Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 21 2012,08:55

Jerry Don Bauer requested a thread for discussing past issues concerning Dembski's work. This should serve for that and for anything else that Jerry wants to bring up as a topic.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 21 2012,13:39

Thank you, Dr. Wesley.

Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 21 2012,13:39

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 21 2012,13:39)
Thank you, Dr. Wesley.

Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, No, please stay here!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 21 2012,21:41

Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 25 2012,10:04

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] < http://www.theism.net/article....le....2 >
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 25 2012,10:51

Simple discussion.

Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.

End of discussion.

Next thread.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 25 2012,10:55

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,10:51)
Simple discussion.

Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.

End of discussion.

Next thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Care to expand and explain, point by point, why this is the case?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 25 2012,10:55

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It already is taught that way.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sadly, that's ALL it is.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Sure thing.  :p

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and of course your religion get to decide what is truth, right?  :p

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit.  ID uses a purely negative approach of "if science can't explain this to my satisfaction, then ID wins by default".

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID doesn't use the same method.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The assumption is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No shit.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that's not what ID is.  ID is about putting your particular religion back into science.  Not gonna happen.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean there is tons of God-Of-The-Gaps bullshit.  But we understand.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So..... let's discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 25 2012,11:24

Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It already is taught that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 25 2012,12:27

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense.  Boring.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 25 2012,17:12

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2012,12:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense.  Boring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 25 2012,17:27

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,17:12)
 
Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your inane blithering has been answered to the complete satisfaction of the scientific community.  No one gives a shit if it hasn't been answered sufficiently for you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then what's with the Creationist stupidity "there are no transitional fossils" nonsense?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 25 2012,17:33

Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 25 2012,17:35

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 25 2012,18:02

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 25 2012,23:26

Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 25 2012,23:35

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,23:26)
Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but so's the horse he rode in on.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 26 2012,00:04

This guy is FL, right?  Same dude?

Totally fucking stupid beyond all redemption.

I thought so.

Sorry you're stupid, Don, buy some crayons. They're fun!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,01:27

I doubt it's FL: No "folksy" language, no witnessing.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,02:39

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,09:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It already is taught that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry, just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

Another is this:

"You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species?"

No one (at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of  "God", eh?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 26 2012,07:30

I need to work on my style.  I think I came across as mocking when I was trying to be mocking AND uncivil AND insulting.

Really, though, where have all the good creationists gone?  I almost miss Floyd these days, ya know whut I mean, Vern?
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,07:36

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay let me give a try:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,08:31

Jerry,

Do you honestly think that you're the first person to come up with these ideas or that no one has ever had to deal with these concepts that you posted?

In fact, the Kitzmiller trial dealt handily with every single one of those 'issues' that you have brought up.  Basically, what you are doing is rehashing dead arguments.

That's why we are calling it bullshit and not bothering to describe to your complete satisfaction everything you desire.  There are several other reasons.

1) You won't accept anything that actually is evidence as evidence anyway.  So there's no point in providing you with all the evidence for transitional species, abiogenesis, or anything else.  You think evidence is a book of myths written 2000 years ago.  

2) You obviously haven't bothered to even consider the mountains of peer-reviewed work written in the last 100 years.  This stuff is readily available on the internet or in the university library of your choice.  Yet, you've never even bothered to type "evidence of transitional fossils" into Wikipedia where are there are links to about 50 peer-reviewed papers and additional reference material.  When you have read every single one of them and found errors and had those errors published and recognized and published an alternate explanation that uses principles of ID, then come talk to us.  The same thing applies to abiogenesis (over 150 links to peer-reviewed research and other reference materials).

3) No one really cares that you are ignorant.  And you are.  You are stunningly ignorant about the subjects you come here to debate.  It's your own fault.  Do you know why I don't have an advanced degree?  One reason is that I can read peer-reviewed research, judge the validity on my own, and use that to compile new information all by myself.  I don't need 3 years of education on that topic.  I can literally learn anything that I want to, because I can read and think critically.  You obviously can't do these things.  Why should we spoon feed you stuff that we busted ass to learn on our own?

4) There is no indication that you want to actually learn how science, evolution, abiogenesis, fossilization, or any of a dozen other concepts that you malign work.  In other words, you are ignorant, proud of it, and choose to remain that way.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,09:15

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

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

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

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

Useless.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,09:19

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 25 2012,17:33)
Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello Kattarina:

If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

In fact, they STAY the way they initially appeared in the record until they become extinct, never evolving into anything else.

A good example might be a find of the following fossils: Species A -----> transition 1 -----> transition 2 -----> transition 3 -----> New species B.

There ARE a few examples that Darwinists point to and proclaim as transitions, yet there are NONE that are not controversial in that this could just be other similar species, etc. And they can't even seem to agree themselves that these are transitions.

This is a major flaw in Darwinistic thought that no one has yet to convincingly explain.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,09:27

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,09:31

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,09:33

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,23:26)
Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right....I understand that you cannot address the discussion rationally......It's OK.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,09:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,09:35

It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,09:39

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:19)
If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry but that's just not true.  Evolution acts as a feedback loop tracking changes in the environment.  If the environment is stable for long periods of time we'll see long periods of little morphological change.  If the environment changes rapidly (geologically speaking) we'll see more rapid morphological change.  There are clear examples of both occurrences in the fossil record.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, so you're ignorant of all the pre-Cambrian life forms that have been discovered, i.e. the Ediacaran fauna.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell us, what would a not fully formed animal look like?  :p

Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly.  Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,09:41

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,09:53

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 26 2012,09:39)
Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly.  Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This!

If every organism was fossilized, we'd be sitting on nothing but fossils and none of the material from those organisms would be available to the rest of the planet.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:01

[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 26 2012,02:39][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of  "God", eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

It's a fairytale for grownups.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,10:13

Jerry Don seems to be exceptionally stupid and misinformed, even for a Creationist.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,10:14

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,10:30

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)
My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet.  Perhaps you can explain this concept to them.  Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:36

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,07:36)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay let me give a try:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.

But yes, ID requires a designer,  but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.

However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.

And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....

But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:40

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,10:42

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,07:31)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say anything about "drug resistant bacteria due to mutations". I said "some aspects of evolutionary processes". The particulars (or aspects) regarding mutations, drift, stasis, punctuated equilibrium, junk DNA, epigenetics, speciation, selection, extinction, adaptation, variation, convergence, recombination, gene flow, etc., etc., etc. are regularly debated ("contested") by scientists. Scientists who agree that evolution occurs don't necessarily agree on the particulars of how it occurs. Sometimes the debates can be quite contentious, such as in the recent debates about the Encode claims. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because such debates ultimately help lead to more research and a better understanding.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:44

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

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


You can find that stain on the bathroom wall at PT

I am just learning to love this new one though. surely THIS will go somewhere
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,10:47

1) Cite (or link to) any 10 peer-reviewed papers that support ID.

2) CSI is probability mathematics now?  What is the probability that I was designed then?  how do you know?  Calculate my probability.

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

These are all questions that can be answered in forensics, anthropology, etc.  They cannot be answered for ID.  In fact, as you state, you go out of your way to avoid answering them.  Which means that you aren't really doing anything but making up stories.

Again, you need to meet some people.  Maybe you can convince them that they are wrong about ID and the designer or you can convince them they are wrong about ID and the designer.  But you people really need to get together and come up with one notion and stick to it.

4) Have you ever heard of "punctuated equilibria"?  Just out of curiosity, I mean, I know it's ancient science and all.  Do you understand the concept behind the Hardy-Weinberg equation and why it's relevant to this discussion?  I guess not.

BTW: You need to read this: skepticink.com/tippling/2012/11/18/the-relativity-of-wrong-asimov-of-science-and-the-fuzziness-of-right-and-wrong
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:47

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:48

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,10:35)
It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


while drunk and retarded
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:51

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:01)
We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


we who?

do you have the moulding corpse of a scientist in your cellar?

do you think anyone gives a fuck what you think about science?  I don't!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:57

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:36)
Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I am expecting to read a journal article (not just a .pdf you dipshit) that says "This supports intelligent design creationism because X, Y and Z".  Or just fucking X.  Or *anything*.  Because you dipshits haven't ever done anything worth a shit with your intelligent design creationism except make us laugh at you for years and years and years

you don't study shit at all, not just as anyone else does but not at all.  That's why you spout endless reams of horseshittery about your misconceptions and misunderstandings.  the reason why you don't respond to peer review or criticism is because you are too stupid to, which is a different problem than the part about you not actually studying any fucking thing whatsoever.

we are far past fruition, fruit.  please post your bibliography.  or whatever "show you all the science and math" means to you.  sounds creepy.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,11:01

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,08:48)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,10:35)
It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


while drunk and retarded
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guffaw of the day. Thanks, fellow Pisces.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:05

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

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

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

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

Useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Eureka.....I have found it!

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

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

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:17

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,11:18

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

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

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

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

Useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Eureka.....I have found it!

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

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

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


Since it's apparent you can't support your claim with peer-reviewed work...

or calculate, measure, or otherwise determine CSI for anything...

what can ID do?

We already have a science/philosophical view of the universe.  It's called science. Philosophy that is robust, testable, falsifiable is folded into science.  Atoms were once a philosophical notion about dividing objects.  Now, they are well tested, robust, science that is used to predict the behavior of millions of chemical reactions on a daily basis throughout the world.

what can ID do?  Specifically.  Predict anything?  Determine a new result?  Show why something happens the way it does?  

Go ahead, I'll wait (and keep asking), I've been waiting for an ID proponent to do this for almost two decades.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:20

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,10:01][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp........ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,11:21

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,07:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed the point. IDiot-creationists are not pushing QM as 'the designer'. They're pushing "God" as 'the designer', whether they will openly and honestly admit it or not.

So you're claiming that "God" is made of particles? Who or what made "God", and is "God" made of the same particles as humans?

Are you claiming that alleged miracles are just a mistaken impression about natural QM processes/events? Do you tell the people you 'minister' that?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,11:22

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well hell son, I'd hate to make this hard for you.  Tell you what, how about you learn this the same way I did?

Which, BTW, was reading a shitload of long papers.  Examining them.  Looking for flaws.  Comparing results with other papers.  Reading a lot of books.  Comparing them (and BTW: the pro-ID books suck; bad writing, no science, poor arguments, impossible conclusions, etc).  Generating my own conclusions instead of those handed to me by professors.

And you know what?  I don't even have a graduate degree.  I do this FOR FUN and because it's necessary to understand the science and the way the world works.

slacker
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:28

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,10:30)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet.  Perhaps you can explain this concept to them.  Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,11:40

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp........ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.nature.com/nature....72.html >

Corrected the link
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,12:03

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:28)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,10:30][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet.  Perhaps you can explain this concept to them.  Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

So, you have admitted that nothing will change your mind.  So we're all just wanking here.  You included.  There is no evidence that will change your mind.  You are functionally immune to evidence.

As far as listening to them... I don't even listen to you.  I hear what you say and laugh at your inability to do even the things you claim to be able to do.  (I'm still waiting for references and that CSI probability calculation.)

As far as the Bible, well, this is your thread.  Let's have some fun.

Which of these passages is literal and which is metaphorical and why?

Luke 3:23–38

Matthew 1:1–17

And be careful, I just might surprise you with how much I've studied.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,12:16

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 21 2012,21:41]

... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,12:58

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,08:01)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 26 2012,02:39)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of  "God", eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

It's a fairytale for grownups.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you've got a lot to learn. I'm only going to respond to some of your ridiculous comments because I have better things to do than trying to thoroughly educate you.

You obviously haven't been keeping up if you think that "Just fluff, smoke and mirrors" have been added to Darwin's "initial musings".

Actually, your religion does claim that the first man was created (by "God") from dust and that the first woman was created from the first man's rib. Many people take and teach that literally, and many don't.  

The transition from ape-like life forms to humans didn't occur overnight and no credible scientist says it did. And there is a very strong scientific basis for postulating that humans evolved from ape-like and many previous life forms.  

This doesn't make any sense:

"Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it."

What the hell are you talking about?


I didn't say that "God looks like man" or that "scripture" says that "God looks like man", although there is the stuff in "scripture" about "God" being a 'he/him/his' and the "Father" and the "Prince" and the "Lord" and the "King" (all masculine labels) and there's also some stuff about a character called "Jesus" who is alleged to have been a man and to have looked like a man and is also alleged to be "God" or "Lord" or "Father", etc., by many or all christians. Also, many christians think that "image" means "looks like" and that "God" looks like a man. Tell me, what does "God" the 'Father/Prince/Lord/King' look like?


What exactly is "Darwinistic theory"?


You said:

"I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do."

The vast majority of people who actually "study" evolution accept that evolution has occurred and does occur. Most people don't "study" evolution.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,13:06

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

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

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

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

Useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Eureka.....I have found it!

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

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

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


"...the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna..."

All science so far!
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,13:22

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know what point Tracy is making and if you were honest you would too. It has to do with your comment:

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Your attempt at diversionary games won't work here.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,13:45

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp........ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html >

Corrected the link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 26 2012,13:58

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05)
It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So it's really just another take on Dianetics or Lifespring. Greeeeaatt...



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

Eureka.....I have found it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sing it sister!



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

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

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



Yep...sounds just like Scientology, EST, and Lifespring. Hey, the money's great if you can be that disingenuous.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,14:25

You really need to lay off the acid for a while, Jerry.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,14:47

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 25 2012,10:04]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,14:49

Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 26 2012,15:02

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,15:13

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,14:47)
[quote=Kattarina98,Nov. 26 2012,12:16]
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,15:20

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:40)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just because particles are created at the same time does  not mean they are entangled.  It depends on the state vector and its time evolution.

Some particles were made today.  We call them photons, and they enable those with eyes to see.  You have eyes but do not see. 

QED.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,15:24

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said evolution is not contested, I gave a link to an Institute for Creation Research (guffaw!) article.

Simple enough for you?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,15:26

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,15:27

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,15:13)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,14:47]
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,15:44

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must be trolling, nobody can be that stupid.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 26 2012,15:46

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,08:26)
So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<snip two more inane scenarios>

Just - wow! Project much?

ETA - curses, beaten by Kattarina.


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,15:47

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

This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable.

With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.

As Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had
somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not!
Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce.

Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]

English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory; and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.

Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.

Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? There are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.

Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .

< http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science....lit.png >


Watch a video of the double slit experiments here:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....JcZi_oY >


Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out.

Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.

Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light.

If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.

Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle!

Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?

Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?

If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.

Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.

These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.

With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state.

Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.

John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."


Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?


Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent (and one of my favorite) ID theorists. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics are well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.


My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above.


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


FURTHER READING:
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, Bantam New Age Books, 1984.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,15:47

1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?

2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?

Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.  

Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.  

Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.

You might look up evolution of whales.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 26 2012,15:52

Dumb Fuck wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, just like every other lying, stinking, dishonest creationist I've ever dealt with.  "Peel me a grape, Beaulah."

Too stupid, too dishonest, too immoral and just plain too thick to do a 5-second Google search.  Seriously, even FtK is better than this guy!

Larry, order me a pizza!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 26 2012,16:01

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:25)
You really need to lay off the acid for a while, Jerry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You Darwinists are always trying to prevent real science, aren't you?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 26 2012,16:03

I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,16:06

Aaaand here's the evidence, Mr Bauer:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/....ins....ins.org >

Enjoy!
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,16:19

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

You might look up evolution of whales.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,16:31

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science.  It's sure not ID that has evidence and statistical data.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL

---------------------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.  When your children were born, the allele frequency of the entire human population altered (very little, but measurable).  That's evolution, which, I believe, you agree with.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, that's what I said "trend" and not "scientific conclusion".  For it to be a scientific conclusion we would need to statistically analyze all the data... which was done in the case of whales.  Again, I suggest you actually research the article.

I know you won't find evidence that convinces you because you are immune to evidence.  But at least you wouldn't be ignorant of how science actually works.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And again, strawman.  Attacking a made up argument that I didn't use.  

Did you know that traits like leg-length and even tendency to weight gain are GENETIC.

Seriously?
You might look up evolution of whales.[/quote]
Just count the fallacies...


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,16:55

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2012,16:03)
I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,16:55

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:49)
Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nearly there ...

Say, that gives me an idea:

Mr Bauer, how old is the Earth?
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 26 2012,17:27

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,16:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:49)
Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nearly there ...

Say, that gives me an idea:

Mr Bauer, how old is the Earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  Excellent question!  We have an undercover Republican Presidential Candidate!

added in edit:  So, Mr. "Jerry"... What do you think about Global Warming?


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,19:38

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:55)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2012,16:03)
I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who cares?  I'm mean to idiots.

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

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
) Cite (or link to) any 10 peer-reviewed papers that support ID.

2) CSI is probability mathematics now?  What is the probability that I was designed then?  how do you know?  Calculate my probability.

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,21:46

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2012,16:52)
Dumb Fuck wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, just like every other lying, stinking, dishonest creationist I've ever dealt with.  "Peel me a grape, Beaulah."

Too stupid, too dishonest, too immoral and just plain too thick to do a 5-second Google search.  Seriously, even FtK is better than this guy!

Larry, order me a pizza!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,21:55

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:47)
retarded snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

 

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



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

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

 

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


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

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


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

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


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

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



>mfw someone is a wiccan near me





* aint it


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 26 2012,22:01

Re quantum mechanics:

The Copenhagen interpretation is just that - an interpretation. There are others. Without testable distinctions among them, no one of them can safely be assumed.

Henry
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 27 2012,07:56

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,13:44)
You must be trolling, nobody can be that stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I remember Jerry Don from years back. He really is that stupid, and dishonest.

I think that he works it out like this;

1) come up with a stupid argument just to irritate people,
2) be so impressed with himself that he becomes convinced he has discovered a profound truth


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 27 2012,09:49

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

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

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your argument has been reduced to a comic strip characterization, and you answer that with more inanity, and irrelevant inanity at that.  

Why do you accept small changes over a relatively short period of time, but not big changes in the long run?

Bonus question: If "genetic makeup," whatever that means, will prevent humans from being 70 feet tall, what is the primary limiting factor, and how will it be genetically expressed?

Edit: moar better spelling
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 27 2012,09:53

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

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


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

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

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,09:57

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm mean to idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

   

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

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



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

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

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

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


   

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



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

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

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

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

But......I haven't given up on you....*wink*
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,10:01

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


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

 

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



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

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

 

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


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

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


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

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


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

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



>mfw someone is a wiccan near me





* aint it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haven't read that thread, but just for the record, I am not a Pantheist or Panentheist........
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,10:08

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,16:31][/quote]


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

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

POPULATIONS evolve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 27 2012,10:34

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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

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

POPULATIONS evolve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 27 2012,10:35

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

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


yes, please do.

because this



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



is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with.   And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify.  Because you won't
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 27 2012,10:42

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


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

tells me all i need to know about you, creationist
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,10:48

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:57)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm mean to idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

     

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

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



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

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

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

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


     

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have given up on you.  I just want to see how you will evade all these issues again and again.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 27 2012,10:53

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

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

of course he has also said some other stupidly and hilariously contradictory shit about this CSI thing but why bother digging further i already hit shit
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,10:56



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



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

wow...
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,10:58

[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]


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

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

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



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

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

From the University or Oregon:

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

< http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,11:00

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Basically, the exact same mutation would have to occur in every single cell in the organism's body at roughly the same time... you've been getting your science from Marvel comics again right?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,11:05

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:58)
[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
 

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

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

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



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

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

From the University or Oregon:

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

< http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But that's not what you said.

You said

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



That's not a definition of evolution.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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-------------------


   

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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....
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,11:18

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

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


yes, please do.

because this



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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were designed.

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

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

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

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721 >
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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-------------------


   

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,11:22

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)


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



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

wow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,11:30

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)


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



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

wow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 27 2012,11:30

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

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


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

Here, learn about the difference between evolution and speciation:
 

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



Feel free to read beyond this introductory sentence of < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iation. >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,11:43

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

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


yes, please do.

because this

 

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were designed.

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

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

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

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, yes, I can see you THINK that you have calculated something and you very well may have.  Unfortunately for you, what you calculated has absolutely no bearing on how the world actually works.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,11:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:30)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
 

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



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

wow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

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

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

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

5) Where I can find or observe it

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

6) How you know all this stuff

Stuff seeps into my mind......Kind of like a mental osmosis....:))
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 27 2012,11:59

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:30)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
   

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



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

wow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

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

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

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

5) Where I can find or observe it

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

6) How you know all this stuff

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


Right, so you have no idea and you're just making stuff up. I got that already.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 27 2012,12:09

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

If, however, you think QM is a sentient being, making choices about what to implement how and when, then you better try again defining it.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 27 2012,12:56

The compare/contrast examples previously given to you as an exercise for calculations show that your CSI magic trick (or the extemporizing  filter or whatever) cannot distinguish signal from noise, and are therefore useless.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,13:06

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

How far are we NOW off from jointly postulating that humankind is here as a result of Intelligent Design?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 27 2012,14:07

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

     

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



vs.

     

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




To paraphrase Dr.3, "it's just god of the gaps restated in the idiom of information theory."
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 27 2012,14:41

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:08)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,16:31][/quote]
 

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

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

POPULATIONS evolve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution is a side effect of reproduction.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 27 2012,14:48

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

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

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

POPULATIONS evolve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL of the day!
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 27 2012,14:54

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

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


yes, please do.

because this



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



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


How I'd like to see him try. That's the least the bigmouth could do.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,16:00

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution is a side effect of reproduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh...OK....I'll be careful next time I reproduce.....an apeoid might pop out...lol
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 27 2012,16:36

"If evolution were true, we'd see dogs giving birth to cats."

Yawn.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 27 2012,16:46

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,16:00)
Ahhhh...OK....I'll be careful next time I reproduce.....an apeoid might pop out...lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it will; you are an ape, your wife is an ape, what else would you produce?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 27 2012,16:49

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
 

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

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

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



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

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

From the University or Oregon:

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

< http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 27 2012,17:00

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,16:49)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,09:53)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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

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

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



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

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

From the University or Oregon:

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

< http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've only posted that EXACT same definition about 15 times now. Please read the posts. I assumed you were......
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 27 2012,18:24

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,18:00)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,16:49)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,09:53)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

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

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

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



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

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

From the University or Oregon:

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

< http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've only posted that EXACT same definition about 15 times now. Please read the posts. I assumed you were......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 27 2012,20:45

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)
Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're going to cut-and-paste from one of your past comments, I'll just cut-and-paste the response I posted the first time your verbiage appeared:

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)
If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of < Maple > 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
   

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


True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.
   

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


Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?
   

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


And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?
   

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


Yes. So what?
   

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


Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…
   

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


Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
   

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


I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,02:30

Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 28 2012,07:59

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,02:30)
Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All the time.  It's probably because they don't understand chemistry or anything else.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 28 2012,09:09

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2012,20:45)
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the simplest possible example for creationists who use the silly UPB argument from large numbers, and consistently demonstrates that the people who use the argument know nothing about probablility and statistics, or do know and are just being dishonest.

Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 28 2012,10:51

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2012,10:09)
Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily. He could have strong cognitive bias, or a learning disability.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 28 2012,11:14

Before I'd attempt to use the UPB in any context I'd make sure I understood what it is all about.

Consulting Wikipedia I get the impression that my original thoughts on the subject was not too far from what to me looks like the most parsimonious interpretation, UPB is a waste of time.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,11:15

Gee...an intelligent post in here? Rare. I'll jump on it:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   
Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks for catching that......You're absolutely right and my meaning  wasn't clear at all..If I could edit my post I would delete that one line and go to the next...My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system. Good job...LOL

This is a system consisting of coins, however, it could be virtually ANY system, a system of proteins that comprise living tissue such as a cell, flagellum, genome or an entire organism......the mathematical methodology would not change. however, of course, the numbers of possible components would. For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course not. Your logic is faulty here (or maybe you're playing mind games with me (which is OK because I do this all the time.....) but another purpose for my lengthy diatribe leading up to final 100 coin flip is to show that regardless of how many coins were previously flipped, the odds of any ONE coin coming up heads or tails is always 50/50.

People often become confused by systems......that is very important in understanding ID (and also thermodynamics if we later go there).

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.



       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We have added intelligence into the system. A Conscious Observer selects the desired outcome of each coin throw in order to construct (create) an ultimate  system that it desires to exist.

Welcome to Intelligent Design....*wink*

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's not correct.....don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician and I named a few others including Borel. If you are going to claim otherwise, I need names.

After looking, I no longer have the Brewster/Morris reference on this computer.....Just disregard that and go with Borel/Dembski...That should cause you no grief.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?

If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......italium >

And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

I also don't recall you "calling" me on anything in debate where I actually conceded a point to you...do I know you from somewhere else?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 28 2012,11:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order for this rebuttle to be relevant, you have to admit that your argument from probability assumes its own conclusion.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 28 2012,11:36

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,09:15)
This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you assume the universe was created with the specific aim of producing, some 13 billion years later, a nondescript spiral galaxy with a small planet containing a bipedal ape called called Jerry Don Bauer, and having that ape spew innumerate, scientifically illiterate nonsense on a website, you'd have a point.  

If you have any evidence to support that assumption, you have yet to present it.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,13:06

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,14:29

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 28 2012,14:48

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)


Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it does you dolt.  I take it you've never played draw poker.

Which hand had the greater probability of holding a flush?

a) a straight 5 card deal.

b) a 5 card deal with added 'selection' of up to 3 discards and redraws.

The probability of a particular result from a feedback system is always going to depend on the effects of the feedback.  Your idiotic model for protein formation totally ignores any selection feedback, or the accumulation of traits over time.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 28 2012,15:23

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.
[/quote]

Yes, but the same is not true of amino acids forming chains.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Expand our minds beyond what science knows to be correct?  Wouldn't that be... well... wrong?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's SELECTION.  When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.  

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development.  What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population?  The answer is zero.


[quote]
More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy.  This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker.  Ten thousand people come to play poker.  But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card.  After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table.  For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated.  But the players get to stay.  Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking.  One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card.  The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card.  Now, another card is dealt.  The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers.  This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out.  This time, every other player selects from three cards.  Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck.  [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards.  About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand.  Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player.  The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost.  The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home.  Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said.  However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community.  You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair.  One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes.  Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three.  It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes).  But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been.  Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5.  He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair.  Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.  

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible.  It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless.  Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless.  It's the wrong question.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,15:23

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.
[/quote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG that's the funniest thing I've read since "butterfly wombs" . Out of curiosity, and the satisfaction of my mind, have you taken any chemistry courses ever in your life? If so, I would love to hear why you think starting conditions have no impact on chemical reactions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, I think I know where you are wanting to go
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm betting you don't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know if it's strictly NS but I think some mutations don't lead to offspring that will develop at all, so the offspring that are actually born aren't really going to be a representative sample of all possible mutations a population could have (in terms of mathematical as opposed to real world).
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,15:26

Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,16:38

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 28 2012,15:23][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK...LOL....This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Expand our minds beyond what science knows to be correct?  Wouldn't that be... well... wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's SELECTION.  When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.  

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development.  What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population?  The answer is zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK....and....what does this have to do with probability mathematics. Isn't there another fetus somewhere that may not abort and a detrimental mutation becomes fixed into the population? What is your point with this?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy.  This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker.  Ten thousand people come to play poker.  But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card.  After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table.  For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated.  But the players get to stay.  Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking.  One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card.  The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card.  Now, another card is dealt.  The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers.  This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out.  This time, every other player selects from three cards.  Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck.  [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards.  About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand.  Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player.  The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost.  The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home.  Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said.  However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community.  You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair.  One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes.  Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three.  It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes).  But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been.  Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5.  He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair.  Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.  

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible.  It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless.  Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless.  It's the wrong question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I couldn't disagree more that this has anything to do with natural selection or what I have discussed which is rather sad because it looks like you put a lot of work into it. :)

OF COURSE...the winning hands will eventually win the poker tournament?????

Are you trying to calculate the probabilities of someone winning? Perhaps you could list the points I'm missing....I'm trying here..lol

Is there some paramount point therein that I simply missed?
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,16:41

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

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

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

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw >
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,16:44

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,15:26)
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 28 2012,16:46

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:44)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,15:26)
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well it sure wasn't mathematics, because you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding probability theory.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,16:48

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

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

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

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 28 2012,16:50

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:38)

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry?  We all know that's where this is headed.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,16:54

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

eta: ok I read what Jerry wrote a bit wrong. I'll write more in a bit.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 28 2012,17:14

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:54)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 28 2012,18:22

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,17:14)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:54)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought you studied this stuff.

Earth< Evidence for the Likely Origin of Homochirality in Amino Acids, Sugars, and Nucleosides on Prebiotic >

< The Origin of Biological Homochirality >

(4) Bailey, Jeremy, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Francois Menard, and Motohide Tamura. “Circular Polarization in Star-Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality.” Science. 1998. Volume 281, p. 672-674. < http://www.jstor.org/stable....6?seq=1 >

(5) Flores, Jose J., William A. Bonner, and Gail A. Massey. “Asymmetric Photolysis of (RS)-Leucine with Circularly Polarized Ultraviolet Light.” The Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1977. Volume 99, No 11. p. 3622-3624. < http://pubs.acs.org/doi....eSet=1. >

(6) Cronin, John R., and Sandra Pizzarello. “Enantiomeric Excesses in Meteoritic Amino Acids.” Science. 1997. Volume 275, No 91. 951-955. < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi....951.pdf >

(7) Levine, Mindy, Craig Scott Kenesky, Daniel Mazori, and Ronald Breslow. “Enantioselective Synthesis and Enantiomeric Amplification of Amino Acids under Prebiotic Conditions. Organic Letters. 2008. Volume 10, No 12. p. 2432-2436. < http://www.dcb-server.unibe.ch/groups....df >

(8) Bada, Jeffrey L. "Amino Acid Homochirality on Earth and Mars." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 1996. Volume 26, No 3-5. 150-151. < http://www.springerlink.com/content....xt.pdf. >

(9) Glavin, Daniel P. and Jason P. Dworkin. “Enrichment of the Amino Acid L-Isovaline by Aqueous Alteration of Cl and CM Meteorite Parent Bodies.” PNAS. 2009.

(10) Kondepudi, Dilip K., Rebecca J. Kaufman, Nolini Singh. "Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Sodium Chlorate Crystallization." Science. 1990. Volume 250, No 4983. 975-976. < http://www.jstor.org/stable....240.pdf >

So, now that's out of the way...

back to amino acids.  Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff.  The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal.  This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff.  If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 28 2012,18:41



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

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

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

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even if that were true it doesn't help you at all, as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 28 2012,20:45

bug bump
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:23

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,15:07)
Interesting to see how this and the GinGout threads are converging.

       

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



vs.

       

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




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



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:25

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 27 2012,15:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 27 2012,10:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)
As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

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


yes, please do.

because this

 

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



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


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


it would be the christian thing, that's for sure.  but Mr. Quantum-Mechanics-Is-Duh-Designer here don't give no shits about stuff like making sense because the CAT IS DEAD AND ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME AND ONLY JESUS CAN MAKE THE PARTICLES STOP WAVING
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:27

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2012,11:51)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2012,10:09)
Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily. He could have strong cognitive bias, or a learning disability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


potato
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:31

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,12:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 27 2012,10:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)
As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

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


yes, please do.

because this

 

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were designed.

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

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

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

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is one of the most unbelievably stupid things i have ever seen posted anywhere

look stupid, either post your calculation of CSI that you done said you done posted or STFU about it

reading further down the thread and laughing my teats off



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





oh man.  you guys have to keep this one around LMAOOOO
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,15:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey i have a question, could critical theory be of any use to these amino acids?  what about non-normative philosophical orientations?  do you think that seven could be involved?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:38

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,18:14)
in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 28 2012,22:39

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 28 2012,17:50)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:38)

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry?  We all know that's where this is headed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


now now skipping foreplay is not sexy
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,09:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I thought you studied this stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, now that's out of the way...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
back to amino acids.  Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff.  The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal.  This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff.  If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,09:31

[quote=raguel,Nov. 28 2012,18:41][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

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

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

< http://dictionary.reference.com/browse.....ntiomer >

The rest is simply irrelevant. If you think it is relevant then hone in on your argument with some references and I'll look at it.

and remember that a racemic solution is ALWAYS in equilibrium.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
..... as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have refered twice now to the addition of a catalyst. A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture? (also some references, please)

Also, if someone added this catalyst to the racemic mixture, isn't this intelligent design?  :)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 29 2012,09:38

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,09:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I thought you studied this stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, now that's out of the way...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
back to amino acids.  Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff.  The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal.  This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff.  If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK.  Let me say this very  plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality.  The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted.  Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong.  Done.  Read the evidence.  I know you won't, because you really don't care.

Now for this howler...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually you did, because your entire "CSI calculation" depends on it.  You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

Therefore, your entire CSI 'calculation' is based on a false premise.  Actually, that's just ANOTHER false premise that the CSI calculation is based on.

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge.  Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Since we both know that you can't do this, then we all know that CSI is utterly useless.

As far as the "calculation" of CSI.  You aren't calculating anything of the kind.  You are only calculating the probability of random events happening.  That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%.  Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

Again, that means that your CSI 'calculation', which, BTW, you have never actually done for any protein, is utterly useless.

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences.  They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 29 2012,09:46

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure—for any one instance of Flipping 100 Coins, the odds of getting 100 heads is, indeed, going to be 1:2100.
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.
The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If all you're interested in is the probability that Event E occurs during any one opportunity for Event E to occur, then sure, you're right about the math being the same. But if you're interested in the probability that Event E will ever occur during any of N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the math is not the same.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it. The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.
Of course, if CSI genuinely is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, it follows that CSI is utterly and completely irrelevant to any whatzit which did not occur all at once, in a single stroke…
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not. Your logic is faulty here…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the specific details of the system you're studying are very relevant indeed to calculating the probability of that system's having yielded some particular result. So if you're interested in the probability of unguided abiogenesis having occurred, how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the specific details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Given a Process P1 that involves odds-of-heads of 1:2, and a different Process P2 that involves odds-of-heads of 1023:1024, the probability of getting 100 heads will vary dramatically, depending on whether the process by which you got 100 heads is Process P1, or Process P2, or some entirely different Process P3 whose odds-of-heads differs from the odds-of-heads of either Process P1 or Process P2, or what.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have added intelligence into the system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, we've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. If intelligence happens to be one of the details in question, then sure, intelligence can affect the probability of Event E's occurring—but that doesn't alter the fact that in general, even when intelligence is not one of the details in question, the probability of some Event E having occurred is dependent on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not correct… don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud. But even if I accept your risible mischaracterization of Dembski as a 'mathematician', that does not make him a statistician. Since you said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added], one would hope that you would take care to, like, cite only statisticians in support of your assertion about what statisticians had "concluded through Borel’s Law". But hey, if you want to make IDiots look like idiots, do feel free to continue screwing up!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
…and I named a few others including Borel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since "Borel's Law" doesn't actually say what you Creationists claim it says, you can name Borel all you want and it won't make any difference; you're still bullshitting. You also named Brewster and Morris, and you ignored my question: "How did Brewster and Morris come up with this '1067' figure?" Since, you know, the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E, it would be very interesting indeed to know the specific details Brewster and Morris were assuming when they calculated their putative "ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years".


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.
After I deal out the first card, there are (52 - 1 =) 51 cards left, so whatever Card #2 is, the chance that that card came up must be 1:51, and the chance of that particular 2-card sequence must be (1:52 * 51 =) 1:2,652. Again, if I'm wrong here, do inform me of where my error lies.
After I deal out the second card, there are (52 - 2 = ) 50 cards, so whatever Card #3 is, its probability of coming up must be 1:50. Thus, the chance of that particular 3-card sequence coming up must be (1:52 * 51 * 50 =) 1:132,600.
Similarly, the chance of any one 4-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 =) 1:6,497,400; the chance of any one 5-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 =) 1:311,875,200; the chance of any one 6-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 =) 1:14,658,134,400; and so on, until the chance of any one 52-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * … *  4 * 3 * 2 * 1 =) 1:80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000


.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So… if I shuffle a standard 52-card deck, and I don't write down which card I expect to come up first… whatever that first card is, I can't say that the odds of that card having come up, are 1:52?
Hmm.
By this 'reasoning', it's not possible to work out the odds of abiogenesis if you haven't previously nailed down the specific details of abiogenesis. Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?
If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 29 2012,11:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They ARE mirror images.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK.  Let me say this very  plainly because you have no idea what's going on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well alrighty then.. :)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality.  The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted.  Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong.  Done.  Read the evidence.  I know you won't, because you really don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge.  Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as the "calculation" of CSI.  You aren't calculating anything of the kind.  You are only calculating the probability of random events happening.  That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%.  Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences.  They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs.....  ;)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 29 2012,12:53

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK.  Let me say this very  plainly because you have no idea what's going on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well alrighty then.. :)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality.  The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted.  Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong.  Done.  Read the evidence.  I know you won't, because you really don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge.  Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as the "calculation" of CSI.  You aren't calculating anything of the kind.  You are only calculating the probability of random events happening.  That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%.  Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences.  They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs.....  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.  

Feel free to ignore them.  But they show that your claim is wrong.  Note that it's not one paper, but many.  

As far as this


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You haven't given me any other argument to consider.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because it's YOUR argument.  It's in the actual 'calculation' of CSI.

If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science.  Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.

Let me ask this very plainly.  

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?

Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 29 2012,15:21

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,09:31)
They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

< http://dictionary.reference.com/browse.....ntiomer >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earlier you also wrote:
     

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.  :D

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....r >

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

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


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

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Here's an example from Wikipedia:

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

(as an aside this conversation actually became productive: I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "ground state diasteriomers" before. I'll have to look into it).
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,15:30

Thank you for the well thought out posts.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
feel free to continue screwing up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!;) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

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.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 29 2012,15:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on who was president at the time of that speech. :p
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 29 2012,15:57

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,15:30)
Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right here is where your little train leaves the tracks, and you demonstrate that you don't understand probability theory.  Let me count the ways...

1. Your argument assumes that UPB is a valid concept.

2. You can't calculate the probability of whether or not something can occur if you, at the same time, contend that it can't occur.  

3. In order to be able to calculate the probability of unguided abiogenesis, you would need to KNOW all of the necessary constituents and variables.  You would have to KNOW that it's possible.

4. Improbable doesn't equal impossible, no matter what Dr. Dr. Dr. says.

I could go on, but I won't.  If there is a one in 40-brazilian chance that something will happen, and there are 40 brazilian opportunities, it will probably happen. Unless you can demonstrate what constitutes an opportunity, and control for it, you have nothing.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 29 2012,16:14

"The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed."

jerry, name something in the wild that has 499 bits of information in it, something that has 500 bits in it, and something that has 501 bits in it. Also, who or what "specified" the alleged complex information in a "system"?

Name a few things in the wild that are not a system, and a few things that just barely meet the requirements to be called a system.

If there were no humans to "detect design", would there be such a thing as 'complex specified information'?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,16:25

[quote=raguel,Nov. 29 2012,15:21][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't claim to be a scientist in any capacity if you care to look at qualifications. I consider a scientist to be at the masters level or above and I have only studied science at the undergrad level. I am in fact, in a ministry to societally mal-treated poor people as my vocation.

But you seem present rather to assess me than the argument......

I understand that there would be around 20 or so different amino acids in the mixture. and the mixture is racemic.....not ALL mirror images of one another. I think you are being perhaps intentionally obtuse???



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

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

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



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

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

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Here's an example from Wikipedia:

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Man...are you ever overcomplicating this :)
I really don't care when or how or why the enantiomers formed, or the "reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers."

I thought you stated that one could add a catalyst that would bring a racemized solution into one of homochirality. No? That's what I thought your reply would entail.

All that matters in the gedankin is dextrorotatory ("+" forms) and levorotatory ("-" forms) -- One enantiomer can form proteins that can support life and the other cannot.

That's all that one need consider in order to employ the analogy.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 29 2012,16:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for the well thought out posts.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I've learned a lot.  Thanks everyone.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, it's a big scary number.  Do you still not get that
a) No proteins extant today are (or have ever been) randomly assembled from amino acids

b) That you still assume that all amino acid binding is equally likely

c) that there is not one, but hundreds of billions of binding events happening every second all over the universe (yes, I said universe and I meant universe).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ASsuming what you're trying to prove.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are debating whether CSI can actually do anything for us.  So far, we've found 3 fundamental mistakes in your assumptions for the use of CSI.  Any one of them totally destroys the concept.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is another answer to randomness.  Evolution, that is random mutation and natural selection.

You have basically reduced this to a false dichotomy.  It either must be designed or it must be random.  Since it isn't random (you think), then it must be designed.

Again, false dichotomy, there is another option.  One that actually has evidential support.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You really don't keep up do you?  Abiogenesis, as you described, is what YOU EXPECT to happen.  You expect a fully formed mouse to appear.  That's what your calculation show is highly improbable.

However, the scientific version of abiogenesis, which has 60+ years of evidential support* is that life can come from non-life.  But we're not talking about mice from sacks of wheat.  We're talking about self reproducing (with a catalyst probably) precursors to living things.  Anything that is self reproducing will be acted on by evolution.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And therefore thrown away all of science

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
feel free to continue screwing up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And with it... yours

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......


           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're right, you don't lay out a model and declare it do be impossible.  You do that without thinking about it.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it can occur naturally.  The fact that you choose to ignore the papers I presented is not our problem.  I don't have to spoon feed this to you.  You're a big boy with science knowledge (or so you say).

Again, the facts are that you are ignoring the facts.  Just making yourself look silly.

   

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, it doesn't matter.  because we don't expect a 250 protein chain to appear after random construction.  Although, abiogenesis research shows that well over 100 AA chains can spontaneously self-assemble.

Of course, you probably don't know that the shortest RNA chain that is capable of catalyzing reactions is only 5 nucleotides long.  That's almost trivial to form randomly in this day and age.  And it's not just 1, but an entire group of pentamers.

   

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

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought you studied biology.  Because all modern proteins are assembled using DNA or RNA as a template, mRNA as a coding strand and ribosomes as a construction system.

Again, no modern proteins form randomly and they never have.

   

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

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yep, the odds don't change.  But that doesn't mean that the odds actually have any relationship to the real world.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.


             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This isn't for you.  It's for the lurkers and I'm learning stuff too.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 29 2012,17:05

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,13:30)
Thank you for the well thought out posts.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
feel free to continue screwing up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

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.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.


         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry, you're nothing but an arrogant, IDiotic, snake-oil salesman.

You like to say "we" and "us", and "no one on either side" yet you demand that people here make their OWN arguments and that they support their OWN arguments with references to papers that YOU approve of, but you expect others to accept your arguments and whatever references you come up with, if any, even when your references don't support your lame arguments.

You're playing the same games that all IDiots play. You're all bluff and bullshit. You try to make it sound as though you speak for many others (on both 'sides') and as though you have science on your 'side' but you're wrong on both counts. You expect others to "demonstrate" their claims but you haven't demonstrated anything except that you're just another delusional creobot.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,17:07

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 29 2012,12:53][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.  

Feel free to ignore them.  But they show that your claim is wrong.  Note that it's not one paper, but many.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll ignore them until you bring some kind of argument using them as references. You're surely not new to debate. It is not my job to go out and research papers to support YOUR argument.

Put an argument in your own words, then quote and link the papers. That's how it works.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science.  Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, lol...it is you debating against established science...particularly, chemical equilibrium in a racemic solution. That is so elementary that were I discussing this with a scientist, it would be a given.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this very plainly.  

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes it is. Please note that I did NOT say designed by WHAT. it could be designed by a computer, DNA replication, mathematicians, but it was designed by SOMETHING.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no idea..I don't even remember what white noise is..lol.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,17:09

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,11:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They ARE mirror images.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess....this post is Zen?  :p
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 29 2012,17:14

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 29 2012,17:05)
jerry, you're nothing but an arrogant, IDiotic, snake-oil salesman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:)  :p  :D    I'm sorry, I have friends reading in and emailing me snickers...just wanted a bump on this one......
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 29 2012,17:20

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,16:25)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

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

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



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

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

     
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein.
---------------------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 chance.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 29 2012,17:25

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,17:09)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,11:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They ARE mirror images.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess....this post is Zen?  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just something of what you've written that I decided to highlight, for reasons clear to everyone except you apparently.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 29 2012,17:29

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,17:07)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 29 2012,12:53][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.  

Feel free to ignore them.  But they show that your claim is wrong.  Note that it's not one paper, but many.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll ignore them until you bring some kind of argument using them as references. You're surely not new to debate. It is not my job to go out and research papers to support YOUR argument.

Put an argument in your own words, then quote and link the papers. That's how it works.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science.  Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, lol...it is you debating against established science...particularly, chemical equilibrium in a racemic solution. That is so elementary that were I discussing this with a scientist, it would be a given.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this very plainly.  

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes it is. Please note that I did NOT say designed by WHAT. it could be designed by a computer, DNA replication, mathematicians, but it was designed by SOMETHING.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no idea..I don't even remember what white noise is..lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The argument is that you are wrong.  Each of those papers shows a method by which homochirality is possible.

That's my argument.  You are incorrect in your statement that all solutions, especially of organic compounds, are automatically 50/50.

I've said it in my own words 4 times now.  I don't know how much more you want.  Do you want a list of the various ways in which homochirality can appear?


Ah and now we start getting to the equivocation.  Let me ask this.  Can evolution be the designer?

YOU are the one who brought up Shannon.  The question I asked is an elementary question when discussing Shannon information. You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

For example, you STILL think that there is an equal probability for any amino acid to attach to another.  I think we need a reference on this one.  

Why don't you state the argument in your own words and then provide some links and quotes to peer-reviewed research that shows this to be the case?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 29 2012,17:47

haha
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 29 2012,17:55

page bump
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 29 2012,21:40

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] < http://www.theism.net/article....le....2 >
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 29 2012,21:44

all science so far!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 29 2012,21:59

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 29 2012,21:44)
all science so far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science is here:


< Theory Of Intelligent Design >

And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator. Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings. And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 29 2012,23:22

So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Nov. 29 2012,23:30

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 29 2012,23:22)
So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you need to take a shower. Even your reply stinks, really bad.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 29 2012,23:33

Damn.  Just how big an attention whore does Laddy GaGa have to be to start trolling after another moronic Creationist wackaloon?

:O
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 30 2012,01:00

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 29 2012,21:33)
Damn.  Just how big an attention whore does Laddy GaGa have to be to start trolling after another moronic Creationist wackaloon?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pass the popcorn.  Looking forward to some hot loon-on-loon action.
Posted by: George on Nov. 30 2012,01:22

I for one think that Gary has made a significant contribution to this thread.  I think that we should now give Jerry plenty of space and opportunity, free of distraction, to respond to Gary's eloquently stated position.

Lurking in anticipation...
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 30 2012,04:19

I'll just lean back and enjoy the fireworks!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 30 2012,12:29

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,23:30)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 29 2012,23:22)
So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you need to take a shower. Even your reply stinks, really bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awww, poor widdle fuckwit is angwy!  Boo hoo!

Just because Jerry gets to be JoeG and you have to squeeze into a pair of FtK's overalls you feelwings is hurt!

Try singing "I Feel Pretty" to yourself and you'll be OK.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 30 2012,12:55

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,22:59)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry Don, old buddy, what say ye THIS??!?!!!??

BEHOLD!!!!1!!!
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 30 2012,13:07

I'll get to it......*wink* Duty calls for now........
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2012,13:22

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 30 2012,13:07)
I'll get to it......*wink* Duty calls for now........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You misspelled doody.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 30 2012,14:12

Andy Dick, meet French Stewart.
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 30 2012,14:15

Anybody know how to get in touch with Louis (or have a better handle on the chemistry than I do)? I tried google but I can't find anything I understand wrt "ground state diasteriomers." I can only assume in special cases there's some stabilization going on, depending on the conformation but I dunno.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 30 2012,14:53

oh man please introduce louis to these twanks
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 30 2012,15:19

Question,

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

Correct?
Posted by: raguel on Nov. 30 2012,15:52

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me.  :)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ?  :p
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 30 2012,15:59

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me.  :)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ?  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i just wish he would return to our postgender clubhouse and be ugly to some people using his funny british talk
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 30 2012,16:42

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me.  :)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ?  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's a twink who's a skank.

(according to Sweet Dee)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 30 2012,16:52

There's a fire at a fertility clininc. You are in charge. there is only time to save either 10,000 embryos or 1 lab assistant. Which do you choose?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 30 2012,16:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
There's a fire at a fertility clininc. You are in charge. there is only time to save either 10,000 embryos or 1 lab assistant. Which do you choose?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is the lab assistant cute?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 30 2012,17:29

Embryos are about $1000 a pop and lab assistants are a dime a dozen.  Simple economics.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 30 2012,17:47

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,14:59)
And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he didn't, not in the way you imply. But that's not the point. The point is: so what if he did? Would that make evolution something less than a fact? What if he recanted his theory on his deathbed (another creationist favorite falsehood)? Wouldn't make it any less valid. In fact if Charles Darwin had never been born modern science would look very much as it does now, and we would still have creationists here today, railing against Wallace or whoever else had come to prominence in the early days of evolutionary discovery.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yawn. You really have a poor grasp on logic. Darwin's background simply doesn't matter. What matters is his contribution to science, which was huge and profound.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 30 2012,19:04

I'm getting confused!  Whose thread is this, anyway?

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 30 2012,20:59

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

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The magic moment when they found that room. >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 30 2012,21:32

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 30 2012,23:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, anti-evolutionists in general come much closer to worshiping Darwin than scientists do. Some of them routinely claim that he has all sorts of influence on people, during and after his time, and maybe even before it. (And never mind that evolution would be a logical consequence of genetic theory even if nobody had thought of it before that was understood.)

Henry
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 01 2012,01:32

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


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



I had to paraphrase that one:

   

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

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



This certainly dispels the myth that Charles Darwin was an Atheist. Needing that as the mechanism for the origin of life made it a very religious theory, and essentially still is. Those who accuse me of having a religious agenda/theory do not know that where the same standard is applied evenly to both sides, the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent is far more scientific than the theory Charles Darwin wrote.

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



After having read how that concept was explained in a WW2 era German science teacher manual, there is no doubt that it was at least very useful for the justification of Concentration Camps. It was believed that having been originally breathed by the Creator made them a Master Race which did not evolve while evolution turned all others into feeble minded apish creatures who they were obliged to exterminate.

   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A number of religions (and many who say they have no religion) practice "hero worship" of Charles Darwin. It is also a way to use the public schools to degrade those who do not follow their ideology/religion.

 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yawn. You really have a poor grasp on logic. Darwin's background simply doesn't matter. What matters is his contribution to science, which was huge and profound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree that what should be most important is not a science degree, it should be what one contributes to science. But that is not how the science world now works. Academia now controls who may receive funding and who are considered qualified for jobs by selling credentials/entitlement. As an "individual" I am not even allowed to receive funding. It's only a waste of time for me to apply for grants. And you are not the one with a paycheck that can't be cashed from a struggling company, who is living in poverty and going hungry right now because of your science/religion politics.

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

This dumb-down of science has received billions of dollars to promote and protect. You have no idea how much of a disgrace that actually is, and how angry I am at the hypocrisy.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 01 2012,01:33

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


Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 01 2012,02:06

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

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The magic moment when they found that room. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Shinedown - Bully (Official Music Video) >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 01 2012,08:03

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


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



I had to paraphrase that one:

       

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

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



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



Well, neither was Newton.  Physics is religion.

 

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



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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and essentially still is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

 

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



With your reasoning powers, how could it be otherwise?

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



 

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



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

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

 

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




Oddly, missing citation.  

Oh Gary, you're such an idiot.  And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 01 2012,08:25



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





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



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

It seems that comprehension is perhaps his greatest problem.  No, not just reading comprehension.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 01 2012,09:16

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 01 2012,18:19

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

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


makes you sooooo mad, don't it?




i'm so sad that the establishment thinks you're retraded.  you must be a victim.  the man is holding you down.  nobody can see your brilliance but you.  and wesley but he is oppressing you.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2012,19:26

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

< crackpot index >
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 01 2012,21:32

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

< crackpot index >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

I did not say that this forum represents the "scientific establishment" or that there is a "conspiracy" or even that you were winning. This being "payback time" indicates that you (just another common bully) already lost, but you just don't know it yet.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 01 2012,23:32

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

< crackpot index >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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


GaGa, if we need any shit from you we'll just squeeze your head.
Posted by: Amadan on Dec. 02 2012,04:45

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

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


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


Posted by: Quack on Dec. 02 2012,05:25



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


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

In what currency will the payback be reimbursed?

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

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

What do all your diagrams show or demonstrate, exactly?

An Intelligence Generator?  

What is Intelligence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain the Guess function? How does who or what perform the function of guessing?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,09:23

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

Find this, and you will have found God.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,09:27

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

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


Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,09:44

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

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


Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,10:07

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

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


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

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


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,10:27

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

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


Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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


Ah, the old goal post shift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a good thing that no modern proteins are randomly assembled isn't it?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,10:30

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

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


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

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


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

It's a good thing that no one listens to you about things like the fossil record.  Actually, some people probably do listen to you and that's why we have this problem in this country... people who are ignorant, proud of it, and drag others down into their ignorance... all in the name of religion.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,10:36

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

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


Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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


Ah, the old goal post shift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Now, I addressed CSI in detail......we have now moved on....care to join us?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,10:53

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

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

Correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I have to revise this slightly.

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

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

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

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


Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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


Ah, the old goal post shift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

That's OK.  It happens all the time.

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

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 02 2012,10:57

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

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


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

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

I'm afraid that this kind of utterly despicable dishonesty is what we can expect from creationists who tell us all that's wrong about the fossil record.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that you're any different.  You should STFU about the fossil record until you can demonstrate that you're smarter than a talking parrot.  :angry:
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,11:01

[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 02 2012,10:53][/quote]


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

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



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

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,11:26

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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

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



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

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


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

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

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


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,12:50

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

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

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



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

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


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

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

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


If you don't even understand what method I'm using, how do you know it's wrong....lol....:)
Posted by: tsig on Dec. 02 2012,12:54

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

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


You can find that stain on the bathroom wall at PT

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


I'm sure it will lead to us all being told we're going to hell if we don't change our ways.
Posted by: tsig on Dec. 02 2012,12:57

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

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

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

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

Useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Eureka.....I have found it!

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

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

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


How long did you have to follow that bull in order to accumulate that much crap?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,13:18

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

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

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



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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

But like I said, I'm really just seeing how long you'll go without answering the actual question.  4 posts and counting.
Posted by: tsig on Dec. 02 2012,13:20

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

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


yes, please do.

because this

 

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were designed.

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

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

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

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, the argument by Big Numbers.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,13:29

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,17:20)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,16:25)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

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

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



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

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

     
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

   

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


Any thoughts on this yet?Remember to show your work
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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....
Posted by: Henry J on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 02 2012,14:13

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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical creationist gambit noted: When cornered say
"Your question makes no sense therefore I'm going to ignore it."
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Typical creationist gambit noted: When cornered say
"Your question makes no sense therefore I'm going to ignore it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you explain the questions? Please do. Then I will answer them
Posted by: damitall on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief.

He really is that uncomprehendingly stupid.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have no idea what population biology is do you?

Define "cline".
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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)

---------------------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)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

Posted by: Doc Bill on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you know what "extant" means?

Are you really asking "If humans came from apes, how come there are still apes?"

The mind boggles.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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-------------------


     

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Bauer,
this is to refresh your memory re "speciation". Feel free to ask if you don't understand.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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-------------------


     

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Bauer,
this is to refresh your memory re "speciation". Feel free to ask if you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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...:)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing no modern proteins are formed this way then right?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These were designed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.


Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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...:)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing no modern proteins are formed this way then right?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These were designed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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... :)
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
Posted by: raguel on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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 :)
Posted by: Quack on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Just point me to the Wikipedia entry, or the Google link.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 02 2012,15:16

"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>
Posted by: raguel on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.  ???
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,15:48

Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good....Let's.... ;)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Enantiomers, got it in one. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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 ;)
Posted by: Kattarina98 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


"Earnst Myars"?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,15:54

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bet you a dollar this one is too stupid to care
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,15:54

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


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

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....st_Mayr >
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 02 2012,15:56

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


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

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You made this mistake twice, so it was not a typo. You quoted him without ever having read him. And you owe me an apology.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,16:04

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


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

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

But of course you are... :)
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 02 2012,16:05

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

This should be good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


OK, it was a good joke while it lasted, but enough is enough.  Which one of you comedians is Jerry Don Bauer?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,16:15

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

This should be good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


jesus fuck you are one stupid sonofabitch
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,16:17

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

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

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

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

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

Kids these days, I dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i hold out hope, but i think i have seen this episode before
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,16:22

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


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

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

But of course you are... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


look short round you aint telling nobody here shit

it ain't the misspelled name, it's you doubling down on stupid every chance you get like an asshole with dentures
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,16:24

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

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

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

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

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

Kids these days, I dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Eh, well he just laid out some serious stupid, but it took way too much time for me to coax it out of him.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,16:26

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

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



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

 That has now been done.... < here. >

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

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

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

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

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

Would you like more?  I can get a bunch more.  It's just boring.  I know you're wrong. Everyone else here knows you are wrong.  I suspect that you know you are wrong, but you can't admit it, because it blows a big chunk of your notions out of the water.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,16:30

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

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

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

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

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

Kids these days, I dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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



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


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

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


Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 02 2012,16:41

jerry said:

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

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

While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,16:46

Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

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

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 02 2012,16:48

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

Where did the challenging posts go?

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

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


Lay off the booze.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 02 2012,16:50

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

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

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

Come on, Jer, regale us.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,16:54

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

Where did the challenging posts go?

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

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


awwww it was thinking for a minute

how sweet it is when it thinks

hey sweet tits try thinking about Doc Bill's question, why don't ya?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 02 2012,17:04

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


take it down a notch please 'Ras.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,17:09

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

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



 

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

 

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



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

Ok let's start here then:

 

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



ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this:



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



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

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,17:15

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry said:

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



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



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

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



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



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

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

But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,17:25

Btw Jerry this:

 

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



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

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

edit to add: I should point out here that I've already explained why, but it had to do with those pesky issues like kinetics and thermodynamics that Jerry didn't get the first time, but whatevs. Baby steps and all that.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 02 2012,17:25

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

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



 

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

 

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



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

Ok let's start here then:


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

If you disagree please state why

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


Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:    

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



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

 

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



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

You just seem to be lost, my friend..... :)
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,17:28

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       

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



       

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

       

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



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

Ok let's start here then:


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

If you disagree please state why

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


Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:          

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



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

       

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



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

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



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

Can you just answer the question?

   

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

If you disagree please state why

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



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

 

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



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

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

The reason I'm asking is that you provided no explicit reason why this should be so. Sure, the amino acids are enantiomers, but that doesn't mean they have an equal chance of reacting with a protein chain. Are you claiming that because they are enantiomers, they have the same chance of adding to the chain? If not, can you show us explicitly how you reached the conclusion odds of one in two?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:38

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


take it down a notch please 'Ras.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

the underlying common motivator of all creationists is the desire to squelch dissent.  this moron and his fellow travellers would march you to the gulag purely on the basis of his willful ignorance hatred for people who understand things he can't.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,17:47

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


take it down a notch please 'Ras.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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


Well he could be just a troll, but I agree with you in general: what we think of as creationism is supported almost entirely by religious convictions, lies and character assassination. There are some that are generally interested in science and try to understand the world around them but there aren't too many of them, from what I can tell.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:52

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


take it down a notch please 'Ras.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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


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


those creationists who maintain those qualities do not remain creationists long.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:54

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


jerry, the other tards want to have a word with you.  seems like they think that CSI can only be explained by an intelligent designer bearded thunderer and here you are blaming it on a goddam monocot
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 02 2012,17:59

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

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


< https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

As example HOW is the behavior of matter a starting point (what behavior are we discussing..QM???.. rocks behave fine as rocks just sitting there doing nothing).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

< Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger >


Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
How does this turn into molecular intelligence? Sounds a little vague or arbitrary???? Just MHO but I certainly encourage thought and exploration into this kind of philosophy and I try to keep an open mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

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

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



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



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

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
This bothers them. It bothered Darwin, it bothered Eldridge and Gould (a silly punk eek hypothesis to explain saltation was the result),  but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??

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

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

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

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



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

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


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



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



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

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


Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
But it isn't true that life begins knowing nothing at all. Relating this to humans, DNA provides intelligence. A newborn baby knows little, but it is preprogrammed to cry for water and suckle a breast. Birds do not have to train to migrate where they need to be. Seeds receive no instructions to begin laying down roots......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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


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



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



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

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
The scientific method dictates that we begin at the hypothesis level. That hypothesis is then subjected to empirical experimentation, if the hypothesis holds up and other scientists can reproduce those experiments, it goes to the theory level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

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

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

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

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

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

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   < http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php >
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


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

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

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

< https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
What experimental evidence do we have that man morphed from an ape-like critter, that whales crawled out of the oceans to form land mammals.....that birds, indeed gave rise to dinosaurs? NONE.

And there is no way any of this could ever be falsified, therefore, there is no such thing in reality as a "theory of evolution" except in the minds of some.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
The truth is, there is also NO general theory of ID that has been through the scientific method to show itself a theory...certainly not one that sums up the overall concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is only true where the layman’s definition is used. In reality, there already is a testable scientific theory that meets all requirements of the scientific method, the one I am already having success with for my computer models.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religion...for religion's sake....sucks. I keep it simple....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m glad you said that! No problem here, taking that advice.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
1) Can I find anything in science that suggests there is something else of intelligence out there? Yes, I can.
2) Can I find a spiritual side of me? Yup, there is something inside of me that is non-mind.
3) Can I find a higher power? Absolutely.....Anyone can....that higher power may be a higher you.....or a majestic megaverse where QM controls all--or something else.

It then can all then come together and we can attempt to ascertain the qualities of that 'other' dimension of life we all interact with.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
Lighting candles, counting beads, holy water and prayer cloths are constructs of man. And Genesis is exactly what it is....history written by man who understood little about  the universe around him from a scientific perspective....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, all have to be careful not to lose sight of what is most important for us to learn from all that is in a sense common with all religions, or else we end up on a path that leads away from our Creator.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
Some seem to think that Moses should have begun with a quantum singularity in the blackhole of another universe, described the big bang with it's inflationary theory and ended with Boltzmann's math on particle thermodynamics....it's laughable........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is funny that some demand that of religion.

Insight does not require all be immediately scientifically revealed.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks...but I would disagree with this: "Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good catch! I should have included the phrasing “at this time the theory I am working on cannot determine”.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
It can be determined through physics experiments that energy will act as a wave or a particle (wave or solid) depending upon whether there is, or is not an intelligent observer in the system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is now another much simpler explanation for that happening in the QM experiment (where that concept came from): The 1 quanta of energy from the photon all went into the detector instead of out the slit. It might be as simple as the photon detector (observer) being the path of least resistance. The photon cannot go both directions at the same time.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
Yet, we experience both in the real world....We need waves to come from energy when we turn on a light switch and we need our laptop to be a solid when we pick it up to use it.....

What intelligent observer is CAUSING this? What intelligent observer is causing the reality around us to be, indeed, real?

Find this, and you will have found God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,18:49

For those of you that are interested here's an example of why kinetics is so important:

< http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook....ns.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mechanism and The Kinetic Domain

Consider again the   2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction, and ask the question: Are there any possible competing reactions?

There is one: the carbon forming, or coking reaction, producing of hydrogen fluoride and carbon.
CH2F2  C + 2HF

Thermochemistry calculations show this pathway is energetically preferred over disproportionation: [raguel:snipped here; it's not important and I'm too lazy to get it to fit. The important thing is this: the most thermodynamically stable product is not observed at low temperatures.]

Yet the 2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction occurs.

So, the question is: Why does   CH2F2   disproportionate to   CH4 + CF4   and not to  C + 2HF?

The answer is subtle.

• When there are two or more possible reactions, each reaction will proceed by an associated reaction mechanism and each mechanism will have an associated activation energy, Eactiv., and Gibbs free energy, ?Grxn.
• Under local conditions, the reaction will always proceed via the mechanistic pathway that has the lowest activation energy, Eactiv..
• The effect is to produce the locally thermodynamically more stable product(s) rather than globally mostthermodynamically stable product(s).
At a higher temperature the globally most stable reaction will happen, and 'coking' will occur:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,19:36

I know I said I'd go line by line but I can't get over how stupid this is:

   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
Also, I've already explained to you what a catalyst is and that it only speeds chemical reactions. You agreed to this, yet you are back now to claiming that a certain catalyst will change the probability mathematics of what amino acids form polypeptides from a racemic mixture? If you are going to continue this, let's see some science with referrences, please. But you will not cough up any, because there isn't any.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Sure you did Jerry, and I told you why it "speeds chemical reactions":

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In answer to this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wrote this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To which you replied

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note that you explicitly claimed that the products are mirror images, and later claimed that you never said that. :D

Tying this in with the question at hand: if you aren't using kinetics and thermodynamics to prove this statement:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you aren't using chemistry to support your argument. Do you understand that much Jerry? I'm betting against it.  :)

eta: Jerry, you also claimed that I didn't post any examples showing how catalysts can affect the products observed, but that's simply not true. Earlier I posted a link to this:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._note-3 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The enantioselectivity of CLAs derives from their ability to perturb the free energy barrier along the reaction coordinate pathway that leads to either the R- or S- enantiomer. Ground state diastereomers and enantiomers are of equal energy in the ground state, and when reacted with an achiral lewis acid, their diastereomeric intermediates, transition states, and products are also of equal energy. This leads to the production of racemic mixtures of products. However, when a CLA is utilized in the same reaction, the energetic barrier of formation of one diastereomer is less than that of another – the reaction is under kinetic control.If the difference in the energy barriers between the diastereomeric transition states are of sufficient magnitude, and high enantiomeric excess of one isomer should be observed [4](Figure 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis added.

So as a followup question Jerry, please tell us why you think activation energies are irrelevant when one is trying to determine the odds of an amino acid adding on to a protein. Make it good.  :D
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2012,19:58

Gary, are you ever going to provide a graph that, you know, has labeled axes?  Just out of curiosity.

Jerry, let me know when you've read those papers.  I'm sure I could help you out with the hard bits.  But, one of YOUR assumptions is therefore incorrect.  You must alter YOUR system to deal with observational data.

If your system doesn't correctly incorporate actual observations, then it is worse than useless... it's actually a lie.  There is data that is right in front of you, but you choose to ignore it.  That means everything your system is presenting is a lie.

CSI might be a perfectly valid system for figuring out the probabilities of a long chain protein forming from a random mixture of amino acids IF there was a totally random mixture of amino acids AND IF all amino acids had equal binding affinity AND IF you thought that all modern proteins were formed in this way.

Since none (zero, zilch, nada, 0) of the if statements are true, then CSI doesn't actually do anything in the real world.  It may make you feel better, but if you understand what's going on, then it won't.
Posted by: raguel on Dec. 02 2012,20:02

Let's put this in a way maybe Jerry can understand:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Jerry, what Ogre and I are trying telling you is that, under the right condition (e.g. temperature, solvent, catalyst, concentration of reactants), when an amino acid (in a racemic mixture) adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are exactly one that it will be left-handed.  Well actually what we are trying to tell you is that there exists a spectrum of conditions that the reaction may occur in, and the odds will be anywhere between 0 and 1. You may disagree with that conclusion, but do you understand that's what we are trying to tell you? If so, re-read the links I've posted about kinetics, and if you still don't understand please tell us which part you don't understand, and we can go from there.  :)

I should point out that we are not only claiming that there are conditions that will change the odds, but we've provided you with links, links so far you have conspicuously not engaged with. Have you not read them? Will you continue to claim we have not provided them?  :D

Well I know which way I'm betting but since some people want to learn and some people don't, there's a 50% you'll read those links and try to figure out what they mean.  :p
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 02 2012,20:28

Hey, JerryBillyBobby, do you assume in your calculations a Gaussian distribution?  What leads you to that conclusion and how can you demonstrate you are correct?

What's wrong with using a Poisson distribution or more aptly a Bernoulli distribution especially with CSI?

Why do you say the units of CSI are "bits?"  A bit is a BInary digiT, or Binary digIT, depending on chirality but it represents a state (no, not Kansas) not a quantity.

Come on, Jer, regale us.  Seriously.  Purty Please?
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 02 2012,20:49



---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 02 2012,22:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,19:58)
Gary, are you ever going to provide a graph that, you know, has labeled axes?  Just out of curiosity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm planning on taking a look at what is possible for the next version of the program. At the moment I'm more concerned with getting the theory ready for printing of sample copies. This is already a major rush-job!

I wish I could afford to hire a programmer to convert the code to Java or other Planet Source Code supported language which has a free compiler available for those who want to experiment with it. Visual Basic is great for rapid software development, but now that Microsoft no longer supports it the language is at the same time rapidly declining in popularity.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 02 2012,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What saltations? Is there evidence somewhere that some species appeared without being a close relative of a nearby prior species? Keep in mind that low population species might not give us the courtesy of leaving fossils of themselves. Also species in areas that aren't conducive to fossilization are also apt to lack that sort of courtesy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what competent scientists do all the time. If a theory doesn't work, they don't use it. If a theory isn't useful, they don't cling to a theory because they like it, or reject one due to dislike; likes and dislikes are not part of the criteria. (Where would global warming be if people had to like its conclusions for it to be acknowledged?) But the theory of evolution has been in use in research for over a century and a half, and there's no sign of a decline in usage of it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Henry
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 02 2012,23:43

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,22:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is. You will claim to understand how intelligent living things "evolved" yet you do not have a functional understanding of what intelligent life is.

Needing to make it seem like understanding how intelligence works only adds "unnecessary complications to the subject" is an excuse for staying with your oversimplifications. Needing endless predictions and falsification is just an attempt to unscientifically make your problem go away, so you don't have to get up to date in science.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 03 2012,00:52

< #17 >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,07:41

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 03 2012,01:52)
< #17 >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oooh nice

bingo!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



actually, billybob, it is just an example of how muddled your thoughts are and how poorly you can describe them.  nattering about "laymen" is easier to do than to actually provide a testable hypothesis, right?

you are so scared to do this.  why?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,07:57

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,23:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,22:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is. You will claim to understand how intelligent living things "evolved" yet you do not have a functional understanding of what intelligent life is.

Needing to make it seem like understanding how intelligence works only adds "unnecessary complications to the subject" is an excuse for staying with your oversimplifications. Needing endless predictions and falsification is just an attempt to unscientifically make your problem go away, so you don't have to get up to date in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.
Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 03 2012,08:17

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,13:45)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp........ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html >

Corrected the link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry have you chocked on this or are you still chewing, you've been chewing for a week....
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 03 2012,08:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,07:57)
When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needing to be dishonest about < what is actually stated in the theory > is another symptom of the problem, or trolling.

Since I don't have time to again go over the common/popular cognitive models the operational definition covers (as I already well enough did in the thread with my name on it) I'm off to my day job, again.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,08:46

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 03 2012,08:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,07:57)
When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needing to be dishonest about < what is actually stated in the theory > is another symptom of the problem, or trolling.

Since I don't have time to again go over the common/popular cognitive models the operational definition covers (as I already well enough did in the thread with my name on it) I'm off to my day job, again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you talk about intelligent molecules... whatever.

And developing correct graphs isn't one of things that you take care of whenever.  That's one of the fundamentals of proper science communication... oh wait, I think I understand the problem.
Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 03 2012,09:10

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,16:46)
Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines! This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults?
Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2012,10:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's only the basic principles can can be called simple; the details are quite messy.

But that aside, what predictions can be made when the concept of  intelligence is inserted into the descriptions of molecules and cells, that can't be made without doing that?

What observed patterns of evidence are explained by those predictions?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,10:55

[quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 02 2012,17:59][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

< Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I --

When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL

Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz.

That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles.

Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum?  LOL)

It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.

But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'

That's just one example of what I'k talking about.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of < Abiogenesis > but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I THINK would agree with this.....  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?

It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.   Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either).

If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   < http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php >
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

< https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc >


I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute... :)

The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.

I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:

"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

< http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.html >

If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??

Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...

We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us... :)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.

If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us.. :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,11:11

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)


---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,11:21

[quote=Henry J,Dec. 02 2012,22:30][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What saltations? Is there evidence somewhere that some species appeared without being a close relative of a nearby prior species? Keep in mind that low population species might not give us the courtesy of leaving fossils of themselves. Also species in areas that aren't conducive to fossilization are also apt to lack that sort of courtesy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What saltations? YES there is evidence that some species appeared without an evolutionary history leading up to them....They ALL did......Never heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's what competent scientists do all the time. If a theory doesn't work, they don't use it. If a theory isn't useful, they don't cling to a theory because they like it, or reject one due to dislike; likes and dislikes are not part of the criteria. (Where would global warming be if people had to like its conclusions for it to be acknowledged?) But the theory of evolution has been in use in research for over a century and a half, and there's no sign of a decline in usage of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

They have had 150 years to accomplish this experimental testing, yes, but none has been done in a laboratory.

And I'll agree that that if evidence comes along to overturn a theory, most scientists would begin to question a scientific concept.

But saltation has been a fact of evidence against gradualistic evolution from the git-go....Why aren't evolutionary biologists out there questioning their internalized  precepts????????? They just blindly plod on and attempt to explain it away.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 03 2012,11:22

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,08:55)
Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum?  LOL)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
  - Carl Sagan

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,08:55)
I THINK would agree with this.....  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationist 1 plots something or other against nothing in particular.  Creationist 2 agrees with him.  Evolutionary biology collapses.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,11:24

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)


---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Listen, sweetie.  Put down the toys for a second and listen.

It's not "at SOME point".  it's an incremental process and can even reverse.  there is no magical point at which speciation occurs.  

Not that you give a shit.  Did you get this one from Ray Comfort?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,11:25

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 03 2012,08:17)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,13:45)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
< http://http/....ttp........ttp >

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html >

Corrected the link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry have you chocked on this or are you still chewing, you've been chewing for a week....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry I haven't had time to read it. But if there is an argument you wish to bring on that paper, please go ahead....I'll be happy to address it and read up as I go.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,11:41

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:21)
I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fuck i guess we are all out of a job then

hey jerry don't tell anyone OK just post it on blogs that way no one will ever give a shit but you

anyone else here think this idiot is deliberately trolling?  Which of one you is billybob again?  PM me you cretinous doppelganger you
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,11:43

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,11:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)


---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define species.  Then you will know when a new one occurs.

Unfortunately, these concepts somewhat defy definition.  I asked you to look up "cline".  Have you done so yet?

That would make it very clear.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,11:44

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why do you only measure the CSI of proteins?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,11:45

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 03 2012,09:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolution doesn't say that all...Darwinism does...evolution is only a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

But can you see why some view this 'species morphing from that one'; and 'this other one spewing out of this one'; as "poofs"? At the least there seems magic involved...there is certainly nothing in science that would foster this notion.

It all sounds like something out of Aesop's Fables to an independant observer. That's why no one buys it it but a select few of the very gullible and those pushing a religious agenda.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First, science doesn't prove anything, it foments theories which will stand until they are falsified or another, better theoiry comes along to replace it.

And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So this is the old which came first, the T-Rex or the egg conundrum?..... :p



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This isn't clear...What "last" poofing event...you mean in Darwinism?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,11:49

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,11:21)
I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

They have had 150 years to accomplish this experimental testing, yes, but none has been done in a laboratory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory of evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of organisms including the mechanisms for these changes.

That's what a theory does.

Experimental support?  Seriously, you think there is none?  Why haven't you read the Lenski Lab's paper yet then?  Incontrovertible evidence of not only how the changes happened and spread through the population (mutation and natural selection), but what changes happened (which portions of the DNA changed).
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 03 2012,11:50

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,12:14

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Jerry, what's the fundamental difference between lawn mowers and living things (say dogs, for example)?
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 03 2012,12:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why stop at the so-called Cambrian explosion? It is such a short time, on the order of millions of years or something like that. Was the factory closed down when the Cambrium "ended"?

Why not walk us all the way from Cambrium to Holocene?

BTW - holes in the fossil record doesn't really constitue proof that species was not evolving in the interim.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 03 2012,12:17

Page Bump
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Dec. 03 2012,12:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2012,11:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:21)
I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fuck i guess we are all out of a job then

hey jerry don't tell anyone OK just post it on blogs that way no one will ever give a shit but you

anyone else here think this idiot is deliberately trolling?  Which of one you is billybob again?  PM me you cretinous doppelganger you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm tempted to say he's trolling - incoherent posts, lots of "LOLs" and "WINKs", it screams troll.
That's why I find it increasingly hard to even discuss his ideas, and I admire those who still do. I mean, I love to talk about evolution with my neighbours' kids aged 10 and 12, but Mr Bauer ???
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 03 2012,12:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,10:14)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Jerry, what's the fundamental difference between lawn mowers and living things (say dogs, for example)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lawn mowers aren't in Teh Bibble?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,12:25

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 03 2012,13:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 03 2012,11:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:21)
I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fuck i guess we are all out of a job then

hey jerry don't tell anyone OK just post it on blogs that way no one will ever give a shit but you

anyone else here think this idiot is deliberately trolling?  Which of one you is billybob again?  PM me you cretinous doppelganger you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm tempted to say he's trolling - incoherent posts, lots of "LOLs" and "WINKs", it screams troll.
That's why I find it increasingly hard to even discuss his ideas, and I admire those who still do. I mean, I love to talk about evolution with my neighbours' kids aged 10 and 12, but Mr Bauer ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, those kids are probably both 1) curious and 2) not completely stupid.

Billy Jim I am not so sure about but I don't think he qualifies under either criterion.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,12:52

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 03 2012,12:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why stop at the so-called Cambrian explosion? It is such a short time, on the order of millions of years or something like that. Was the factory closed down when the Cambrium "ended"?

Why not walk us all the way from Cambrium to Holocene?

BTW - holes in the fossil record doesn't really constitue proof that species was not evolving in the interim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, please do walk us through the 55 million years of the cambrian.

In doing so, please be sure to explain, at length, the process of fossilization and why soft-bodied organisms are highly unlikely to fossilize.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,14:10

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Maybe on here, but most surely not in many circles. But let's discourse on this for a bit since you asked.

Let's start at the bottom rung so to speak...How do chemicals come into existence?

I learned much from chemical engineer, Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, on this subject and often borrow heavily from his work and his teachings:

< http://www.nd.edu/~ed........ns.html >

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

And so I introduce quantum entaglement at this point. What is it?

Read a bit then let me give it to you in a nutshell:

< http://www.sciencedaily.com/article....ent.htm >

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2012,14:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 03 2012,14:20

Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,14:24

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,14:27

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,14:29

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,15:10)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Maybe on here, but most surely not in many circles. But let's discourse on this for a bit since you asked.

Let's start at the bottom rung so to speak...How do chemicals come into existence?

I learned much from chemical engineer, Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, on this subject and often borrow heavily from his work and his teachings:

< http://www.nd.edu/~ed........ns.html >

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

And so I introduce quantum entaglement at this point. What is it?

Read a bit then let me give it to you in a nutshell:

< http://www.sciencedaily.com/article....ent.htm >

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so, no details of the species-poofing process?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2012,14:48

OMG... It IS the same as Gary.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 03 2012,14:51

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,11:11)
OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry,

Can you tell us about the exact moment when you felt comfortable driving a car?
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2012,15:45

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,13:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My understanding is that matter particles formed from energy after the energy got cool enough for that to happen. I don't think they would have all formed at the same time. For more details than that, you'll have to ask a physicist.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 03 2012,15:48

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,15:45)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,13:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My understanding is that matter particles formed from energy after the energy got cool enough for that to happen. I don't think they would have all formed at the same time. For more details than that, you'll have to ask a physicist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really no need to ask a physicist on this one because energy and particles are exactly the same thing. Remember we are at the quantum level.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 03 2012,16:32

Just waiting for you to walk us through Cambrium.

Oh wait, I see reductionism is your pet. That explains a lot.


Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2012,16:38

Leptons (electrons, neutrinos, etc.) and quarks (what protons and neutrons are made of) aren't the same thing as photons.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 03 2012,16:50

JerryJoeDonBillyBob bullshitting bloviator, jack of all things OFF and all-round idiot on any subject under the Sun, including the Sun channeling JoeG wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
energy and particles are exactly the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While you're channeling Gary or JoeG or GaryBillyBobJoeG perhaps you could address the following:

Is the null set a set?
Is water and ice the same thing?
Is a single molecule of H2O water?
Is hair growing on the palms of your hands?
Has a guy named Lenny ever bought you a pizza?
Do you like berries; blue, black, rasp and/or dingle?

There is a prize for correct answers.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 03 2012,19:13

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2012,12:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,15:10)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Maybe on here, but most surely not in many circles. But let's discourse on this for a bit since you asked.

Let's start at the bottom rung so to speak...How do chemicals come into existence?

I learned much from chemical engineer, Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, on this subject and often borrow heavily from his work and his teachings:

< http://www.nd.edu/~ed........ns.html >

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

And so I introduce quantum entaglement at this point. What is it?

Read a bit then let me give it to you in a nutshell:

< http://www.sciencedaily.com/article....ent.htm >

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so, no details of the species-poofing process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're quantum micropoofs, Ras.  Even more sciency.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 03 2012,20:37

ah well that makes more sense.  proofs and not-proofs at the same time.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 03 2012,22:27

But micropoofs cannot accumulate to make macropoofs.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2012,23:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doc Bill:

Is the null set a set?
Is water and ice the same thing?
Is a single molecule of H2O water?
[...]
There is a prize for correct answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh - is anybody eligible for the prize, or just the one it was addressed to? :p

Henry
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 03 2012,23:35

"Lather, Rinse, Repeat" indeed.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,00:25

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?
Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 04 2012,01:12

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.

Jerry:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it’s spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.

Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too..

Also I'd like to remind you that speciation is happening now so please show how your idea explains this.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 04 2012,03:42

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.


Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 04 2012,04:05

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)


---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 04 2012,04:43

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,16:41)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry said:

"Now, I addressed CSI in detail......"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well then, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on CSI, will you tell me, in detail, how much CSI there is in a wild banana? Will you tell me, in detail, who or what specified the complex information in a wild banana? And will you tell me, in detail, what the complex information is in a wild banana?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry, I don't know how much CSI is in a wild banana...in fact, I don't think I even know any wild bananas...I used to date a Wild Irish Rose.....lol

But what specified the information in a wild banana? A banana seed did, or a seedling....This happened when DNA recombined......

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's complex of it is over 500 bits of information...if it is also specified, it then becomes CSI (and all DNA, by it's very nature is specified information).

So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want.

But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed?  QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?

How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?

Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?

"So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want."

I don't mind waiting a week.

"But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so."

Why on Earth not? In all the years that you IDiots have been pushing "CSI", none of you have ever calculated the CSI in an entire organism? I would think that you would be anxious to do so.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,07:19

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,05:05)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)
 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"think"
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,08:53

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,09:03

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol

[/quote]
Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,09:05

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And let me guess...you consider referrences from journaled papers and University science departments as the argument from authority... :)
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,09:09

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did NOT say that the big bang happened in a second and then was over......you're trying to type through my keyboard......
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,09:16

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:05)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)
 

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,09:28

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:53)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you pustulate, huh

well, pustule, how can you test this pustulation?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,09:29

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which one of you guys is playing this idiot again?  no one says shit this stupid
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,09:32

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is this the poof part?  

does your Jesus oops "QM" thingy poof "the bulk of the individuals within a population" into a new species?  

or are you so stupid that you think me and my grandfather are the same individual?


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,09:36

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:43)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed?  QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is the last post I will answer where you attack a particular religion.......And it's getting redundant anyhow because you simply aren't understanding the responses...remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please read the posts.....I have already shown the math that led up to the UPB....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a silly question...lol
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,10:01


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,10:04

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:36)
remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?

You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.

500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?

And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.  Especially considering the definition of evolution is a "change in the allele frequency in a population".
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,10:20

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL..... :) :p :)

WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just read a biology textbook....

And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.

I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 04 2012,10:29

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,10:30

hey Jerry,

You need to call NASA and tell them that your CSI skills can figure this out... oh wait... nevermind...

< http://news.sciencemag.org/science....?ref=hp >
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2012,10:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I postulate that QM created life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What the heck does that even mean? Life as we know it is driven by chemistry, which is caused by quantum particles and their properties. Is that what you were trying to say?
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2012,10:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:09)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did NOT say that the big bang happened in a second and then was over......you're trying to type through my keyboard......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you said directly implied what he said you said.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,10:35

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,10:45

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:53)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry, you compared speciation to lawn mower design in regards to poofing into existence.  So, since species don't poof into existence but rather come off an assembly line, when did the last thing come off of the assembly line?  What was it?  Do you propose any way to determine the answers to these questions?  If not, whatever it is you're proposing is worthless.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,10:45

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:35)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you "really got into the meat" of speciation (perhaps you meant the meat of something else, I dunno) then why are you spewing such utter bollocks about it?

do you think i am the same individual as my dear sainted mammaw?
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2012,10:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have GOT to be kidding.

Evolution involves accumulation of generally small changes, that start with one offspring and then spread through the population.

Speciation begins when two subsets of a species start accumulating different changes, rather than sharing the same ones. It ends when any sharing of genetic changes is rare enough to be insignificant. The time period between those events can sometimes be short, but it can also be long.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,10:49

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:20)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL..... :) :p :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, hell son, I've asked you this five times earlier in this thread and you never ONCE said to use DNA.  Every discussion from your end of CSI was based on amino acids in racemic solutions randomly forming.  

There was NEVER a discussion of DNA (from you), because I specifically stated

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which you ignored.  I can only assume that I was correct.

But NOW... NOW, we have all this new stuff about DNA and you're getting all interested in that.

Geez



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why haven't you EVER mentioned it after me ASKING YOU about it five times?

As far as not understanding CSI, it's because the people who claim to understand it either suck at teaching or don't understand it themselves.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Goalpost shift.  I was asking a specific question about calculating CSI on proteins OR DNA.  You refused to answer the question four times, then finally, you only post about amino acids.  What am I supposed to think?

Let's see, do I think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA?

Let me think about that a minute.  I believe I mentioned this before.  You might have heard of it...

THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

You know, where DNA uses specific sequences of nucleotides as a code for the assembly of proteins.  

But you and other IDists don't seem to understand that fundamental concept of biology, since you seem to think that every single protein in existence assembles randomly from a racemic solution of amino acids.  At least that's what CSI calculates.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then perhaps you need to learn more about the things you're expounding upon.

I'll say it again.  If you have a 500 bit sequence of amino acids and a 500 bit sequence of nucleotides.  Then you convert the nucleotide sequence into a protein using a ribosome, the resulting protein is smaller than the protein in the amino acid sequence I just mentioned.

Because a 100 AA chain is smaller than an 83 AA chain.

So, which one do you focus on and why?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just read a biology textbook....
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?  That's your answer?  

In other words, you don't have a clue.  

As has been said before a single organism does not evolve.  Nor does it speciate.

Tell you what, prove to us that you have a single clue.  Name and describe three forms of speciation.  I bet you won't do it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one is debating you.  We're crushing you.  You have no idea what's going on, so you keep insulting and repeating the same crap over and over again.  It's hilarious.

As far as the implied insult... I think it's cut that you think that way.  I do more work in this field every day than you'll do in a lifetime.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"lot to cover" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've kept saying the same thing for pages and pages.  You're a broken record.  You aren't covering any new ground.  

You might try dealing with the fundamental mistakes of your notion.

You might try understanding the argument your pretending to attack (hint: look up "strawman").

There's lots of things you could do, but you won't and we both know it.

Let me leave you with one other thought.  If you're so damned smart and CSI is so damned valuable, then why are you here at AtBC arguing with (and losing to) someone who you think has no idea what's going on?

Why aren't you publishing this stuff?  Why aren't you making millions using ID principles to find new products and new processes?  Why aren't you helping NASA with their new findings on Mars?


Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 04 2012,10:54

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:35)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that's "none", then?  Which text did the class use?  If you can't remember, which school?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,11:01

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,10:45)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jerry, you compared speciation to lawn mower design in regards to poofing into existence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I compared design itelf--origins--to the assembly of a lawn mower from component parts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, since species don't poof into existence but rather come off an assembly line, when did the last thing come off of the assembly line?  What was it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't 'suppose' stuff like that. We would have to look at the evidence to see if conclusions could be drawn. Wouldn't the fossil record lead us to believe that man was, at least, one of the more recent appearances in the record? I guess there could be later specimens...haven't really researched it....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you propose any way to determine the answers to these questions?  If not, whatever it is you're proposing is worthless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How so? If life were (or were not) designed, how would these questions affect anything?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,11:08

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:01)
I don't 'suppose' stuff like that. We would have to look at the evidence to see if conclusions could be drawn. Wouldn't the fossil record lead us to believe that man was, at least, one of the more recent appearances in the record? I guess there could be later specimens...haven't really researched it....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You always fuss at me for talking about things you think I haven't researched and here you are admitting you have no idea what the actual fossil evidence looks like, but you feel justified in ignoring at the same.

You and Michael "No, I haven't read all those books or papers, but they don't provide the evidence anyway" Behe, birds of a feather.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,11:13

as if the tard couldn't google "recent speciation events"
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,11:16

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,10:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have GOT to be kidding.

Evolution involves accumulation of generally small changes, that start with one offspring and then spread through the population.

Speciation begins when two subsets of a species start accumulating different changes, rather than sharing the same ones. It ends when any sharing of genetic changes is rare enough to be insignificant. The time period between those events can sometimes be short, but it can also be long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never claimed anything any DIFFERENTLY.......You guys are so brainwashed that you simply cannot see the logical trees for the illogical forest.......

Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes? Then a population CANNOT speciate if individuals within it do not.....Are you not aware that a population is just a group of individuals by its very definition? :)

Or perhaps you are saying no--You just seem confused.

But whether yes or no, I would still be quite logical to view any ONE of the individuals that speciated for the purpose of certain research.

Heck...you would throw the entire field of Darwinism off course if you stated we cannot draw any conclusions by viewing a particular individual in the fossil record. We CAN'T do that, you can only find fossils of entire populations to study.........

How silly would that be, but it seems what you are positing.....
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,11:19

You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,11:21

Answer:  Billybob thinks he is the same individual as his granmaw

Now, dipshit, your dad might also be your uncle but you're a special case.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,11:22

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,11:38

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,11:39

jimmyjack, let's imagine that you and all of your kinfolk are sitting around the trailer and somebody says "hey let's play that there game that they done on TV that one time, whassit called oh yeah Telephone"

So, you whisper into your cousins ear "Meet me out back of the barn after the sun goes down" and she whispers into the next cousins ear and so on and so forth, all the way down the line in the trailer.

And finally Uncle Dad's turn comes around and he whispers into your ear "Meat is free south of the black yarn matter, in my long gown"

did your mom just speciate or was there no poof-thingy
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 04 2012,12:05

Billy Bob,

Can you point out the exact spot where yellow becomes green?

Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,12:05

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 04 2012,11:39)
jimmyjack, let's imagine that you and all of your kinfolk are sitting around the trailer and somebody says "hey let's play that there game that they done on TV that one time, whassit called oh yeah Telephone"

So, you whisper into your cousins ear "Meet me out back of the barn after the sun goes down" and she whispers into the next cousins ear and so on and so forth, all the way down the line in the trailer.

And finally Uncle Dad's turn comes around and he whispers into your ear "Meat is free south of the black yarn matter, in my long gown"

did your mom just speciate or was there no poof-thingy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,12:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,12:55

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,13:06

"understanding"
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2012,13:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,14:01

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  And keep in mind that "species" is an artificial concept anyway... one that doesn't lend itself to reality very well anymore.

The Biological Species Concept suggests that two organisms that can't interbreed (without help from outside of what is considered 'nature', like zoos and human influence).  Yet, there are many, many instances of two different, but closely related species interbreeding and having reproductively successful offspring.  (Lions and tigers, for example)

There are also cases where two individuals within the same nominal species can't/don't interbreed and have successful offspring.  (Greenish Warbler of the Himalayas for example).

So, it really depends on how you define a species.  But since the result depends on the definition, then it's obviously not a real world concept.

As Henry has said, it's a long series of tiny changes.  I would suggest you review the types of speciation in your Biology textbook for help on understanding this.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,14:14

YEAH WELL HOMO I DONT FIND INUIT WOMEN SEXY WHAT SAYEST THOU NOW EARNST MAYERS

/dt
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,15:13

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,12:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A concept of something doesn't refute ANYTHING in argument...only another argument does...

Now, if I can get you to BRING an argument in something....ANYTHING....maybe we can heat up this thread with some good point, counterpoint, it will probably go viral, you and I will be famous and Wesley will make a LOT of MONEY...Do you see how everybody's happy here.....  :p
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,15:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:13)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,12:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A concept of something doesn't refute ANYTHING in argument...only another argument does...

Now, if I can get you to BRING an argument in something....ANYTHING....maybe we can heat up this thread with some good point, counterpoint, it will probably go viral, you and I will be famous and Wesley will make a LOT of MONEY...Do you see how everybody's happy here.....  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already stated it. Henry has already stated it. Hell, 'ras has already stated it.

You choose to ignore it.  Not my problem.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,15:46

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 04 2012,12:05)
Billy Bob,

Can you point out the exact spot where yellow becomes green?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerrignore,

You should really address this.  It is the point you keep ignoring...no, keep insisting that no one has brought up.  Try it.

*edit for salutation
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,15:55

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation >

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

< http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html >

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”
Posted by: Ptaylor on Dec. 04 2012,16:01

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,08:55)
It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't. Show some respect and while you're at it do a modicum of research - it isn't difficult.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,16:04

Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,16:06

Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,16:01)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,08:55)
It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't. Show some respect and while you're at it do a modicum of research - it isn't difficult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can assure you that I have no disrespect for a scientist as nobel as Earnst Mayrs.......
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,16:10

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:04)
Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No......But it isn't true considering our pretend population...If it were true it could NOT be a new species and therefore nothing speciated to begin with....How can you not see this?

Can you not also see how non-scientific, illogical and arbitrary this all is? You guys just make it up as you go, it seems.
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,16:13

So, your argument is that speciation occurs in an individual.  Just say it.  That's fine.  It's wrong, but fine.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,16:15

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation >

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

< http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html >

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So to  you Jerry, Lions and Tigers are the same species.  Right?

Because they can mate.  They can have offspring and those offspring are fertile.

You are wrong.  Ligers are fertile.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

10^ Guggisberg, C. A. W. "Wild Cats of the World." (1975).
11^ Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Further



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/?ta??ta???n/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So where's your species now?
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,16:17

Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 04 2012,16:20

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,13:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation >

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

< http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html >

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Species" is a word invented by humans, who like to put things in categories.  It's (understatement ahoy!) a useful concept in biology, but the does not mean every organism can be unambiguously given a single species name, with no fuzziness.  The rigid demarcation implied by the term "species" doesn't always apply.

If you really knew about ring species and weren't bluffing, you'd already know this.  But anyway (adapted from Wikipedia):

The European Herring Gull (Larus argentatus argenteus), can interbreed with the American Herring Gull (L. smithsonianus), which can interbreed with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull (L. vegae), which can interbreed with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which can interbreed with the Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus).  But the Lesser Black-Backed Gull can't interbreed with the Herring Gull.

So how many species of gull do we have here, Jerry?  Six?  Two?  One?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,16:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,16:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation >

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

< http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html >

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So to  you Jerry, Lions and Tigers are the same species.  Right?

Because they can mate.  They can have offspring and those offspring are fertile.

You are wrong.  Ligers are fertile.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

10^ Guggisberg, C. A. W. "Wild Cats of the World." (1975).
11^ Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Further



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/?ta??ta???n/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So where's your species now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I swear, the more I get to know you, the more I come to think that you are on here to INTENTIONALLY mislead and dupe the readers.

Ligars CANNOT have viable, fertile offpring with one another to propagate a species because MALE ligars do not have sperm.

But you already knew that, didn't you ... :O

"Male ligers do not produce viable sperm, but females can be fertile"

< http://courses.washington.edu/gs453....c24.pdf >

Of course, female ligars can be bred back, but certainly not in ANY MANNER that would propagate a new species with the male ligars.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,16:42

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:55)
Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation >

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

< http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html >

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only way you can say shit this stupid is if

1) You don't actually know WTF you are are talking about

2)  You are trolling

3)  some combination of 1 and 2

< This > is how stupid you are


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,16:43

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:10)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:04)
Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No......But it isn't true considering our pretend population...If it were true it could NOT be a new species and therefore nothing speciated to begin with....How can you not see this?

Can you not also see how non-scientific, illogical and arbitrary this all is? You guys just make it up as you go, it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the color spectrum

Blue is 450-495 nanometers in wavelength.
Green is 495-570 nanometers in wavelength.

Is it your contention that light of 494 nanometers is 100% with no green appearance at all?

We don't make it up.  But AS I SAID ALREADY, the distinctions between species/colors/anything that is a continuum is ARBITRARY.

Perhaps you could ask Lou about the mass confusion in the birding world right now because the entire lineage of birds is undergoing massive changes as more and more data becomes available.  

Yes, we see how illogical it is.  But there's no other way to do it.  There is no other way to declare where blue ends and green begins except to say "Here".  There is no way to say where species A ends and closely related species 2 begins (provided that they are so closely related that they are still interbreeding at least occasionally).

Welcome to the real world.  You've just figured out what the scientific community has known since BEFORE Darwin.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,16:44

OMG THEIR IS ONLY WON SPECIES OF BRIM AND MAYBE LIKE THREE OR TWO SPESHEIS OF SICKLIDS

PRAISING JESUS, MAKING WES MONEY, MINSTRELING TO THE HOMELESS, DEBUNKING EVILUTION, JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE LIFE OF BILLY BOB


Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Dec. 04 2012,16:48

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,16:53

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:37)
Of course, female ligars can be bred back, but certainly not in ANY MANNER that would propagate a new species with the male ligars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one said anything about "new species", so nice strawman argument.

We're talking about how species are defined.  There is no definition of species, of which I am aware (and I seem to have been following this discussion a lot more than you) that does not have exceptions.  

You can say I'm wrong all you want, but until you refute the actual EVIDENCE, then you're just blowing wind.

Let me give you an example.

You say that ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile.  This was true (thought to be sterile) until 1943 when a liger/lion hybrid was born.

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/).

A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel.

So what if was the female hybrid... still fertile enough to to have offspring.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 04 2012,16:54

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,14:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assuming that you weren't just bluffing about having taken a "second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution", you might want to check out the school's refund policy.  Because you learned bugger all.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,19:07

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 04 2012,22:01

Well, well, our Dunning-Kruger poster child, FtK impersonator, cross-dressing, hairy-palmed, lubed up  JerryBillyBobBettyLouLou has not only jumped the shark but jumped the shark ON a shark!

HillbillyJerryBilly blew past stupid and ignorant, right through fantasy and into his very own Creationist Sociopath Land where dinosaurs build arks and Noah has 72 virgin wives.

Amazing!

Well, JerryBillyBob, it's not surprising that you didn't answer my only straight question about Gaussian distributions because it's something you'd have to actually understand rather than look up on Google.  Bet you got raw fingers working that one out, but I'm sure your fingers are well-saturated with Jerkins lotion that it's not a problem.

As for "QM" as you call it, you know, dumb fuck, "QM" is a framework, like the calculus, not a process.  So, you saying that "QM" is the "intelligence of the universe" is like saying "calculus is the intelligence of the universe."  It's a stoopid thing to say, but not if your are FUCKING STOOPID.  Maybe you sound smart to your dumb shit friends but you certainly are a chew-toy, hoot for us!  You really could be an FtK-JoeG with a little practice.

So, slow clap for you, JerryBillyStoopidBob.  Does it hurt to be so stupid and clueless that you think you are a fucking Einstein?  Know what ah mean, ya fuckwit, lol, lol, LOL, smiley face?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,22:27

species essentialists are functionally retarded
Posted by: blipey on Dec. 04 2012,23:53

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Jerry.  This is your argument.  This is what you are claiming has happened.  Could you point out an instance where a father and a daughter cannot breed?  It would really help your case if you could.

My post was not rhetorical.  It was an explanation of your argument.  You are claiming that individuals speciate.  This is the logical conclusion of that statement.
Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 05 2012,01:21

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)
[/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??
Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 05 2012,01:21

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*[/quote]
Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??
Posted by: GaryGaulin on Dec. 05 2012,01:34

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,17:59)
QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

< Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I –
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That’s an interesting thought. The theory does not rule out something like that being possible but since it would then require a computer model for the behavior of matter level (that meets the remaining two requirements for intelligence) this would first need to at least be programmable. Any IDeas?

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL

Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree that QM is (scientifically) what the video boils down to. I would say that is what made the video itself possible. Looks like a morph of Schrodinger’s Equation with swiriling vibrating/oscillating interconnectedness forever traveling us through space and time.

My thinking on that is the Law of Conservation of Matter favors a Cyclic Universe that is 4D (3D+Time) AC wave, macro scale vibration/oscillation. We might keep on going on through the (in electronics) ground state then polarity of the universe reverses to become antimatter polarity. There would be no real bang. In fact the universe is analogous to being zero volts, not there at all, for an infinitely small amount of time while riding the wave through the polarity shift at infinite time speed. Whatever created us is there all along too, powering the eternal journey we are all on together.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum?  LOL)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m LOL here too!

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.

But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'

That's just one example of what I'k talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m certainly an adherent to the Law of Conservation of Matter, and sure wish we knew how consciousness works!

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of < Abiogenesis > but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I THINK would agree with this.....  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I have a few more days than I planned to get the theory ready to print a batch of sample copies I’m adding a fancy charting option for the Intelligence Design Lab computer model. That one is just a screenshot of the monitoring chart from the old model. It shows the curve, but the line representing number of Data bytes (series of 8 open and closed switches) is very low due to one lobe configuration a waste of memory space. The model now has two lobes (and two bytes per Data Memory Address) and would show a nice line. I’ll post it when I have something.

If anyone knows of or finds a LaTeX .tex file with what they would like to see for a line chart then please post the link to it. Only need a standard X/Y to show 2 lines with different scale units. I’ll write a subroutine to output a .tex file with it looking like that, which compiles to a .pdf image so it draws using strokes instead of pixel bits, looks real nice at any magnification.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?

It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I’m glad you said that! Even the most famous (stuck in the middle) focal point of scientist anger and ridicule there ever was in the controversy < ”Creationist” Kathy Martin > has been keeping up with self-assembly and has been well ahead of the curve, and is actually a well NSTA connected elementary level (among other subjects) science teacher that has been following the theory around the forums with me. We both learned a heck of a lot over the years, so did their standards writers on down via long KCFS forum debates over what she is trying to say in words which always gave the mainstream media exactly what they are looking for, for making tons of hoopla with. I would explain what I saw her as trying to say that when all said and done turns into long threads of information needing to go along with it, that no-way would fit in a soundbyte, to begin with.

She did not completely “deny evolution” either, she just had a hypothesis that existing theory was only good for microevolution level work. When tested by this theory going from forum to forum around the internet in time held true. Here we are now, very visibly ahead of the times and better in science than anyone thought possible, because of not stopping at the science-stopper where you’re instead preached to about all that is impossible.

There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of. In her case, where her hypothesis proved false this forum would be exactly like it was before and when the Theory of Intelligent Design first arrived in this forum, which in turn shows there was not a silver lining for those who had a hypothesis that the state would forever look backwards in science because of it therefore Kathy takes the blame for people still calling Kansas the “hind teat” of science education, and such. From my radio broadcasting school way of looking at things and from what I know about what it “cost Kansas” it was like supplying the coffee to keep everyone who flocked to the state in creating a tourism boom well charged up!

Good communication with the outside world and theory Kathy saw no harm in at least trying to make more sense of was an awesome learning experience for all of us, maybe especially me. Finally having something “on the table” in regards to standards with all already going well in Kansas, after all, is now what model schools are made of. The heated issue is over, but the theory remains, much their image, with liberal amount of Dover via York Daily Record/Sunday News - Schools and education forum, to make sure it’s by the people and for the people not something all just fight over after some ivory tower authority throws down its decree even I have to hate too.

There is no way out of biggest critics having to accept that (even where for us there is no question whether it is a “real theory” or not) regardless of the religious implications (that go with the turf of a theory this challenging) the following the evidence where it leads from the “Theory of Intelligent Design” that the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas (that had mud a flying, then professor beaten, with Kathy in shock by “scientists” boycotting the hearing followed by banishment)in the end did not hurt our science work any. There is nothing they can do but “Lighten Up!” before it’s too late. Sheryl already spelled this one out and is worth not minding possible short add to help her along a tiny bit for having helped supply the like before its time culture war music for all even Wesley to enjoy too I hope:

< Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun >

I thought it important to make sure that’s here right now so none panic like someone has to for-real be destroyed. All can easily make their own happy ending, after all. Just have to not be afraid, of the theory of you know what.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.   Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do not visualize a Santa Claus God either. Nor do Muslims who through simultaneous prayers/meditation towards (but not to) the Black Stone in Mecca to above it produce Allah/God/Creator in energy form. They know a guy with a beard does not arrive with clouds swirling around them while in thunderous words saying Ho Ho Ho (or whatever) does not appear in the sky each time.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is not that QM is incapable of eventually answering the big questions, the problem is all that is not yet known. Schrodinger’s Equation does not show what’s in the nucleus of an atom, and is only good for the very simple Hydrogen Like atomic species. And we absolutely need to know how consciousness works. We’re otherwise only able to model unconscious virtual robots, which we are not.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   < http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php >
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

< https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc >

I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute... :)

The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.

I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:

"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

< http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.html >

If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??

Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...

We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us... :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.

If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us.. :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can add that it is not that the definitions for theory and hypothesis are inherently wrong it’s that they get overcomplicated to the point of being scientifically useless, by complicating the hell out of them.

Here is how it’s well defined, even though at first you wonder why I had to choose this one:

< !!Hypothesis Testing!! >

At first I did not see where the video was going but then took a good guess that a hypothesis that holds true for what they are describing is that the box contains just air, because of being empty of anything else. A hypothesis is then proven true or false, but one hypothesis does not make a theory that requires many such hypothesis be tested true or false, to figure out how things work. Standard electronics and engineering practice is to write a “Theory of Operation” of some sort, which the ID theory is for the Intelligence Design Lab. It’s best to stress good scientific practices such as explaining the theory behind the system before calling it done.  In some areas of science a “theory” is dwelled upon, while in others it looks pointless and silly, and I’m with them and that one.

What we need to work on is like your hypothesis that the “Behavior of Matter” level of this theory meets all four requirements for intelligence. If that is true then where most simply computer modeled there would be what Superstring type theory that works by obeying the Law of Conservation of Matter which turns into complex virtual matter/antimatter universes forever bringing us back in waves as well. On an oscilloscope AC waves from a stable oscillator are identical, and antimatter in this universe all the tiny exceptions from a noise source distorting wave, never from oscillator that otherwise like clockwork returns normal polarity matter, then mirror image in opposite polarity with a bit of what is then called antimatter. I would say this indicates small distortion/change makes each 4D wave not absolutely identical, maintains a degree of infinite Buttery Effect directed variety not like doomed to endless exact repeat where things have to go exactly as before.

Where behavior of matter is modeled with the same algorithm used in the Intelligent Design Lab whatever changes velocity or other state is a Data Action taken in response to the molecular environment around it. The proper Action to take is by recalling by Addressing the RAM array with what you add for add for virtual Sensors that connect straight into the RAM Address Bus. Antimatter type noise would most likely come from the Confidence circuit fluctuation, due to the program not deterministically restarting the exact same lifetime like when restarting the program, the program goes to the next repeat though a surprisingly quit at that moment Big Bang. Or in other words, where you tweak the Confidence just right there will be antimatter like now, along with whatever else changes along with it from wave to wave.

Here’s the circuit for a one lobe, to help show how you would make each quanta a particle bot in 4D space Motor around inside like this: