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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > An Educated Creationist!

Pages: (16) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:46    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,09:30) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28) I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this   Quote Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless. I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words. Say it aint so! -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:53    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,15:30) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28) I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this   Quote Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless. I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words. Oh come on, Arden! Whilst I may well end up agreeing with your initial assessment, give this new guy a chance. If and when he turns out to be a loon, THEN we can resign ourselves to the fact that our cynicism is yet again justified. However, this guy could be The One, that creationist who's comparative ignorance of science, and thus acceptance of creationist drivel, is temporary. I'm not overly optimistic, but at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, he's started out with some chemistry related excitement, so let me play a little bit before we scare him off. Louis -------------- Bye.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:59    Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,09:53) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,15:30) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28) I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this     Quote Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless. I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words. Oh come on, Arden! Whilst I may well end up agreeing with your initial assessment, give this new guy a chance. If and when he turns out to be a loon, THEN we can resign ourselves to the fact that our cynicism is yet again justified. However, this guy could be The One, that creationist who's comparative ignorance of science, and thus acceptance of creationist drivel, is temporary. I'm not overly optimistic, but at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, he's started out with some chemistry related excitement, so let me play a little bit before we scare him off. Louis Louis, I wouldn't dream of interfering. Go for it. And I agree, we already have too many questions for him to start with, especially if he is going on a vacation for a few days. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,10:15    Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22) But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit: Quote Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.   A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this. Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids. Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it doing up there in the ozone layer?

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:11    Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)   Quote Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly. Singular events are out of bounds. So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents? But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:   Quote Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.   A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this. Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids. and global warming denier.  It is obvious he will swallow any any psuedoscientific garbage uncritically. For example, anybody remotely interested in ozone depletion could consult the ozone-depletion FAQ, and find: "Subject: 4.1) CFC's are 4-8 times heavier than air, so how can they         reach the stratosphere? This is answered in Part I of this FAQ, section 1.3. Briefly, atmospheric gases do not segragate by weight in the troposphere and the stratosphere, because the mixing mechanisms (convection, "eddy diffusion") do not distinguish molecular masses. " -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:20    He's not going on a vacation... he's going on a "retreat", so that he may gird his loins and deal with the idolators. (That' us BTW! :) ) My $.02 is that ANYONE that holds with a 6,000 YEC credo after going through college is hopeless.  If they are still singing "Rock Of Ages', they are only giving us a glimpse of what they use for brains. Sorry Louis.  I just don't want you to get your hopes up, only to have them dashed heartlessly and most cruelly to the ground once more -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:33    Quote (lkeithlu @ July 25 2007,10:15)   Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22) But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:     Quote Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.   A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this. Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids. Ozone is Airplanes are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it are they doing up there in the ozone layer sky? I fixed that for you. Edit: typo -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,12:35    Quote (J-Dog @ July 25 2007,17:20) He's not going on a vacation... he's going on a "retreat", so that he may gird his loins and deal with the idolators. (That' us BTW! :) ) My $.02 is that ANYONE that holds with a 6,000 YEC credo after going through college is hopeless.  If they are still singing "Rock Of Ages', they are only giving us a glimpse of what they use for brains. Sorry Louis.  I just don't want you to get your hopes up, only to have them dashed heartlessly and most cruelly to the ground once more J-Dog, Oh you aren't going to dash my hopes. I agree with your and Arden's assessments entirely. However I am more than happy to suspend judgement in order to allow this new friend to post unhindered by our cynicism. I can see what I think is very likely to be the case, however I HOPE (fervently and deeply) that I am going to be proven wrong. I actually WANT to be wrong about this, I want our new chum to be an open minded person who is merely misinformed and for whom accurate information will be something of a mind opening experience. The universe is infinitely more beautiful, complex, awesome and wonderful than the creationist falsehoods can begin to encompass. I genuinely pity any poor sod locked into that set of falsehoods for they are missing so many REAL things. Not fictional, personal, individually dependant things that require suspense of reason and delieberate ignorance of evidence, but REAL, external, demonstrable aspects of the universe that we can uncontroversially and honestly experience and understand. So whilst I am realistic about this new chappie's prospects, based on his exciting drivel so far, I will remain optimistic because I WANT to be wrong about him. And also, whilst I am a harsh and generally unsympathetic fucker when provoked, I do firmly believe in the "3 strikes and your out" policy. Give the guy a chance and he may surprise you. If he doesn't then it's open season on the sorry bastard! ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,12:42    Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:59) Do I believe the Earth is flat?  Of course not!  Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots, we just cannot swallow another drop of the Evolutionist/Uniformitarian nonsense and circular reasoning. The evidence for a flat earth and the evidence for a 6000 year old earth are exactly the same - completely non-existent except for your little book which has been translated several times and written from verbal stories created by herders, farmers, and nomads. The only reason you can possibly give for believing the earth to be that young is considering the bible to be inerrant - but you cannot believe that and believe the earth is round. Either the bible is correct, or it is not - and if its wrong about the Earth being flat - why do you take its age of the earth over all the evidence otherwise? Yes, you are a crackpot. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Patrick Caldon Posts: 68 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,14:28    Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,12:35) I can see what I think is very likely to be the case, however I HOPE (fervently and deeply) that I am going to be proven wrong. I actually WANT to be wrong about this, I want our new chum to be an open minded person who is merely misinformed and for whom accurate information will be something of a mind opening experience. I dunno.  The first thing we all have to learn is that our knowledge is limited, it's hard work, and unless we apply ourselves for a good few months studying something hard pushing past our "common sense" and simple intuitions we won't get anywhere. The problem is that there's hard work involved, and the first step is saying "sod it, I don't know it all, but these guys who everyone else thinks are smart might be onto something".  And then you have to fight through the technical difficulty of the concepts themselves, and (generally) discover yourself making mistake after mistake before you get it right. The one common trait I've noticed in creationists (from ID to YEC) is hubris, a fundamental inability to acknowledge even the most trivial of mistakes. Hubris is antithetical to learning.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,14:47    OPEN MINDS ARE FOR HOMOS. HOMO. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:30    There's some semi-articulate ones here: http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail and here: http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail and a wacko who blames "Social Darwinism" on Darwin here: http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail

stephenWells Posts: 127 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:49    Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25) Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist). An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off) Incorrect. Firstly, glycine will spontaneously form dimers in solution (there's an equilibrium between 2*Glycine  and piperazinedione + 2*H2O), which you'll note is a dehydration reaction. This may be what you thought you meant by "water must be removed carefully". Secondly, aluminosilicate mineral surfaces can catalyse the opening (hydration) of the cyclic dimer to form a linear dipeptide.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,17:25    stephen, ask questions. It's more fun that way.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,21:31    Re "stephen, ask questions. It's more fun that way." Phrase the answer in the form of a question? Sounds like Jeopardy!... Re "Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what [...] is it doing up there in the ozone layer?" Maybe its going on vacation? Re "How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison? Did a scientist put them there? " Maybe the meteorites were intelligently designed that way? Re "[...] Which leads to dancing. " Say it ain't so! Re "The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example. This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis." Er, when exactly did Darwin claim that a species would never show different behaviors in different environments? Henry

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:15    Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22) So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents? Not without significant amounts of guesswork which is often wrong. For example, in the 1930's two American geologists Charles Schuchert and Bailey Willis developed a theory of an isthmian link (land bridge), which had become submerged beneath the South Atlantic.  It was an east-to-west ridge running between Africa and South America (others were developed later).  This was needed to reject the continental drift theory. Science historian Naomi Oreskes states, "This explanation was patently ad hoc - there was no evidence of isthmian links other than the paleontological data they were designed to explain (away).  Nevertheless, the idea was widely accepted, and it undercut a major line of evidence of continental drift". No one today believes there were land bridges between continents.  But they were as sure then as Evolutionists are today about their theory.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:31    Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2007,21:31) Re "Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what [...] is it doing up there in the ozone layer?" Maybe its going on vacation? Re "How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison? Did a scientist put them there? " Maybe the meteorites were intelligently designed that way? Re "[...] Which leads to dancing. " Say it ain't so! Re "The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example. This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis." Er, when exactly did Darwin claim that a species would never show different behaviors in different environments? Henry I'm glad you guys are having some fun.  You need to get a little better though. Ozone is created (and destroyed) in the upper parts of the atmosphere (15 to 35km), it is not naturally created at ground level and rise.  There is mixing of lightweight molecules such as N2, O2, O3, Ar, CO2, and water vapor which occurs through multiple processes.  Besides temporarily being blown around in exceptionally large air currents (like launched from a volcano), I believe no one has shown that very heavy molecules can reach much higher than cloud level, say 10km. You guys also need to learn to read better, in your excitement to prove me a wacko you keep neglecting my actual words.  I never said amino acids could not form by themselves.  But an amino acid is a long way from a protein. And Darwin never made that claim directly, but instead inferred that a particular species would always compete for resources with other species - or each other.  He is the progenitor of the Theory of Evolution, not its guardian and the current ToE does have this as a precept.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:58    Quote (stephenWells @ July 25 2007,16:49) Incorrect. Firstly, glycine will spontaneously form dimers in solution (there's an equilibrium between 2*Glycine  and piperazinedione + 2*H2O), which you'll note is a dehydration reaction. This may be what you thought you meant by "water must be removed carefully". Secondly, aluminosilicate mineral surfaces can catalyse the opening (hydration) of the cyclic dimer to form a linear dipeptide. Are you suggesting that piperazinedione is a protein (as would be formed inside a living cell)?  [It is a manmade, crystalline antibiotic]  Or that perhaps reverse transcriptase enzymes can account for all protein complexity? And what I thought I meant was that the dehydration reactions that occur when during cellular protein manufacture are very specific, often taking out water molecules in one place only to inserting others in another specific area.  In fact, there is hardly a molecule life makes which is done the same way a biochemist would do it.  ATP manufacture comes to mind.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:14    Maybe RedDot would care to select one specific claim to argue? It's probably impossible to avoid a dozen or so different people arguing against RedDot, but at least the dogpile (or bundle) could be confined to one topic.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:35    Quote (Nerull @ July 25 2007,12:42) The evidence for a flat earth and the evidence for a 6000 year old earth are exactly the same - completely non-existent except for your little book which has been translated several times and written from verbal stories created by herders, farmers, and nomads. The only reason you can possibly give for believing the earth to be that young is considering the bible to be inerrant - but you cannot believe that and believe the earth is round. Either the bible is correct, or it is not - and if its wrong about the Earth being flat - why do you take its age of the earth over all the evidence otherwise? Yes, you are a crackpot. Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat. My evidence is beyond Scripture.  It comes from the Earth's magnetic field (decreasing in strength), the orbit of the Moon (increasing in radius), population rates, hydrogen diffusion rates in zircon crystals, and plenty of evidence for a global flood. Only part of the Bible was written from verbal stories, and in your list you forgot fishermen, kings, a doctor, and Jewish priests.  All these different people - one common theme, hmmmm. I am no more a crackpot than you.  We both are trying to convince others that our beliefs are true.  Science is one way to do that.  We just have different beliefs.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:37    Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,14:28) The one common trait I've noticed in creationists (from ID to YEC) is hubris, a fundamental inability to acknowledge even the most trivial of mistakes. Hubris is antithetical to learning. Please point out my hubris, if it arises.  I will do the same for you.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:46    Quote He is the progenitor of the Theory of Evolution, not its guardian and the current ToE does have this as a precept. Current TOE. Good. Please give the full bibliographic reference to the peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports your claim. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:50    Care to give any of the abundant evidence you have? Keep in mind all the things you just listed do not support YEC. Evidence for a global flood is hogwash, as we've all been over before. Moon recession rates a very well understood and modeled. They do not support the YEC position - but the opposite. I can't imagine your magnetic field argument will come from anything but similar ignorance. Same with zircon. I have to agree with the others. All we've got is another JoeG who can speak english. Still ignorant of all the actual science. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:03    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 25 2007,00:08) Like I said, you completely blew off the criticism about "no evolutionary predictions" and made more completely unsupported assertions that the basis of the predictions used are wrong. That does nothing to counter the rebuttal to your claim that the medical community does not use ToE's predictive power. BTW there are dozens of papers on PubMed using the theory to predict the evolution of pathogens.  Here are but a few Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence Epidemiology, Evolution, and Future of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic     Quote Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading. Hopefully you won't be another 'fart and dart' creationist who makes it a "permanent vacation". :D If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody. That being said, you are now screaming at the computer screen for proof.  Ok, I'll appease you.  While there might be one or two that slip through this net, almost all pathogens lose information as they become resistant to an antibiotic.  Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins.  However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you: In the presence of: Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein. Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein. Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein and so on, and so on, and so on... There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change. You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:10    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:45) Are you going to be another blustering creationist who makes tons of ridiculous claims about evolution that border on 100% scientific illiteracy, then expect us to argue against your ignorance-based delusions?  Geez I hope not, but you sure have started poorly.  Like claiming that the evolution is based solely on Darwin's observations and that there has been no scientific progress or discoveries in the last 150 years. That's at least twice you people have referred to new and exciting progress in the land of evolutionary fantasy, and have yet to provide squat.  Enlighten me, if that's what you believe you're doing.  Insults just piss me off.

RedDot Posts: 58 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:36    Quote (JAM @ July 25 2007,00:45) Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25) Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist). So this is all a fraud? http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Brands....is.html   Quote An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off) I'm sure that Sigma doesn't do that in their syntheses. Boiling is very bad for every protein but ribonuclease.   Quote and (3) when actually joined together in simple polypeptides, do not have the correct shape (tertiary structure) which would allow it to do anything useful. These facts are not in debate in any Organic Chemistry class. No, because most of your "facts" are dead wrong.   Quote There have been several experimental attempts to create proteins from amino acids. Sigma-Aldrich synthesizes proteins to spec thousands of times, not just "several" times.   Quote Most add energy in the way of UV or electromagnetic discharge, and then attempt to remove water through a process of drying in between clay "sheets". Most do neither. Most use solid-phase synthesis in the opposite order from the ones living things use.   Quote All fail miserably. Nothing but useless, random, polypeptide chains. If you are correct, why do all these companies synthesize specific sequences and guarantee the results? http://tinyurl.com/2ydohy Do I have to spell out that I am talking about undirected natural reactions?  Perhaps I do.  The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.  Your post does nothing but prove my point.  It takes very skilled biochemists, energy, and equipment to build these molecules, they will not just spring out of a petri dish. Start searching for experiments in undirected protein formation. BTW, how many of Sigm-Aldrich's products are actual functional proteins (not merely peptides or enzymes)?  How many of their products use only L-isomers of amino acids? That's why I put "boiled" in quotation marks.  I'm aiming for the cheap seats so do not make the mistake of assuming I am uninformed when I use rough analogies.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:51    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03) If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody. So, since they lack that particular prediction, that shows they make no evolutionary predictions at all?   Quote Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins. Actually, no, it doesn't.   Quote  However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you: Citing a few examples of loss-of-function mutations doesn't prove that gain-of-function doesn't happen. Besides, half your examples are wrong. An SOS response is not a loss of function. Neither is reducing the affinity of 23S RNA for erythromycin.   Quote Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change. Really? Shall we take your example of actinonin? Try Googling "actinonin +resistance". Very first hit: "Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes." You keep swinging, you're just not making any contact.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:52    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03) In the presence of: Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein. Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein. Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein and so on, and so on, and so on... There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change. You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging. How about the AMES test, the phenotype gains the ability to process nutrients previously unaccessable.  While not necessarily an increase in information, it is certainly an increase in traits and an increase in activity.  Are you going to actually mistakenly catalogue this as a decrease in former activity?

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,23:07    By the way - this: Quote The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously. is quite wrong. The ToE really has nothing to say about where the first proteins, nucleic acids, or living cells came from. It's only concerned with the diversification of life after it arose. Even if we knew for a fact that the first life was purposefully created, the ToE would still be the only legitimate scientific theory for how that first life led to what we see today.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,00:55    Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 25 2007,00:08) Like I said, you completely blew off the criticism about "no evolutionary predictions" and made more completely unsupported assertions that the basis of the predictions used are wrong. That does nothing to counter the rebuttal to your claim that the medical community does not use ToE's predictive power. BTW there are dozens of papers on PubMed using the theory to predict the evolution of pathogens.  Here are but a few Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence Epidemiology, Evolution, and Future of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic         Quote Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading. Hopefully you won't be another 'fart and dart' creationist who makes it a "permanent vacation". :D If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody. That being said, you are now screaming at the computer screen for proof.  Ok, I'll appease you.  While there might be one or two that slip through this net, almost all pathogens lose information as they become resistant to an antibiotic.  Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins.  However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you: In the presence of: Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein. Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein. Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein and so on, and so on, and so on... There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change. You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging. Oh jeez, the crackpot's back, and he's in full Gish Gallop mode.  Do we really have to deal with the same asinine PRATT creto arguments again? OK RedDot, please start by defining biological information, and giving me a precise way to quantify it. You can't claim an organism gains information or loses information if you can't even define information or measure it, now can you? While you're at it, tell me what you know about nylonase. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Pages: (16) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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