Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Jerry Don Bauer's Thread

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:50    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.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:54    [quote=raguel,Dec. 02 2012,13:29][/quote] I have already shown my work....why must I keep reposting and reposting this stuff.....I KNOW I did that one at least 3 times now....lol. You seem another one that simply wants to pretend I did not.   Quote ME: But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point.... YOUR RESPONSE: LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this: You ignored my reply to you, then seem to want to go on to something else.....You are NOT going to expand on that point because you KNOW it is irrelevant to the conversation? OK, then that point of debate goes to me and we can talk about the weather or something.   Quote But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance.  (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chanceAny thoughts on this yet? Remember to show your work Yes I did show how I came up with that equation...do you not understand it? Try again: 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. Now...if you want to debate it, let's do so......but take it line by line and please keep to the subject......No more obfuscation...thank you

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:09    Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42) Quote Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it. Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors? And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived. Henry It's a valid question....... Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution. Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen: Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring. If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:13    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18) It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL Typical creationist gambit noted: When cornered say "Your question makes no sense therefore I'm going to ignore it." -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:15    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:13) Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18) It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL Typical creationist gambit noted: When cornered say "Your question makes no sense therefore I'm going to ignore it." Can you explain the questions? Please do. Then I will answer them

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:18    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42) Quote Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it. Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors? And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived. Henry It's a valid question....... Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution. Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen: Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring. If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers. Good grief. He really is that uncomprehendingly stupid.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:18    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30) [quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 02 2012,13:18][/quote] It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL Look: Quote 1) false dichotomy (designed or random) This is a question? How would I ever answer it....it doesn't even contain a verb and a noun...lol Quote 2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity Nor is this a sentence or a question....If it's you accusing ME of assuming this, then you are simply ignorant of the laws of chemistry (chemical equilibrium)and I do not have the time to educate you. Quote 3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution. And here's another nonsequetur......NO ONE is assuming that all modern proteins develope from random collections of amino acids. If this were true, there would be no 'modern' (whatever that is) proteins.....lol Now you have gotten enough attention on this thread...go ahead and post away until you are blue in the face.... Nice try, but these are not the questions.  These are the flaws with the concept of CSI.  I'm sorry you can't understand... in the United States of America, where I'm from, we use this symbol "?" to indicate a statement is a question to be answered. Now, here is the question, just so there is no ambiguity: Do you determine CSI by counting the amino acids in the protein only or do you use the DNA sequence that results in the protein? The above statement is the question.  It is the question that you have been avoiding for several posts now.  I'm really curious as to how far you will go to avoid answering that question.  It should be a simple response to an ID expert such as yourself.  All you have to say is "amino acids" or "DNA".  I guess you could say "both" or "either", in which case further questions come from me.  The most likely being "How do you know when to use DNA or amino acids?" You could also answer "neither" in which case, the discussion of the last few weeks has been a complete waste of time.  Well... it is anyway, but we're here for the lulz. Let me ask another question of the various readers... is the above question (the one with the "?" symbol) an understandable question? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:20    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42) Quote Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it. Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors? And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived. Henry It's a valid question....... Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution. Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen: Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring. If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers. You have no idea what population biology is do you? Define "cline". -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:22    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. No one claims that new species "emerge" from extant (presently in existence) ones.  No one claims that an ape-like creature gave birth to a human. No one.  Who are you arguing with? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:23    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,14:18) Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18) It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL Look:   Quote 1) false dichotomy (designed or random) This is a question? How would I ever answer it....it doesn't even contain a verb and a noun...lol   Quote 2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity Nor is this a sentence or a question....If it's you accusing ME of assuming this, then you are simply ignorant of the laws of chemistry (chemical equilibrium)and I do not have the time to educate you.   Quote 3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution. And here's another nonsequetur......NO ONE is assuming that all modern proteins develope from random collections of amino acids. If this were true, there would be no 'modern' (whatever that is) proteins.....lol Now you have gotten enough attention on this thread...go ahead and post away until you are blue in the face.... Nice try, but these are not the questions.  These are the flaws with the concept of CSI.  I'm sorry you can't understand... in the United States of America, where I'm from, we use this symbol "?" to indicate a statement is a question to be answered. Now, here is the question, just so there is no ambiguity: Do you determine CSI by counting the amino acids in the protein only or do you use the DNA sequence that results in the protein? The above statement is the question.  It is the question that you have been avoiding for several posts now.  I'm really curious as to how far you will go to avoid answering that question.  It should be a simple response to an ID expert such as yourself.  All you have to say is "amino acids" or "DNA".  I guess you could say "both" or "either", in which case further questions come from me.  The most likely being "How do you know when to use DNA or amino acids?" You could also answer "neither" in which case, the discussion of the last few weeks has been a complete waste of time.  Well... it is anyway, but we're here for the lulz. Let me ask another question of the various readers... is the above question (the one with the "?" symbol) an understandable question? 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.... Now if you don't understand this, I cannot help it as it is high school level chem and math.....I'm not trying to put you down, it just IS high school chem and math...:) 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.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:29    JerryBobby FtK-impersonator channels Kansan dialect: Quote an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human Sad, first the mind goes, then the grammar. Did you mean the Get-n-Go line, JerryBillyBobby?  I know for a fact that in Kansas if you "cross the Get-n-Go line" then Gupta will give you a real telling to!  There is no line crossing in this store, he will tell you! You know, by hecky, I don't know much about birthin' humans but the Real FtK ™ could tell you all about hatchin' herons and how precious their little fuzzy lives are. But getting serious for a moment, and I realize you have a hard time with words but I'll be patient while you Google this, but tell me, JerryBillyBobby, what leads you to assume a Gaussian distribution in your calculations? Why not a Poisson distribution or a Bernoulli distribution which, it seems to me, would fit better with the definition of CSI? Hmmmmm?  Inquiring minds want to know!  I really don't expect a reasonable answer because your shit-for-brain has no way to understand anything beyond "lol" and you won't find a cut-n-paste answer even at Get-n-Go.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:30    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 02 2012,14:22) Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. No one claims that new species "emerge" from extant (presently in existence) ones.  No one claims that an ape-like creature gave birth to a human. No one.  Who are you arguing with? Oh, so new species emerge from dead ones? Please expound...this sounds interesting.... And you don't claim that homo sapiens emerged from an ape-like critter? How do you feel we got here as a population?

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:38    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:30) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 02 2012,14:22) Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones. Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. No one claims that new species "emerge" from extant (presently in existence) ones.  No one claims that an ape-like creature gave birth to a human. No one.  Who are you arguing with? Oh, so new species emerge from dead ones? Please expound...this sounds interesting.... And you don't claim that homo sapiens emerged from an ape-like critter? How do you feel we got here as a population? Do you know what "extant" means? Are you really asking "If humans came from apes, how come there are still apes?" The mind boggles. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:43    Quote (OgreMkV @ 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. Mr Bauer, this is to refresh your memory re "speciation". Feel free to ask if you don't understand. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:45    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:43) Quote (OgreMkV @ 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. Mr Bauer, this is to refresh your memory re "speciation". Feel free to ask if you don't understand. Geeezzee.....You're not reading the posts either.....those are NOT the 3 questions he is dogging me to answer...lol Just read the last 2 pages and maybe you can come up to snuff with the conversation...

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:53    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. So, I take by this, that you ignore DNA.  Perhaps, you should get with the other ID proponents and correct them.  Some of them have it wrong.  You might also get with them and come up with one coherent notion before presenting it to the world.  But that would require forethought. Quote Now if you don't understand this, I cannot help it as it is high school level chem and math.....I'm not trying to put you down, it just IS high school chem and math...:) Do you honestly think that high school level math and biology will somehow destroy the current notions on how life developed and develops on this planet?  If so, then why are thousands of scientists with decades of training missing this?  Or is that the conspiracy? Quote [b]Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker. Irrelevant to the question I asked.   Quote 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. Irrelevant to the question I asked... and dealt with in all those papers that specifically address the homochirality "problem" which you ignored. Quote 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. Again, are you saying that all amino acids have an equal probability of reacting with other amino acids to form said chain? I further see that you (and all IDists) ignore every other part of the assembly notions that have been developed and actually tested.  For example, RNA catalysts. Quote 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. Still irrelevant to the question.  Unless you are ONLY saying that CSI is useful when dealing with origins. Is that the case?  I'm very curious, because I have some papers that you will have to run away from if that's the case. I'd also like to know what the first function protein was that CSI could be applied to. Quote The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. 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. Irrelevant to the question I asked and again, we have the fundamental problems previously discussed that you haven't dealt with. Quote 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. Good thing that no modern proteins are formed this way isn't it? Quote 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 Good thing no modern proteins are formed this way then right? Quote These were designed. Except all the ones that were built from a DNA sequence that encoded a sequence of codons that were translated into a amino acid sequence by ribosomes.  You know, that pesky DNA stuff that has the genetic code for every extant (there's that word again) protein in living things in the entire world. That DNA stuff that's been around, and slowly being changed by mutation, sexual reproduction, and several other methods.  That DNA stuff that's passed down from parent to offspring and has been for nearly 3 billion years.   Dang good thing no proteins are randomly assembled.  It'd be nearly impossible to have kids. Quote 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. Except that no offspring is EVER constructed from random amino acids in Darwin's warm, shallow pond.   You know, all that pesky sex and DNA and stuff. Quote 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.</b> And the rest of us wonder exactly what you think you're calculating. So, by this, I'm assuming that you are totally ignoring DNA in the calculation of CSI. Why didn't you just say "protein"?   So, you've just admitted that fundamentals of biology (7th grade stuff here) like DNA and reproduction are totally ignored by CSI. Interesting, but thanks, I'll go report this on my blog.  I'm sure it will make for fascinating reading. e to fix quotes. Edited by OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,14:54 -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:54    I wasn't explaining the questions; I'm certain you understand them and just can't answer. I was giving you a chance to correct this nonsense of yours: Quote Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur. Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen: Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring. If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:57    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,14:53) 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. So, I take by this, that you ignore DNA.  Perhaps, you should get with the other ID proponents and correct them.  Some of them have it wrong.  You might also get with them and come up with one coherent notion before presenting it to the world.  But that would require forethought. Quote Now if you don't understand this, I cannot help it as it is high school level chem and math.....I'm not trying to put you down, it just IS high school chem and math...:) Do you honestly think that high school level math and biology will somehow destroy the current notions on how life developed and develops on this planet?  If so, then why are thousands of scientists with decades of training missing this?  Or is that the conspiracy? Quote [b]Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker. Irrelevant to the question I asked.   Quote 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. Irrelevant to the question I asked... and dealt with in all those papers that specifically address the homochirality "problem" which you ignored. Quote 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. Again, are you saying that all amino acids have an equal probability of reacting with other amino acids to form said chain? I further see that you (and all IDists) ignore every other part of the assembly notions that have been developed and actually tested.  For example, RNA catalysts. Quote 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. Still irrelevant to the question.  Unless you are ONLY saying that CSI is useful when dealing with origins. Is that the case?  I'm very curious, because I have some papers that you will have to run away from if that's the case. I'd also like to know what the first function protein was that CSI could be applied to. Quote The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. 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. Irrelevant to the question I asked and again, we have the fundamental problems previously discussed that you haven't dealt with. Quote 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. Good thing that no modern proteins are formed this way isn't it? Quote 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 Good thing no modern proteins are formed this way then right? Quote These were designed. Except all the ones that were built from a DNA sequence that encoded a sequence of codons that were translated into a amino acid sequence by ribosomes.  You know, that pesky DNA stuff that has the genetic code for every extant (there's that word again) protein in living things in the entire world. That DNA stuff that's been around, and slowly being changed by mutation, sexual reproduction, and several other methods.  That DNA stuff that's passed down from parent to offspring and has been for nearly 3 billion years.   Dang good thing no proteins are randomly assembled.  It'd be nearly impossible to have kids. Quote 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. Except that no offspring is EVER constructed from random amino acids in Darwin's warm, shallow pond.   You know, all that pesky sex and DNA and stuff. Quote 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.</b> And the rest of us wonder exactly what you think you're calculating. So, by this, I'm assuming that you are totally ignoring DNA in the calculation of CSI. Why didn't you just say "protein"?   So, you've just admitted that fundamentals of biology (7th grade stuff here) like DNA and reproduction are totally ignored by CSI. Interesting, but thanks, I'll go report this on my blog.  I'm sure it will make for fascinating reading. YOU DON'T KNOW that amino acids forming a polypeptide is a protein rather than DNA? Look....you are just hopelessly lost.......... That's also why your questions aren't making any sense..OK, I get it...

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:59    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..

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:59    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:45) Geeezzee.....You're not reading the posts either.....those are NOT the 3 questions he is dogging me to answer...lol Just read the last 2 pages and maybe you can come up to snuff with the conversation... You might try reading. I was only asking ONE question. Those other three things are the fundamental mistakes in the entire concept of CSI.  Because of those fundamental mistakes, CSI is useless. You (or whomever) would have to rewrite the entire ID concept to deal with those fundamental mistakes.  The concept is flawed, no amount of calculation or explanation by you or anyone else will fix these basic flaws.   Again, I was just asking a question to see how long you would avoid it.  And it was quite a while.  Not as long as I had hoped, but it was fun.  And your answer proves that you have no concept of what is actually going on in the real world. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

raguel Posts: 107 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,14:59    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:54) I have already shown my work....why must I keep reposting and reposting this stuff.....I KNOW I did that one at least 3 times now....lol. You seem another one that simply wants to pretend I did not. Jerry, you haven't shown your work, at least not explicitly.   Quote       Quote ME: But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point.... YOUR RESPONSE: LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this: You ignored my reply to you, then seem to want to go on to something else.....You are NOT going to expand on that point because you KNOW it is irrelevant to the conversation? OK, then that point of debate goes to me and we can talk about the weather or something. 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. So let's just start all over Jerrry:   Quote 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. Enantiomers, got it in one. Quote So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. Note the bold. 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. One can only assume you disagree with what I've put forward, but so far you've claimed ignorance as to how anything I've said is relevant. I stand by my original hypothesis.   eta: btw Jerry, in case you haven't noticed, Ogre and I are asking you the same question, but in different ways

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:01    Quote Oh, so new species emerge from dead ones? Please expound...this sounds interesting.... And you don't claim that homo sapiens emerged from an ape-like critter? How do you feel we got here as a population? Oh Jerry, don't say you didn't know - it takes generations. It is a disguise game played over thousands of generations. How many actors in the game? Many, whole populations, adrift on an ocean of genetics so that after a few or more millions of years they don't even know they are apes - but we still are! -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:01    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:57) YOU DON'T KNOW that amino acids forming a polypeptide is a protein rather than DNA? Look....you are just hopelessly lost.......... That's also why your questions aren't making any sense..OK, I get it... :) I don't know if this is just equivocation to get out of the pickle he's in or he really thinks I don't understand it... because he doesn't understand it. let's try this CSI does not represent what actually happens here in the real world. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:01    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59) 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 Just point me to the Wikipedia entry, or the Google link. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: 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 -------------- 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

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:16    "Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets> -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

raguel Posts: 107 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:20    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.

Jerry Don Bauer Posts: 135 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: 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... If you don't understand what I post..stop and ask me...One guy is trying to argue DNA sequencing with me when I wrote about amino acids forming polypeptides and I don't think YOU are sure WHAT you're arguing. Quote So let's just start all over Jerrry: Good....Let's.... Quote Enantiomers, got it in one. Good...enantiomers...you got it...now everyone else STOP and look that up...LOL.....we are talking about amino acids NOT alligators...Not DNA.......   Quote 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. No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both?? Concentrate.........I only showed the stark odds against a single homochiral protein forming of the type that comprise life. Logic should then lead you to conclude what proteins WOULD form from that solution: heterochiral proteins [b]NOT capable of supporting life.[/quote] And I shouldn't have to show why to a logical person.....if there is a container containg 500 black balls and 500 white ones mixed randomly in the jar, you reach in and grab a few handfuls, you are going to get 'ABOUT' a 50/50 mix of white and black balls. Something is wierd if you keep drawing out handfuls of only black balls..and if someone claims to me that I SHOULD be drawing out only black balls (as those that support abiogenesis do), I'm going to show them math, just as I did you, and help them conclude that won't be the case. 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. 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. Quote One can only assume you disagree with what I've put forward, but so far you've claimed ignorance as to how anything I've said is relevant. I stand by my original hypothesis.   No, I'm not claiming ignorance to the relevancy of what you have put forward....It's starkly evident to any unbiased reader that what you have put forward thus far could not BE ANYMORE IRRELEVANT. Again...please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic. And thanks fer yer support

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:53    Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)   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 "Earnst Myars"? -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard