RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,01:33   

No pity from me before you have explained your theory. Why don't you write a book? Dembski, Behe, Luskin, they all write books, that's the way to publish ID science!

Edited by Quack on Dec. 01 2012,01:47

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3191
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,02:06   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 30 2012,20:59)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 30 2012,19:04)
I'm getting confused!  Whose thread is this, anyway?

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!

The magic moment when they found that room.

Shinedown - Bully (Official Music Video)

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,08:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,01:32)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,14:59)
And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator.

Well, he didn't, not in the way you imply. But that's not the point. The point is: so what if he did? Would that make evolution something less than a fact? What if he recanted his theory on his deathbed (another creationist favorite falsehood)? Wouldn't make it any less valid.


I had to paraphrase that one:

       
Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav.....av....]


This certainly dispels the myth that Charles Darwin was an Atheist.


Well, neither was Newton.  Physics is religion.

 
Quote
Needing that as the mechanism for the origin of life made it a very religious theory,


The tool doesn't know what "need" means.

 
Quote
and essentially still is.


No doubt why people of all major religions, and of none, accept and use it.

 
Quote
Those who accuse me of having a religious agenda/theory do not know that where the same standard is applied evenly to both sides, the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent is far more scientific than the theory Charles Darwin wrote.


With your reasoning powers, how could it be otherwise?

       
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
In fact if Charles Darwin had never been born modern science would look very much as it does now, and we would still have creationists here today, railing against Wallace or whoever else had come to prominence in the early days of evolutionary discovery.


 
Quote
After having read how that concept was explained in a WW2 era German science teacher manual, there is no doubt that it was at least very useful for the justification of Concentration Camps.


No doubt why one Nazi book banning targeted "Darwinism", putting the ban on:  "Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel)."

But Gary's schlock was never banned by Nazis, nor was the rest of IDiocy, so it's better.

 
Quote
It was believed that having been originally breathed by the Creator made them a Master Race which did not evolve while evolution turned all others into feeble minded apish creatures who they were obliged to exterminate.



Oddly, missing citation.  

Oh Gary, you're such an idiot.  And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,08:25   

Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."


Quote
It was believed that having been originally breathed by the Creator made them a Master Race which did not evolve while evolution turned all others into feeble minded apish creatures who they were obliged to exterminate.


Does the Gartard think that Darwin's 'original forms' included humans?  

It seems that comprehension is perhaps his greatest problem.  No, not just reading comprehension.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,09:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,18:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,02:32)
Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed. My crime, is not doing as Wesley and other so-called science experts dictated. It's now payback time, for years of purposely making my life hell, all in the name of Charles Darwin and your scientific politics which do not allow any theory to come before the one which is now revered.

This dumb-down of science has received billions of dollars to promote and protect. You have no idea how much of a disgrace that actually is, and how angry I am at the hypocrisy.

makes you sooooo mad, don't it?




i'm so sad that the establishment thinks you're retraded.  you must be a victim.  the man is holding you down.  nobody can see your brilliance but you.  and wesley but he is oppressing you.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
stevestory



Posts: 8831
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,19:26   

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

crackpot index

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3191
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,21:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2012,19:26)
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

crackpot index

I said quote "Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed."

I did not say that this forum represents the "scientific establishment" or that there is a "conspiracy" or even that you were winning. This being "payback time" indicates that you (just another common bully) already lost, but you just don't know it yet.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,23:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,21:32)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2012,19:26)
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

crackpot index

I said quote "Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed."

I did not say that this forum represents the "scientific establishment" or that there is a "conspiracy" or even that you were winning. This being "payback time" indicates that you (just another common bully) already lost, but you just don't know it yet.

GaGa, if we need any shit from you we'll just squeeze your head.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,04:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,07:32)
Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed. My crime, is not doing as Wesley and other so-called science experts dictated. It's now payback time, for years of purposely making my life hell, all in the name of Charles Darwin and your scientific politics which do not allow any theory to come before the one which is now revered.

This dumb-down of science has received billions of dollars to promote and protect. You have no idea how much of a disgrace that actually is, and how angry I am at the hypocrisy.

[Vincent Price voice] The Fools! They mock me: but I shall laugh at their ultimate humiliation!



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,05:25   

Quote
Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed. My crime, is not doing as Wesley and other so-called science experts dictated. It's now payback time, for years of purposely making my life hell, all in the name of Charles Darwin and your scientific politics which do not allow any theory to come before the one which is now revered.

Why bother with the so-called experts? I am the opposite of an expert. Can you name any real experts?

In what currency will the payback be reimbursed?

Trying to be explicit, but it is damn difficult as long as neither me nor anyone else knows what you are talking about.

What minimum of IQ must I have in order to be able to understand you?

What do all your diagrams show or demonstrate, exactly?

An Intelligence Generator?  

What is Intelligence?

Please reference a common text, or if none fits, use your own words.

As far as I understand, you have created a computer program. What does it do? You are of course familiar with the concept of GIGO, or GAGA? Where is your program located on a scale between nonsense and sublime excellence?

As long as nobody is able to understand what you are saying you might as well speak in Gibberish instead of what you’ve been using so far, Nonsense: “… an excess of meaning, rather than a lack of it. Nonsense is often humorous in nature, although its humour is derived from its nonsensical nature, as opposed to most humour which is funny because it does make sense.”

Where do we begin? Is it possible for you to explain what you are doing with, say, 100 – 200 words, in a manner that conveys a clear meaning? Like I don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to understand what the LHC is doing?

I believe you have created a program that you want to impress as a model of, what?

What is the what that you think your program is applicable to?

Can you explain the Guess function? How does who or what perform the function of guessing?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,09:23   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 29 2012,21:40][/quote]
Quote

Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF


At cursory glance I would have to say that I don't really understand it, perhaps because I haven't studied the terms in details.

As example HOW is the behavior of matter a starting point (what behavior are we discussing..QM???..rocks behave fine as rocks just sitting there doing nothing). How does this turn into molecular intelligence? Sounds a little vague or arbitrary???? Just MHO but I certainly encourage thought and exploration into this kind of philosophy and I try to keep an open mind.

The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Instead what we see is obvious saltation....the almost (relatively speaking, of course) sudden appearance of all kinds of new organisms with no evolutionary history leading up to this appearance and this is noted by several events in the record.

This bothers them. It bothered Darwin, it bothered Eldridge and Gould (a silly punk eek hypothesis to explain saltation was the result),  but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??

Of course not because this is not science, it is a secular humanistic religion and you can show these people all the evidence you care to that would support an intelligent designer and they will laugh it off and redicule you because it violates their religious beliefs.

So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?

We will never know because we were not there. But we don't need to hypothesize life morphing from hot ocean vents, birds spewing out dinoaurs or whales magically poofing out legs and crawling out on land to star in an Arnold Swartzenegger movie like the residents in here do every day to get a "theory" of evolution. The public will never buy it (as surveys already show most do not) and it will eventually go away to join the realms of phrenology, water witching and a flat earth.

So, let's cut to the chase of simplicity....What is so hard to envision about a designer creating tissue? There you have the simplicity. We do it every day somewhere in a lab...Ocaam's Razor says run with it>>>>>

Quote
Personally, I do not see the “Creator” being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to “create” life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist.  An always was, and always will be, sort of thing.


If quantum mechanics is the Creator, then it is not human and there could be no IQ test to measure that intelligence from a human perspective.

But it isn't true that life begins knowing nothing at all. Relating this to humans, DNA provides intelligence. A newborn baby knows little, but it is preprogrammed to cry for water and suckle a breast. Birds do not have to train to migrate where they need to be. Seeds receive no instructions to begin laying down roots......

Quote
One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting “ID is not science” and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge.


But we have to be careful about banterring this "theory" concept around or we will be as bad as the Darwinists are on this.

The scientific method dictates that we begin at the hypothesis level. That hypothesis is then subjected to empirical experimentation, if the hypothesis holds up and other scientists can reproduce those experiments, it goes to the theory level.

What experimental evidence do we have that man morphed from an ape-like critter, that whales crawled out of the oceans to form land mammals.....that birds, indeed gave rise to dinosaurs? NONE.

And there is no way any of this could ever be falsified, therefore, there is no such thing in reality as a "theory of evolution" except in the minds of some.

The truth is, there is also NO general theory of ID that has been through the scientific method to show itself a theory...certainly not one that sums up the overall concept.

Quote
The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.


Religion...for religion's sake....sucks. I keep it simple....

1) Can I find anything in science that suggests there is something else of intelligence out there? Yes, I can.
2) Can I find a spiritual side of me? Yup, there is something inside of me that is non-mind.
3) Can I find a higher power? Absolutely.....Anyone can....that higher power may be a higher you.....or a majestic megaverse where QM controls all--or something else.

It then can all then come together and we can attempt to ascertain the qualities of that 'other' dimension of life we all interact with.....

Lighting candles, counting beads, holy water and prayer cloths are constructs of man. And Genesis is exactly what it is....history written by man who understood little about  the universe around him from a scientific perspective....

Some seem to think that Moses should have begun with a quantum singularity in the blackhole of another universe, described the big bang with it's inflationary theory and ended with Boltzmann's math on particle thermodynamics....it's laughable........

Quote
But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!


Thanks...but I would disagree with this: "Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined."

It can be determined through physics experiments that energy will act as a wave or a particle (wave or solid) depending upon whether there is, or is not an intelligent observer in the system.

Yet, we experience both in the real world....We need waves to come from energy when we turn on a light switch and we need our laptop to be a solid when we pick it up to use it.....

What intelligent observer is CAUSING this? What intelligent observer is causing the reality around us to be, indeed, real?

Find this, and you will have found God.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,09:27   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,09:44   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:07   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,10:23)
The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Yeah and neither will you get anyone to admit you aren't a tedious and ineducable boring twat who doesn't give a shit about the fossil record or evilution except as a platform for delivering your tinhorn canned catshit sermons to people on drugs or with mental issues.  

jerry don, no one gives a shit about cluing you in, buddy.  you are farts in the wind.  you are developing a little napoleon complex there, though, hoss, lest you wind up a client of yourself you'd best rein that shit in dopey smurf.

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,11:07

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:27   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

Ah, the old goal post shift.

We spent 4 pages arguing about the calculation of probability, now it's become bits of information.

OK, so how do you determine the bits of information in a protein? This is an interesting question, because not the following.

If you use amino acids.  There's 20 amino acids that are commonly used in proteins.  Therefore you need a minimum of 5 bits per amino acid.  So a protein that is 100 amino acids long is designed.  Unfortunately, this is manifestly untrue as scientists have put amino acids in a chamber and gotten proteins longer than 100 amino acids... just in the way you say is impossible.

However, that's beside the point.  No, the point is that if you consider the DNA in which the amino acid came from, you need 2 bits for each nucleotide.  So, you can have 250 nucleotides, which, when divided by 3 gives us a maximum protein length of 83 amino acids.

So which is it?  Is the maximum length of a non-designed protein 83 amino acids or 100 amino acids (hint, it's neither).

As a last comment, I love the way you waffle on the last bit.

"Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS."

So, you have no idea what the designer does or does not do either.

It's a good thing that no modern proteins are randomly assembled isn't it?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:30   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,10:07)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,10:23)
The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Yeah and neither will you get anyone to admit you aren't a tedious and ineducable boring twat who doesn't give a shit about the fossil record or evilution except as a platform for delivering your tinhorn canned catshit sermons to people on drugs or with mental issues.  

jerry don, no one gives a shit about cluing you in, buddy.  you are farts in the wind.  you are developing a little napoleon complex there, though, hoss, lest you wind up a client of yourself you'd best rein that shit in dopey smurf.

There is no amount of evidence you would accept, so why bother?

It's a good thing that no one listens to you about things like the fossil record.  Actually, some people probably do listen to you and that's why we have this problem in this country... people who are ignorant, proud of it, and drag others down into their ignorance... all in the name of religion.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:36   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

Ah, the old goal post shift.

We spent 4 pages arguing about the calculation of probability, now it's become bits of information.

OK, so how do you determine the bits of information in a protein? This is an interesting question, because not the following.

If you use amino acids.  There's 20 amino acids that are commonly used in proteins.  Therefore you need a minimum of 5 bits per amino acid.  So a protein that is 100 amino acids long is designed.  Unfortunately, this is manifestly untrue as scientists have put amino acids in a chamber and gotten proteins longer than 100 amino acids... just in the way you say is impossible.

However, that's beside the point.  No, the point is that if you consider the DNA in which the amino acid came from, you need 2 bits for each nucleotide.  So, you can have 250 nucleotides, which, when divided by 3 gives us a maximum protein length of 83 amino acids.

So which is it?  Is the maximum length of a non-designed protein 83 amino acids or 100 amino acids (hint, it's neither).

As a last comment, I love the way you waffle on the last bit.

"Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS."

So, you have no idea what the designer does or does not do either.

It's a good thing that no modern proteins are randomly assembled isn't it?

I'm going to start ignoring your posts unfortunately, because you simply are NOT willing to read....or you do not understand what I post....I'm not sure which.

I have ALWAYS stated that 10^150 or 500 bits is the UPB......they are mathematically the SAME THING...if you don't understand this simple math, then you are way above your level of education in this discussion and I don't mean that as a cut to you personally. It's just a fact.

If you think you are detecting waffling, then I fear I must point out that you are probably just lost.

Now, I addressed CSI in detail......we have now moved on....care to join us?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:53   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,10:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:44)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

Ah, the old goal post shift.

We spent 4 pages arguing about the calculation of probability, now it's become bits of information.

OK, so how do you determine the bits of information in a protein? This is an interesting question, because not the following.

If you use amino acids.  There's 20 amino acids that are commonly used in proteins.  Therefore you need a minimum of 5 bits per amino acid.  So a protein that is 100 amino acids long is designed.  Unfortunately, this is manifestly untrue as scientists have put amino acids in a chamber and gotten proteins longer than 100 amino acids... just in the way you say is impossible.

However, that's beside the point.  No, the point is that if you consider the DNA in which the amino acid came from, you need 2 bits for each nucleotide.  So, you can have 250 nucleotides, which, when divided by 3 gives us a maximum protein length of 83 amino acids.

So which is it?  Is the maximum length of a non-designed protein 83 amino acids or 100 amino acids (hint, it's neither).

As a last comment, I love the way you waffle on the last bit.

"Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS."

So, you have no idea what the designer does or does not do either.

It's a good thing that no modern proteins are randomly assembled isn't it?

I'm going to start ignoring your posts unfortunately, because you simply are NOT willing to read....or you do not understand what I post....I'm not sure which.

I have ALWAYS stated that 10^150 or 500 bits is the UPB......they are mathematically the SAME THING...if you don't understand this simple math, then you are way above your level of education in this discussion and I don't mean that as a cut to you personally. It's just a fact.

If you think you are detecting waffling, then I fear I must point out that you are probably just lost.

Now, I addressed CSI in detail......we have now moved on....care to join us?

Yes, do ignore the things that show you are wrong.

That's OK.  It happens all the time.

I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,10:57   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Jerry, you don't know dick about the fossil record. You're just repeating what you've heard from your brethren in the pews.  You get your science from Jack Chick.

Several years ago I read a piece from the execrable John Woodmorappe (not his real name because of his fear of being EXPELLED, allegedly) in which he listed what he claimed were no fewer than 100 "misplaced" fossils.   A gross example of a misplaced fossil would be the celebrated Precambrian rabbit.  
Knowing that he was full of shit, I picked one from his list more or less at random to see what I could find out.  What it was wasn't a misplaced fossil at all, but rather a fossil that was older than the previously oldest known specimen, by 100,000 years or so.  The stratum it was found in was correct and as predicted.  So what the idiot was saying was that if you have some fossil specimen that's the oldest known example, and someone finds an older one, it's a "misplaced" fossil and CREATIONISM WINS!!!1!!

I'm afraid that this kind of utterly despicable dishonesty is what we can expect from creationists who tell us all that's wrong about the fossil record.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that you're any different.  You should STFU about the fossil record until you can demonstrate that you're smarter than a talking parrot.  :angry:

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,11:01   

[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 02 2012,10:53][/quote]
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,11:26   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,11:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:53)

 
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

Why can't you just answer the question...

what method do you use?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein in the DNA?

eta:
But you are right about one thing.  We've already established that the entire concept of CSI as promoted by you and other IDists is fundamentally flawed (in no fewer than three ways), so right now, I'm just seeing how far you will go to avoid answering a question.

Edited by OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,11:34

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,12:50   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,11:26)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,11:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:53)

   
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

Why can't you just answer the question...

what method do you use?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein in the DNA?

eta:
But you are right about one thing.  We've already established that the entire concept of CSI as promoted by you and other IDists is fundamentally flawed (in no fewer than three ways), so right now, I'm just seeing how far you will go to avoid answering a question.

If you don't even understand what method I'm using, how do you know it's wrong....lol....:)

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,12:54   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,10:44)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2012,08:30)
I need to work on my style.  I think I came across as mocking when I was trying to be mocking AND uncivil AND insulting.

Really, though, where have all the good creationists gone?  I almost miss Floyd these days, ya know whut I mean, Vern?

You can find that stain on the bathroom wall at PT

I am just learning to love this new one though. surely THIS will go somewhere

I'm sure it will lead to us all being told we're going to hell if we don't change our ways.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,12:57   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:15)
Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone.  They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."  

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere,  change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

How long did you have to follow that bull in order to accumulate that much crap?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:18   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,12:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,11:26)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,11:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:53)

   
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

Why can't you just answer the question...

what method do you use?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein in the DNA?

eta:
But you are right about one thing.  We've already established that the entire concept of CSI as promoted by you and other IDists is fundamentally flawed (in no fewer than three ways), so right now, I'm just seeing how far you will go to avoid answering a question.

If you don't even understand what method I'm using, how do you know it's wrong....lol....:)

Because there are three fundamental flaws, which you (nor anyone other ID proponent has EVER addressed).

1) false dichotomy (designed or random)
2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity
3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution.

But like I said, I'm really just seeing how long you'll go without answering the actual question.  4 posts and counting.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:20   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 27 2012,10:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)
As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

 
Quote
If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.


is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with.   And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify.  Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721

Ah, the argument by Big Numbers.

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:29   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,17:20)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,16:25)
   
Quote
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.


Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

     

LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:

   
Quote
The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein.


But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance.  (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chance.

Any thoughts on this yet?Remember to show your work

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18)

It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL

Look:

Quote
1) false dichotomy (designed or random)


This is a question? How would I ever answer it....it doesn't even contain a verb and a noun...lol

Quote
2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity


Nor is this a sentence or a question....If it's you accusing ME of assuming this, then you are simply ignorant of the laws of chemistry (chemical equilibrium)and I do not have the time to educate you.


Quote
3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution.


And here's another nonsequetur......NO ONE is assuming that all modern proteins develope from random collections of amino acids. If this were true, there would be no 'modern' (whatever that is) proteins.....lol

Now you have gotten enough attention on this thread...go ahead and post away until you are blue in the face....

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:42   

Quote
Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors?

And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived.

Henry

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

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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