Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is a response to PPSimmons’ video, “There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution!
(I can smell it from here!) Carl Gallups explains” Carl, Carl, Carl. I know that it’s been
a while, but as the preacher said to the ***, and I’m sure you’ll agree – better late
than never. Now, you may have noticed your *** regaining some of its former elasticity
due to my prolonged absence, and for that you have my sincerest apologies. In addition
my unavoidable hiatus has unfortunately resulted in me breaking my promise to you with regard
to reintroducing every one of your anti-evolutionary arguments to your *** as you expelled them.
Since I like to pride myself as being a man of my word this sorely pains me, but because
my channel isn’t underwritten by a cabal of shady rich-*** who evidently have far,
far, far more money than sense, I have to spend some of my time making an honest living.
I do this because, unlike you, my conscience won’t allow me to take the easy route by
fleecing gullible simpletons out of their hard-earned cash by lying to them like the
Pope at an AIDS prevention workshop, and also unlike you I’d prefer to be a productive
member of society rather than a leech sucking on its *** for all it’s worth.
Of course, once I found my time freeing up and then attended to some pressing matters
that needed to be dealt with by the knee-deep insertion of my right boot, the first thing
I had in mind was to catch up with old friends, and so I headed off to the PPSimmons channel.
And since your somewhat voluminous output will prohibit me to living up to my previous
pledge I decided to select you most recent crime-against-reason and carry on where I
left off. I was therefore gratified that see that things
hadn’t changed at all while I was away, because the appallingly punctuated title of
this particularly offensive offering gave me a pretty good idea of what was in store
to me. That title was also a great source of mirth not only because it’s hard to imagine
you being capable of explaining the facts of life to a *** star, let alone the intricacies
of evolutionary biology to anyone else, but also because the fishy redolence you claim
to perceive around the theory of evolution is but a bagatelle compared to the horrifically
foul stench emanating from your video – a stench that was most certainly not piscine
in origin but rather more reminiscent of the ***-end of a decomposing skunk that had passed
away from an acute episode of explosive diarrhea. So with all that said, let’s get on to your
video and see how exactly you managed to excrete such a noxious reek without using your ***
sphincter in the way Nature intended. How does the salmon find its way from the
mammoth-sized ocean to the same little teeny stream, sometime many hundreds of miles away,
to the exact same spawning ground of its birth? Some scientists have long theorized that the
fish use a sort of compass system. However, until recently this supposed compass system
had eluded the researchers. But now they have finally found it.
OK Carl, let’s stop it there. The first thing that struck me after recovering from
the temporary bout of dyspepsia induced by my reintroduction to the nauseatingly smug
cadence of your voice, was that you appeared to be completely unaware of the irony positively
dripping from this clip; and that is that you seemed to be preparing the ground for
your inevitable litany of lies by relying on a crucial part of the scientific method
– that is the prediction of phenomena by theory and the subsequent confirmation of
said theory by observation said phenomena. That, Carl, is the same process that’s been
used countless times over the past one hundred and fifty years to confirm, in broad terms,
the validity of theory of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt to all but the most mentally
deficient, undereducated baboons. From Crick, Brenner and others’ evolutionarily motivated
prediction of the universality of the genetic code to Zuckerkandl and Pauling’s stunningly
prescient hypothesis that forthcoming molecular sequence data would mirror traditional taxonomic
trees; from Darwin’s contention that mankind first evolved in Africa that was later beautifully
corroborated by a dizzying myriad of fossil hominids to Neil Shubin’s discovery of Tiktaalik
exactly where he’d envisaged; and from the molecular confirmation of the anatomical evidence
that suggested that cetaceans are most closely related to ungulates to the use of evolutionary
algorithms to successfully predict the epidemiology of virus propagation.
So it’s kind of rich, Carl, to watch you preparing to use this discovery of science
to smear your mental feces over another aspect of equally accepted science solely because
the latter roughly rogers your cherished but demonstrably erroneous beliefs up the jacksie
while the former does not. From this kind of intellectually dishonest cherry picking
I think it’s quite clear exactly how much you care about the truth of the reality we
actually occupy over your insistence of clinging to the fables and legends of ignorant and
barbaric bygone desert nomads. The salmon compasses were hard to find because
they are so small. Individual cells contain microscopic clusters of magnetite crystals.
The same mineral used in man-made hand-held compasses.
I think I can see where you’re going with this already, Carl, because the supposed arguments
you generally make are so *** simple-minded that even an intellectually stunted gibbon
with a severe learning disability could follow them. As a result I’m going to leave out
your subsequent minute-long soliloquy about the intricacy of this magnetosensory system
since it’s already pretty obvious to anyone who’s familiar with the predictability of
creationist mantra that you’re about to use it to construct one of your specialties
– that is a colossal argument from your own seemingly endless ignorance.
Could anyone argue that a fully functional compass, complete with a spinning needle,
could ever be arranged by evolutionary happenstance without intelligent input?
And there it is – the inevitable argument from the ignorance of the deliberately ignorant
***. I’m sorry Carl, but you’ll have to excuse me if I decline to take this kind
of argumentation seriously because it’s been stuffed up the collective recta of so
many creationists so many times that the patina of *** it’s accumulated has is thicker
than the entire faculty of Liberty University. You see Carl, it turns out that it’s actually
quite difficult to try to understand and explain natural phenomena at the level of detail we’re
now at, which is why it’s somewhat unusual to find valuable contributions in such areas
from dim-witted dipshits like you. On the other hand, it turns out that it’s laughably
easy to sit on your *** on a pew in the celestial emporium of your choosing and go through the
almost infinite number of complex biological systems that scientists (and notably not doltish
imbeciles of your ilk) have discovered, and smugly proclaim that they cannot be explained
in any other way than by invoking mystical incantations from ephemeral transcendent specters.
That’s why history is positively replete with examples of ‘tards like you filling
the gaps in our knowledge with their preferred choice of imperceptible prestidigitator, and
then subsequently being proven by their infinite superiors to be full of the proverbial brown
substance. So if you’d like to do a little better than follow in their ignominious footsteps,
you’d be well advised to reconsider your approach and rather than proffering arguments
worthy of a kindergartener perhaps provide some indication as to why those gaps aren’t
being filled by nothing more than your wishful thinking.
Of course I realize that your audience probably puts as much thought into these matters as
you do and so take your preposterous pronouncements at face value, but if enough rationalists
keep pointing out the horrendous smell emanating from your channel they may eventually come
to recognize it for what it is and see where it’s coming form.
So when it comes to people like me, Carl, until you can provide empirical evidence of
either the specter of your preference or of the mechanisms that it employed in breaking
the laws of physics in order to achieve the state of affairs that you assert to have come
to pass, I and people like me will continue to look at your argument and smell it for
what it really is. So in the end it seems that you’re taking the same approach here
that you’ve taken countless times before, just with a different biological phenomenon,
so I can only assume that you and your fellow simians at the PPSimmons channel might be
running out of ideas. Well of course the evolutionist says this
very thing. But then again, they have to. The same evolution scientist would never admit
that a compass as you and I know one could ever in a billion, billion, billion years
arrange itself without intelligent input into a fully functioning tool. But that same scientist
will declare that that an internal compass, made of the same magnetized components, fully
functioning with complex chemical components as well, not yet duplicated by Man himself,
did arrange itself and began guiding salmon in their hundreds of miles of journeys, though
non-purposed evolution. Well, it seems I was right, Carl, because
it looks like you’re shaking out the same tired old threadbare argument that you’ve
flown so proudly above the crumbling ruins of your primitive doctrines before, blown
off the dust and moths, crudely daubed on a new logo and are now proudly waving it above
your head like a simpleton who truly believes that he’s saying something new.
So although I’m sure you already know why compasses don’t assemble themselves spontaneously,
Carl, it looks like I’m going to have to explain it again. I would like to point out
though that this complete cowpat of an argument has been flushed so many times before that
you and any other creationist should be ashamed of yourselves for continuing to crap it out
as if it were anything other than the *** it is. In fact the intellectual dishonesty
in your perpetuating it is so vast that it’s in danger of eclipsing Joel Olsteen’s bank
account, because the honest thing to do would be acknowledge the refutation and argue against
that rather than spraying a new coat of falsehoods onto the same floater and presenting it as
if it were something new. Of course is seems that, either because of your severe mental
incapacity or your vile and quite repugnant dishonesty, you’re incapable of doing this
and so instead settle for ignoring the answers that have been given and continuing to lie
like a priest in the choirboys’ changing room.
So for the umpteenth time, Carl, regardless of your incredulity born of your deliberate
and seemingly limitless ignorance, the reason that these scientists will on one hand assert
that compasses don’t appear from nowhere whereas on the other they agree that biological
magnetosensors most likely evolved from simpler and perhaps functionally unrelated precursors,
is that it’s currently widely accepted that compasses do not reproduce themselves with
variation. This consensus has come about both because of the observation that compasses
are assembled by human beings using know laws of physics, and also because to date no zoologist
has come across two compasses *** like rabbits.
The hypocrisy and duplicity of evolution declaration is embarrassing.
Is it now, Carl? So how would you characterize the behavior I just elaborated on? How about
morally bankrupt ***-baggery? If I were you I wouldn’t be embarrassed for the scientists
but rather for your god whose standards for his worshippers are apparently slacker than
Kent Hovind’s *** after lights out. The perceived hypocrisy you’re appealing
to doesn’t in fact exist because, as I mentioned earlier, these scientists have good reasons,
based on readily observable natural processes and verifiable evidence, that life, and so
by extension, salmon magnetosensors evolved. If you have empirical evidence that in this
case they might have arisen with the help of a some magic words and a sprinkling of
pixie dust, then you’d be better off presenting that rather than your inept hand waving.
But of course, in reality you have no such evidence and so resort to all you have left
in order to preserve your cherished delusion that an inbred cadre of primitive savages
knew more about the natural world than we do. Unfortunately for you, Carl, while these
nomads might have much to teach us about the intricacies involved in the *** molestation
of assorted domesticated ungulates, I have to inform you that the sum of the knowledge
they have to impart in the areas of the physical sciences is, and always has been, exactly
and precisely sweet ***-all. Non-intelligent appearances of compass mechanisms
in salmon and other living creatures is, as always, an assertion based on a pre-existing,
pseudo-scientific commitment to evolution. So having reintroduced us to those two old
stalwarts of yours, the arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, you now switch gears
and ease effortlessly into another one of your favorite standbys, the psychological
projection of your own dogmatic zealotry onto scientists.
Perhaps this confusion arose because your knowledge of the history science is comparable
to your knowledge of its contents because it seems that you’re unaware that this “pre-existing”
commitment hasn’t always existed. Just three hundred years ago, Carl, almost everyone,
including early scientists, was in your camp and young earth creationism was the only game
in town. It was only in the 19th Century with the work of pioneers such as Buckland, Sedgewick
and Lyell that things began to change and the age of the earth was slowly pushed back
way past the limits of your simplistic fables. But this sea change wasn’t due to some dramatic
groundswell of militant atheism, Carl – it was due to an inevitable synthesis of the
collected data which was arrived at by honest and brilliant men who cared more about the
truth than their religious beliefs, and who were able to find ways to accommodate those
beliefs into the new and spectacular view of reality.
So this “assertion” you speak of, Carl, isn’t based on some kind of atheistic dogma
as you like to imply – it’s based on a mountain of essentially irrefutable evidence
that’s been accumulating for over a century and that smothered your ludicrously infantile
alternative a long, long time ago. And, by the way, while you might wishfully
think that everyone will take your word for it when you dismiss this evidence by pathetically
slapping the label of “pseudoscience” on it, I’m afraid the only people you’re
convincing are the poor saps whose minds are already irrevocably shackled by your toxic
dogmata. That’s because when an incompetent *** struts out into public and pompously
proclaims that he knows better than all the established experts in fields in which he
has zero training and even less competence, then the only sane response is hale and hearty
laughter. And when that same *** discloses that he bases his ignorant opposition because
he prefers to believe the legendary fantasies of long-dead tribal shamans, well – the
laughter becomes deafening. In fact the assertion that compasses evolved,
which means they constructed themselves, piece by piece without intelligent input, ignores
the fact that the irreducible core compass structure cannot be reduced or amended without
destroying its function. The crystals, the cell placement, the cell-to-cell sense receptors
and the means to communicate the magnoreceptor data to the brain for processing must all
exist at the same time for the compass mechanism to properly work.
Again you parrot the same old discredited arguments as if they’re something fresh
and new rather than tired and tatty rags that have been ripped to shreds countless times
in the past. As a result I’m going to gloss over the details because quite frankly, Carl,
it’s quite clear that you’re completely uninterested in finding anything even vaguely
resembling the truth. Instead I’ll point anyone else watching this in the direction
of three outstanding videos by cdk007 on the subject and restrict myself to saying this:
Irreducible complexity is not a description of the history of a system – it’s a feature
of its current state with regard to its current functions. So just because a system’s current
function can be easily disrupted doesn’t mean that in the past the components that
were co-opted in its evolution were not either partially useful or utilized in other ways.
It also doesn’t mean that at each step didn’t produce suboptimal, and perhaps unrelated,
functions that nevertheless conferred a selective advantage that could subsequently be built
on. And it certainly doesn’t mean that as these systems didn’t become more and more
complex, inter-dependent and specialized and that they didn’t become more sensitive to
disruption. You may not have not have noticed, Carl, but there are lot more ways to ***
up a grandfather clock than there are an hourglass. This general principle has been demonstrated
time and time again for other better-characterized systems including past creationist favorites
such as the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the bombardier beetle and the immune system,
each of which were smugly claimed to be irreducibly complex and therefore unevolvable by a string
of lobotomized fucktards who subsequently, and with short shrift, had these claims stuffed
roughly up their tail-pipes by people who actually knew what they were talking about.
Of course, these previous rebuttals have done nothing to dampen the ardor of dishonest ***-bags
like you for this complete ***-splat of an argument whenever you’re introduced to a
new complex biological system, and instead of pausing for thought at the utter failure
of your previous attempts you pounce onto it like dung-beetles onto a freshly-laid ***
and trot out the same old arguments as if you’re actually saying something new.
It’s so easy for you, isn’t it Carl? Because at the end of the day it turns out that it’s
far, far simpler to just make this *** up than it is to debunk it since it requires
absolutely no thought or effort on the part of the dumb-*** who has an almost infinite
selection of complex phenomena at his disposal, while it takes a great deal of effort for
the rationalist who has to shovel away this seemingly endless avalanche of fecal brain
bilge. Without the compass, the salmon species could
not reproduce. The instant appearance of this required piece of brilliant and necessary
equipment required a master engineer. Good thing for the salmon that God really does
exist! Once again, Carl, while extant salmon with
their extant behavior may find it difficult to reproduce without the aid magnetoreception
it doesn’t follow that their ancestors did, since there’s no reason to believe that
their earlier migratory patterns using cruder magnetoreceptors we the same as they ones
the exhibit today. But since this is still a relatively new area of study and researchers
are only just beginning to tease out the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie these
phenomena let alone their evolution, the most likely steps in this process have yet to be
elucidated. Of course, for them this provides a wonderful opportunity to learn more about
the natural world while for dishonest crap-stains like you it provides a wonderful opportunity
to do what you do best – and that’s to lie like Jesus’ personal injury lawyer.
So while you might pompously point to this gap in our knowledge and claim victory for
your spurious claim, Carl, allow me to disagree. You see, the reason that sane people accept
that this cellular system evolved is that they view it from the ramparts of the essentially
unassailable citadel built from carefully collected and scrutinized empirical evidence
that demonstrates that evolution is a physical reality governed by readily observable physical
process, and that similar irreducibly complex systems have been demonstrated to be evolvable
by those processes. Furthermore, your contrary assertion that
magnetoreception was intelligently designed and created de novo by an ephemeral entity
with a preference for primitive savages over enlightened human beings, is somewhat roughly
rogered from behind by the observation that birds appear to have developed an entirely
different mechanism utilizing the optical generation of radical pairs. Not only does
this somewhat knacker that other piece of ID doggerel – that is “common design,
common designer” – it also begs the question as to why this perfect designer couldn’t
come up with a mechanism that would be universally applicable.
As it happens, such diverse solutions to the same problem are beautifully explained by
convergent evolution while the best I’ve ever seen your flavor of buffoon manage is
to claim that the designer must have had a reason while appealing to its ever-ephemeral
“mysterious ways”. But while those “ways” appear to be sufficient to explain essentially
everything to thought-averse troglodytes like you, Carl, to those of us who prefer to use
our brains for more than preventing lint from accumulating in our cranial cavities they
explain nothing more than absolutely ***-all. All-in-all this is why people who’ve been
educated in these areas and whose minds haven’t been crippled by the palsy of creationism
don’t jump to the conclusion that magnetoreceptors or other complex biological systems appeared
instantly – because they have absolutely no reason to. In contrast, you and your fellow
mentally castrated simians throw out your spurious claims with no evidence at all and
expect to be treated with the same respect accorded to those who actually have some evidence
to back up their conjectures and who have made the effort to think long and hard about
these matters. Well, that respect won’t be forthcoming from me Carl unless you decide
to take a break from making your *** videos and use the time to find some actual evidence
for the spontaneous poofing-into-existence of anything other than the repulsive brain-farts
that continue to bubble up from the PPSimmons channel.
Of course I doubt that such evidence would be forthcoming no matter how hard you tried
because despite the intense scrutiny of countless individuals over centuries we still have no
evidence that such mystical poofing has ever occurred. And lest you be tempted to set out
on this almost certainly futile quest, Carl, perhaps you should consider this:
If a god does indeed exist, it seems that it has chosen to create a physical universe
of matter, energy and forces that behave in reliably predictable ways and that can be
understood by the minds of human beings. From the behavior of stars and galaxies to that
of atoms and molecules, it appears that this god has constructed an autonomous creation
that requires no intervention on its part. Furthermore all the evidence we’ve accumulated
overwhelmingly indicates that the diversification of life is no exception and can also be beautifully
explained using the same mechanical processes that cause suns to shine, rain to fall and
winds to blow. So, the question to you, Carl, is if this
god doesn’t feel the need the to break the physical laws he created every time a star
goes nova, every time lightning strikes and every time a twister forms, why on earth would
he forgo the same mechanisms in the generation of biological diversity and resort to the
gaudy magic tricks fit for the deity of a tribe of savages? Is it because generating
a world in which evolution could occur would be beyond its powers, Carl, or would it be
easier to explain this discrepancy because some people are just too stupid to understand
the natural world and find it much, much easier to put it all down to magic like ignorant
savages used to? So if that god does exist it seems to me that,
despite whatever reasons you have for clinging to your clearly erroneous and superstitious
mumbo-jumbo, all you’re doing is spitting in its face and demeaning the stupendous creative
vision of an entity that has produced a universe that uses remarkably simple laws to generate
the bewildering complexity of this vast and astonishingly beautiful universe we find ourselves
in. And if I were that god, Carl, I can assure
you that I’d be far from happy with you and your fellow mental defectives who seem
to be so insistent on doing nothing other than insulting me.
�