RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer

Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,12:18   

OK.  Let me say this very  plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

Well alrighty then.. :)

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality.  The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted.  Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong.  Done.  Read the evidence.  I know you won't, because you really don't care.

OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge.  Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

As far as the "calculation" of CSI.  You aren't calculating anything of the kind.  You are only calculating the probability of random events happening.  That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%.  Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small). the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences.  They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs.....  ;)

  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]