toob "Molecular biologist now know there are IDENTICAL static codes in DNA in unrelated species that are hundreds of millions of years old."
All species are related in some way. The fact that you don't understand this simple basic idea (common descent) speaks volumes as to your general understanding.
How does Intelligent Design explain this problem? Why "common design" of course, the same answer that can explain anything and so explains nothing.
toob "So there is no reason to determine what is "ad hoc' and what is not because there is no evidence it can arise in a "ad hoc" manner"
So all extant biology is designed? That means that the parasitic wasp is designed. That means that cancer is designed. That means that A.I.D.S is designed. That means that malaria is designed. That means that leprosy is designed.
They are all "molecular machines". And as they cannot arise on their own, according to you, they must be designed.
@49ui39ude9 "So all extant biology is designed? That means that the parasitic wasp is designed" then wouldn't that also mean that the fact that most organisms reproduce at a prodigious rate as over 99% of their offspring become food for something else "DESIGNED" as well?
Wow, this designer, or these designers, is not a nice guy
Toob "The Cambrian explosion was difficult enough to explain. Now you must explain static codes that suddenly arose 500MYA and have not changed AT ALL since then"
How does Intelligent Design explain the Cambrian explosion?
@biggbaddjohn "that's easy. life was created all at once, and the fossil record supports that model" really? Wow! That's news to everyone who does serious research into fossils and where and how they are found
If this "model", actually the "everything at once" is a postulate, shows everything at once, then why are their no large mammals found below the K-T layer?
Why are flowering plants only found in "younger" strata? Why are flowering plants never found with Jurassic or Cretaceous fossils?
@biggbaddjohn "a shill and a jackass !!! Maybe fossilization is rare today" not really but where humanity is, we generally don't like carcasses littering the streets
But even where humanity is not, fossilization is a rare event
Could you explain how fossilization occurs and the different ways things fossilize? I'd like to read your understanding of the process
"Darwin said we should be "tripping over" transitional forms" where did you get that? You do know that all forms are transitional
Toob "The shorter the time you have to get the DNA sequences written by trial and error as the theory predicts. the greater your problem is."
Could you provide a citation please. As "the" theory predicts it there should be no problem for you to provide a reference or citation to where "the theory" predicts this.
No actual biologist thinks that "trial and error" is the sum total of all the mechanisms driving evolution and your strawman fails once again.
Toob: "We have living fossil in amber that are hundreds of millions of years old. The horseshoe crab at 450MY. the lungfish at 380MY and the list goes on"
So evolution must result in constant change of body form then? Why? Who's making that claim?
@49ui39ude9 "So evolution must result in constant change of body form then? Why? Who's making that claim?"
The shorter the time you have to get the DNA sequences written by trial and error as the theory predicts. the greater your problem is. The Cambrian explosion was difficult enough to explain. Now you must explain static codes that suddenly arose 500MYA and have not changed AT ALL since then
Toob: "DNA/RNA static codes will be the death nail in Darwinian evolution. "
Why do you suppose this has not already happened then? What about all those engines of change I just listed, are they all impossible then? Perhaps you should provide some evidence other then your say so. Perhaps you should write a comment on Allen MacNeill's blog and let him know why he's totally wrong?
Search for "THE EVOLUTION LIST". He teaches a course on ID so you can be sure he'll be fair. Send me the link!
@49ui39ude9 "Why do you suppose this has not already happened then? What about all those engines of change I just listed, are they all impossible then?"
It has not happened yet because there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE but I.D.
Molecular biologist now know there are IDENTICAL static codes in DNA in unrelated species that are hundreds of millions of years old.
How does a coherent essential DNA sequence get written if its not subject to change via copying errors, drift, recombination etc..
Toob "And now molecular biology has falsified the claims by the existence of static codes in DNA/RNA that are NOT subject to the ONLY mechanisms evolution has for DNA sequence change"
Readers should search for "RM & NS: The Creationist and ID Strawman"
where many mechanisms for change are listed. I'll provide a few:
SOURCES OF HERITABLE VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN POPULATIONS
Gene Structure (in DNA)
1) point mutations
2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift” / "indel") mutations
@CamW30 "Hopefully one, just ONE of these "sheep" will actually read these posts & think for themselves. That would justify (at least) my time debunking the crap & lying (half-truths, etc)"
From this post to the reasoning centers of the "sheep"
The worst is the "half-truth"
The statement is loaded with a little fact, of dubious importance, up front so the person who wants to believe them don't feel the need to check any further that the rest of the statement is "fact free"
Toob "And now molecular biology has falsified the claims by the existence of static codes in DNA/RNA that are NOT subject to the ONLY mechanisms evolution has for DNA sequence change"
What paper did the falsifying? Who was making the claims? Can you provide a reference to "static codes" I'd like to know more.
"Archeologist do not discount an intelligence as a explanation for what is observed.
That's right. They look for signs of HUMAN intelligence.
Are you saying the designer is human then? As that's the only sort of intelligence we have experience with that might have a chance at being able to create life from scratch.
Another simple question. Is this designer "of" the universe (i.e possibly an alien) or outside it totally apart from when it want's not to be? And how do you know?
Toobsucker "NASA/SETI does not discount unfalsifiable aliens from existing."
And nobody discounts an "intelligent designer" from existing. The thing is that you have to provide evidence at a positive level to prove your case, not "DNA = Complex Therefore ID". That might do for your target audience but it won't cut it elsewhere.
It seems the book you are pushing may not be all that. Interested readers should search for "Friday Flippancy: The Verse of the One RNA and Discovery Institute Follies" and see why the DI get's it wrong, again.
"Incorrect again. Read DNA Unraveled By Colin Nickerson, Boston Globe"
Ah, a Disco tute "Buy by book" shill. Been wondering how long it would take you to start with the undercover marketing. Tell you what, if this book is so brill why don't you summarise it's argument and how it relates to the topic at hand and if it's a great logical connection you might sell a few? Otherwise the screen shots you are taking to get your commission won't look so hot.
Paleogenetics. Bringing Experimental Methods to Bear on Historical Models for Earth
Surface-Catalyzed Peptide Formation on Sulfide Minerals
Between a Rock and Hot Place: What do Microbial Genomes tell us about the Natural History of the Interactions of Microorganisms with Mercury?
Linking Trace Metal Availability and Nitrogenase Evolution: Influence of the Late-Archean Marine Nickel Famine on the Emergence of Molybdenum-Based Nitrogen Fixation
Toob "In the beginning there was NO information for new body plans, just a cell (that just happened to self assemble)."
Almost. In fact I can see how you made that mistake, after all your version of the creation myth begins in a very similar way. But in fact, as I just said, the adults int the room are researching topics like:
What Does the Ribosome Say about Pre-LUCA Biopolymers?
A Hierarchical Model for the Evolution of Ribosomal RNA
Toobsucker: " Start the naturalistic theory at the BEGINNING where a valid theory is supposed to start at"
If you search google for "Program for Molecular Paleontology and Resurrection: Rewinding the Tape of Life" you will find exactly what you are looking for, hours and hours of presentations and new data, exactly what you are asking for. Tens of thousands of research hours.
" The ONLY THING that proves naturalism is getting the sending AND receiving ends of the DNA/RNA communication system written by copying errors & selection"
And how long would you like to wait for such to arise? I can prepare a primordial earth for you, it'll only take a couple of weeks. Then of course we have to sit around. And hope. And hope.
And you'd be surprised what you can obtain via copying errors and selection. Tell me what do you suppose the limits are?
"I stated before the Scripps RNA experiments started out with LONG chains of INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED RNA to start with. "
So?
"But it seems you, as well as every atheist/naturalist I talk to do not seem to understand self replicating RNA proves nothing. "
If RNA can be shown to arise under certain natural circumstances, and then it can be shown to be able to reproduce then it seem that you don't understand the concepts associated with the word "proof".
Toob: "This is why science uses inductive (inexact) logic instead of deductive (exact) logic. induction allows you to string together a long list of unsubstantiated hypotheticals, that IF TRUE will support your hypothesis."
Toob: " string together a long list of unsubstantiated hypotheticals"
That sounds rather like intelligent design. Once, an intelligent designer of some sort did some thing to some thing or other some how via some unknown method or other. You think. Perhaps. Or perhaps it was encoded in the laws of the universe. There's a poster on Uncommon Descent (Kariosfocus) that thinks the "Intelligent Designer" designed cows. Cows!
Do you think ID is required to explain the common cow Toobsucker?
Toob "The problem is you have no evidence of a cell wall forming like this
It's been known since 1992 at least that there are naturally occurring polysaccharide derivatives which behave as an artificial cell wall on an artificial cell liposome.
So you talk about "no evidence" like you know what evidence is.
"Just the chances of RNA "just happening" to be encapsulated by this method is laughable not to mention NO EVIDENCE"
Yet serious people take RNA world serious. Why do you think that is?
Do they? Then that sounds dangerously like an attempt to do science. Why don't you write up this experiment in detail, how you would go about it, what you would see if X were true etc etc. I await your prediction and a description of a means to test it.
Or is it just more "I KNOW" it because it's obvious, I feel it in my gut "Armchair" science. Or are you a D.I. intern filling in the dull days?
Toob: "The time is now when we can test the theory's validity. "
Evolution is an observation. It's observed to happen directly and indirectly. The "theory of evolution", what I guess you'd call "Darwinism" is tested everyday, each paper that comes out in the field attempts to falsify some part or the other.
It's more then you see happen in I.D ID proponents can't even make their mind up if the designer "designed" once in the distant past (Telic Thoughts) or all the time (Uncommon Descent).
Toob " You can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around. "
Darwin was concerned with the origin of species, not the origin of life. You may consider it a negative that he does not explains something he did not attempt to explain, but I think that says more about you then he. You'd better let him know that you can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around.
Toob - "I reiterate the naturalists glaring problem."
It's really not a problem. You see, there are multiple avenues being explored right now as to the origin of life. None require an intelligent designer. The only avenue not being explored that requires an intelligent designer is that of intelligent design. By that I mean that Intelligent Design proponents typically do no actual experiments or make any attempt to prove their point via empirical evidence.
hi toobsucker. We're documenting your antics over at ATBC, at tinyurl 6a2zntx why not come over and join the fun? These comments are no way to argue...
but if you insist. You said "We can scramble the DNA/RNA sequences of a single cell and see what random copying errors will eventually produce. "
@ toobsucker amazing bit of mining to see what you want to see there.
random mutations are not the directive force of evolutionary progress. the element you are missing is selective pressure, this allows random mutations to be filtered, removed, passed on etc.
without selective pressure all we would have is randomly muating organisms and no progress towards new species would ever be made. However selective pressure only works because of the random mutations supplied by the population.
@haz020190 - "random mutations are not the directive force of evolutionary progress. the element you are missing is selective pressure, this allows random mutations to be filtered, removed, passed on etc." I've been trying to tell them that for the past 2 days now
The only difference I can see if I called the mutations "selected for" if the change was advantageous to the organism giving it a better chance to pass these changes on to the next generations
I cant stand people missing out such a massive part of the process.
evolution is a 'directonal ranom process' (which always sounds conradictory) where the direction is towards optimum survivability and the randomness is mutations. youd think it would be easier to make people understand this but.... sadly... this isnt the case.
@haz020190 "youd think it would be easier to make people understand this but.... sadly... this isnt the case" that is because their life is wrapped up into it. To see it would be the first step out of their "world view" but from what I understand the more shrill, the closer they are to reality
If you want to see more of the same, go here:
watch?v=q1-Iqt02Asg
That's where you get Evolution = Religion. Because I'm not a biologist I don't have access to papers, I can't show evidence for evolution
@sol3a1 papers arent that hard to get hold of. I use 'web of knowledge' to search for papers, but only have access to the full papers when im on the campus i work at.
If you find the title of the paper you want then more often than not you can get it on a google search tho.
@sol3a1 "Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test."
There is something to test. the test is a simple one.
To chose the best candidate for the origins the information in DNA & RNA. Those candidate are natural undirected forces or a pre-existing intelligence.
I have evidence a pre-existing intelligence can write coded information. So now the burden of proof is on the naturalist to prove coded information can arise naturally.
@sol3a1 "I wouldn't use HGT as anti-evolution around people who understand biology, though"
I reiterate the naturalists glaring problem. You can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around. I.D. proponents find that seriously amusing.
The time is now when we can test the theory's validity. We can scramble the DNA/RNA sequences of a single cell and see what random copying errors will eventually produce. ALL ID.ers KNOW what will be produced
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.
Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon).
Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones.
@49ui39ude9 "Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now"
You have a clear catch 22 situation. Either its takes millions of years to lay down strata layers or it does not. A tree will not stay in the upright position for millions of years waiting for millions of years of burial
@sol3a1 ""You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?" not ID as there is no evidence for it fortunately Evo has not been falsified"
sol its appears you do not understand the debate. And you fail to understand there are ONLY TWO WAYS life could have originated, either naturally or by I.D., NO third hypothesis exists
If the ONLY MECHANISM for DNA sequence change (cell copying errors) does not yet exist. HOW do you write codes for machines?
@toobsucker "If the ONLY MECHANISM for DNA sequence change (cell copying errors) does not yet exist. HOW do you write codes for machines?"
You don't write them. You evolve them. And it's not one or the other. The first replicator was simpler then a "cell" for sure. And so the problem does not arise that you claim.
What does arise is the question "If life is designed, who designed the designer"?
1: Are there more than 1 designer? Even in the field of Archeology which IDists like to use as an analogy, archeologist immediately try to understand the builders of any artifact they find
@toobsucker "And you fail to understand there are ONLY TWO WAYS life could have originated, either naturally or by I.D., NO third hypothesis exists" there really then is not 2nd option
As ID declares that something designed life on Earth, then something designed the designer and so on to infinite regression
If you want to say the "original" designer needed no designer why is that?
Right now then there seems to be only 1 way life came about without going to the supernatural
@sol3a1 "you mean the ones that hold that it was all built at the same time when the evidence shows that was not the way it was done?"
I really loath debating with illinformed atheists
SO you have evidence the cell was slowly built by ...um...complete randomness? please do tell
sol, do you realize the molecular machines (of which building instructions are encoded in DNA) MUST EXIST before the cell is replicating?. This means the code to BUILD the machines must exist BEFORE copying the errors
@toobsucker "do you realize the molecular machines (of which building instructions are encoded in DNA) MUST EXIST before the cell is replicating?. This means the code to BUILD the machines must exist BEFORE copying the errors"
Which did your designer create first, the chicken or the egg?
Tell me, what is the difference between a "molecular machine" which is not alive and a "replicating cell" which is alive.
Think about it and let me know. Or not, as you prefer.
@sol3a1 "If you mean trusting a peer review process that's no different from any other science you care to name I know that it is all there to be checked and re-checked and is open to be checked again"
Incorrect sol. Do you know the scientific method is SUPPOSED to attack a theory. Its supposed to do everything it can to disprove it.
But evolutionary science is for some reason immune to it
Look up "teach the controversy" Eugenie Scott says "teaching the controversy will CONFUSE the students"
@toobsucker "Look up 'teach the controversy' Eugenie Scott says 'teaching the controversy will CONFUSE the students'"
Why don't we teach the "controversy" in astronomy (Astrology has great points that aren't even thought of in the dogmatic astronomy), physics (heck those physicists don't even know what makes matter have mass!) and more
Teach what we have the most evidence for now. We know that evolution is a fact, the details are still being worked on, just like physics
@sol3a1 "okay then give the ways to determine if it is an ad hoc or deliberate design?"
How about an intelligence can build EVERY STEP of a molecular machine (with other materials) with physics in mind and make it functional. Or a mind can write EVERY STEP of a coded language and make it produce a specific desired effect.
The Ad hoc comes in your theory. Ad hoc explanations is all you have between the species in the fossil record and the molecular differences in DNA
@toobsucker "How about an intelligence can build EVERY STEP of a molecular machine (with other materials) with physics in mind and make it functional" that's called begging but to me, I have a better phrase for it:
"I can't figure it out and because I'm so smart, goddidit"
To me intellectual cowardice and if people thought that way for the last 10k years, we'd still be waiting for the fire god to get her lightning god hubby to provide fire for us while we huddled in our caves
@toobsucker "The Ad hoc comes in your theory. Ad hoc explanations is all you have between the species in the fossil record and the molecular differences in DNA" I believe you think an "ad hoc" design somehow cheapens us
I'm fine with ad hoc, my status as a human, husband, father, etc and my family's status to me doesn't change
Come over to ATBC, tell us all about it and we can examine your claims of "evidence" in as much detail as you like
tinyurl 4w9ugdw
or it's linked to from the pandasthumb
Or not, your choice. But just think how impressed all your buddies at the DI will be when you venture into the lions den and come back with a screenshot of your hit and run post.
@toobsucker "Trust me I would love to dismantle PZ Myers logic, which is simple to do"
Easy claim to make. Why don't you come over right now, register, and let everybody know what topic it is that you'd like to discuss?
If you find it so simple to dismantle PZ's logic you'll have no trouble doing the same for the other people at ATBC. ANd that lot deserve to be taken down a peg or two!
@toobsucker "I will when I get more time. I have very little time on line now (2-3 days a week a few hours a day) and IM on theologyweb and others."
That's the advantage of the thread based format at ATBC. Threads can idle for as long as is required and you can pick up from where you left off. Unlike this place which is more like a chatroom.
@49ui39ude9 "Again, what would it look like if a designer did it all? But of course you claim it did, so why does it look like it does? "
Science is in error when they interpret the fossil record as the "time of origins". polystrate fossils proves it. Trees are buried UPRIGHT in millions of years of strata. Fossilization comes from a rapid burial via a flood/catastrophe.
So the fossil record is a record of where the species ended up when it suddenly died. NOT when a species made its appearance
"I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have"
Please cite one of these FALSIFIED predictions that you claim should have invalidated, well, what exactly is it that you think should have been invalidated?
This could be interesting. Except it won't be as you are obviously only repeating the usual DI/ID talking points and don't actually understand any of this in depth.
@49ui39ude9 Please cite one of these FALSIFIED predictions that you claim should have invalidated, well, what exactly is it that you think should have been invalidated
Evolutions original prediction was that one cell produced all the species we see today. So then the fossil record should look like a UPSIDE DOWN pyramid. Its exactly the opposite. Gould called it the "reverse cone of diversity" going from the MANY phylum to the few. And sudden appearance and stasis throughout so P.E. is invented
Then you have the predictions that the genotypes and phenotypes should match as they should if evolution is true. This has been falsified over and over again. Species should have greater similarities with a common ancestor than a species that are "supposedly" distantly related. and visa versa.
I have reams of DATA that falsifies it
The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design. And God forbid that happens
@toobsucker "The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design. And God forbid that happens"
This is simply untrue. A theory stands until there is a better theory to replace it which in essence means that the new theory has to explain more then the old theory. As yet ID does not fit that bill.
Or does it? Can you give me an example of something that ID explains better then the evolutionary model?
@toobsucker "The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design."
Even better, why don't you dig into your DATA and provide an explanation for one of the puzzles of evolution that nobody currently has a good grasp on.
There are many unexplored avenues yet, why don't you stun us all and use your DATA to make a prediction that only ID could make and which can be tested. Write it up, publish it. Your Nobel awaits!
@49ui39ude9 "Which did your designer create first, the chicken or the egg?"
Alive is a relative term. The designer created the cell, placed DNA & RNA within the cell with coded instructions for building a particular biological machine. Once that is done all that is needed is a programmer to write the codes in DNA for a different species.
"what is the difference between a "molecular machine" which is not alive and a "replicating cell" which is alive."
@sol3a1 "As ID declares that something designed life on Earth, then something designed the designer and so on to infinite regression"
Right but why do you start the investigation of the "first life" in the universe on planet earth with the carbon based life form that had to be created via random copying errors. A much more plausible scenario is the abiogenesis of a "intellect" before the singularity and before entropy exists. If you have FOREVER for life to arise its chances become 100% or 1
@sol3a1 "We know that evolution is a fact, the details are still being worked on, just like physics"
We know minor changes within every species is observable. And we know WHY they are observable, because the information for minor changes exist in every species. However the information for huge dramatic changes are NOT on file in our genome. But you make the LEAP of faith that says HUGE changes are a fact when there is NO evidence for it, either in the fossil record or in molecular biology
@sol3a1 "and there's no reason to assume that the machine was ever designed"
How about the little fact that there is NO evidence random copying errors + any natural occurrence you want to add to the theory can create the molecular machines
And the little fact that an intelligence CAN AND HAVE designed and created the molecular machines we see in the cell.
So you understand you are not even grounded in basic logical reasoning
@toobsucker - hey toobsucker. Hope yourlittle vacation or whatever you took went well.
Nice little ad hom there at the end of your talk, "So you understand you are not even grounded in basic logical reasoning", but I'll be back later with a point by point rebuttal but you're still welcome back at Anti Evolution
@toobsucker "And the little fact that an intelligence CAN AND HAVE designed and created the molecular machines we see in the cell"
We know intelligence can design things, but what you don't have is that those tiny molecular machines are were deliberately designed and not ad hoc using preexisting and less refined copies
Perhaps you can show us how to tell the difference between an ad hoc system and one that was from an intelligent designer?
@toobsucker "Copying errors CAN NOT produce a molecular machine" not all at once
Again how evolution works is that it takes parts and co-ops them
"A mind however CAN produce a molecular machine i.e. Venters team and the ribosomes" really? How do you know ribosomes are designed by a designer? How can you tell?
"So there is no reason to determine what is "ad hoc' and what is not because there is no evidence it can arise in a "ad hoc" manner" that's what ID needs to do determine what's designed
@toobsucker - Me "Perhaps you can show us how to tell the difference between an ad hoc system and one that was from an intelligent designer?"
You - "Sure"
Then you give an argument from personal incredulity, no actual evidence or research to back your claim up
Again can or will you give a mechanism that can accurately conclude if a system is Intelligently Designed, Designed (bees and wasps "design" too") or ad hoc (where structures come from changes that give an advantage that is selected for)?
@toobsucker "DNA sequences that have NO ability to change via ANY of the mechanisms proposed for DNA sequence change have NO NATURAL WAY to get written" I'm not a biologist but even I know that's a lie: 1: Frame Shift 2: transcription errors 3: Strand slippage 4: Insertion 5: Deletion So there are ways that DNA can change That's what makes evolution possible What makes these errors stick or kill the organism is selection If the errors actually increases viability of the organism it's passed on
@sol3a1 I'm not a biologist but even I know that's a lie:
1: Frame Shift
2: transcription errors
3: Strand slippage
4: Insertion
5: Deletion
So there are ways that DNA can change"
It appears you did not understand what I said. DNA (and maybe RNA) have IDENTICAL coded sequences in unrelated species. These sequences have not changed since the time life emerged 500MYA. This means they HAVE NOT been subject to ANY of the mechanisms for DNA change proposed.
@toobsucker "It appears you did not understand what I said. DNA (and maybe RNA) have IDENTICAL coded sequences in unrelated species" no, we are all related species
"How then do they get written?" are we going from evolution, change in allele frequency, to abiogenesis now?
@49ui39ude9 "It does not "know" anything. It's a physical reaction driven by chemical constraints. Does your DVD "know" anything about the film encoded on it?"
Incorrect. atheists have a habit of making things ups
‘there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’ Dr. Werner Gitt
"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … " Paul Davies
@toobsucker "Incorrect. atheists have a habit of making things ups"
How do you know I'm an atheist? Any when you say "incorrect" you are supposed to follow that up with a critique of the argument you are calling incorrect. Otherwise when people read your response their response is likely to be to dismiss your response. And we can't have that can we?
And by the way, Mr Gitt is a YEC of the old school sort, that approvingly quote him gives lie to your earlier claim to not be a Christian.
"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ."
"We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."
Yep, you are a YEC! Lol Lol Lol Lol!
End of conversation. Or see you at ATBC, creationist.
@49ui39ude9 "All point to a designer with the mental ability of an idiot savant."
LOL... you have no ability to think critically as most atheists do not
Understand this one thing. unless you have the CAPABILITY to design and create the thing in which you critique. you are NOT QUALIFIED to critique it
One cell is FAR beyond your triple digit I.Q. to produce. But yet somehow you feel qualified to critique it. Your FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS on Junk DNA should be evidence of your critiquing abilities
@sol3a1 "Guess what! Seems Newton was wrong about Physics to!
Great thing about science, it's self correcting
I'm waiting on the Piltdown or Nebraska Man and who were the ones that exposed them?
You need to get some training on how science works"
I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have
You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?
@toobsucker "I'm waiting on the Piltdown or Nebraska Man and who were the ones that exposed them?"
Scientists exposed them. Just like science has already exposed the sham that is ID. And not only science has, but the court case at Dover it quite clear that ID==Religion.
So both science and the law have "exposed" ID. Why won't you listen?
@49ui39ude9 "You don't write them. You evolve them"
And how do you propose to "evolve" them (the DNA/RNA sequences) when DNA replication does not yet exist?
The chicken & egg problem is real and why Dean Kenyon gave up on abiogenesis. Only a illogical emotionally based mind can believe the absurdities of abiogenesis.
100% RANDOM CHANCE is all you have to get the codes in DNA to build the molecular machines before the cell is duplicating and making copying errors.
@toobsucker "I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have" yup, like Newtonian mechanics, when you find a theory that has better predictive and explains things better, you change it
"You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?" not ID as there is no evidence for it fortunately Evo has not been falsified
@sol3a1 "Any change will need to be selected for and the changes are small so you're correct random errors can produce anything. It takes the accumulation of all those changes that were selected for'
You obviously have not thought about this long enough. Do you realize you need BOTH the coherent language in (on both sending and receiving ends) DNA & RNA AND the error correction mechanisms to arise SIMULTANEOUSLY because how does a error correction mechanism know what its supposed to correct?
@toobsucker "Do you realize you need BOTH the coherent language in (on both sending and receiving ends) DNA & RNA AND the error correction mechanisms to arise SIMULTANEOUSLY because how does a error correction mechanism know what its supposed to correct?" again the reason why I went out of my way to call DNA a 3D template and not a 1D linear language
As the rest of it, the idea of IC, the idea that take away one part it falls apart has been shown to be a dead end as there are ways around it
Again, I'll continue to document your very quotable work here at ATBC, at tinyurl dot com/4w9ugdw
If your arguments are strong why not pit them against people who study this field and work in it for a living. Actual scientists. With real names. That you can look up.
sol you have completely blinded yourself to what is logically reasonable and what is not.
Why dont you start by studying the single cell, there is a lot of good videos on youtube about it.
Dawkins said (something like) "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose" And atheist Crick said "we must CONSTANTLY keep in mind what we see is NOT DESIGNED but evolved"
@toobsucker "sol you have completely blinded yourself to what is logically reasonable and what is not" then provide the evidence so I can evaluate it
"Why dont you start by studying the single cell, there is a lot of good videos on youtube about it" you mean the ones that hold that it was all built at the same time when the evidence shows that was not the way it was done?
"The evidence for design is blatant" then provide the evidence
So much for honest and open debate. It seems that you don't want to engage, just repeat the same talking points over and over without listening to the responses you are getting.
@sol3a1 "The ones with 250,000 papers in Pub Med that validate evolution vs the ones that write books that have no research behind it"
You fail to consider the "evolution" being witnessed by science from the 1800s until today was from information ALREADY ON FILE.
Its an adaptation mechanism put in place by the designer. Each species has many slight variations, each variation has a different survival benefit, and is selected for as the environment changes. This is what the DATA supports
@toobsucker "Each species has many slight variations, each variation has a different survival benefit, and is selected for as the environment changes. "
Then as 98%+ of all species that have ever existed your "designer" is more then a bit rubbish.
@toobsucker "HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made" wow again going after the original theory somehow invalidates the ones that replaced it?
Why don't you say Relativity is wrong because Newtonian Mechanics can't handle UV and explain Mercury's orbit
tinyurl DOT com/4w9ugdw if you want to continue this in a decent format toob. You can tell us all about ID then and why it's better then the alternative.
"How about the little fact that ALL CODES originate from a mind and NO examples to the contrary can be given. "
But that proves nothing. And I know a code that can tell me what the weather was like thousands of years ago, if it rained sufficiently to flood or not in a given year. It's encoded in a sequence of rocks known as a "varve". A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.
That's a "code" that was not generated BY A MIND.
@sol3a1 "What I'm still waiting for is not that you consider DNA "way too complicated" but you still haven't provided any evidence or research that posits ID as the source of the code"
How about the little fact that ALL CODES originate from a mind and NO examples to the contrary can be given. And that the cell contains a sophistication FAR BEYOND what humans can create. And that biology must incorporate DESIGN ENGINEERING principles to understand how systems work.
Spam? Sure, brush off an offer to have a real debate with people who know their stuff. Who knows, both sides might learn something. But if you don't have the power of conviction in your beliefs then, well, too bad.
So, you are calling Venter a god? I wouldn't go that far. Venter just uses nature's own mechanisms to build a cell. He is showing that no god is needed."
Cam, you are intellectually dishonest. You know very well Venter and others experimenting with transgenic animals use an INTELLIGENCE as a guide when rearranging sequences.
The atheist can never open that door of I.D. even when he practices the very thing he says IS NOT SCIENCE. it scares him
@CamW30 n the beginning (cool, huh?) single celled organisms shared genetic material, so there is not a branching pattern until multicellular life EVOLVED."
At Cambrian?. The fossil record is the complete opposite of what was predicted. Do you realize virtually every prediction evolution has made has been falsified?
Gould said the Cambrian explosion went from the "many phylum to the few" the OPPOSITE of what was predicted. when your falsified you guys just quietly change the theories. how nice
@toobsucker - What I'm still waiting for is not that you consider DNA "way too complicated" but you still haven't provided any evidence or research that posits ID as the source of the code
You still haven't been able to determine a filter that can sort out a specifically designed structure from an ad hoc one
I'd like to see that before you determine things are specifically designed
The youtube format is not the best for this sort of discussion. And if you want to talk science there are plenty of working scientists at AntiEvolution.
And the threads there get tens of thousands of hits, so you'll get to spread the word. And you can link to documents and papers in order to make your case as well as link to images.
@CamW30 "Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree"
And THIS is what horizontal gene transfer explains. HGT makes evolutionary theory stronger."
HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made. That we should see the few evolving into the many. and closely related species should have more similarities than distantly related species. FALSIFIED.
So HGT to the rescue. Just as P.E. did for sudden appearance and stasis
@toobsucker - "HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made."
Why then, did you use HGT to make it sound like it was a death knell to evolutionary theory? HGT answers questions that biologists had about evolutionary theory. Finding HGT strengthened, not saved evolution. I wouldn't use HGT as anti-evolution around people who understand biology, though.
When life evolved past the single cell stage, HGT is no longer much of a problem for cladistics.
sol and CAM ur still here!? way to fight the cause guys.
I have to admit, in the style of towelie, i just kinda got bored and wandered off
haz020190 9 months ago
toob "Molecular biologist now know there are IDENTICAL static codes in DNA in unrelated species that are hundreds of millions of years old."
All species are related in some way. The fact that you don't understand this simple basic idea (common descent) speaks volumes as to your general understanding.
How does Intelligent Design explain this problem? Why "common design" of course, the same answer that can explain anything and so explains nothing.
Whereas common descent can be tested.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
toob "So there is no reason to determine what is "ad hoc' and what is not because there is no evidence it can arise in a "ad hoc" manner"
So all extant biology is designed? That means that the parasitic wasp is designed. That means that cancer is designed. That means that A.I.D.S is designed. That means that malaria is designed. That means that leprosy is designed.
They are all "molecular machines". And as they cannot arise on their own, according to you, they must be designed.
Nice.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "So all extant biology is designed? That means that the parasitic wasp is designed" then wouldn't that also mean that the fact that most organisms reproduce at a prodigious rate as over 99% of their offspring become food for something else "DESIGNED" as well?
Wow, this designer, or these designers, is not a nice guy
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Toob "The Cambrian explosion was difficult enough to explain. Now you must explain static codes that suddenly arose 500MYA and have not changed AT ALL since then"
How does Intelligent Design explain the Cambrian explosion?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 that's easy. life was created all at once, and the fossil record supports that model.
biggbaddjohn 10 months ago
@biggbaddjohn "that's easy. life was created all at once, and the fossil record supports that model" really? Wow! That's news to everyone who does serious research into fossils and where and how they are found
If this "model", actually the "everything at once" is a postulate, shows everything at once, then why are their no large mammals found below the K-T layer?
Why are flowering plants only found in "younger" strata? Why are flowering plants never found with Jurassic or Cretaceous fossils?
sol3a1 10 months ago
@biggbaddjohn "a shill and a jackass !!! Maybe fossilization is rare today" not really but where humanity is, we generally don't like carcasses littering the streets
But even where humanity is not, fossilization is a rare event
Could you explain how fossilization occurs and the different ways things fossilize? I'd like to read your understanding of the process
"Darwin said we should be "tripping over" transitional forms" where did you get that? You do know that all forms are transitional
sol3a1 10 months ago
Toob "The shorter the time you have to get the DNA sequences written by trial and error as the theory predicts. the greater your problem is."
Could you provide a citation please. As "the" theory predicts it there should be no problem for you to provide a reference or citation to where "the theory" predicts this.
No actual biologist thinks that "trial and error" is the sum total of all the mechanisms driving evolution and your strawman fails once again.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
TOOB "A mind however CAN produce a molecular machine i.e. Venters team and the ribosomes"
So a human mind created humans? Is that what you are saying?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
toob - "It has not happened yet because there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE but I.D."
You can deny the facts as much as you want but there's no getting around that each and every one of those engines of change can change DNA.
It's like saying that water is not wet. It is, and we can observe it. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah" is not a rebuttal.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob: "We have living fossil in amber that are hundreds of millions of years old. The horseshoe crab at 450MY. the lungfish at 380MY and the list goes on"
So evolution must result in constant change of body form then? Why? Who's making that claim?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@49ui39ude9 "So evolution must result in constant change of body form then? Why? Who's making that claim?"
The shorter the time you have to get the DNA sequences written by trial and error as the theory predicts. the greater your problem is. The Cambrian explosion was difficult enough to explain. Now you must explain static codes that suddenly arose 500MYA and have not changed AT ALL since then
Whats the theory on this?
IM OFF FOR THE NIGHT
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Toob: Do you understand?
Come over to ATBC.
MAKE US UNDERSTAND!!!!
tinyurl D0T com/4psuvw2
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob: "DNA/RNA static codes will be the death nail in Darwinian evolution. "
Why do you suppose this has not already happened then? What about all those engines of change I just listed, are they all impossible then? Perhaps you should provide some evidence other then your say so. Perhaps you should write a comment on Allen MacNeill's blog and let him know why he's totally wrong?
Search for "THE EVOLUTION LIST". He teaches a course on ID so you can be sure he'll be fair. Send me the link!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "Why do you suppose this has not already happened then? What about all those engines of change I just listed, are they all impossible then?"
It has not happened yet because there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE but I.D.
Molecular biologist now know there are IDENTICAL static codes in DNA in unrelated species that are hundreds of millions of years old.
How does a coherent essential DNA sequence get written if its not subject to change via copying errors, drift, recombination etc..
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Copying errors CAN NOT produce a molecular machine" I see that IDists don't have evidence so they doctor the language
The use of the word "machine" implies a designed piece of technology which of course means somebody made it
Until you show that what is actually designed and what is not, use the term "structure"
sol3a1 1 year ago
Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure
15) gene duplication within chromosomes
16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes
17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome
18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes
19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons
20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments
21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Gene Interactions
11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways
12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways
13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways
14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Gene Expression in Eukaryotes
8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)
9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs
10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
3) inversion and translocation mutations
Gene Expression in Prokaryotes
4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)
5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites
6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers
7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob "And now molecular biology has falsified the claims by the existence of static codes in DNA/RNA that are NOT subject to the ONLY mechanisms evolution has for DNA sequence change"
Readers should search for "RM & NS: The Creationist and ID Strawman"
where many mechanisms for change are listed. I'll provide a few:
SOURCES OF HERITABLE VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN POPULATIONS
Gene Structure (in DNA)
1) point mutations
2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift” / "indel") mutations
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 - "SOURCES OF HERITABLE VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN POPULATIONS"
Hee, hee, hee. Love it! I hope that the DI boys have to write an essay debunking your examples. I'd love to mark it.
CamW30 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CamW30 "Hopefully one, just ONE of these "sheep" will actually read these posts & think for themselves. That would justify (at least) my time debunking the crap & lying (half-truths, etc)"
From this post to the reasoning centers of the "sheep"
The worst is the "half-truth"
The statement is loaded with a little fact, of dubious importance, up front so the person who wants to believe them don't feel the need to check any further that the rest of the statement is "fact free"
sol3a1 1 year ago
Toob "And now molecular biology has falsified the claims by the existence of static codes in DNA/RNA that are NOT subject to the ONLY mechanisms evolution has for DNA sequence change"
What paper did the falsifying? Who was making the claims? Can you provide a reference to "static codes" I'd like to know more.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob: "Your problem Cam that you fail to see is, you have no evidence copying errors & natural selection can produce what is claimed."
And your evidence for intelligent design is better? What is it?
" P.E. was invented because the fossil record had no evidence of the claims. "
Care to provide a specific citation to a specific claim? And show how "P.E" was invented based on nothing? Empty claims do not convince.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
"Archeologist do not discount an intelligence as a explanation for what is observed.
That's right. They look for signs of HUMAN intelligence.
Are you saying the designer is human then? As that's the only sort of intelligence we have experience with that might have a chance at being able to create life from scratch.
Another simple question. Is this designer "of" the universe (i.e possibly an alien) or outside it totally apart from when it want's not to be? And how do you know?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toobsucker "NASA/SETI does not discount unfalsifiable aliens from existing."
And nobody discounts an "intelligent designer" from existing. The thing is that you have to provide evidence at a positive level to prove your case, not "DNA = Complex Therefore ID". That might do for your target audience but it won't cut it elsewhere.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
It seems the book you are pushing may not be all that. Interested readers should search for "Friday Flippancy: The Verse of the One RNA and Discovery Institute Follies" and see why the DI get's it wrong, again.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob "This is not the case with DNA & RNA. The outcome is dependent on the sequence of the nucleotides."
That's a real revelation. I'll let the guys back at ATBC know! Bwhahahahahahahaa.
I think I just found my new sig!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob,
"Incorrect again. Read DNA Unraveled By Colin Nickerson, Boston Globe"
Ah, a Disco tute "Buy by book" shill. Been wondering how long it would take you to start with the undercover marketing. Tell you what, if this book is so brill why don't you summarise it's argument and how it relates to the topic at hand and if it's a great logical connection you might sell a few? Otherwise the screen shots you are taking to get your commission won't look so hot.
So how about it? In your own words?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
A Search for Structural Alternatives of RNA
Paleogenetics. Bringing Experimental Methods to Bear on Historical Models for Earth
Surface-Catalyzed Peptide Formation on Sulfide Minerals
Between a Rock and Hot Place: What do Microbial Genomes tell us about the Natural History of the Interactions of Microorganisms with Mercury?
Linking Trace Metal Availability and Nitrogenase Evolution: Influence of the Late-Archean Marine Nickel Famine on the Emergence of Molybdenum-Based Nitrogen Fixation
etc..
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob "In the beginning there was NO information for new body plans, just a cell (that just happened to self assemble)."
Almost. In fact I can see how you made that mistake, after all your version of the creation myth begins in a very similar way. But in fact, as I just said, the adults int the room are researching topics like:
What Does the Ribosome Say about Pre-LUCA Biopolymers?
A Hierarchical Model for the Evolution of Ribosomal RNA
Time Points in Ribosomal Evolution
Ancestral Biopolymers
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toobsucker: " Start the naturalistic theory at the BEGINNING where a valid theory is supposed to start at"
If you search google for "Program for Molecular Paleontology and Resurrection: Rewinding the Tape of Life" you will find exactly what you are looking for, hours and hours of presentations and new data, exactly what you are asking for. Tens of thousands of research hours.
Enjoy! Let us all know how you get on!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toobsucker
" The ONLY THING that proves naturalism is getting the sending AND receiving ends of the DNA/RNA communication system written by copying errors & selection"
And how long would you like to wait for such to arise? I can prepare a primordial earth for you, it'll only take a couple of weeks. Then of course we have to sit around. And hope. And hope.
And you'd be surprised what you can obtain via copying errors and selection. Tell me what do you suppose the limits are?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toobsucker
"I stated before the Scripps RNA experiments started out with LONG chains of INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED RNA to start with. "
So?
"But it seems you, as well as every atheist/naturalist I talk to do not seem to understand self replicating RNA proves nothing. "
If RNA can be shown to arise under certain natural circumstances, and then it can be shown to be able to reproduce then it seem that you don't understand the concepts associated with the word "proof".
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Toob: "This is why science uses inductive (inexact) logic instead of deductive (exact) logic. induction allows you to string together a long list of unsubstantiated hypotheticals, that IF TRUE will support your hypothesis."
So when do think the designer acted?
A) All the time
B) Once, at the origin of life
C) Other.
And please support your answer.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob: " string together a long list of unsubstantiated hypotheticals"
That sounds rather like intelligent design. Once, an intelligent designer of some sort did some thing to some thing or other some how via some unknown method or other. You think. Perhaps. Or perhaps it was encoded in the laws of the universe. There's a poster on Uncommon Descent (Kariosfocus) that thinks the "Intelligent Designer" designed cows. Cows!
Do you think ID is required to explain the common cow Toobsucker?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob "The problem is you have no evidence of a cell wall forming like this
It's been known since 1992 at least that there are naturally occurring polysaccharide derivatives which behave as an artificial cell wall on an artificial cell liposome.
So you talk about "no evidence" like you know what evidence is.
"Just the chances of RNA "just happening" to be encapsulated by this method is laughable not to mention NO EVIDENCE"
Yet serious people take RNA world serious. Why do you think that is?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob " ALL ID.ers KNOW what will be produced"
Do they? Then that sounds dangerously like an attempt to do science. Why don't you write up this experiment in detail, how you would go about it, what you would see if X were true etc etc. I await your prediction and a description of a means to test it.
Or is it just more "I KNOW" it because it's obvious, I feel it in my gut "Armchair" science. Or are you a D.I. intern filling in the dull days?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob: "The time is now when we can test the theory's validity. "
Evolution is an observation. It's observed to happen directly and indirectly. The "theory of evolution", what I guess you'd call "Darwinism" is tested everyday, each paper that comes out in the field attempts to falsify some part or the other.
It's more then you see happen in I.D ID proponents can't even make their mind up if the designer "designed" once in the distant past (Telic Thoughts) or all the time (Uncommon Descent).
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob " You can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around. "
Darwin was concerned with the origin of species, not the origin of life. You may consider it a negative that he does not explains something he did not attempt to explain, but I think that says more about you then he. You'd better let him know that you can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Toob - "I reiterate the naturalists glaring problem."
It's really not a problem. You see, there are multiple avenues being explored right now as to the origin of life. None require an intelligent designer. The only avenue not being explored that requires an intelligent designer is that of intelligent design. By that I mean that Intelligent Design proponents typically do no actual experiments or make any attempt to prove their point via empirical evidence.
Why is that?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi toobsucker. We're documenting your antics over at ATBC, at tinyurl 6a2zntx why not come over and join the fun? These comments are no way to argue...
but if you insist. You said "We can scramble the DNA/RNA sequences of a single cell and see what random copying errors will eventually produce. "
What will be doing the copying in that situation?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@ toobsucker amazing bit of mining to see what you want to see there.
random mutations are not the directive force of evolutionary progress. the element you are missing is selective pressure, this allows random mutations to be filtered, removed, passed on etc.
without selective pressure all we would have is randomly muating organisms and no progress towards new species would ever be made. However selective pressure only works because of the random mutations supplied by the population.
haz020190 1 year ago
@haz020190 - "random mutations are not the directive force of evolutionary progress. the element you are missing is selective pressure, this allows random mutations to be filtered, removed, passed on etc." I've been trying to tell them that for the past 2 days now
The only difference I can see if I called the mutations "selected for" if the change was advantageous to the organism giving it a better chance to pass these changes on to the next generations
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 lol i know how you feel.
I cant stand people missing out such a massive part of the process.
evolution is a 'directonal ranom process' (which always sounds conradictory) where the direction is towards optimum survivability and the randomness is mutations. youd think it would be easier to make people understand this but.... sadly... this isnt the case.
haz020190 1 year ago
@haz020190 "youd think it would be easier to make people understand this but.... sadly... this isnt the case" that is because their life is wrapped up into it. To see it would be the first step out of their "world view" but from what I understand the more shrill, the closer they are to reality
If you want to see more of the same, go here:
watch?v=q1-Iqt02Asg
That's where you get Evolution = Religion. Because I'm not a biologist I don't have access to papers, I can't show evidence for evolution
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 papers arent that hard to get hold of. I use 'web of knowledge' to search for papers, but only have access to the full papers when im on the campus i work at.
If you find the title of the paper you want then more often than not you can get it on a google search tho.
haz020190 1 year ago
@haz020190 - thanks for the info
Now if I can get the guy to actually read them
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 always the hardest part =P good luck
haz020190 1 year ago
@haz020190 - toobsucker keeps replying to quotes and I think he's implying that I've made these and perhaps you can assist here
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1
Sorry, mistake. they are for Cam
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test."
There is something to test. the test is a simple one.
To chose the best candidate for the origins the information in DNA & RNA. Those candidate are natural undirected forces or a pre-existing intelligence.
I have evidence a pre-existing intelligence can write coded information. So now the burden of proof is on the naturalist to prove coded information can arise naturally.
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test." I never said that
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "I wouldn't use HGT as anti-evolution around people who understand biology, though"
I reiterate the naturalists glaring problem. You can NOT start a naturalistic theory AFTER the blueprints are already written and being swapped around. I.D. proponents find that seriously amusing.
The time is now when we can test the theory's validity. We can scramble the DNA/RNA sequences of a single cell and see what random copying errors will eventually produce. ALL ID.ers KNOW what will be produced
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1
The ""I wouldn't use HGT as anti-evolution around people who understand biology, though"
AND "Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test."
Was supposed to be directed at Cam
toobsucker 1 year ago
If you want to make your case, come to ATBC where we've already spent some time discussing your arguments.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
From the talk origins FAQ, written in 1994 and still not read by creationists worldwide.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon).
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@49ui39ude9 "Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?
Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now"
You have a clear catch 22 situation. Either its takes millions of years to lay down strata layers or it does not. A tree will not stay in the upright position for millions of years waiting for millions of years of burial
toobsucker 1 year ago
once again, that tinyurl shortcode
4w9ugdw
Would just love to see you there.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
once again, that tinyurl shortcode
4w9ugdw
Would just love to see you there.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 ""You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?" not ID as there is no evidence for it fortunately Evo has not been falsified"
sol its appears you do not understand the debate. And you fail to understand there are ONLY TWO WAYS life could have originated, either naturally or by I.D., NO third hypothesis exists
If the ONLY MECHANISM for DNA sequence change (cell copying errors) does not yet exist. HOW do you write codes for machines?
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "And you fail to understand there are ONLY TWO WAYS life could have originated, either naturally or by I.D., NO third hypothesis exists"
So, if we accept that life originated via I.D how did the source of the I.D. originate? Via "natural" causes?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "If the ONLY MECHANISM for DNA sequence change (cell copying errors) does not yet exist. HOW do you write codes for machines?"
You don't write them. You evolve them. And it's not one or the other. The first replicator was simpler then a "cell" for sure. And so the problem does not arise that you claim.
What does arise is the question "If life is designed, who designed the designer"?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker A simple question. Is your "designer".
Physical.
Non-Physical.
?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 - Here are more questions:
1: Are there more than 1 designer? Even in the field of Archeology which IDists like to use as an analogy, archeologist immediately try to understand the builders of any artifact they find
2: Is the designer intelligent?
3: Are the designers still around?
sol3a1 1 year ago
@toobsucker "And you fail to understand there are ONLY TWO WAYS life could have originated, either naturally or by I.D., NO third hypothesis exists" there really then is not 2nd option
As ID declares that something designed life on Earth, then something designed the designer and so on to infinite regression
If you want to say the "original" designer needed no designer why is that?
Right now then there seems to be only 1 way life came about without going to the supernatural
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "you mean the ones that hold that it was all built at the same time when the evidence shows that was not the way it was done?"
I really loath debating with illinformed atheists
SO you have evidence the cell was slowly built by ...um...complete randomness? please do tell
sol, do you realize the molecular machines (of which building instructions are encoded in DNA) MUST EXIST before the cell is replicating?. This means the code to BUILD the machines must exist BEFORE copying the errors
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "SO you have evidence the cell was slowly built by ...um...complete randomness? please do tell"
No, nobody is making that claim apart from people who do not understand evolution except at a very shallow "DI talking point" level.
If you think that serious scientists are making that claim then please provide a link to said claim.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "do you realize the molecular machines (of which building instructions are encoded in DNA) MUST EXIST before the cell is replicating?. This means the code to BUILD the machines must exist BEFORE copying the errors"
Which did your designer create first, the chicken or the egg?
Tell me, what is the difference between a "molecular machine" which is not alive and a "replicating cell" which is alive.
Think about it and let me know. Or not, as you prefer.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Who's making CamW30 and 49ui39ude9 spam? "
Not I.
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "If you mean trusting a peer review process that's no different from any other science you care to name I know that it is all there to be checked and re-checked and is open to be checked again"
Incorrect sol. Do you know the scientific method is SUPPOSED to attack a theory. Its supposed to do everything it can to disprove it.
But evolutionary science is for some reason immune to it
Look up "teach the controversy" Eugenie Scott says "teaching the controversy will CONFUSE the students"
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Look up 'teach the controversy' Eugenie Scott says 'teaching the controversy will CONFUSE the students'"
Why don't we teach the "controversy" in astronomy (Astrology has great points that aren't even thought of in the dogmatic astronomy), physics (heck those physicists don't even know what makes matter have mass!) and more
Teach what we have the most evidence for now. We know that evolution is a fact, the details are still being worked on, just like physics
sol3a1 1 year ago
the only surprising thing is that comments are enabled for this post. Probably an oversight.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "okay then give the ways to determine if it is an ad hoc or deliberate design?"
How about an intelligence can build EVERY STEP of a molecular machine (with other materials) with physics in mind and make it functional. Or a mind can write EVERY STEP of a coded language and make it produce a specific desired effect.
The Ad hoc comes in your theory. Ad hoc explanations is all you have between the species in the fossil record and the molecular differences in DNA
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "How about an intelligence can build EVERY STEP of a molecular machine (with other materials) with physics in mind and make it functional" that's called begging but to me, I have a better phrase for it:
"I can't figure it out and because I'm so smart, goddidit"
To me intellectual cowardice and if people thought that way for the last 10k years, we'd still be waiting for the fire god to get her lightning god hubby to provide fire for us while we huddled in our caves
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "The Ad hoc comes in your theory. Ad hoc explanations is all you have between the species in the fossil record and the molecular differences in DNA" I believe you think an "ad hoc" design somehow cheapens us
I'm fine with ad hoc, my status as a human, husband, father, etc and my family's status to me doesn't change
sol3a1 1 year ago
Come over to ATBC, tell us all about it and we can examine your claims of "evidence" in as much detail as you like
tinyurl 4w9ugdw
or it's linked to from the pandasthumb
Or not, your choice. But just think how impressed all your buddies at the DI will be when you venture into the lions den and come back with a screenshot of your hit and run post.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "Come over to ATBC, tell us all about it and we can examine your claims of "evidence" in as much detail as you like"
I will when I get more time. I have very little time on line now (2-3 days a week a few hours a day) and IM on theologyweb and others.
Trust me I would love to dismantle PZ Myers logic, which is simple to do
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Trust me I would love to dismantle PZ Myers logic, which is simple to do" oh please
If it was so easy you'd be there right now doing just that
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Trust me I would love to dismantle PZ Myers logic, which is simple to do"
Easy claim to make. Why don't you come over right now, register, and let everybody know what topic it is that you'd like to discuss?
If you find it so simple to dismantle PZ's logic you'll have no trouble doing the same for the other people at ATBC. ANd that lot deserve to be taken down a peg or two!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "I will when I get more time. I have very little time on line now (2-3 days a week a few hours a day) and IM on theologyweb and others."
That's the advantage of the thread based format at ATBC. Threads can idle for as long as is required and you can pick up from where you left off. Unlike this place which is more like a chatroom.
See you there?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "Again, what would it look like if a designer did it all? But of course you claim it did, so why does it look like it does? "
Science is in error when they interpret the fossil record as the "time of origins". polystrate fossils proves it. Trees are buried UPRIGHT in millions of years of strata. Fossilization comes from a rapid burial via a flood/catastrophe.
So the fossil record is a record of where the species ended up when it suddenly died. NOT when a species made its appearance
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Trees are buried UPRIGHT in millions of years of strata. Fossilization comes from a rapid burial via a flood/catastrophe."
Creationist.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9
IM offline till next monday
toobsucker 1 year ago
"I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have"
Please cite one of these FALSIFIED predictions that you claim should have invalidated, well, what exactly is it that you think should have been invalidated?
This could be interesting. Except it won't be as you are obviously only repeating the usual DI/ID talking points and don't actually understand any of this in depth.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 Please cite one of these FALSIFIED predictions that you claim should have invalidated, well, what exactly is it that you think should have been invalidated
Evolutions original prediction was that one cell produced all the species we see today. So then the fossil record should look like a UPSIDE DOWN pyramid. Its exactly the opposite. Gould called it the "reverse cone of diversity" going from the MANY phylum to the few. And sudden appearance and stasis throughout so P.E. is invented
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Evolutions original prediction was that one cell produced all the species we see today."
Was it? Who made that prediction?
"So then the fossil record should look like a UPSIDE DOWN pyramid."
Would it? What would it look like if a designer created everything?
"Gould called it the "reverse cone of diversity" going from the MANY phylum to the few. "
Again, what would it look like if a designer did it all? But of course you claim it did, so why does it look like it does?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "And sudden appearance and stasis throughout so P.E. is invented"
Well, you claim that the designer did it all. So why does it look like it does?
"Because the designer wanted it to look like that"
But that explains nothing and everything.
"Yes, that's right. I can be a non-specific as I like because I can always claim that it was how the designer wanted it and leave it at that. "
But that's not science.
"I know. I'm here on a homework assignment from Dr Dr Dembski".
Oh. D-
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9
Then you have the predictions that the genotypes and phenotypes should match as they should if evolution is true. This has been falsified over and over again. Species should have greater similarities with a common ancestor than a species that are "supposedly" distantly related. and visa versa.
I have reams of DATA that falsifies it
The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design. And God forbid that happens
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Then you have the predictions that the genotypes and phenotypes should match as they should if evolution is true. "
Citation please.
"This has been falsified over and over again. "
Citation please.
"Species should have greater similarities with a common ancestor than a species that are "supposedly" distantly related. and visa versa."
Citation please
"I have reams of DATA that falsifies it"
I don't believe it. Prove it! make an account at ATBC and prove the primacy of ID.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design. And God forbid that happens"
This is simply untrue. A theory stands until there is a better theory to replace it which in essence means that the new theory has to explain more then the old theory. As yet ID does not fit that bill.
Or does it? Can you give me an example of something that ID explains better then the evolutionary model?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "The ONLY reason this theory stands is because there is nothing to replace it with other than intelligent design."
Even better, why don't you dig into your DATA and provide an explanation for one of the puzzles of evolution that nobody currently has a good grasp on.
There are many unexplored avenues yet, why don't you stun us all and use your DATA to make a prediction that only ID could make and which can be tested. Write it up, publish it. Your Nobel awaits!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "Which did your designer create first, the chicken or the egg?"
Alive is a relative term. The designer created the cell, placed DNA & RNA within the cell with coded instructions for building a particular biological machine. Once that is done all that is needed is a programmer to write the codes in DNA for a different species.
"what is the difference between a "molecular machine" which is not alive and a "replicating cell" which is alive."
The cell is NOT alive without the machine
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "The cell is NOT alive without the machine" and there's no reason to assume that the machine was ever designed
As for the appearance of design, I can point out beautiful patterns in strata that's looks as if an artists did it but that's not evidence
Same goes with the appearance of design
Think it's designed? Great, let's see what you have that can determine design from ad hoc forms
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sol3a1 "As for the appearance of design, I can point out beautiful patterns in strata that's looks as if an artists did it but that's not evidence"
We have evidence natural occurrences produced the designs in strata. We have NO evidence random copying errors produced molecular machines.
HUGE difference
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "As ID declares that something designed life on Earth, then something designed the designer and so on to infinite regression"
Right but why do you start the investigation of the "first life" in the universe on planet earth with the carbon based life form that had to be created via random copying errors. A much more plausible scenario is the abiogenesis of a "intellect" before the singularity and before entropy exists. If you have FOREVER for life to arise its chances become 100% or 1
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "We know that evolution is a fact, the details are still being worked on, just like physics"
We know minor changes within every species is observable. And we know WHY they are observable, because the information for minor changes exist in every species. However the information for huge dramatic changes are NOT on file in our genome. But you make the LEAP of faith that says HUGE changes are a fact when there is NO evidence for it, either in the fossil record or in molecular biology
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "and there's no reason to assume that the machine was ever designed"
How about the little fact that there is NO evidence random copying errors + any natural occurrence you want to add to the theory can create the molecular machines
And the little fact that an intelligence CAN AND HAVE designed and created the molecular machines we see in the cell.
So you understand you are not even grounded in basic logical reasoning
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker - hey toobsucker. Hope yourlittle vacation or whatever you took went well.
Nice little ad hom there at the end of your talk, "So you understand you are not even grounded in basic logical reasoning", but I'll be back later with a point by point rebuttal but you're still welcome back at Anti Evolution
3ws
.
antievolution
.
org
/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4d5ae59113fd34b9;act=SF;f=14
Let's see how you fly there.
Later.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@toobsucker "And the little fact that an intelligence CAN AND HAVE designed and created the molecular machines we see in the cell"
We know intelligence can design things, but what you don't have is that those tiny molecular machines are were deliberately designed and not ad hoc using preexisting and less refined copies
Perhaps you can show us how to tell the difference between an ad hoc system and one that was from an intelligent designer?
If you could, you'll be the first to ever do so!
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Perhaps you can show us how to tell the difference between an ad hoc system and one that was from an intelligent designer?"
Sure
Copying errors CAN NOT produce a molecular machine. there is no evidence what so ever this can happen in theory and in practice.
A mind however CAN produce a molecular machine i.e. Venters team and the ribosomes
So there is no reason to determine what is "ad hoc' and what is not because there is no evidence it can arise in a "ad hoc" manner
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Copying errors CAN NOT produce a molecular machine" not all at once
Again how evolution works is that it takes parts and co-ops them
"A mind however CAN produce a molecular machine i.e. Venters team and the ribosomes" really? How do you know ribosomes are designed by a designer? How can you tell?
"So there is no reason to determine what is "ad hoc' and what is not because there is no evidence it can arise in a "ad hoc" manner" that's what ID needs to do determine what's designed
sol3a1 1 year ago
@toobsucker - Me "Perhaps you can show us how to tell the difference between an ad hoc system and one that was from an intelligent designer?"
You - "Sure"
Then you give an argument from personal incredulity, no actual evidence or research to back your claim up
Again can or will you give a mechanism that can accurately conclude if a system is Intelligently Designed, Designed (bees and wasps "design" too") or ad hoc (where structures come from changes that give an advantage that is selected for)?
sol3a1 1 year ago
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 I'm not a biologist but even I know that's a lie:
1: Frame Shift
2: transcription errors
3: Strand slippage
4: Insertion
5: Deletion
So there are ways that DNA can change"
It appears you did not understand what I said. DNA (and maybe RNA) have IDENTICAL coded sequences in unrelated species. These sequences have not changed since the time life emerged 500MYA. This means they HAVE NOT been subject to ANY of the mechanisms for DNA change proposed.
How then do they get written?
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "It appears you did not understand what I said. DNA (and maybe RNA) have IDENTICAL coded sequences in unrelated species" no, we are all related species
"How then do they get written?" are we going from evolution, change in allele frequency, to abiogenesis now?
sol3a1 1 year ago
" because how does a error correction mechanism know what its supposed to correct?"
It does not "know" anything. It's a physical reaction driven by chemical constraints. Does your DVD "know" anything about the film encoded on it?
Your disney-land esque teological thinking is not helping your understanding of evolution.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "It does not "know" anything. It's a physical reaction driven by chemical constraints. Does your DVD "know" anything about the film encoded on it?"
Incorrect. atheists have a habit of making things ups
‘there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’ Dr. Werner Gitt
"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … " Paul Davies
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Incorrect. atheists have a habit of making things ups"
How do you know I'm an atheist? Any when you say "incorrect" you are supposed to follow that up with a critique of the argument you are calling incorrect. Otherwise when people read your response their response is likely to be to dismiss your response. And we can't have that can we?
And by the way, Mr Gitt is a YEC of the old school sort, that approvingly quote him gives lie to your earlier claim to not be a Christian.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker Here's another quote from Gitt:
"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ."
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker Quote continued:
"We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."
Yep, you are a YEC! Lol Lol Lol Lol!
End of conversation. Or see you at ATBC, creationist.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "All point to a designer with the mental ability of an idiot savant."
LOL... you have no ability to think critically as most atheists do not
Understand this one thing. unless you have the CAPABILITY to design and create the thing in which you critique. you are NOT QUALIFIED to critique it
One cell is FAR beyond your triple digit I.Q. to produce. But yet somehow you feel qualified to critique it. Your FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS on Junk DNA should be evidence of your critiquing abilities
toobsucker 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "A simple question. Is your "designer".
Physical.
Non-Physical."
Meaning what?
Energy/matter can change forms. and we have evidence of the "unseen/unverifiable" VIA quantum entanglement.
I believe God is just another form of unseen energy
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Guess what! Seems Newton was wrong about Physics to!
Great thing about science, it's self correcting
I'm waiting on the Piltdown or Nebraska Man and who were the ones that exposed them?
You need to get some training on how science works"
I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have
You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "I'm waiting on the Piltdown or Nebraska Man and who were the ones that exposed them?"
Scientists exposed them. Just like science has already exposed the sham that is ID. And not only science has, but the court case at Dover it quite clear that ID==Religion.
So both science and the law have "exposed" ID. Why won't you listen?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 "You don't write them. You evolve them"
And how do you propose to "evolve" them (the DNA/RNA sequences) when DNA replication does not yet exist?
The chicken & egg problem is real and why Dean Kenyon gave up on abiogenesis. Only a illogical emotionally based mind can believe the absurdities of abiogenesis.
100% RANDOM CHANCE is all you have to get the codes in DNA to build the molecular machines before the cell is duplicating and making copying errors.
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "I know how science works, when your predictions are FALSIFIED, you just change your theory to fit your presuppositions. how convenient a method you have" yup, like Newtonian mechanics, when you find a theory that has better predictive and explains things better, you change it
"You fail to understand, if the ONLY mechanism for sequence change is FALSIFIED, what else is left?" not ID as there is no evidence for it fortunately Evo has not been falsified
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sol3a1
IM offline till next monday
toobsucker 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Any change will need to be selected for and the changes are small so you're correct random errors can produce anything. It takes the accumulation of all those changes that were selected for'
You obviously have not thought about this long enough. Do you realize you need BOTH the coherent language in (on both sending and receiving ends) DNA & RNA AND the error correction mechanisms to arise SIMULTANEOUSLY because how does a error correction mechanism know what its supposed to correct?
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Do you realize you need BOTH the coherent language in (on both sending and receiving ends) DNA & RNA AND the error correction mechanisms to arise SIMULTANEOUSLY because how does a error correction mechanism know what its supposed to correct?" again the reason why I went out of my way to call DNA a 3D template and not a 1D linear language
As the rest of it, the idea of IC, the idea that take away one part it falls apart has been shown to be a dead end as there are ways around it
sol3a1 1 year ago
we can flag your posts as spam too you know! It's an even playing field at ATBC, that's why you'll never go there!
Prove me wrong!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, I'll continue to document your very quotable work here at ATBC, at tinyurl dot com/4w9ugdw
If your arguments are strong why not pit them against people who study this field and work in it for a living. Actual scientists. With real names. That you can look up.
Or do you only preach to the choir?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Where's the evidence for ID? "
sol you have completely blinded yourself to what is logically reasonable and what is not.
Why dont you start by studying the single cell, there is a lot of good videos on youtube about it.
Dawkins said (something like) "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose" And atheist Crick said "we must CONSTANTLY keep in mind what we see is NOT DESIGNED but evolved"
The evidence for design is blatant
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "sol you have completely blinded yourself to what is logically reasonable and what is not" then provide the evidence so I can evaluate it
"Why dont you start by studying the single cell, there is a lot of good videos on youtube about it" you mean the ones that hold that it was all built at the same time when the evidence shows that was not the way it was done?
"The evidence for design is blatant" then provide the evidence
sol3a1 1 year ago
@toobsucker "The evidence for design is blatant"
Then
A) When was the design implemented?
B) How was the design implemented?
C) Can you give me an example of a designed organic thing?
D) Can you give me an example of a evolved organic thing?
E) Can you tell me how you tell the difference between C) and D)?
F) What do you know about the designer from studying it's "blatant design"?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "The evidence for design is blatant"
The evidence for design via evoltion is blatent.
The knee.
The giraffe laryngeal nerve's winding route.
The human back and all it's woes.
The fact that the reproductive system is right next to, well, you know.
The fact that the eating tube is the same tube as the breathing tube!
All point to a designer with the mental ability of an idiot savant.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
So much for honest and open debate. It seems that you don't want to engage, just repeat the same talking points over and over without listening to the responses you are getting.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "The ones with 250,000 papers in Pub Med that validate evolution vs the ones that write books that have no research behind it"
You fail to consider the "evolution" being witnessed by science from the 1800s until today was from information ALREADY ON FILE.
Its an adaptation mechanism put in place by the designer. Each species has many slight variations, each variation has a different survival benefit, and is selected for as the environment changes. This is what the DATA supports
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker "Its an adaptation mechanism put in place by the designer."
When?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Each species has many slight variations, each variation has a different survival benefit, and is selected for as the environment changes. "
Then as 98%+ of all species that have ever existed your "designer" is more then a bit rubbish.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "This is what the DATA supports"
Then it should be no trouble for you to provide a citation to the DATA that supports that remark.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@toobsucker "HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made" wow again going after the original theory somehow invalidates the ones that replaced it?
Why don't you say Relativity is wrong because Newtonian Mechanics can't handle UV and explain Mercury's orbit
sol3a1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tinyurl DOT com/4w9ugdw if you want to continue this in a decent format toob. You can tell us all about ID then and why it's better then the alternative.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
" And that the cell contains a sophistication FAR BEYOND what humans can create. "
So who created the thing that you claim created cells?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
"How about the little fact that ALL CODES originate from a mind and NO examples to the contrary can be given. "
But that proves nothing. And I know a code that can tell me what the weather was like thousands of years ago, if it rained sufficiently to flood or not in a given year. It's encoded in a sequence of rocks known as a "varve". A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.
That's a "code" that was not generated BY A MIND.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "What I'm still waiting for is not that you consider DNA "way too complicated" but you still haven't provided any evidence or research that posits ID as the source of the code"
How about the little fact that ALL CODES originate from a mind and NO examples to the contrary can be given. And that the cell contains a sophistication FAR BEYOND what humans can create. And that biology must incorporate DESIGN ENGINEERING principles to understand how systems work.
Simple logic does work
toobsucker 1 year ago
Spam? Sure, brush off an offer to have a real debate with people who know their stuff. Who knows, both sides might learn something. But if you don't have the power of conviction in your beliefs then, well, too bad.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again, that URL was
tinyurl DOT com/4w9ugdw
put a . in instead of DOT eh? :)
"The atheist can never open that door of I.D. even when he practices the very thing he says IS NOT SCIENCE. it scares him"
Great quote. I'll add it to the thread I made for you. Come see what we're saying about you.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
You said "It's run by the same people who brought us Talk Origins with Dr. Wesley Elsberry
Can they come here?"
However there is no reason not to go over there and continue this in a better format. If a debate based on facts is *really* what you want.
There is no danger of censorship, you can post without moderation delays and you won't have your posts edited by the moderators.
See you there? In the lion's den?
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@49ui39ude9 - And nobody can flag your posts as spam either
OBTW, that was me who said, "Can they come here?"
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 ah, right, it's a confusing format. ATBC thread based format is far better!
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@CamW30 ""they can ask VENTER as he does it."
So, you are calling Venter a god? I wouldn't go that far. Venter just uses nature's own mechanisms to build a cell. He is showing that no god is needed."
Cam, you are intellectually dishonest. You know very well Venter and others experimenting with transgenic animals use an INTELLIGENCE as a guide when rearranging sequences.
The atheist can never open that door of I.D. even when he practices the very thing he says IS NOT SCIENCE. it scares him
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker - Who's making CamW30 and 49ui39ude9 spam?
sol3a1 1 year ago
@toobsucker - "The atheist can never open that door of I.D. even when he practices the very thing he says IS NOT SCIENCE. it scares him"
Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test....
Unnatural design is not needed to describe life' why implement it?
CamW30 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I made a thread.
tinyurl DOT com/4w9ugdw
I hope to see you there. Where your arguments can be tested and recorded.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@CamW30 n the beginning (cool, huh?) single celled organisms shared genetic material, so there is not a branching pattern until multicellular life EVOLVED."
At Cambrian?. The fossil record is the complete opposite of what was predicted. Do you realize virtually every prediction evolution has made has been falsified?
Gould said the Cambrian explosion went from the "many phylum to the few" the OPPOSITE of what was predicted. when your falsified you guys just quietly change the theories. how nice
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker - What I'm still waiting for is not that you consider DNA "way too complicated" but you still haven't provided any evidence or research that posits ID as the source of the code
You still haven't been able to determine a filter that can sort out a specifically designed structure from an ad hoc one
I'd like to see that before you determine things are specifically designed
sol3a1 1 year ago
The youtube format is not the best for this sort of discussion. And if you want to talk science there are plenty of working scientists at AntiEvolution.
And the threads there get tens of thousands of hits, so you'll get to spread the word. And you can link to documents and papers in order to make your case as well as link to images.
49ui39ude9 1 year ago
@CamW30 "Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree"
And THIS is what horizontal gene transfer explains. HGT makes evolutionary theory stronger."
HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made. That we should see the few evolving into the many. and closely related species should have more similarities than distantly related species. FALSIFIED.
So HGT to the rescue. Just as P.E. did for sudden appearance and stasis
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker - "HGT is just a reason to explain away the lack of evidence the original theory made."
Why then, did you use HGT to make it sound like it was a death knell to evolutionary theory? HGT answers questions that biologists had about evolutionary theory. Finding HGT strengthened, not saved evolution. I wouldn't use HGT as anti-evolution around people who understand biology, though.
When life evolved past the single cell stage, HGT is no longer much of a problem for cladistics.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
IM offline till next monday
toobsucker 1 year ago