RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,15:53)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:23)
OK, this is the fifth time....IT IS RIGHT HERE.....If you will just read this, it shows you EXACTLY how to calculate amino acids forming a polypeptide from a racemic solution....


Excellent.  Of course, you realize that this is completely IRRELEVANT to my question.  I know this, you have expanded on this at length.

Since NO proteins are formed in this way, then this entire exercise is useless.

bet you a dollar this one is too stupid to care

--------------
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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:54   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....st_Mayr

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:56   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:54)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr

You made this mistake twice, so it was not a typo. You quoted him without ever having read him. And you owe me an apology.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:04   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:56)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:54)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr

You made this mistake twice, so it was not a typo. You quoted him without ever having read him. And you owe me an apology.

The only apology I might owe you would be possibly not helping you through 7th grade science where this stuff is taught....

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Species

A little googling will bring you the EXACT wording I used...I used to teach it and have it in my memory.....

Mayr also defined it in other ways when considering certain other criteria...But this was his primary definition for a sexual species...

But let me guess...you are going to troll me now because of a misspelled name?

But of course you are... :)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2266
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:05   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,12:59)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:57)
By the way, who is this "Earnst Myars" you keep referring to, claiming to have read his works?

This should be good.

HAha.......I don't believe this one.....If I were moving into this forum, I'd put this one on my sig..  :p

OK, it was a good joke while it lasted, but enough is enough.  Which one of you comedians is Jerry Don Bauer?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:15   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:59)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:57)
By the way, who is this "Earnst Myars" you keep referring to, claiming to have read his works?

This should be good.

HAha.......I don't believe this one.....If I were moving into this forum, I'd put this one on my sig..  :p

jesus fuck you are one stupid sonofabitch

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:17   

Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,16:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2012,14:50)
Well, great, just great.  Now we have an FtK impersonator doing a GaryG impersonation of JoeG!

It always comes down to Joe "the Null set is not a set" G, doesn't it.

Let's see Ftk as Gary doing Joe G writes, ah hem, "lol ... lol ... LOL ... smiley face ... shocked face ... lol ... lol ... lol"

What disappoints me about Jerry the Dog-faced Boy bullshitter is how predictable and BORING is the bullshit.  I mean, he/she doesn't even try to be as eloquent as Davison or grumpy like Batshit77 or touchy like FL or flouncy like FtK.  

Nope, just drool and farts and stained panties.  At least JoeG had the common decency to get all liquored up, ignore his spell checker and entertain us with pure spittle-flecked idiocy, unlike this current batch of limp-dicked, dribbling wankers.

Kids these days, I dunno.

agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum

Well I have to admit that I was expecting Jerry to write something more entertaining than "I don't understand chemistry or math, therefore I win the argument", and then go full Socrates (the poster) on us.  ???

i hold out hope, but i think i have seen this episode before

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:22   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,17:04)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:56)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:54)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr

You made this mistake twice, so it was not a typo. You quoted him without ever having read him. And you owe me an apology.

The only apology I might owe you would be possibly not helping you through 7th grade science where this stuff is taught....

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Species

A little googling will bring you the EXACT wording I used...I used to teach it and have it in my memory.....

Mayr also defined it in other ways when considering certain other criteria...But this was his primary definition for a sexual species...

But let me guess...you are going to troll me now because of a misspelled name?

But of course you are... :)

look short round you aint telling nobody here shit

it ain't the misspelled name, it's you doubling down on stupid every chance you get like an asshole with dentures

--------------
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

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:24   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,16:17)
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,16:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2012,14:50)
Well, great, just great.  Now we have an FtK impersonator doing a GaryG impersonation of JoeG!

It always comes down to Joe "the Null set is not a set" G, doesn't it.

Let's see Ftk as Gary doing Joe G writes, ah hem, "lol ... lol ... LOL ... smiley face ... shocked face ... lol ... lol ... lol"

What disappoints me about Jerry the Dog-faced Boy bullshitter is how predictable and BORING is the bullshit.  I mean, he/she doesn't even try to be as eloquent as Davison or grumpy like Batshit77 or touchy like FL or flouncy like FtK.  

Nope, just drool and farts and stained panties.  At least JoeG had the common decency to get all liquored up, ignore his spell checker and entertain us with pure spittle-flecked idiocy, unlike this current batch of limp-dicked, dribbling wankers.

Kids these days, I dunno.

agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum

Well I have to admit that I was expecting Jerry to write something more entertaining than "I don't understand chemistry or math, therefore I win the argument", and then go full Socrates (the poster) on us.  ???

i hold out hope, but i think i have seen this episode before

Eh, well he just laid out some serious stupid, but it took way too much time for me to coax it out of him.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3320
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:26   

Since, Jerry, you're still posting wrong shit as though it hasn't been provided for you, I will now READ some of the articles I posted for you.  I'll try to type slowly for you.

The Origin of Biological Homochirality
This article explores a number of mechanisms that produce homochirality.

Quote
More than 60 yr ago, Frank developed a mathematical model for an autocatalytic reaction mechanism for the evolution of homochirality. The model is based on a simple idea: a substance that acts as a catalyst in its own self-production and at the same time acts to suppress synthesis of its enantiomer enables the evolution of enantiopure molecules from a near-racemic mixture.
 That has now been done.... here.

You might read some of the work by Donna Blackmond at the Scripps Research Institute in California.  Her group is focused on this area of research.

There's some interesting discussion in the first linked paper about specific chemical models and kinematics vs. thermodynamics.  Since you're an expert on thermodynamics, this should be right up your alley.

Emergence of a Single Solid Chiral State from a Nearly Racemic Amino Acid Derivative contains an interesting experiment in which racemic asparagine, during recrystallization, induces the asymmetric resolution of another racemic AA.  The enatiometric excess of the new amino acids was linear with that of the inducer.

In a racemic mixture of 12 different amino acids, the crystallization of asparagine caused all other amino acids to preferentially crystallize in the same form as the asparagine.  Here's another paper that supports those results Racemic D,L-asparagine causes enatiomeric excess of other coexisting racemic D,L amino acids during recrystaliization: a hypothesis accounting for the origin of L-amino acids in the biosphere

Please note that the last article was in 2004, so there's really no excuse for you not having read it, unless you aren't really keeping up.

Would you like more?  I can get a bunch more.  It's just boring.  I know you're wrong. Everyone else here knows you are wrong.  I suspect that you know you are wrong, but you can't admit it, because it blows a big chunk of your notions out of the water.

--------------
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. 02 2012,16:30   

Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,17:24)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,16:17)
   
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,16:20)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
     
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2012,14:50)
Well, great, just great.  Now we have an FtK impersonator doing a GaryG impersonation of JoeG!

It always comes down to Joe "the Null set is not a set" G, doesn't it.

Let's see Ftk as Gary doing Joe G writes, ah hem, "lol ... lol ... LOL ... smiley face ... shocked face ... lol ... lol ... lol"

What disappoints me about Jerry the Dog-faced Boy bullshitter is how predictable and BORING is the bullshit.  I mean, he/she doesn't even try to be as eloquent as Davison or grumpy like Batshit77 or touchy like FL or flouncy like FtK.  

Nope, just drool and farts and stained panties.  At least JoeG had the common decency to get all liquored up, ignore his spell checker and entertain us with pure spittle-flecked idiocy, unlike this current batch of limp-dicked, dribbling wankers.

Kids these days, I dunno.

agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum

Well I have to admit that I was expecting Jerry to write something more entertaining than "I don't understand chemistry or math, therefore I win the argument", and then go full Socrates (the poster) on us.  ???

i hold out hope, but i think i have seen this episode before

Eh, well he just laid out some serious stupid, but it took way too much time for me to coax it out of him.


raguel perhaps there will be increasing returns on diminishing investments.  perhaps the tard required critical mass before it began to flow but now that the pump is primed we may drink freely from the source.


re jerry don:  imagine the unmitigated gall required for some retrad to muster the gumption required to stagger into a room full of evolutionary biologists, ecologists, geologists and anthropologists and say shit as stupid as "HEY GUISE LET ME TALE YOU ABOUT SPECAITION THEY WAY I LEARNED IT FROM EARNST MYARS HAR HAR DUH BABBLE PROOFS I AINT NO MONKY"

you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:33

--------------
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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1030
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:41   

jerry said:

"Now, I addressed CSI in detail......"

Well then, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on CSI, will you tell me, in detail, how much CSI there is in a wild banana? Will you tell me, in detail, who or what specified the complex information in a wild banana? And will you tell me, in detail, what the complex information is in a wild banana?

While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:46   

Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:48   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,16:46)
Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)

Lay off the booze.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:50   

Hey, JerryBillyBobby, do you assume in your calculations a Gaussian distribution?  What leads you to that conclusion and how can you demonstrate you are correct?

What's wrong with using a Poisson distribution or more aptly a Bernoulli distribution especially with CSI?

Why do you say the units of CSI are "bits?"  A bit is a BInary digiT, or Binary digIT, depending on chirality but it represents a state (no, not Kansas) not a quantity.

Come on, Jer, regale us.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:54   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,17:46)
Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)

awwww it was thinking for a minute

how sweet it is when it thinks

hey sweet tits try thinking about Doc Bill's question, why don't ya?

--------------
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: 8945
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,17:30)
you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

take it down a notch please 'Ras.

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:09   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

 
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

 
Quote
 
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


 
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

 
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:

 
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this:

Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:15   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,16:41)

jerry said:

"Now, I addressed CSI in detail......"

Quote
Well then, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on CSI, will you tell me, in detail, how much CSI there is in a wild banana? Will you tell me, in detail, who or what specified the complex information in a wild banana? And will you tell me, in detail, what the complex information is in a wild banana?


I'm sorry, I don't know how much CSI is in a wild banana...in fact, I don't think I even know any wild bananas...I used to date a Wild Irish Rose.....lol

But what specified the information in a wild banana? A banana seed did, or a seedling....This happened when DNA recombined......

Quote
While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?


It's complex of it is over 500 bits of information...if it is also specified, it then becomes CSI (and all DNA, by it's very nature is specified information).

So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want.

But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so.

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:25   

Btw Jerry this:

 
Quote
And the chirality of the formed protein could not be MORE irrelevant. Concentrate on amino acids forming a polypeptide...we don't care about the polypeptide after the event.


really cracked me up. If you can figure out why you're  wrong here on your own you'll impress the hell out of me, but I suspect you won't.  :)

I'll get around to explaining why, but we'll go line by line like I promised and come back to this, if you still don't get it.

edit to add: I should point out here that I've already explained why, but it had to do with those pesky issues like kinetics and thermodynamics that Jerry didn't get the first time, but whatevs. Baby steps and all that.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:25   

Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,17:09)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
 
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

   
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

 
Quote
 
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


 
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

 
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:    
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


Then say this about another line I wrote: "ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this":

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


The second line you quote STILL does not say that two protein chains are built or or being calculated......Those two lines don't have a danged thing to do with one another....

You just seem to be lost, my friend..... :)

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:28   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,17:25)
   
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,17:09)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
       
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

         
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

       
Quote
       
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


       
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

       
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:          
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


Then say this about another line I wrote: "ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this":

       
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


The second line you quote STILL does not say that two protein chains are built or or being calculated......Those two lines don't have a danged thing to do with one another....

You just seem to be lost, my friend..... :)


My bold.
Ok that's fine that you think I'm lost.  :)

Can you just answer the question?

   
Quote
Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.


Another edit:
Hah. I think I may finally understood Jerry's comprehension problem. Let's try this again:

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Ok, instead of talking about products, let's talk about reactants.  :)

You're saying that the left-handed amino acid ("A(l)") has a 50% chance of adding itself to a protein chain ("P") and that the right-handed amino acid ("A®") has a 50% chance of adding itself to a protein chain. Is this correct?

The reason I'm asking is that you provided no explicit reason why this should be so. Sure, the amino acids are enantiomers, but that doesn't mean they have an equal chance of reacting with a protein chain. Are you claiming that because they are enantiomers, they have the same chance of adding to the chain? If not, can you show us explicitly how you reached the conclusion odds of one in two?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,17:30)
you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

take it down a notch please 'Ras.

Sure by all means let's pretend that Jerry Don's parade of silly lies and innocuous character assassinations is just fun and games why don't we.

the underlying common motivator of all creationists is the desire to squelch dissent.  this moron and his fellow travellers would march you to the gulag purely on the basis of his willful ignorance hatred for people who understand things he can't.

--------------
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

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:47   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,17:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,17:30)
you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

take it down a notch please 'Ras.

Sure by all means let's pretend that Jerry Don's parade of silly lies and innocuous character assassinations is just fun and games why don't we.

the underlying common motivator of all creationists is the desire to squelch dissent.  this moron and his fellow travellers would march you to the gulag purely on the basis of his willful ignorance hatred for people who understand things he can't.

Well he could be just a troll, but I agree with you in general: what we think of as creationism is supported almost entirely by religious convictions, lies and character assassination. There are some that are generally interested in science and try to understand the world around them but there aren't too many of them, from what I can tell.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:52   

Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,18:47)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,17:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,18:04)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,17:30)
you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

take it down a notch please 'Ras.

Sure by all means let's pretend that Jerry Don's parade of silly lies and innocuous character assassinations is just fun and games why don't we.

the underlying common motivator of all creationists is the desire to squelch dissent.  this moron and his fellow travellers would march you to the gulag purely on the basis of his willful ignorance hatred for people who understand things he can't.

Well he could be just a troll, but I agree with you in general: what we think of as creationism is supported almost entirely by religious convictions, lies and character assassination. There are some that are generally interested in science and try to understand the world around them but there aren't too many of them, from what I can tell.

those creationists who maintain those qualities do not remain creationists long.

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:54   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,18:15)
But what specified the information in a wild banana? A banana seed did, or a seedling....This happened when DNA recombined......

jerry, the other tards want to have a word with you.  seems like they think that CSI can only be explained by an intelligent designer bearded thunderer and here you are blaming it on a goddam monocot

--------------
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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3364
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,17:59   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,21:40)

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).

QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger


Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence.  

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.

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.


Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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>>>>>


I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.   Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.


Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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......


In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


I sure have to agree there. As you might have noticed I try my best not make the same mistakes that Charles Darwin did not foresee, such as what happens when the theory is misinterpreted in a way that suggests some were specially created in their present form, while all others devolved into something less than human. Without a scientific theory that can explain why that is not true the same can be inferred from ID.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

Quote
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php
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.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc


I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


That is only true where the layman’s definition is used. In reality, there already is a testable scientific theory that meets all requirements of the scientific method, the one I am already having success with for my computer models.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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....


I’m glad you said that! No problem here, taking that advice.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.....


I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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....


Yes, all have to be careful not to lose sight of what is most important for us to learn from all that is in a sense common with all religions, or else we end up on a path that leads away from our Creator.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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........


It is funny that some demand that of religion.

Insight does not require all be immediately scientifically revealed.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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."


Good catch! I should have included the phrasing “at this time the theory I am working on cannot determine”.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


There is now another much simpler explanation for that happening in the QM experiment (where that concept came from): The 1 quanta of energy from the photon all went into the detector instead of out the slit. It might be as simple as the photon detector (observer) being the path of least resistance. The photon cannot go both directions at the same time.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
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.


What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.

--------------
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.

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,18:49   

For those of you that are interested here's an example of why kinetics is so important:

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook....ns.html

 
Quote
Mechanism and The Kinetic Domain

Consider again the   2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction, and ask the question: Are there any possible competing reactions?

There is one: the carbon forming, or coking reaction, producing of hydrogen fluoride and carbon.
CH2F2  C + 2HF

Thermochemistry calculations show this pathway is energetically preferred over disproportionation: [raguel:snipped here; it's not important and I'm too lazy to get it to fit. The important thing is this: the most thermodynamically stable product is not observed at low temperatures.]

Yet the 2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction occurs.

So, the question is: Why does   CH2F2   disproportionate to   CH4 + CF4   and not to  C + 2HF?

The answer is subtle.

• When there are two or more possible reactions, each reaction will proceed by an associated reaction mechanism and each mechanism will have an associated activation energy, Eactiv., and Gibbs free energy, ?Grxn.
• Under local conditions, the reaction will always proceed via the mechanistic pathway that has the lowest activation energy, Eactiv..
• The effect is to produce the locally thermodynamically more stable product(s) rather than globally mostthermodynamically stable product(s).
At a higher temperature the globally most stable reaction will happen, and 'coking' will occur:




  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,19:36   

I know I said I'd go line by line but I can't get over how stupid this is:

   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
Also, I've already explained to you what a catalyst is and that it only speeds chemical reactions. You agreed to this, yet you are back now to claiming that a certain catalyst will change the probability mathematics of what amino acids form polypeptides from a racemic mixture? If you are going to continue this, let's see some science with referrences, please. But you will not cough up any, because there isn't any.




Sure you did Jerry, and I told you why it "speeds chemical reactions":

   
Quote
Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.


In answer to this:

   
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


I wrote this:

   
Quote
can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.


To which you replied

   
Quote
They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:


Note that you explicitly claimed that the products are mirror images, and later claimed that you never said that. :D

Tying this in with the question at hand: if you aren't using kinetics and thermodynamics to prove this statement:

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Then you aren't using chemistry to support your argument. Do you understand that much Jerry? I'm betting against it.  :)

eta: Jerry, you also claimed that I didn't post any examples showing how catalysts can affect the products observed, but that's simply not true. Earlier I posted a link to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._note-3

Quote
The enantioselectivity of CLAs derives from their ability to perturb the free energy barrier along the reaction coordinate pathway that leads to either the R- or S- enantiomer. Ground state diastereomers and enantiomers are of equal energy in the ground state, and when reacted with an achiral lewis acid, their diastereomeric intermediates, transition states, and products are also of equal energy. This leads to the production of racemic mixtures of products. However, when a CLA is utilized in the same reaction, the energetic barrier of formation of one diastereomer is less than that of another – the reaction is under kinetic control.If the difference in the energy barriers between the diastereomeric transition states are of sufficient magnitude, and high enantiomeric excess of one isomer should be observed [4](Figure 2).


Emphasis added.

So as a followup question Jerry, please tell us why you think activation energies are irrelevant when one is trying to determine the odds of an amino acid adding on to a protein. Make it good.  :D

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3320
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,19:58   

Gary, are you ever going to provide a graph that, you know, has labeled axes?  Just out of curiosity.

Jerry, let me know when you've read those papers.  I'm sure I could help you out with the hard bits.  But, one of YOUR assumptions is therefore incorrect.  You must alter YOUR system to deal with observational data.

If your system doesn't correctly incorporate actual observations, then it is worse than useless... it's actually a lie.  There is data that is right in front of you, but you choose to ignore it.  That means everything your system is presenting is a lie.

CSI might be a perfectly valid system for figuring out the probabilities of a long chain protein forming from a random mixture of amino acids IF there was a totally random mixture of amino acids AND IF all amino acids had equal binding affinity AND IF you thought that all modern proteins were formed in this way.

Since none (zero, zilch, nada, 0) of the if statements are true, then CSI doesn't actually do anything in the real world.  It may make you feel better, but if you understand what's going on, then it won't.

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

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

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

Pages: (25) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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