AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: dmso74

form_srcid: dmso74

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: dmso74

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'dmso74%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2008/08/23 15:33:41, Link
Author: dmso74
DaveScot- how can a self-professed agnostic tell anyone to make up their mind?

Date: 2008/09/08 07:49:52, Link
Author: dmso74
parlar is doing a nice job dismantling Dave's "t3ss DEvolved from the flagellum" argument.. and the paper Dave links to in post 35 actually  (again) confirms that both t3ss and flagellum evolved from a common ancestor..

Date: 2008/10/11 02:55:49, Link
Author: dmso74
some lovely racism from the fine folk at UD:



8:09 pm

   I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ (Matt. 25: 35.6)

Jesus hungry? Thirsty? A stranger? Naked? Sick? In prison?

It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that in America today Jesus is, indeed, black.




8:55 pm

How many kids out of wedlock did Jesus have?

Date: 2008/10/13 12:27:18, Link
Author: dmso74
Andrew Sullivan has a nice article about Obama's genius at playing rope-a-dope, luring his opponents into making themselves look like complete morons:

first the Clintons, then McCain, now the most dangerous prey of all: some unemployed guy who needs to get out of the houseboat more writing on a low-rated creationist blog.

Date: 2008/10/25 17:36:24, Link
Author: dmso74
Apparently recovered from his dressing down by prominent UD administrators, DaveScot is back on the science tip, showing once again that he really thinks science works the way it is described in a 6th grade  text:

Collecting huge amounts of data and then using it to formulate hypotheses? I wish I could think of another person who did that.. he wrote some great books on earthworms and barnacles, I believe..

ps this post also gets bonus points for reference to phantom "ID researchers."

Date: 2008/12/07 09:46:50, Link
Author: dmso74
One for the Tard record books from Joseph:
As for the evidence for endosymbiosis- the SAME data can be used to say that mitochondria and chloroplasts DEvolved from living cells of a eukaryote.


Where to begin with this one?

Date: 2008/12/09 21:42:37, Link
Author: dmso74
Khan is still waiting for Jerry to stop quote-mining, ad hominem-ing, changing the subject, playing dumb etc and acknowledge the simple fact that a primitive cell gaining this very obscure, irrelevant piece of trivial tissue that clearly has no CSI called a mitokondreea or something is a perfect example of that thing that he claims in every other post that there is no evidence for, macroevolution. my guess is his next post won't address it at all. now we play the waiting game.. aw, the waiting game sucks, let's play hungry hungry hippos..


Date: 2008/12/29 14:31:09, Link
Author: dmso74

Date: 2008/12/29 15:01:55, Link
Author: dmso74
[quote=midwifetoad,Dec. 29 2008,14:51]      
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 29 2008,14:48)
Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 29 2008,15:31)

somebody want to tell me what this means?

sorry, i was testing quoting and hit "Add" instead of "preview."

on another note, ya'll should check out this thread: RNA getting lengthy

It's brief and full of tardy nuggests.

Date: 2008/12/29 22:01:52, Link
Author: dmso74
Khan: You (and B+S) are mistaken about what constitutes Darwinian processes. Darwinian processes are gradual accumulations of slightly beneficial mutations that produce slightly more fit intermediates (King, J.L. and Jukes, T.H. 1969. Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 164:788–798). The assumption that intermediates are deleterious makes the model non-Darwinian.

Patrick: Ugh, so basically your objection comes down to a word game. If it makes you happy then, yes, by that definition Behe and Snoke’s model did not include “Darwinian processes”. But you should know that when most people on here (UD) say “Darwinism” or “Darwinian” they’re referring to modern evolutionary theory and all related non-foresighted, unguided mechanisms or processes. We’re examining all potential pathways, not just ones we know should work. Sure, it may be imprecise language but this is not just something we do, as referenced on this page here in relation to Margulis.

Khan responds:


It might seem like a word game but it is critical to the discussion. No one has ever suggested that genetic drift (random fixation of neutral and, rarely, deleterious alleles) is a leading cause of the formation of complex or even simple structures. But this is what B+S were actually testing, while claiming they were testing Darwinian processes. I’m not saying they did so with an intent to deceive, but they made a mistake and were corrected on it. their paper basically shows what everyone already knows- that it’s hard to make new features w genetic drift alone. this is another example of why having good definitions is so critical.

And, I assume, apologizes for overestimating a UD moderator's understanding of evolutionary theory.

Date: 2009/01/04 14:33:00, Link
Author: dmso74
[quote=khan,Jan. 03 2009,21:48]From FSM thread:

The research would not be identified as ID research or else it would not be published but the research is ID research even if the researchers say they are anti ID. They are just doing ID research without knowing it or saying it.

And with this, jerry wins the Donald Rumsfeld poetry award, inscribed with Rumsfeld's masterpiece, The Unknown:

As we know,
There are known knowns. There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things
We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Today, we are all ID researchers.

Date: 2009/01/04 14:40:23, Link
Author: dmso74
3 noteworthy posts in a row here:
FSM thread

critter responds to jerry's poetard w a nicely understated reply, DaveScot bashes impotently at the now-disconnected bannination button and the yellowshark sees blood in the water..

Date: 2009/01/05 12:16:20, Link
Author: dmso74
From the "Slaughter of the dissidents" thread:

I’ve been reading the book myself lately. I had to stop. I just couldn’t stand seeing case after case of people being emotionally tortured, humiliated and flogged by schools, courts and so-called colleagues merely for stating (even off work time!) that they had doubts on Darwinism.

my god, the horror:

-a bad rec letter
-getting yelled at by your department chair
-a professor suggesting that creationists not be allowed to graduate with bio degrees (this suggestion was not implemented)
-some death threats- admittedly, this is bad, but I can think of a lot of other people who got death threats.. judge jones comes to mind.

Date: 2009/01/06 11:12:09, Link
Author: dmso74
Jerry issues a throwdown:

So I suggested to Sal Gal (and to anyone else) to go through the OV site and bring the best arguments here to debate.

Is there any anti ID advocate that is willing to take up this challenge? My guess is that none will be forthcoming. For all those who claim that ID is bogus, give it a shot or as they say “forever hold your peace.”

very brave, offering to duel in an arena where the opposing side is consistently banned or held up in moderation for hours/days so that their statements get buried. has anyone ever seen jerry comment anywhere but in the UD womb?

Date: 2009/01/08 17:40:37, Link
Author: dmso74
Thank you Sal Gal:

he problem for most ID fans is that they have no appreciation for how much more rigorous actual science is than even college textbooks, let alone the popular science literature.


Date: 2009/01/12 15:31:20, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry is at it again:

n fact one the best ID research projects going on now and there are thousands of projects in this area carried out by the anti ID people is the mapping of genomes. Every genome mapped or part of a genome mapped is ID research because each one is support for the edge of evolution. That is why the Darwinists must continue ID research because each project they complete puts another nail into the Darwinian paradigm of macro evolution. It confirms micro evolution but ID is quite happy with micro evolution.

shorter jerry: we am da cowbirds in da Darwinist nestses

Date: 2009/01/13 11:45:02, Link
Author: dmso74
laff riot of the week, courtesy of StephenB

This is not something that can be summoned at will. We will have to wait until fate provides us with another genius–a genius capable of standing of Behe’s and Dembski’s shoulders, building on their contributions,and maybe even correcting an error or two.

Date: 2009/01/14 12:50:32, Link
Author: dmso74
Well, go on then Joseph. Determine the extent that front loading "can go" with stylus.

I'm waiting.

I'll be sure to pop over a little later with a new sock and ask you. So start to prepare your answer now please.

Hm, I always thought Joseph was a sock too- no one could say such dumb things seriously, right? will UD soon be nothing but arguments between socks?

Date: 2009/01/18 21:42:44, Link
Author: dmso74
DaveScot brings the stupid:
Lamarck has been quite well vindicated in bacteria. I am hesistant to deny a capability of bacteria to eukaryotes since the latter ostensibly descended from the former. Epigenetics, like gene induction through methylization, is Lamarkian and is utilized by higher animals. Use and disuse is certainly operative. Vestigial organs are a prime example of disuse as are eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin’s Finches are another prime example. When they use bigger beaks to crack harder seeds during sustained droughts the offspring have larger beaks and when the drought goes away the beaks return to the smaller size. Are there evolutionary biologists who deny these things?

Date: 2009/01/18 21:55:33, Link
Author: dmso74
In the above post, the bit on Darwin's finches has finally convinced me that DaveScot understands absolutely nothing about evolution. I guess I'm still amazed that people who are so ignorant of a theory can be so convinced that it is wrong.

Date: 2009/01/20 19:21:18, Link
Author: dmso74
What part of "It can't be non-design!" are you having difficulty comprehending? Clue: when your argument depends upon rejecting something else, it is a negative argument.

well, to be persnickety, when you perform any hypothesis-based statistical test, you are actually determining if you can  reject the null hypothesis. ID seems to use evolution by natural selection (or a strawman version therof) as a null hypothesis, which is clearly not appropriate. what they need to do to get positive evidence is test their ideas of how stuff poofs into existence against an actual null model. i'll leave it up to them to figure out how to do that.

Date: 2009/01/27 12:09:49, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry shows us his insularity
You should hang out with Americans more often. You will pick up common sense and some humor.

all the good ol' boys knew that he was joking about the SFCSI, am I right?U-S-A!

Date: 2009/02/03 11:55:19, Link
Author: dmso74
channels a wrathful god:

Stein merely understood the link between Darwinism and Hitler’s artificial selection, ‘final solution’, as being as clear as the link between hedonism and fornication.

haha he said fornication.

Date: 2009/02/04 14:22:17, Link
Author: dmso74
Jerry says don't sweat the details:  
The nice and very civil professor throws some procedural road blocks but that is it. He has not offered anything that would undermine the substance of the argument.
yes, showing that your misuse of statistical methodology makes all of your conclusions meaningless doesn't undermine the substance of the argument.  
But we are not trained scientists and here we are proclaiming on science so we make mistakes in the details.
but that's ok, because the devil is in the details and so by making mistakes we get further away from the devil.

Date: 2009/02/10 17:06:04, Link
Author: dmso74
no comment

Mr. Mason. Here are two sources that say the “Tree of Life” has been obliterated.

Now if you want to call Young Cosmos and the Institute of Creation Research liars, so be it.

Date: 2009/02/11 16:01:42, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 11 2009,14:25)
Jerry is a stellar performer when it comes to clarity of expression and depth of knowledge

The designer might want an organism to exist with different types of other organisms because an organism may need to metabolize the other organism or the organisms are needed to change an environment to meet the need of the organism in question. There is a science which studies this and is called ecology.

Ah, now I see!

hm, so now ecologists, as well as evolutionary biologists, are doing ID research but don't know it. fiendish, jerry, fiendish! perhaps the designer wanted some people's skin to be eaten so he created ebola virus. now epidemiologists are doing ID research as well! no wonder card-carrying ID researchers never touch cheezy-poof encrusted finger to pipet- they can just sit back and watch all the oblivious peons do it for them.

Date: 2009/02/25 21:25:09, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry lays down the rules for discussion:
We could have a civil discussion here about this with those who support ID and those who do not but as we can all see that is not likely to happen very often. We will get quizzed constantly about the nature of the designer and the designer’s motives or the nature of the process used and the timing of designs, the sub optimality of the designs, the designer of the designer, the calculation of CSI, etc.

shorter jerry: you can not ask us anything.

Date: 2009/03/04 13:51:27, Link
Author: dmso74
Andrew SIbley aka Al Roker throws his vast qualifications into the ring:

My own background is in meteorology, with a focus on understanding the chaos of weather forecasting

then offers up some sage advice for us Darwinians:

The science of weather forecasting has improved because it takes seriously the levels of uncertainty in nature. A lesson there for Darwinian biologists I would suggest.

I'm not exactly sure what he's saying here. is it that evolutionary biologists have never considered that "nature" is subject to a lot of stochastic variation? perhaps he'd like to replay the tape of evolution with SJ Gould sometime..

Date: 2009/03/05 11:11:01, Link
Author: dmso74
bFast makes a plea..
Jerry, please don’t make us IDers look too illinformed. they say, a day late and a dollar short..

snippy, sarcastic jerry reply wherein he claims of course he knows the timeline of the earth, he's more well-informed than many Darwinists in 3,2,1..

Date: 2009/03/10 12:15:36, Link
Author: dmso74
for jerry, ID research questions = "silly questions"

Date: 2009/03/13 16:25:19, Link
Author: dmso74
with his golden keyboard can't imagine why people don't understand what he is trying to say:

Khan, I am just repeating what many anti ID evolutionary biologists say. To argue that many organisms are not further on the road than others is sheer folly and is recognized by current evolutionary biology.

with lucid, crisp prose like that, he should be a shoo-in for a gig at the New Yorker.

Date: 2009/03/17 18:06:52, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry's latest is a classic.
first, the admission that ID has no novel ideas or insights to offer:
I explain what I would do if I were in charge of the funds and it is almost exactly what is being done now and khan accuses me of having no plan.

i guess doing exactly the same thing is a plan in the technical sense. but not one that would inspire much confidence in the vision or creativity of the copycat, er, planner.

After making several expected findings from the current research program and its continuation he accuses me of having no predictions

again, I guess technically statements like "your hypothesis won't be supported" and "your hypothesis definitely won't be supported" are predictions of a kind, but are more reminiscent of Nelson Muntz than Lynn Margulis.

I could be wrong but I said what the findings will probably support, namely that genomes examined will have devolved from an original gene pool and no new complex capabilities will have arisen, only a reshuffling of the original gene pool with some minor effects due to mutations.

from what original gene pool, exactly? prokaryotes? then why are our genomes twice the size of prkaryoptes? how does that indicate "devolution"

If the anti ID contingent had any example that pointed to the origin of complex novel capabilities, we would hear no end to it.

maybe if you stopped putting your fingers in your ears whenever you hear the words "mitochondria" abnd "chloroplast" you would hear the crowing.

I also said if I was mistaken then one would have to move up the ladder further to see where the new complex capabilities came from.

aka moving the goalposts

and the coup de grace (quotemined)
ID will be never be falsified

Date: 2009/03/18 10:41:54, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry once agin employs the arguments from personal ignorance for which he is world-renowned:

birds are a bad example as an icon for a naturalistic process. The have a unique oxygen delivery system not found in any other species. An oxygen delivery system unbelievably appropriate for flight. It is not something that a species could slowly adapt into or one that could suddenly pop up from large changes to the genome and be exapted.

the only problem with that statement is that it is factually wrong.  air sacs are also found in flightless theropods, from which they were likely exapted by birds. maybe we can think of reality as being bizarro-jerry.

Date: 2009/03/18 14:36:11, Link
Author: dmso74
and Denyse is so desperate for comments on her posts that she responds to him.

Date: 2009/03/18 14:39:02, Link
Author: dmso74
one more time, with link:
and Denyse is so desperate for comments on her posts that she responds to him.

Date: 2009/03/18 19:01:30, Link
Author: dmso74
RB, I've been following your little head-to-basketball combat with jerry. he is a classic ID creationist in the Behe vein: a pompous, dishonest, know-nothing know-it-all goalpost mover with delusions of grandeur. he basically admits that there is no way to falsify ID and no way to get positive evidence for ID, and thinks that doing armchair reinterpretation of other people's work is a quality research program. this always makes me imagine what the ID student's project at the high school science fair would look like: a replica of another kid's project with the words "we don't know how this happened, therefore ID" scrawled over it.

he is truly the master of assertion and denial. he states that there is no evidence for macroevolution, then when you present him with some, he plays (maybe) dumb and says he doesn't know enough to make a judgement about it. then he goes on asserting that there is no evidence for macroevolution as if nothing happened. i can bet that, despite being told that he was flat-out wrong, with references, about the impossibility of the avian pulmonary system (air sacs) being exapted, the next time someone brings up birds he will say that they are unique to birds and could not have been exapted. Gish would be proud.

Date: 2009/03/19 10:32:31, Link
Author: dmso74
more jerry:
When people say they cannot falsify ID the tooth fairy, that is correct because all ID the pro-tooth fairy position needs is just one instance of intelligence a fairy buying teeth to justify its position. That would be a rather difficult position to falsify. There could always be a black swan wishing to return to its toothed ancestral state.

edits mine. out with it, which one of you is jerry?

Date: 2009/03/20 11:01:21, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,10:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2009,10:54)
RB is still spanking 'em over at the Tardmine...

Yes, but Jerry is asking that I apologize for doing so.  

I think THEY should apologize for hurting my hand.

you have to forgive jerry, he only has a few talking points that he rotates through with modification:

1)no evidence for macroevolution (the definition of which changes according to the current argument)
2) ad hominem attacks
3) evolution research is ID research
4) I can regurgitate some basic evolutionary principles so I understand evolution better than most evolutionists
5)  I <3 Michael Behe and want to get a sex change and bear him 10 more children.

you just witnessed a combination of 1), 2) and 4).

Date: 2009/03/27 18:02:12, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry breaks the irony meter once again and/or provides additional evidence that he is a deep cover AtBC'er.
No I am laughing too at the ineptness of the Darwinist who come (sic) here. There (sic) a pretty inept group.

Date: 2009/03/27 18:56:46, Link
Author: dmso74
and once again jerry exhibits his (unfortunately not rare) combination of ignorance and arrogance:

Explicit latching as it is defined here more closely resembles reality. Once something becomes functional, here the matching to the desired letter, it will tend to be conserved by natural selection. But it is not in Dawkins’ program so it is Dawkins’ thinking that is buggy.

yes, jerry, the second sentence is true. however, latching refers to whether or not the letter can mutate once it reaches the "correct" state, not to whether or not those mutations will be selected. remember, selection comes after mutation, not vicey-versey. mutations, unlike selection, are random with respect to fitness, so explicit latching is far removed from reality. just like jerry.

Date: 2009/03/29 11:41:35, Link
Author: dmso74
Erasmus, re:jerry
sometimes it seems almost obvious that he actually knows better than what he is claiming, and not only that knows why he knows better.  yet he can't make some connection or link that is more or less an instinct in other people.

or, less charitably put, he is intellectually dishonest. to have things repeatedly pointed out to him (like that endosymbiosis leading to mitochondria is a perfect example of macroevolution), "counter" it by saying that he doesn't know enough to make a judgement and then go on braying about how there is no evidence for macroevolution is good evidence for that.  

like DaveScot, he seems impressive bc he is very confident and states things forcefully.. but when he actually tries to talk about biology, it quickly becomes obvious that he has little understanding. for DS, the most recent exmple is when he insisted that most mutations were deleterious despite mountains of evidence from Kimura et al. over decades of research, and then cited Edge of Evolution as his sole source for the claim. For jerry, the weasel thing is the most recent example.. I mean, he can't even grok this grammar-school level toy illustration of a simple concept in evolutionary biology but thinks he knows enough about evolution to overturn it? the strong correlation between confidence and ignorance has never seemed as obvious as it does in these two clowns..

Date: 2009/03/31 16:26:24, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2009,16:03)
Denyse goes for guilt by association, part UPB:

31 March 2009
Evolutionists’ careers built on plagiarism?
A recent article in Cracked, discussing plagiarism, used the careers of Richard Owen and H.G. Wells - both important evolutionists - as 40% of “Five Great Men who Built Their Careers on Plagiarism.”

Read it and see what you think.

They're on page 2:

here's the stuff..

...Also, he looked kind of like a pedophile.

...As it turns out, important British scientists are actually almost exactly like pubescent, small-minded high schoolers.

...For most men, stealing close to the entirety of a better scientist's accomplishments would have been enough douchebaggery. But Richard Owen was just too great a cockbite to succumb to such plebeian levels of asshattery.

etc, etc. By linking to this, does Clive have to kick out Granny Spice?

When I think of evo. theory, the names "Richard Owen and H.G. Wells" are definatley top-of-mind.

In whose world is HG Wells an "important evolutionist"? and who after the year 1985 and over the age of 15 reads "Cracked" magazine?

Date: 2009/04/02 19:15:20, Link
Author: dmso74

-deflect-challenges-or-mickey-mouse-pretends-to-be-a-scientist/#comment-311153]jerry[/URL] shows that he doesn't understand geologic time, or exaptation. no discussion of why weasel should latch, though.
The gradualism in punctuated equilibrium is not the same as in Darwin’s theory or the modern synthesis. There is no selection going on until the magic day when the element in the non coding area is exapted for use in the organism and represents a new element not an adaptation of a previous one.

magic day= a few million years
exaptation= re-suing an old part for a new function. like a gene that's been duplicated and subject to mutation, just to pull an example out of a hat.

Date: 2009/04/12 10:02:44, Link
Author: dmso74

eer-reviewed-article/comment-page-7/#comment-312680]jerry[/URL] is on a tardroll:

Even the committed atheists and evolutionary biologists admit that Darwin is dead. They are looking towards another explanation. Exaptation not adaptation.

the first claim is completely, how do you say, the opposite of reality?
the second shows that he has no idea what exaptation actually is.
here's a clue, jerry: exaptation is a subset of adaptation. Natural selection is critical to both. thus your statement  
natural selection exists but is a destructive and conservative force not a creative one and the heart of Darwin is gone.
is complete nonsense, as usual. not least of which bc no one has claimed natural selection is a "creative force."

Date: 2009/04/12 15:36:51, Link
Author: dmso74

eer-reviewed-article/#comment-312729]jerry[/URL] <3s this chapter:


You should read the Vrba and Eldredge book on macro evolution especially the first chapter to understand the debate.

and thinks the fact that he's read it and can regurgitate some parts in a half-comprehending manner makes him an expert. he's like the high school student who thinks reading the cliff notes on Macbeth makes him a Shakespearean scholar.

Date: 2009/04/15 18:13:59, Link
Author: dmso74
Frilly Gilly makes a funny:

The nicer the name, the more you should be suspicious. If a country had the name, “Republic of Altruistic Personal Enhancement,” you could probably guess what you would get.

that's rich, Gil. perhaps it would be even funnier if it spelled AIDS?


Date: 2009/04/20 17:04:41, Link
Author: dmso74
time to get gobsmacked:
does Joseph actually think that fish fins have no bones in them?
What is the genetic data which demonstrates that fish without such bones in their fins can evolve into fish with such bones?

Date: 2009/04/21 15:53:32, Link
Author: dmso74
as the crowd goes wild for his tardtastic "fish fins have no bones" performance, Joseph comes back for an encore:

I say that because according to Jonathan Wells if we take the DNA of one species and put it in to an egg of another, is anything develops it will resemble the egg’s species.

yes, i guess that's how they cloned a gaur using a cow as a surrogate mother..


Date: 2009/04/24 10:31:27, Link
Author: dmso74
Joseph studied to be a marine biologist? yet thought that fish fins have no bones? just wow

Date: 2009/04/29 11:49:04, Link
Author: dmso74
you guys really miss DT, don't you? why else would you go around man-crushing on the dishonest and massively ignorant jerry? the best that can be said of him is that he sometimes  shows flashes of coherence..but then it all quickly disappears down a hole of labile definitions and bleats of ignorance so abhorrent you wonder if he's ever picked up a book not written by Michael Behe or Philip Johnson in his life..

Date: 2009/04/29 12:15:23, Link
Author: dmso74
I will agree, jerry is nothing if not steady. his arguments are all along the lines of "I don't know anything about this topic (usually macroevolution), therefore nobody does." and his most consistently used evidence that this statement is correct is that he thinks no one on UD has given him a reader's digest version of macroevolution.  in fact, several people have but he consistently ignores them or calls it irrelevant or just microevolution. he seems to think the world doesn't exist outside of UD and hockey, and is just another slightly-more-coherent-than-average ID creationist. but i guess right now that makes him the skinniest kid at fat camp.

Date: 2009/05/07 21:54:00, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry showcases the classic ID argument "I know nothing about it but I know it's wrong":
Now I am not an expert on the multiverse hypotheses so do not know what the theories are. Actually I think they are a joke.

Date: 2009/05/14 13:06:57, Link
Author: dmso74
Clive responds to a phantom JayM comment, accuses him of being a sock puppet, and  tries to cover up Barry's tardness about human fossils. all in two short paragraphs:


eintown’s comments are largely sarcastic, which is why Barry said to bring to goods or go elsewhere. And, he impugned the Turks, a sovereign nation, for not allowing homosexuals to adopt. That’s not a personal attack, which is why I let it through, but it is way off-topic and an obvious attempt to discredit a people for other reasons than the one at hand.

And secondly, JayM, are you a theist who is pro-ID? You take that position all the time, in posture, but you argue the opposite in content. It seems to me you just assume these positions, and then attempt to discredit anything about theism and ID, all under the guise of “constructive criticism” from “a pro-ID person who is just trying to help.” But everything I see from you is anti-ID. Which is it? Are you trying to convince us that you’re pro-ID? You claim to take these positions, but what you say in content is totally opposite, 100% of the time. Which is it? Are you pro-ID?

Date: 2009/05/15 13:30:16, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 15 2009,13:19)
Quote (JLT @ May 15 2009,14:06)
As if the materialist scientists would give up their 6-figure salaries and years or research (not to mention a cozy “there’s nothing there” worldview) without a fight, or straight up denial.

Dang. I don't get a 6-figure salary. I'm obviously not a materialist scientist.


damn i bet on that being jerry

the jerry-mine has been a bit dry lately. however, i did notice that after 3 1/2 years posting at UD (during which time he has never heard a cogent defense of macro-evolution, blah blah), he has still not figured out how to use blockquotes.

Date: 2009/05/18 16:39:12, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 18 2009,14:42)
wow that memes post is really one of the dumbest unclever things i have ever seen on UD.  congrats, Clive, you are somewhat less than I had estimated you.

It seems that a common quality of ID people is to think they're clever when they're really stupid. think of Denyse, WAD's fart jokes, Clive's memes and now that Sternberg piece whose very title made my ears bleed. what, did he think that one stupid unfunny title wasn't enough, or that he didn't want to see one of them go to waste, so he put both of them in with a colon between them? also, the text itself is terrible.

Date: 2009/05/21 12:16:53, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 21 2009,11:25)
what a great thread

Quote (jerry @ to nakashima)
You are starting to get in a habit of saying ridiculous things. It is a really bad habit.

cmon you guys just do it.

P.  M.


diffaxial to jerry when someone points out that jerry's questions are either nonsense or open

“But does it follow that your intellectual position has no merit?”

jerry proves he is one of you fantastic bastards

I have no idea what you mean.

I thought all my intellectual positions have merit even the frivolous ones.

the layers of sarcasm in this jerry-comment are too thick to penetrate.

Date: 2009/05/22 13:06:15, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry the intellectual:
I enjoyed the Diamond book but having spent a lot of time reading about Ancient Greece (wanking motion)..

and why are you reading about that HOMO??

Date: 2009/05/27 14:08:34, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 27 2009,12:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 27 2009,11:08)
Shhhhh, Ras, don't say it too loud, they still think they're faith-camouflage experts...

I wonder what it would be to have a rerun of Kitzmiller Vs Dover with these website as additional evidence. Maybe later attempts from IDC wouldn't have even existed...

And neither would have Expelled?

I wonder who's left as an uncontaminated expert witness, able and willing to testify under oath that their motives are not religious.

c'mon, that's too easy.. David Scott Springer of course.

Date: 2009/05/27 22:57:03, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (BWE @ May 27 2009,18:38)
To the editor:

In his article “On the Origin of the Immune System” (Science, May 1, 2009) John Travis makes the same mistake as did the judge in the 2005 Dover trial — badly confusing the notions of intelligent design, common descent, and evolution. Citing the courtroom theatrics of the lawyers who piled a stack of textbooks and articles in front of me, Travis quotes me as remarking “They’re wonderful articles. ... They simply just don’t address the question I pose.” Unfortunately, Travis seems uninterested in what that question might be. Instead he cheers, “Score one for evolution.”

Although some news reporters, lawyers, and parents are confused on the topic, “intelligent design” is not the opposite of “evolution.”

from the amazon letters.

Behe is now officially the cranky old man writing angry letters to the editor from his basement. I hope they're written on a manual typewriter..

Date: 2009/06/01 18:07:05, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry explains that he's too busy to learn about arthur's examples of macro evolution in plants:
Meanwhile, I will try to review some biology on this but may not have enough time in the next 10 days since I will be traveling a lot.

then writes 3+ replies and close to 1,000 words on various topics ranging from why a 15 year old debate is great evidence for ID to how Bob O'H is Irish. the man has his priorities! and those don't include learning anything about evolution..


Date: 2009/06/04 19:22:21, Link
Author: dmso74
Does adjunct professor at Biola Cornelius Hunter think that he nailed Evolution out of the park with this one?

After providing some quotes from PZ and Carroll saying that evolutionary theory makes predictions, that those predictions are tested and supported, and that therefore evolutionary theory is true, he says:

These types of truth claims are consistent in the evolution genre. The first, and most important fallacy is that these arguments affirm the consequent. This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution.

and of science as a field of inquiry.. for this logic not to be valid, there have to be other reasonable explanations for why we observed Q.. goddidit doesn't qualify..

Date: 2009/06/05 15:15:18, Link
Author: dmso74
Does Clive have something he wants to tell us?

Our friend Allen MacNeill was certainly among the number of people who take evolutionary psychology seriously. You can put him on one of your hands.

please, Clive, this is not the place to discuss those kinds of fantasies. jerry's fantasies about being a double-super-duper-secret undercover ID agent are, on the other hand, still ok



Date: 2009/06/05 16:00:00, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 05 2009,15:43)
Heh, Cornelius Hunter is becoming even more unhinged than he was. Everything is starting to look like a "religion" to him, apparently. If science is a religion, baseball is a religion, art is a religion, blah, blah, blah. The schmuck jabbers here and on linked pages at his lonely little blog (which is undoubtedly why he posted it at UD -- he needs the hits)

Post-modernists despair! The Creo-id-ists have co-opted your strategy of reducing words to utter meaninglessness.

yes, from his first few posts he seems to be just a notch or two below Denyse in pure furrowed-brow incomprehension..

Date: 2009/06/08 23:22:45, Link
Author: dmso74
Clive thinks that Gil's uber-tard post about needing to smash a computer running an evolutionary simulation to make it realistic is gangbusters:

That was a fantastic point Gil. I’ll tuck that one away for future reference. Very well put.

psst Clive, Gil later said he was just kidding.. I mean, yes, please just take that ball and run with it.. it's devastating to us evilutionists

Date: 2009/06/11 19:21:07, Link
Author: dmso74

Cornelius hangs one over the plate


   that’s the problem, it is not an uncontroversial failed prediction- Darwin himself predicted it.

That would be quite a rewrite of history. It would be a stretch to cast pangenesis as (i) intelligently responding to environmental pressures and (ii) a prediction of evolution. Darwin was struggling to formulate a mechanism of heredity. He certainly needed the mechanism not to contradict evolution, but it wasn’t any sort of an important prediction of evolution.

and Khan crushes it

no more of a stretch than it is to call anything on your website a prediction of evolution. or a prediction of Darwin. words mean something, Cornelius, particularly when, in the absence of data or even hypotheses, it is all you have.

Date: 2009/06/12 10:59:12, Link
Author: dmso74
i call Poe on herb

Date: 2009/06/12 14:01:47, Link
Author: dmso74
just from reading the abstract, the paper sounds like garbage. they imply that dinosaurs are thought to have used their bird-like air sacs for breathing in the same way as modern birds. however, the research just shows that theropods had air sacs, and probably used them for other functions. the air sacs were then exapted for use in ventilation during the dino-bird transition.  thus it sounds like the authors are just building up and tearing down a strawman. i'll read it more closely now.

Date: 2009/06/12 14:16:42, Link
Author: dmso74
tons. the wikipedia article is a good place to start:

Date: 2009/06/14 20:43:19, Link
Author: dmso74
Joseph demonstrates just how rigorous ID is..

You don’t calculate the effects of intelligence, you observe them.

You can then test your design inference against nature, operating freely.

For example the Sci-Fi channel has a show called “Ghost Hunters”. These guys go around checking for evidence of the supernatural and testing everything they find against what is commonly known to cause whatever is observed.

ah yes, I remember that paper by Ghost Hunters et al..


Date: 2009/06/16 13:22:43, Link
Author: dmso74
before it's gone:




1:12 pm

also, there is no need to threaten me with moderation, Stephen. I was on topic. but, following the Cornelius method, I just flipped the topic horizontally and pixelated it ;) I kid bc I love.


Date: 2009/06/16 16:15:43, Link
Author: dmso74
StephenB is such a tard that even the other tards are piling on:

Date: 2009/07/10 16:21:30, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry makes an id prediction:

But if the genomes show no evidence of the formation of complex novel capabilities then that will be evidence for ID. Because that is what ID predicts.

it's all so clear now.


Date: 2009/07/23 19:12:12, Link
Author: dmso74
Jehu quotemines Woese:

Well the underline didn’t come out in the above quote when it posted, so here it is for emphasis

   The time has come for Biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent. Neither it nor any variation of it (invoking, say, several primordial forms) can capture the tenor, the dynamic, the essence of the evolutionary process that spawned cellular organization.

Think about it guys.

and Kahn calls him on it:


that quotation is referring to the initial evolution of cells. he is arguing that the process of evolution might have been fundamentally different during that stage of life’s history, involving massive, anarchic horizontal gene flow. however, he later argues that this process left us with three “universal common ancestors.” despite what you say, common descent does not rely on having a single common ancestor. Darwin himself said this in the 5th edition of OoS:

   "No doubt it is possible, as Mr G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants’

think about it guy.

so now Jehu can either remove Woese from his list of common descent-deniers, or add Darwin.


Date: 2009/07/26 13:30:22, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 26 2009,13:05)
Quote (keiths @ July 26 2009,12:00)
Joe G. chimes in:

One would measure the information in an object by determining what it took to bring said object into existence.

That said for a GA just count the bits it contains and that would give you the minimum amount of information (SI) it takes.

The same goes for a pen.

The bottom line is it is a measurement.

Information. The information age. Information technology. Information theory.

I guess that in refrigerator school, they don't teach you that the number of bits it takes to represent an algorithm depends on the style of the programmer and the language in which the algorithm is represented.

Joe really needs to stop popping off and think this through for a moment.  

Let's explore this assuming, for the sake of simplicity, two different designers coding in the same programming language towards the same goal.  Presumably, the more skillful (dare I say intelligent) programmer/designer would be able to implement with less code and thus, based on Joe's metric, impart less CSI into the GA.  Therefore, large amounts of CSI is indicative of a less gifted programmer/designer.  So, we conclude that the amount of CSI in a genetic algorithm is inversely related to the intelligence of its programmer/designer.  

And, children, what does this tell us?  That an infinitely intelligent programmer/designer would impart very little, if any, CSI into the program. Thus rendering the product of this infinitely intelligent programmer/designer virtually indistinguishable from nature, operating freely.


thats a theological argument!!one!11 Darwinizm iz relijus!!11

Date: 2009/07/27 18:13:06, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (keiths @ July 27 2009,17:36)
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 27 2009,14:52)
[Hunter] doesn't have much of an ID/creo publication record, but I'd bet he has at least a book in mind... he's very eager to squeeze some gelt from that cash cow.

Actually, he's written three books, all on the subject of -- you guessed it -- the hidden religious and metaphysical assumptions of evolutionary theory and "scientific naturalism."

The guy is a true monomaniac.

although his book descriptions call him a "Biophysicist", as far as I can tell he doesn't do any biophysics (despite having a Ph.D. in it) and has only published 3 paper in the peer-reviewed literature, all in the same journal, all in 2002-2003. ah, the stellar careers of ID scientists.

Date: 2009/07/28 14:05:42, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Zachriel @ July 28 2009,13:55)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 28 2009,13:30)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 28 2009,13:17)
jerry: And by the way the Franklins said it would take 23 million years to get a new bird species from the finches.

We posted a response on Uncommon Descent, but there must have been a, er, technical problem, as our response never showed. But Dave Wisker apparently reads Jovian thoughts.

Dave Wisker: I’m curious– where did the Grants (I assume you meant them, not the “Franklins”) say it would take 23 million years to get a new species? Where they referring to a particular situation and specific populations in the Galapagos?

Considering that the Grants have measured rates of evolution in the tens-of-thousands of darwins, and that the Galápagos Islands are only 5-10 million years old.

The only thing I could think of even remotely connected to the Grants on this is cycles of environmental change and introgression that could interfere with permanent reproductive isolation for a long time. But 23 milllion years sounds extreme, and I've never read anything by the Grants suggesting something like that. But I could be wrong, so I'll let jerry enlighten us.


Peter Grant: {Darwin's Finches} evolved from a common ancestor in the last few million years. They display striking patterns of morphological and behavioral variation, and some populations are exceptionally variable.

Rosemary Grant: Our investigation studied the process of these adaptations, and we established that these changes occurred in a few years, and are steps towards producing new species of birds.

Peter Grant: we documented the mechanism through which different populations of finches can be isolated in reproduction and become new species; and third, that the 14 species in the Galapagos evolved from a common branch of birds that arrived on the islands two or three million years ago"

maybe jerry confused 2 or 3 million years with 23 million years.

Date: 2009/07/28 14:59:57, Link
Author: dmso74
actually, for jerry, something along the likes of "I have been posting here for 4 years and this is typical behavior of the trolls here. they can not post any positive evidence for macroevolution so instead they go through each pro-ID person's post with a fine-toothed comb looking for trivial mistakes like a single order of magnitude difference. these are grown men doing this, so this does not speak well to their psychology or their success in life that they spend their time doing this. now i am going to sit down and compose another 1200 word post describing some videos i just watched and how they don't provide any evidence for macroevolution."

Date: 2009/07/30 13:10:51, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (didymos @ July 29 2009,20:57)
Atom is a tard:    

cirus @48,
Good post. Someone else also mentioned that each bodily orifice presents an entry point for bacteria and other toxins - the more entry points, the more possibilities of infection. So I’d add that to your already impressive list of design principles underlying the combined pathway.

Yeah, explain the awesome list of design principles underlying potentially lethal bacterial infections and other toxins.

then the Designer must hate women, since He gave them an extra orifice.

Date: 2009/08/06 12:40:23, Link
Author: dmso74
Unfortunately, the idea came up at the end of an 8-hour conversation at his home

Imagine talking to Slimy Sal for 8 hours in your house..



Date: 2009/08/12 09:00:16, Link
Author: dmso74
something I whipped up to demonstrate the scientific relevance of Intelligent Design vs Evolutionary Biology..

Date: 2009/08/12 10:19:35, Link
Author: dmso74
good idea.. i just cut'n' pasted out of web of science.. i'll fix it when i get a gets even funnier when you add Dembski vs, say, Ayala.. you would have to log transform to get normal data..

Date: 2009/08/13 18:27:47, Link
Author: dmso74
before it dissappears:

perhaps you could re-write your endorsement in rap form? e.g.

Dr. D’s the baddest IDer this side of the Mississippi/
all the evolution suckas, they try to diss D/
but you know that kairos and chronos is scientific-y/
but the chances they’ll accept that are less than 1 in 10^150


Date: 2009/08/17 14:23:56, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry shows his compassion:

If I have a terminal illness and there is a possibility that a treatment may work and it is not sanctioned by the insurance companies or the government, I have the right to buy that treatment if I can come up with the money. So health care is no different than other economic good. The reason is has become an issue is that so many new options are available to let us live longer and better that people want it. NO! They demand it as a right. They want it all and like every other so called right, they want other people to pay for it.

Jesus couldn't have said it any better himself.


Date: 2009/08/18 12:17:50, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 18 2009,11:49)
Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers ‘game’ to provide justification for postulating divine intervention (Bradley 2004; Dembski 2004). "
Hey, check it out! another Dembski citation! We'll just throw that on the big pile:

Date: 2009/08/18 14:49:15, Link
Author: dmso74
Is it just me, or does this seem to be the most common response to Corny's posts:

Sorry, but I don’t get your point.


Date: 2009/09/04 13:01:28, Link
Author: dmso74
bFast explains just how much loves those yummy computers:

Secondly, Oatmeal, Gil is a world-class software developer as am I (he moreso). We have a deep, rich, thick understanding of computers, including “universal” turing machines.

do you program in heaping spoonfuls of creamy steaming nougaty code?


Date: 2009/09/14 09:27:46, Link
Author: dmso74
The funny thing about Corny is that, if he follows his own logic:

1) Evolutionary theory is religious bc it refutes creationist claims
2) All of the half-baked ID methods involve eliminating the possibility of some structure evolving as per evolutionary theory
3) therefore as per 1), all ID is religious.

the other funny thing is that he makes a living writing (and teaching classes on the biophysics of Jesus at Biola), yet can't seem to string coherent sentences together. if he and O'Leary had a child I don't think it would even be able to communicate that it was hungry.

Date: 2009/09/15 17:16:57, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 15 2009,16:15)
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.      
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.

apparently CLivebaby also doesn't know that clicking on the yellow text takes you to the source of a quotation, and hence the more substantive argument:

Your quote says that there is a flaw, but doesn’t say what it is. ID opponents would do well to post materials that actually further the dialogue with actual substantive arguments rather than quotes which argue incompletely and by fiat.


Date: 2009/09/15 18:56:23, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 15 2009,18:16)
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.


PaV's population genetics are a hoot, too:
If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year]

What would happen in all this time?
This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a “good” mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population.

what's missing here? what's that thing called? matural seblection? that wouldn't change the probability of fixation of a beneficial mutation, would it?

Date: 2009/09/16 07:15:36, Link
Author: dmso74
oh, and Behe's an asshat too:

Well, at least it’s nice to know that my work gives some authors a hook on which to hang results that otherwise would be publishable only in journals with impact factors of -3 or less.

what a pathetic dude.

Date: 2009/09/16 10:57:13, Link
Author: dmso74
speaking of Joseph, he is now hilariously backpedaling on his claims that T-urf13 was "intelligently designed" in plants:
   1. Turf-13 arose naturally in maize.

Maize arose artificially.

The protein in question wouldn’t have arisen if we didn’t artificially screw around with the plant.


Date: 2009/09/16 12:10:07, Link
Author: dmso74
let's see how long Khan lasts on COrny's blog..

it's also a dramatic misrepresentation of science to claim that this research had anything to do with molecular clocks. or that a different gene family is found in insects and mammals (or is drosophila not an insect?). or that gene expression has anything to do with molecular clocks (you still haven't corrected the mistake). or that finding unexpected result is a reason to discard an entire theory. being a protein guy, i'm sure you realize how badly theoretical Ramachandran plots sometimes predict emprically measured plots. does this mean that sterochemistry theory should be discarded?


Date: 2009/09/28 11:04:06, Link
Author: dmso74
[quote=Richardthughes,Sep. 28 2009,10:13]Corny's latest:

From here:

to here:

end with this:

Two thousand years ago the Epicureans explained that the organization in nature arose from nothing more than the swerving motions of atoms. How naive. Evolution has moved us far beyond such a silly idea. Religion drives science and it matters.

Religion drives science and it matters.

That's his trademarked sign off phrase. picture him in his basement, proudly practicing it in front of a pretend television audience after another 10 straight hours of non-stop scouring of evolution-related press releases for words like "design" and "complex" that he can bold and quote as further evidence that evolutionary biologists really know ID is right but refuse to admit it. his website is non-stop hilarity, full of bizarre twisted arguments that make sense only in the context of his own made-up little world where all science is religious except ID.

Date: 2009/09/28 16:22:18, Link
Author: dmso74
In other news, Clive Hayden reads Parade magazine

Date: 2009/09/30 08:24:46, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 30 2009,05:23)
Is there anyone of the few left advocating ID who is still claiming there is no religious aspect to it?

Corny, of course. to him, all science is religious except ID. and up is down, black is white, Denyse is coherent, etc..

Date: 2009/10/03 14:32:48, Link
Author: dmso74
By the way, what if this NSF official’s porn usage had not been discovered but instead it was found that he secretly supported ID and tried to funnel research dollars that way?

hm, well that would be awfully hard to do since as far as I can tell, no ID "researcher" has come up with an even semi-coherent research plan, much less submit a proposal to NSF.

Oh wait, here's one from Dr. Corny George Hunter

Proposed methodology: I will use the search engine "Google" (Brin and Page 2000) to find evolution-related press releases. I will use the "ctrl-F" function on my personal computer (hereafter "PC") to search for keywords in these press releases such as "design" and "complex" and larger strings such as "surprised to find." I will make these words more visible to the reader by highlighting them using the "ctrl-B" function on my "PC". In doing so, therefore ID.

Date: 2009/10/05 16:26:16, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,16:13)
wow that really is the silly little cunt.  what is that behind him, Finding Nemo?

I just figured it was pr0n

Date: 2009/10/08 12:19:15, Link
Author: dmso74
over at Corny's blog he's now claiming quantum mechanics is a religious theory:
As for Einstein's religious claims, sure, like everyone else he had his religious beliefs. And they probably influenced his thinking on QM. It is another example of religious influences in science.


Date: 2009/10/14 11:38:20, Link
Author: dmso74
Over on Corny's blog, he's now claiming that Ken Miller would agree with the doctrinal statement of Biola University:

doctrinal statement

i think he would def agree with the part about how humans were specially created and share no common ancestry with other animals (in the explanatory note section).

the thylacine-wolf debacle really was a window into the twisted lying tard that is Corny


Date: 2009/10/23 12:49:53, Link
Author: dmso74
BTW, has anybody seen KairosFocus aks Gordon E. Mullings from Montserrat recently?

or jerry, for that matter. i miss his over-the-top jerkish, sarcastic version of TARD and, of course, who can forget the classic arguments

1) all scientists are ID scientists, they just don't know it
2) measure FCSI? if something is functional, complex, specified and has information it's FCSI. what more do you want? go read about transcription and translation, that's FCSI.
3) Michael Behe is right about everything

Date: 2009/11/09 18:23:20, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry wants a list of evolutionary novelties in birds since their first appearance. how about:
UV vision
color-producing nanostructured tissues in feathers (structural colors)
ability to hover (hummingbirds)
strutted bones
air sac system (only partially present in dinosaurs)
complex muscular system for controlling tail
keeled sternum
over 6 different types of feathers
digestive system (crop and gizzard)
syrinx (unique vocal organ)

all trivial microevolution to him, I'm sure

Date: 2009/12/09 12:05:19, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 09 2009,10:08)
Gaz sets Jerry right ...
Rubbish. Britain, for example, has – for now – a socialist Prime Minister who is the son of a Scottish Minister and a practising Christian. Check out the Socialist block of MEPs in the European Parliament and you’ll find most of them – nearly all – are actually Christians.

I expect Jerry's riposte to be one in which he opines that these MEPs cannot possibly be True Christians™ ... 3, 2, 1 ...

ding ding!

and you win the internets for the day. jerry's "no true Scotsman" fallacy blazes forth:

All politicians have to feign religious adherence or else they will not get elected especially those who cater to poorer constituencies so your example is empty as it is in the US

Date: 2009/12/09 13:35:29, Link
Author: dmso74
I don't know, I would think a chess club nerd, after 4 years of bloviating on UD, would have at least learned how to use blockquotes.

Date: 2009/12/24 15:56:40, Link
Author: dmso74
for those who follow such things, Corny Hunter just got his ass handed to him in a few short posts..





Date: 2009/12/24 15:59:00, Link
Author: dmso74
the link again..





Date: 2009/12/26 19:01:36, Link
Author: dmso74
wow, that penguin post is dumb. and then o'leary takes it to the 10^150 with her comment

Flippers provide velocity and steerage, not airborne flight.

yes, bc wings don't provide "velocity and steerage", they just let the bird take off straight up and then fall back down.


Date: 2009/12/28 12:36:51, Link
Author: dmso74
jerry gives us a late xmas present by showing off his deep understanding of science:

Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity

that's the good stuff, thanks jerry


ntelligent-design-theory/#comment-343864]uncut tard here[/URL]

Date: 2010/02/26 16:08:20, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 26 2010,12:43)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.

Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

Well, Hunter is just an adjunct.

so Corny George has library privileges (more or less what is entailed in being an adjunct) at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. quite a step down for someone who once had an NIH molecular biophysics grad training grant:
how the tardy have fallen

Date: 2010/04/18 15:22:37, Link
Author: dmso74
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 15 2010,15:07)
What's up with UD these days? Lots and lots of new articles that get no comments.

Is Cornelius too deep?

No one wants to toss his word salad.

Date: 2010/12/07 08:56:14, Link
Author: dmso74
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Dec. 07 2010,06:37]Joe

His "evidence" is other peoples "evidence" but he's unable to discriminate between the crud provided by the YEC's and the actually scientifically supportable evidence provided by the real scientists?

One has to wonder how he determines when his carton of milk has gone off.

I believe the fitting Spinal Tap quotation here is:
"I believe everything I read, and I think that makes me much more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything."