RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (919) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2010,22:14   

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 24 2010,12:38)
Well, if he's from Canada, I guess he can't be Joe G, right?


So, Joe Jensen lists an email address of "joe@redneckranch.com" in one of his posts over there.  Looking it up via whois, it's registered to a "Jake Jensen" in Sumas, WA.  So, JoeJ likely is not JoeG.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,07:50   

Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Nov. 19 2010,22:01)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2010,14:58)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

           
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards - then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.

I was getting ready to post that.

I'd have to disagree here, what he has said is that according to us evilutionists snow is water.

Captain Joe America of the United States of Jesus doesn't appear to have conceded this demonstrable fact.

You do own a refrigerator-freezer, do you not Joe ?

Let's try a simple logic problem. (IDist in a vise strategy)

The piece of equipment shown below has three possible outputs. Water\Ice\Crushed Snow



Joe, what is the singular input that is required for the three possible outputs ?

(Spoiler Alert !)


Why THREE DIFFERENT outputs if they are all the same thing?

If you want ICE in your drink do you push the "water" button?

If you want a glass of water do you push the "ice" button?

As for your input, well where did that come from?

According to the shit just happens position it arrived on Earth as ICE in meterors, comets and asteroids.

IOW water is just melted ice.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,07:51   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

 
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?

Umm I am not invested in any global flood. Oldmanwithhisheaduphisass kept bugging me about the global flood so I responded.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,07:53   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,07:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,18:39)
Hey Joe:  

One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever.  Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD).  I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis.  So don't worry your little head about the math.  I can take it.  If I can't I can get help.

Two:  Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.

Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,08:06   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:51)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

     
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?

Umm I am not invested in any global flood. Oldmanwithhisheaduphisass kept bugging me about the global flood so I responded.

So, you are quoting evidence for ideas you don't believe in, just to show up Oldman?  You know, Joe, most of us leave that kind of obstinate, contrary behavior behind when we graduate from our Terrible Twos.

ETA: Just because it is so appropriate:
Quote
This age is sometimes referred to as 'the terrible twos',[1][2] because of the temper tantrums for which they are famous. This stage can begin as early as nine months old depending on the child and environment. Toddlers tend to have temper tantrums because they have such strong emotions but do not know how to express themselves the way that older children and adults do. They also throw tantrums to let others know that they are free and can do what they want.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,08:07   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,08:12   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,08:13   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

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

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,08:17   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:40   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...

I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:43   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

Obviously your position doesn't have anything to refute.

It doesn't have a testable hypothesis.

However it does have assholes like you as perfect evidence that humans evolved from lower animals.

Keep up the good work!

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:53   

'sup, Joe.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:55   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?

Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,09:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:00   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:00   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

The evidence is all around and inside of you.

Design is a mecahnism as are targeted searches and built-in responses to environmental cues.

OTOH your position's mechansim is "shit just happens dude".

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:02   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis

Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:03   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:05   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Perhaps, since you read all of them, you could explain why the Orgel, Miller paper does not describe exactly what you claim is impossible?

Joe, why do you lie?  You know you never read these papers.  How do I know you lie, because these papers do support my position.

So, show me in detail, why the Orgel, Miller paper cannot work.  Be specific.  Use examples from the paper and other peer-reviewed work (or basic organic chemistry).

Thanks


Actually... all this doesn't matter.  It's YOUR theory of ID that you have to support.  

Again you are cowardly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that there isn't any support from ID.

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:07   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:07   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis

Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?

I didn't say I was ignorant of it. Tut tut JoeJoe. Lose 10 points and go back to troll school.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:08   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?

Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:35   

Since nothing is going on over at Telic Thoughts, it looks like JoeG got bored enough to comment here.

Out of similar boredom I'm going to respond.

Back when I was still investigating ID I offered to debate JoeG on a level playing field, to compare his hypothesis to mine.  Since this took place on his Blog no one would be surprised that didn’t turn out well. While JoeG has modified a few things, his tactics and position remain the same, which is to define what he wants to argue against while claiming the default position.

His hypothesis can be “falsified” if, and only if, it is proven a metaphysical force is behind evolution.

JoeG’s tactic is pretty much the same as what Behe and Cornelius Hunter employ.

During the Dover trial, Behe testified that he concluded scientific papers did not contradict IC because a searched for the word “random” returned no hits.

Ironically, many ID proponents complain biologists are pushing a metaphysical concept, randomness, while simultaneously declaring there are absolutely no papers addressing it.

Ken Miller and most other scientists have no problem separating their metaphysical beliefs from the task of matching data to detailed scientific models.  And they do it without mentioning either God or randomness.

To preempt complaints about how a statistical observation of “random with respect to…” isn’t the same as claiming randomness was a cause, I understand that.

Apparently, JoeG either doesn’t understand that or is pretending he doesn’t.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:37   

Awwww, isn't it cute that JoeTard was so lonely and desperate for attention he had to come crawling back here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:43   

Occam's Aftershave,

Linking to that video was perfection.  Bravo

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:43   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,16:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.

Seconded, as it were.

And here is the crux, i.e. why JoeJoe is utterly pointless and barely registers as a human being, and certainly not one worthy of engaging on any level. (Personally I suspect he is mentally ill as well as being intellectually subnormal, but that's a different story. Something pathological is going on with JoeJoe.)

JoeJoe makes some random assertion about something, is asked to justify that assertion to some degree, and simply reflects the request (however polite or rude, however reasonable or unreasonable) back as if he were engaging in an intellectual to and fro. He isn't. He's a troll pure and simple. He can't even be bothered to understand the basics of what he opposes, I mean "shit just happens", brother please! I might as well claim (and I don't) that ID is "shit just happens for a reason" and leave it there.

I'll try to use an example that hopefully even JoeJoe can understand, although why I am wasting the electrons is beyond me, I suppose I have to do something to relax with my afteroon coffee.

I got to work this morning and one of the guys working in my group claimed he'd made one of the key intermediates we need for our project. Good news because people have been struggling for weeks to get it right. So I asked to see the spectral data for the compound. He got the 1HNMR out and stuck it on the desk and we spent a few minutes going through it. Unfortunately a little solvent remained in the sample and thus a significant signal in the 1HNMR was obscured slightly. I asked how he knew he had made the compound he claimed to have made, as a key signal was obscured by impurity signals. How did he reply:

A) I know I have a solvent peak in my 1HNMR, but I also have the M+H ion fromn the LR and HR mass spec, the 13CNMR, IR and the HPLC data, and they all show that this is not the starting material, not one of the reagents, and all the signals are consistent with the desired product. I also have a sample on the high vac so that all solvent will be gone and I'll get a clean 1HNMR by lunchtime.

B) I made the compound because I said I did. I have the 1HNMR assface and it does not support your position that I did not make the compound. It doesn't matter that you can't see the important signal because of an impurity. I read the papers that said the experiment will work, but I'm not going to tell you what those papers are. Typical evotard. Why don't you show me the spectral data that shows I didn't make the compound assclown?

Ok, so answer B) gives JoeJoe too much credit, but clearly we aren't dealing with one of the world's great thinkers.

Anyway, JoeJoe, what SPECIFICALLY is wrong with the data in those papers? What are the SPECIFIC problems. Don't just hand wave them away and say they are irrelevant, show your work. Do you know the difference between assertion and argument?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2010,10:44   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2010,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:55)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:44)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?

Tell me JoeJoe, do cars reproduce? When a mummy car and a daddy car love each other very much do they have a special hug and produce baby cars? Baby cars that aren't identical copies of their parent cars.

Please let us know, enquiring minds and all that.

Louis


Rule 34 strikes again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  27552 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (919) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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