority or a significantly high amount of junk.

---

Why? You claim you don't "comment on the abilities and motives of a designer outside of the base definition (so at least an intelligence and capability to do something according to a purpose)." Yet you claim to know its motive in re junk DNA. How do you know it would not include junk DNA for some reason you don't know or on a whim or its idea of a joke or...Sure seems inconsistent to me.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's pretty close to a good definition. A nested hierarchy is a group of sets in which all sets except the initial one are wholly contained within one of the sets. So no duplicate sets or sets that appear within more than one set (in a Venn diagram, no set boundary crossing any set boundary).Nested hierarchies are extremely difficult to construct from any reasonably large set of real sets. They are very rare in nature, so when one appears it demands explanation.Life forms a nested hierarchy based on shared derived characteristics. Unless you have a different explanation. "We can't explain the designer" is not an explanation.

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You"Just theoretical" does not mean "useless" or "untested".

Mostly you wouldn't. But that's irrelevant.Failing to detect a new function does not prove there is no new function, nor does it indicate that there is any particular probability of a new function. That's why Axe's work is bootless. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

False. Click the link in my message and you will be inundated in links where people report making ancestral proteins. I take your lack of response to be an admission that ID makes no predictions about junk DNA.

But loads of them report making ancestral DNA. Repeating contradictory claims doesn't resolve the contradiction.You are assuming your designer is subject to the same kind of "normal design constraints" (your words) as a human designer. Project specifications, cost, time, saleability, availability of materials...You are assuming aspects of the intelligence that you have no basis for assuming, or your claim of "nor whatever motives that intelligence mayor may not have" is false (and your "prediction" is no such thing}. Slartibartfast designed fjords with krinkly edges because they have such a baroque feel. How do you know your designer doesn't just like the baroque feel of junk DNA and doesn't care about any other aspects of it? (Need a hint?)Pick one. Having both is irreconcilable. [citations required]Most scientists still believe in junk DNA. Most of those believe there's lots of it. And they've got lots of evidence.Finding a function of a few items previously thought to be junk doesn't change that. Of course there's always ENCODE; bet you haven't a clue what their work signifies.

So, no defense of your claims other than repeating your contradictory claims. Sad.

That is totally unrelated to my post. I'm not giving you anything and you aren't asking for anything"I'm not going to assume anything about the designer's motives"Followed immediately by"I'm assuming the designer was constrained by 'normal design constraints' (whatever that means)."This isn't rocket science. Those two claims are contradictory. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.