RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,09:53   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)
Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,09:57   

   
Quote
I'm mean to idiots.


Yes, many posters on the Web seem hate filled for anyone in the human race that doesn't agree with them intellectually, but it's OK, I'm used to it. I'm in the full-time ministry to homeless people on the streets--in a major U.S. city.....druggies......gangbangers.........people that hate society....no big deal to me, It's sad that these people never have a sunshiny day, but I suppose it's very much a part of modern society and there's little I can do about it.

   
Quote
Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions.  Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.


I actually call it going off topic. I have yet to have ANYONE seriously address much of anything I've posted. Debate if you wish, but I don't answer what you believe to be clever riddles, off-topic challenges or silly questions not at all related to anything posted.

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.

The deal is......you must not understand CSI in its basics as common sense should tell you that if ONE protein is CSI, then the billions that comprise you when considered together in the same system would be astronomical.....Please go back and read the other thread in detail.....I shouldn't HAVE to point out the obvious to you.


   
Quote
But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway.  If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do).  Does the designer have any limits?  If yes, why? How do you know?  If not, why?  How do you know?  Can the designer create anything?  How do you know?  


You completely miss the point. The subject is identification of a given designer. Why is that important when the only question we are pondering is if something is, or is not designed. Did it occur naturally or was it designed?

Your logic here is similar to taking your final in college algebra and becoming so confused that you cannot solve any problems because you cannot remember the name of the person who wrote the textbook. It's just Silly and illogical.

Also....I'm learning that you do not read the posts.....How did you MISS that long post above where I IDENTIFY the designer in detail.....

I'm not one to shy away from the details of this stuff, yet you act like I never address it and just come back with the same, tired questions again.

But......I haven't given up on you....*wink*

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,10:01   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,21:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:47)
retarded snip

hey who knew this was a cut and paster, right?  well if you google

 
Quote
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'  


you can find a Jerry Don thread, preceded by Glenn Morton* calling good old Jerry Don a pantheist and not a True Christian™

i had to laugh at someone typing this out and being surrious bout it

 
Quote
June 5th 2005, 08:24 PM -snip-
I get lost in the math in there myself (unless coached). So let me see if I can cut to the chase. Do you agree that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) is science? If so, you must also agree that it takes an observer to collapse the wave function. Do you agree with his original 1920s paper which basically started quantum mechanics?


Obviously it does not, nor is that what the word "pantheism" implies. When you say things like: "This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is," it's quite obvious that you're explicitly denying that this proves a specific God-name. (As a side note, Jerry, generally speaking there is no specific "god of pantheism.")

But the observer is something is it not? If it wasn't, everything you interact with would be waves. The keyboard you are typing on right now would be waves and your hand would just go through it and hit the desk below it. How do you explain all the double slit experiments that show experimentally it takes an observer to collapse the wave function? I'm not letting you past this until you address it.


However, when you simultaneously assert that quantum particles may be aware of being observed, and assert a "Prime Observer," you are asserting functional pantheism, where all quantum particles partake of the nature of the "Prime Observer."

But I do not just aimlessly assert this. I quote scientific experiments and Tipler's mathematical physics which show an observer. Yet you just seem to want to brush all this off as if it were ME that invented this stuff. Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm just quoting some (very well known) scientists here. :wink:


Now, don't get me wrong, Jerry--I'm a Wiccan, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. I've been asserting for years that all of Creation partakes of the nature of the Creator, and frankly if science does determine that quantum particles are somehow aware of being observed, I'm gonna make the biggest "I told you so" post you've ever seen. But please do not take it as an attack if I call a spade a spade.

Well, I've just offered you experimental evidence that it does. You have yet to address any of the science I've posted. Why? Perhaps the Wiccan may find a new mantra here? You never know. :smile:


>mfw someone is a wiccan near me





* aint it

Haven't read that thread, but just for the record, I am not a Pantheist or Panentheist........

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,10:08   

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,16:31][/quote]
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,10:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

 
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,10:42   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:01)
Haven't read that thread, but just for the record, I am not a Pantheist or Panentheist........

trust me, no one cares, but it's hilarious that you would post a bunch of bullshit in a thread and then not read the responses (by your own admission)

tells me all i need to know about you, creationist

--------------
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: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,10:48   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:57)
     
Quote
I'm mean to idiots.


Yes, many posters on the Web seem hate filled for anyone in the human race that doesn't agree with them intellectually, but it's OK, I'm used to it. I'm in the full-time ministry to homeless people on the streets--in a major U.S. city.....druggies......gangbangers.........people that hate society....no big deal to me, It's sad that these people never have a sunshiny day, but I suppose it's very much a part of modern society and there's little I can do about it.

     
Quote
Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions.  Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.


I actually call it going off topic. I have yet to have ANYONE seriously address much of anything I've posted. Debate if you wish, but I don't answer what you believe to be clever riddles, off-topic challenges or silly questions not at all related to anything posted.

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.

The deal is......you must not understand CSI in its basics as common sense should tell you that if ONE protein is CSI, then the billions that comprise you when considered together in the same system would be astronomical.....Please go back and read the other thread in detail.....I shouldn't HAVE to point out the obvious to you.


     
Quote
But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway.  If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do).  Does the designer have any limits?  If yes, why? How do you know?  If not, why?  How do you know?  Can the designer create anything?  How do you know?  


You completely miss the point. The subject is identification of a given designer. Why is that important when the only question we are pondering is if something is, or is not designed. Did it occur naturally or was it designed?

Your logic here is similar to taking your final in college algebra and becoming so confused that you cannot solve any problems because you cannot remember the name of the person who wrote the textbook. It's just Silly and illogical.

Also....I'm learning that you do not read the posts.....How did you MISS that long post above where I IDENTIFY the designer in detail.....

I'm not one to shy away from the details of this stuff, yet you act like I never address it and just come back with the same, tired questions again.

But......I haven't given up on you....*wink*

Yes, I do want you to post a link directly to it.  Because I've read every post on this forum for over two years and despite hundreds of repeated requests, not a single creationist has ever showed and example of a calculation of CSI.  Nor have they ever defined what they are measuring/calculating and what units they are using.

You say, IRRC, that CSI is a probability.  But that makes no sense when compared to Dembskis Upper Probability Bound of 500 bits.  You don't measure probability in bits.

I don't want an 'estimate' I want an actual calculation.  You tell me what you want.  Do you want an organism, a protein sequence, a genome, a gene, an allele?  What.  Tell me what you want, I'll provide it and you calculate showing your work.

Better yet, you explain, in detail how to do the calculation and then I'll provide one of the above, we'll both do the work and see if we get the same answer.  How about that?

Finally, if I don't understand CSI, it's because people like you absolutely suck at explaining it.  I've read Dembski, I've talked to dozens of pro-ID people and not a single one of them could explain the process that you are about to.  So, I await with baited breath for you to do the one thing that no one has ever done before.

Now, about the designer.  Let me ask you something.  If I give you two sequences of data.  One totally random, the other specifically designed (by a human)... let's say a protein sequence.

Can CSI or any ID principle tell the difference between them?  I've asked this question for years as well and no one, not one single pro-ID person has ever stepped up and attempted this.

Why is it important?  Because if you can't tell the difference between random and designed, how can you possible tell the difference between intelligent design and non-intelligent design?

It's not silly and illogical.  It's the fundamental function of ID claims.  "We think that there is a designer because there is evidence of design."  Yet that evidence of design is non-existent.

If you have explained the identity of the designer in detail, then link to it.  Who is the designer?  How does he do his work?  When?  How do you know?

I have given up on you.  I just want to see how you will evade all these issues again and again.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,10:53   

no he is saying that the CSI of 10 caek is 10 * the CSI of 1 caek.

which is not the same thing that the other retards have said.

of course he has also said some other stupidly and hilariously contradictory shit about this CSI thing but why bother digging further i already hit shit

--------------
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: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,10:56   

Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,10:58   

[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:00   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,10:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

   
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

I will only add that sexual reproduction allows for things like crossing over, which can present new combinations of alleles and that alleles without a significant survival advantage can survive in the population bey being closely linked to another allele or due to some outside influence (founder effect for example) become fixed in a population.

Since evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population, how do you think an individual evolves?

Basically, the exact same mutation would have to occur in every single cell in the organism's body at roughly the same time... you've been getting your science from Marvel comics again right?

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:05   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:58)
[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
 
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

But that's not what you said.

You said
Quote
Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.


That's not a definition of evolution.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,11:08   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,10:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

   
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:20   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:08)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,10:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

   
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

Because you aren't listening...

speciation does not equal evolution.

Sigh, let's try again.

When I was born, the human race evolved.  This occurred because (among other things), the number of B blood type alleles increased by one and the number of A blood type alleles increased by one in the entire human population.  

The frequency of the A allele and the B allele changed in the population.

That's evolution.  

When I die, the frequency of alleles will change again (minus 1 A and minus 1 B).  When my child was born, the frequency of B alleles and the frequency of O alleles changed as well.  That is what evolution is in the strictest sense.

O is the most common blood type allele.  But let's say that you have a small population of people, who, for whatever reason, leave the Earth to setup a new population of humans.  Now, because of the difficulty of spaceflight, from now until some future time, we have two SEPARATE populations of humans.  But the colony population was a little weird.  For whatever reason, that population has no type "O" blood alleles.  Call it random chance, call it bias against "O" blood types, whatever.

This is called the founder effect.  The type "O" allele doesn't exist in the new population of humans.

Now, on the Earth, "O" becomes more and more common.  Over time, the A and B blood types disappear entirely.  Statistically unlikely, but I'm trying to teach you things here.  So, we have a population of humans with only type O blood and another population without type O alleles.

Now, let's say that there is some difficulty in mating between O people and A or B people.  Something similar to the RH factor (which can be treated medically now, but caused a lot of infant (and others) deaths before SCIENCE figured it out).

So, we have these two populations that, because of biochemical incompatibility, cannot interbreed anymore.  NOW, we have another species of human.  

Evolution does not determine that new species arise.  Evolution is not dependent on new species arising.  However, new species is an artifact of changes in the allele frequency in the population, especially when you get two populations of the same species that (for whatever reason) have breeding issues.

What I just described is allopatric speciation.  There are other forms of speciation.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,11:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:30   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now.  You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer.  Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists.  You don't use words the same way that scientists do.  We're scientists around here.  Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus".  So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:
1) name/designation
2) type/species
3) age/lifespan
4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical
5) Where I can find or observe it
6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

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

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:30   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:08)
OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

If I had a Euro for each time you show your ignorance about evolution, by now I had my Christmas turkey paid.

Here, learn about the difference between evolution and speciation:
 
Quote
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2]


Feel free to read beyond this introductory sentence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iation.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:43   

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

You have already been given a long list of problems with this "calculation" of a protein.

How do you deal with the tendency of some amino acids to want to bond with certain other amino acids more than other amino acids?

How do you deal with the simple fact that you are not describing the process of protein generation at all?

How do you deal with the issue that if I expect a oxygen to interact with two specific hydrogen atoms in the entire universe is massively, epically improbable, but the probability of an oxygen reacting with ANY two hydrogen atoms approaches 1?  In other words, there appears to be no consideration for the actual distribution of amino acids in a particular "neighborhood".  If we want to have a chemical reaction occur in a nebula, it is going to take a lot longer than it would near a hot smoker here on Earth.

What about the problem that you are calculating the probability of a random jumble of amino acids forming a bacteria, when no respectable scientist even considers the possibility that it happened that way?  

In other words, your 'calculation' is not only not a calculation, but it's not even wrong.  You'd have to take into account thousands of unique variables to even get just to the "wrong" category.

Because, very simply (as has been told you before) THAT IS NOT HOW PROTEINS FORM!

Actually, the odds do change if cells formed, one step at a time starting from simple 5 pentamer ribozymes.  

Of course, the final insult is that none of this describes evolution.  It's all abiogenesis, which again doesn't happen the way you describe.  Because you're quite right, it would be massively improbably for a self-replicating RNA strand to come together from random nucleotides in a sea of organic junk.  Which is why, there are steps along the way.

So, yes, I can see you THINK that you have calculated something and you very well may have.  Unfortunately for you, what you calculated has absolutely no bearing on how the world actually works.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,11:45   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:30)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
 
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now.  You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer.  Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists.  You don't use words the same way that scientists do.  We're scientists around here.  Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus".  So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:
1) name/designation
2) type/species
3) age/lifespan
4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical
5) Where I can find or observe it
6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

LOL.....How you could have read that entire post and not understood that quantum mechanics is the designer is beyond me.

So let's get specific with you if you insist:

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

It has existed ever since there have been particles in the universe

4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical

You might want to read Feynman on QM how QM interacts with the physical world is difficult for one to understand since QM IS the world.

5) Where I can find or observe it

I would suggest experimentally. Double slit or delayed choice experiments are always fun.

6) How you know all this stuff

Stuff seeps into my mind......Kind of like a mental osmosis....:))

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,11:59   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:30)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
   
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now.  You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer.  Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists.  You don't use words the same way that scientists do.  We're scientists around here.  Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus".  So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:
1) name/designation
2) type/species
3) age/lifespan
4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical
5) Where I can find or observe it
6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

LOL.....How you could have read that entire post and not understood that quantum mechanics is the designer is beyond me.

So let's get specific with you if you insist:

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

It has existed ever since there have been particles in the universe

4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical

You might want to read Feynman on QM how QM interacts with the physical world is difficult for one to understand since QM IS the world.

5) Where I can find or observe it

I would suggest experimentally. Double slit or delayed choice experiments are always fun.

6) How you know all this stuff

Stuff seeps into my mind......Kind of like a mental osmosis....:))

Right, so you have no idea and you're just making stuff up. I got that already.

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

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,12:09   

Mr Bauer, how about substituting your nebulous concept of QM with "natural laws" being the motor? It would make sense.

If, however, you think QM is a sentient being, making choices about what to implement how and when, then you better try again defining it.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,12:56   

The compare/contrast examples previously given to you as an exercise for calculations show that your CSI magic trick (or the extemporizing  filter or whatever) cannot distinguish signal from noise, and are therefore useless.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,13:06   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,12:09)
Mr Bauer, how about substituting your nebulous concept of QM with "natural laws" being the motor? It would make sense.

If, however, you think QM is a sentient being, making choices about what to implement how and when, then you better try again defining it.

That was rather an astute insight, IMHO.....

The key maybe to understanding the difference is to hone into an intelligence aspect of this particular mantra I'm on.

If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

Also, the math of Frank Tipler at Toulane U is just as important as he calculates an intelligence within QM using a different angle. Here we have science....that's mathematics and SCIENCE, not theology or metaphysics suggesting to us that there may be a guiding intelligence within the natural process.

So, if you think that natural processes designed homo sapiens and I think that this may be true but that when we REALLY analyse the processes, we find intelligence within that design, the entire musing demands an obvious question for all of us then to answer:

How far are we NOW off from jointly postulating that humankind is here as a result of Intelligent Design?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,14:07   

Interesting to see how this and the GinGout threads are converging.

     
Quote
If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.


vs.

     
Quote
It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.



To paraphrase Dr.3, "it's just god of the gaps restated in the idiom of information theory."

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,14:41   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:08)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,16:31][/quote]
 
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Evolution is a side effect of reproduction.

  
Quack



Posts: 1755
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,14:48   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

   
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

LOL of the day!

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1755
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,14:54   

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

How I'd like to see him try. That's the least the bigmouth could do.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2012,16:00   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,14:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

 
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Evolution is a side effect of reproduction.

Ahhhh...OK....I'll be careful next time I reproduce.....an apeoid might pop out...lol

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

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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