-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Have Creationists Said That's True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
WhiteSeal
Awesome
This is definitely a hot topic, especially for creationists. I do see where they're coming from really, but the math is generally against them. Most creationists will argue that it is mathematically impossible that the amino acids made the chains and the deoxyribonucleic acids formed in the primordial pool all on their own. You see, they kind of...did. Even if God did it, that means it happened.
creationism vs spontaneous development
Asimov (yes, he wrote science fiction), wrote a great book about this where he proved that life could have spontaneously occurred and it probably has, many times (he did it to prove there were aliens).
Well, evolution is true, that's pretty much unarguable (with logic), unless you assume that the carbon dating on the fossils doesn't work/is inaccurate/whatever else is wrong with it.
Evolution being right means life started with something very....basic. A pitiful one celled piece of primordial crap that could barely sustain its own existence and whose entire "life" was comprised of floating started the chain. Saying God made that thing is almost an insult. Saying God played a hand in helping that thing evolve from here to now is the part that would make even the all-powerful blush in achievement.
You can't say everything was evolution. That's just ridiculous. Why 5 fingers instead of 4, 32 teeth instead of 34 (<that number is wrong). To these illogical changes in life that caused everything to advance from pitiful amoeba to Bengal Tiger, you can say one of two things:
1) Mathematical chance made it happen
2) God did it.
Evolution vs intelligent design.
creationism vs spontaneous development
Asimov (yes, he wrote science fiction), wrote a great book about this where he proved that life could have spontaneously occurred and it probably has, many times (he did it to prove there were aliens).
Well, evolution is true, that's pretty much unarguable (with logic), unless you assume that the carbon dating on the fossils doesn't work/is inaccurate/whatever else is wrong with it.
Evolution being right means life started with something very....basic. A pitiful one celled piece of primordial crap that could barely sustain its own existence and whose entire "life" was comprised of floating started the chain. Saying God made that thing is almost an insult. Saying God played a hand in helping that thing evolve from here to now is the part that would make even the all-powerful blush in achievement.
You can't say everything was evolution. That's just ridiculous. Why 5 fingers instead of 4, 32 teeth instead of 34 (<that number is wrong). To these illogical changes in life that caused everything to advance from pitiful amoeba to Bengal Tiger, you can say one of two things:
1) Mathematical chance made it happen
2) God did it.
Evolution vs intelligent design.
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Hela
Yossarian:
What nonsense. First off , its the Darwinian hypothesis which depends on randomness/blind evolution for Abiogenesis . So take umbrage with Charles D et al. for that ....not me... I believe in an Intelligent / purposeful evolution underpinned by the Creator. Indeed this is the only scenario which makes sense. Don't take my word for this, Paraphrasing MIT Mathematician Murray Eden ( from the aforemention 1966 Wistar Symposium ) :
And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?
Yossarian:
Yossarian:
Right like Darwinism provides any more REALISTIC SCENARIOS ?
Y
I did NOT ignore the need for abundant amino acids in the primordial soup, of all 20 left handed types, and in close proximity. I alluded to the fact that this absurd scenario, though necessary to support Darwinian Abiogenesis ( at a bare minimum ) Nevertheless... remains a total non-starter IMO.
As even the Miller experiment revealed , AA's are anything but easy to ' create' . And let's recall thatMiller cheated/ employed a cold trap just to obtain a couple varieties of AA's . Most experts now concede that :1/ The Miller experiment was fatally flawed, and did not accurately reflect conditions on the primordial earth. 2/ Modern revamping of the Miller experiment, based on ostensibly more accurate mimicking of primordial conditions, yielded NO Amino Acids! 3/ Complex biomolecules , inclusive of amino acids ( again experts are now nearly unanimous about this ) would tend to be destroyed at a much faster rate than they could be spontaneously generated, under the turbulent pre-biotic conditions of a young earth.
***
Small matter .. let's assume by some collossal leap of faith that all 20 organic AA's varieties were available in abudance + in the same proximity in the primordial soup - that still doesn't help us much . Because again we've got to choose all ' left handed' molecules and further, we got to get all 20 in just the right sequence, 200 times over ! Which ought to happen, once...roundabout the 12'th of NEVER !
Small matter times two... for suppose even all this was magically overcome. .
How could this ( pseudo supernatural ) protein get reproduced ? And How pray tell could it remain stable , outside the confines of a living cell/ organism ? Again given the turbulent conditions of the primordial earth ? This is Just More absurdum built on absurdum, ad infinitum im my books.
Y :
I dont assign any probabilities for spontaneous AA formation . Why should I ? I think this is all but IMPOSSIBLE ! It follows, that generating AAs in any reasonable concentrations in the primordial soup would be incalculably even more problematic ... In other words, impossible times impossible ad nauseam ( since AA's even if magically produced, presumably couldn't survive that primordial environment in large concentrations ) But small matter, like I said before, cuz even if we get to this point, that still doesn't help us make the leap all the way to a viable protein
Y:
I never assumed any such thing , ( although again most experts feel AA couldn't survive long under prebiotic conditions, if indeed they could even be randomly generated ) But I digress/ am repeating myself...I merely alluded to the fact that as soon as the WRONG AA connects we've got major problems/ a wortheless chain :
In nature, proteins can NOT be assembled from AA's any old which way. Theyre ultra-precise in their chemical compositions, and hence their final 3-D shape. They MUST be, since they function rather like a molecular lock or key, which must in turn be married to other protein molecules, ezymes etc , in order to accomplish all manner of crucial biological functions...What happens when even a single AA mistake is made ? Usually this spells disaster !
...Here's a real life illustration of this principle as cited by a scientist named George Wald, whose studied a crucial oxygen carrying protein known as hemoglobin extensively ( I'm paraphrasing ):
To reiterate : " The Odds for selecting exclusively left handed AA's at random , from spontaneously generated AA's ( which science predicts would be half ' right handed ) are indeed ( .5 ) ...There are indeed ' TWENTY' left handed' AA's utlized by nature, and a protein 200 AA's long, to be viable, may indeed depend on all 200 AA's being in the correct sequence ( not to mention the need for them to be folded correctly ! ) So it IS quite reasonable to say that in a prebiotic Darwinian world , we've got to overcome odds of (.5 ) to the exponent 200, times ( .05 ) to the exponent 200, to achieve this...AT A BARE MINIMUM !
But of course, I only provided a minimal probablistic analysis ( to satisfy some smug Darwinist/materialist who told me to put up ' Or Shut the Hell Up ! ' )
Obviously , this is just ball park ,since it doesn't even begin to represent the immense mountain of problems Darwinism faces. Becaause 1) We cannot envision a scenario where we would have all 20 ' L-Handed' AA's in the prebiotic environment ( short of divine intervention ) in abundance 2/ We can't imagine a scenario either where all of the neccessary AA's could spontaneously assemble themselves into gigantic chains ?...remember in Nature cell organelles known as ribosomes are needed for this, but these obviously would NOT be present in the prebiotic environment 3/ Anyway...How would this magic protein, even if produced, get replicated without DNA? RNA? the aforementioned Ribosomes? ...etc etc...It would just quickly get consumed by the turbulent prebiotic soup...END OF STORY
Find me a single scientist Yossarian...with ' CLUE ONE' as to how a protein could be spontaneously made in the prebiotic soup ? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT Kemosabey !
Y:
I NEVER said any of this was OBVIOUS OR EASY. I simply provided quotes made by renown mathematicians , at Wistar , circa 1966...( also citing their own scientific papers ) which basically trash Darwinist scenarios for Abiogenesis....
Sorry, I dont have a copy, of said papers . But I did give the particulars for finding one of them ( See : Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 21 )
Why not obtain a copy of this paper yourself? and post it here if u can ? along with those papers from those other anti-Darwinist mathematicians at Wistar ...Since u seem so consumed with probability arguments ? Id LOVE a chance to read it / them ...& then debate u or anyone else on their conclusions which overwhelmingly support The Intelligent Design hypotheses !
Y :
Whats the matter ? Is No one ever suppose to disagree with Darwinist/ Materialist positions/ challenge their oh so precious/ yet strangely enough, severely threatened paradigms ?
*********
Nuff Said ... time for a Beer...CHEERS ET AL
__________
PS MODS/ADMINS : WHY CAN I NO LONGER EDIT MY POSTS ???
Yossarian:
What nonsense. First off , its the Darwinian hypothesis which depends on randomness/blind evolution for Abiogenesis . So take umbrage with Charles D et al. for that ....not me... I believe in an Intelligent / purposeful evolution underpinned by the Creator. Indeed this is the only scenario which makes sense. Don't take my word for this, Paraphrasing MIT Mathematician Murray Eden ( from the aforemention 1966 Wistar Symposium ) :
Sorry I got side tracked...where were we ? Ah yes... Left handed vs. right handed A.A.s eh ? Well as it happens, these are essentially mirror images of one another. BOTH ARE EQUALLY , probable if assembled purely by chance , which would lead to a .5 probability if randomly produced in a Darwinian World ( since they come in only 2 varieties ) Predictably , Amino Acids when artificially synthesized by man, are right handed ' HALF THE TIME. So Why would Amino Acids if spontaneously generated in primordial soup be any different ? Let's hear ur counter arguments smart guy ?
And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?
Yossarian:
Im not BS-ing on anything and frankly, I resent the crass insinuation...A single right handed protein would indeed MESS THINGS UP 1/ because mother nature NEVER uses them 2/ Because a single right handed amino acid would impact the proteins shape/ precise folding characteristics, and IN NATURE SHAPE IS CRITICAL TO A PROTEIN, ALL PROTEINS, FUNCTION ![/QUOTE]
Yossarian:
Right like Darwinism provides any more REALISTIC SCENARIOS ?
Y
I did NOT ignore the need for abundant amino acids in the primordial soup, of all 20 left handed types, and in close proximity. I alluded to the fact that this absurd scenario, though necessary to support Darwinian Abiogenesis ( at a bare minimum ) Nevertheless... remains a total non-starter IMO.
As even the Miller experiment revealed , AA's are anything but easy to ' create' . And let's recall thatMiller cheated/ employed a cold trap just to obtain a couple varieties of AA's . Most experts now concede that :1/ The Miller experiment was fatally flawed, and did not accurately reflect conditions on the primordial earth. 2/ Modern revamping of the Miller experiment, based on ostensibly more accurate mimicking of primordial conditions, yielded NO Amino Acids! 3/ Complex biomolecules , inclusive of amino acids ( again experts are now nearly unanimous about this ) would tend to be destroyed at a much faster rate than they could be spontaneously generated, under the turbulent pre-biotic conditions of a young earth.
***
Small matter .. let's assume by some collossal leap of faith that all 20 organic AA's varieties were available in abudance + in the same proximity in the primordial soup - that still doesn't help us much . Because again we've got to choose all ' left handed' molecules and further, we got to get all 20 in just the right sequence, 200 times over ! Which ought to happen, once...roundabout the 12'th of NEVER !
Small matter times two... for suppose even all this was magically overcome. .
How could this ( pseudo supernatural ) protein get reproduced ? And How pray tell could it remain stable , outside the confines of a living cell/ organism ? Again given the turbulent conditions of the primordial earth ? This is Just More absurdum built on absurdum, ad infinitum im my books.
Y :
I dont assign any probabilities for spontaneous AA formation . Why should I ? I think this is all but IMPOSSIBLE ! It follows, that generating AAs in any reasonable concentrations in the primordial soup would be incalculably even more problematic ... In other words, impossible times impossible ad nauseam ( since AA's even if magically produced, presumably couldn't survive that primordial environment in large concentrations ) But small matter, like I said before, cuz even if we get to this point, that still doesn't help us make the leap all the way to a viable protein
Y:
I never assumed any such thing , ( although again most experts feel AA couldn't survive long under prebiotic conditions, if indeed they could even be randomly generated ) But I digress/ am repeating myself...I merely alluded to the fact that as soon as the WRONG AA connects we've got major problems/ a wortheless chain :
In nature, proteins can NOT be assembled from AA's any old which way. Theyre ultra-precise in their chemical compositions, and hence their final 3-D shape. They MUST be, since they function rather like a molecular lock or key, which must in turn be married to other protein molecules, ezymes etc , in order to accomplish all manner of crucial biological functions...What happens when even a single AA mistake is made ? Usually this spells disaster !
...Here's a real life illustration of this principle as cited by a scientist named George Wald, whose studied a crucial oxygen carrying protein known as hemoglobin extensively ( I'm paraphrasing ):
Tut Tut ...the same could be said of the entire Darwinian paradigm in SPADES . But kindly provide us mere mortals ...with a better calculation for odds of a spontaneous protein synthesis... I wont hold my breath !
To reiterate : " The Odds for selecting exclusively left handed AA's at random , from spontaneously generated AA's ( which science predicts would be half ' right handed ) are indeed ( .5 ) ...There are indeed ' TWENTY' left handed' AA's utlized by nature, and a protein 200 AA's long, to be viable, may indeed depend on all 200 AA's being in the correct sequence ( not to mention the need for them to be folded correctly ! ) So it IS quite reasonable to say that in a prebiotic Darwinian world , we've got to overcome odds of (.5 ) to the exponent 200, times ( .05 ) to the exponent 200, to achieve this...AT A BARE MINIMUM !
But of course, I only provided a minimal probablistic analysis ( to satisfy some smug Darwinist/materialist who told me to put up ' Or Shut the Hell Up ! ' )
Obviously , this is just ball park ,since it doesn't even begin to represent the immense mountain of problems Darwinism faces. Becaause 1) We cannot envision a scenario where we would have all 20 ' L-Handed' AA's in the prebiotic environment ( short of divine intervention ) in abundance 2/ We can't imagine a scenario either where all of the neccessary AA's could spontaneously assemble themselves into gigantic chains ?...remember in Nature cell organelles known as ribosomes are needed for this, but these obviously would NOT be present in the prebiotic environment 3/ Anyway...How would this magic protein, even if produced, get replicated without DNA? RNA? the aforementioned Ribosomes? ...etc etc...It would just quickly get consumed by the turbulent prebiotic soup...END OF STORY
Find me a single scientist Yossarian...with ' CLUE ONE' as to how a protein could be spontaneously made in the prebiotic soup ? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT Kemosabey !
Y:
I NEVER said any of this was OBVIOUS OR EASY. I simply provided quotes made by renown mathematicians , at Wistar , circa 1966...( also citing their own scientific papers ) which basically trash Darwinist scenarios for Abiogenesis....
Sorry, I dont have a copy, of said papers . But I did give the particulars for finding one of them ( See : Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 21 )
Why not obtain a copy of this paper yourself? and post it here if u can ? along with those papers from those other anti-Darwinist mathematicians at Wistar ...Since u seem so consumed with probability arguments ? Id LOVE a chance to read it / them ...& then debate u or anyone else on their conclusions which overwhelmingly support The Intelligent Design hypotheses !
Y :
Whats the matter ? Is No one ever suppose to disagree with Darwinist/ Materialist positions/ challenge their oh so precious/ yet strangely enough, severely threatened paradigms ?
*********
Nuff Said ... time for a Beer...CHEERS ET AL
__________
PS MODS/ADMINS : WHY CAN I NO LONGER EDIT MY POSTS ???
camanintx
Well-Known Member
And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?
While no one knows exactly why all life on Earth has a left handed AA bias, it's not hard to imagine that the particular "soup" in which the first living organism arose in had a left handed bias. In fact, wouldn't the left handed AA bias be another piece of evidence for an evolutionary common ancestor?
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Camanintx :
Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?
How would u know when the letters were in the correct place Kemosabey ? Darwinism is supposed to work blindly/ be underpinned by RANDOM mutations...the scenario ur suggesting would require an INTELLIGENT Analysis...As it happens , I do believe in Intelligent-Evolution...Darwinists DO NOT, their dubious hypothesis depends on Un-intelligent evolution...which makes it a MYTH, in my books...based not only on logical/ mathematical/probabilistic analysis...
But likewise based on the sudden appearance of novel species / lack of transitional creatures in the fossil record ...And more
Everywhere the heavens and terrestrial nature shows signs of an INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...not a blind/ gradualistic/ Darwinian one
Darwinism is NOT science, but a fable IMO !
***
BTW ( Caminintx ) it is YOU who fail to understand the precept of Natural selection. First one has to have something useful to select ( which presumably would require quite a bit of random genetic tinkering/ mutations first..
again ...
Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat
Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!
Here’s a quote from another thread of mine which better illuminates the sheer intractability of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm...
****
BTW what about the argument that DNA is an informational code/ symbolic language ?...and my contentions ( shared by many other ID'ers ) that all such codes denote an underlying/ creative/ purposeful intelligence ...
Outside of DNA ( which again I find akin to a communication straight from the mind of the Creator ! ) provide me with one example of a comparable code not made by an intelligent mind/ minds ?
Ah let me guess...No smug responses from the Darwinist/ Materialist crowd ...scratch that I'm sure the condescending insults WILL FLY
Some of u staunch defenders of outmoded Materialism/ Darwin dogma...remind me so-oooo much of religious fundamentalists it's not even funny...Scratch that...
IT’S HILARIOUS !
CHEERS ET AL
Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?
How would u know when the letters were in the correct place Kemosabey ? Darwinism is supposed to work blindly/ be underpinned by RANDOM mutations...the scenario ur suggesting would require an INTELLIGENT Analysis...As it happens , I do believe in Intelligent-Evolution...Darwinists DO NOT, their dubious hypothesis depends on Un-intelligent evolution...which makes it a MYTH, in my books...based not only on logical/ mathematical/probabilistic analysis...
But likewise based on the sudden appearance of novel species / lack of transitional creatures in the fossil record ...And more
Everywhere the heavens and terrestrial nature shows signs of an INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...not a blind/ gradualistic/ Darwinian one
Darwinism is NOT science, but a fable IMO !
***
BTW ( Caminintx ) it is YOU who fail to understand the precept of Natural selection. First one has to have something useful to select ( which presumably would require quite a bit of random genetic tinkering/ mutations first..
again ...
Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat
Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!
Here’s a quote from another thread of mine which better illuminates the sheer intractability of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm...
****
BTW what about the argument that DNA is an informational code/ symbolic language ?...and my contentions ( shared by many other ID'ers ) that all such codes denote an underlying/ creative/ purposeful intelligence ...
Outside of DNA ( which again I find akin to a communication straight from the mind of the Creator ! ) provide me with one example of a comparable code not made by an intelligent mind/ minds ?
Ah let me guess...No smug responses from the Darwinist/ Materialist crowd ...scratch that I'm sure the condescending insults WILL FLY
Some of u staunch defenders of outmoded Materialism/ Darwin dogma...remind me so-oooo much of religious fundamentalists it's not even funny...Scratch that...
IT’S HILARIOUS !
CHEERS ET AL
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Um, I actually originally had 32 teeth - not including my wisdom teeth - which makes for a grand total of 36 all up. Probably why they pulled 4 of them out before they shoved my braces on. I also never had any upper incisors. Occasionally things screw up. If things were set in stone by some intelligent outside force, why would that happen?
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Wow...I can't see the pots for all the kettles.Camanintx :
Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?
How would u know when the letters were in the correct place Kemosabey ? Darwinism is supposed to work blindly/ be underpinned by RANDOM mutations...the scenario ur suggesting would require an INTELLIGENT Analysis...As it happens , I do believe in Intelligent-Evolution...Darwinists DO NOT, their dubious hypothesis depends on Un-intelligent evolution...which makes it a MYTH, in my books...based not only on logical/ mathematical/probabilistic analysis...
But likewise based on the sudden appearance of novel species / lack of transitional creatures in the fossil record ...And more
Everywhere the heavens and terrestrial nature shows signs of an INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...not a blind/ gradualistic/ Darwinian one
Darwinism is NOT science, but a fable IMO !
***
BTW ( Caminintx ) it is YOU who fail to understand the precept of Natural selection. First one has to have something useful to select ( which presumably would require quite a bit of random genetic tinkering/ mutations first..
again ...
Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat
Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!
Heres a quote from another thread of mine which better illuminates the sheer intractability of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm...
****
BTW what about the argument that DNA is an informational code/ symbolic language ?...and my contentions ( shared by many other ID'ers ) that all such codes denote an underlying/ creative/ purposeful intelligence ...
Outside of DNA ( which again I find akin to a communication straight from the mind of the Creator ! ) provide me with one example of a comparable code not made by an intelligent mind/ minds ?
Ah let me guess...No smug responses from the Darwinist/ Materialist crowd ...scratch that I'm sure the condescending insults WILL FLY
Some of u staunch defenders of outmoded Materialism/ Darwin dogma...remind me so-oooo much of religious fundamentalists it's not even funny...Scratch that...
ITS HILARIOUS !
CHEERS ET AL
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
It's NOT hard to imagine ? How so? You've only reference a scenario wherein an INTELLIGENT scientist provides a mechanism for achieving left handed AA bias...Yup, A smart scientist can make amino acids in his lab yawn...the Creator can do that in his lab too
You haven't explained how AA's could even be formed spontaneously in the prebiotic soup/ much less exclusively left handed ones...much less assembled into proteins...under the early conditions of the primordial earth, before a single living cell even existed...
Hells bells even today's mad scientists/genetic engineers can create transgenic organisms...in a heartbeat...nothing Darwinian about that...
Apply INTELLIGENCE to any problem and u can accomplish miracles...blind alterations/chance... that's accomplishes nothing positive, in terms of fleshly biology/ nature
****
BTW the creator could surely manipulate DNA to engender novel species from pre-existing ones ( ever hear of transposons ? ever hear of insect metamorphosis ? These produce genetic alterations, radical ones...but their NOT underpinned by RANDOMNESS ...
common ancestry provides no evidence for Darwinian evolution either, NOT when novel species always appear suddenly... rather than gradually via minute alterations, in the fossil record, as Darwinism predicts/ insists upon...These signs ( see the Cambrian Explosion/ Biology's Big Bang etc ) lend credence not to Darwinist scenarios... but rather to The ID hypothesis...
CHEERS C
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
.
Hooray for entirely ignoring or missing the point.
You argue for a binomial system. Unfortunately, the probability of success in a binomial system does not necessarily equate to .5. It rarely is .5 as a matter of fact...
And the answer is....
Wrong. What a surprise.
Probability demands empiricism. Your scenario is noticably lacking in it.
Wrong!!!!!!
I misspoke earlier. It is, in fact, possible to be more wrong. Congrats, you proved me wrong about that. This is the most fundamentally incorrect statement I have heard uttered in quite some time, at least in the realm of mathematics.
Does an unfair coin have a a 50:50 chance between heads and tails. No, it doesn't (hence the name 'unfair coin')
Thank you for the complements. I shall answer your question in one word, just to show how smart I am.Predictably , Amino Acids when artificially synthesized by man, are ‘ right handed ' HALF THE TIME. So Why would Amino Acids if spontaneously generated in primordial soup be any different ? Let's hear ur counter arguments smart guy ?
Confounds.
Don't know. I don't claim to be a biologist, just a statistician.And While ur at it , riddle me this ? Why's Theres a TOTAL left handed AA bias in Nature? seems pretty strange in a spontaneously driven Darwinian set-up huh ?
if you aren't bsing this, then you are either purposefully attempting to manipulate probability theory in a self serving manner, or you just haven't learned it properly and are attempting to oversimply.
Hooray for missing the point.
How do you know they are close enough to have an effect?
Notice how time is absent in your model?
:banghead3
That is not what lack of realism means.
Realism is adhesion to reality. Your model is a ludicrously simlistic view of evolution and abiogenesis which an 8th grader could create. You totally ignore two giant confounds, space and time. There are hundreds of tiny ones I can introduce, but none quite so large as those two.
Ignoring how molecules form now?
A bolt from the blue won't produce one single amino acid, as your model implies
Sure, you can just say that. But so what? I can say the world really rests on the shell of a tortoise. You have to show it.
See above
i could tear this apart, bit by bloody bit, but I really don't feel like it.
Now then, the rest of your post is rather long, and I don't really have the time to go through it. Instead, It will pop up in another thread. [Or in another post]
24 hour time limit.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Camanintx :
Really ? what's death/ extinction then ?
If death and extinction resulted in evolution starting over from scratch, we wouldn't see so much similarity between dinosaurs and chickens, would we.
Hela cells/lab pandemic said:
You were the one who established the selective criteria. Natural Selection would be just as happy with any other sentence that makes sense which is why we have different species. Either way, your little statistical analysis is utterly meaningless.
Hela cells/lab pandemic said:Starting all over, once a spelling mistake is made in the phrase ( Darwinism_is_impossible ! ) ln my analogy...IS roughly akin to the death of the individual , or its failure to reproduce , due to genetic sequencing/ C-A-T-G spelling errors ....resulting in the unique mix of genes possessed by the organism to be scrapped/ again much like throwing the scrabble letters back into the hat
Most assuredly , the vast majority of genetic errors ( if randomly driven ) would be harmful , or at best neutral...BUT almost never beneficial ....So how could we envision thousands of unlikely beneficial genetic errors in quick succession, and in the same vicinity of DNA ? Contemplating even a single useful / novel gene from this Darwinian scenario ( just like managing to blindly spell ' Darwinism_is_impossible.') is pure fantasy !!!
Actually, most spelling errors are benign, otherwise you wouldn't be here since every string of DNA in your body contains roughly 100 mutations or errors. And since most organisms produce more than one offspring, fatal errors may eliminate that individual but variations of the genetic code still exist so it wouldn't be anything like throwing all the letters back into the hat. A better analogy would be the game where you change one letter at a time to make new words except spelling isn't important.
Hela cells/lab pandemic said:
If the appearance of design were proof of design then we would have to assume that someone intended for this mountain to look like an Indian wearing an ipod.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Miller-Urey formed amino acids from water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) in only a week and some have been detected in space, so it can't be that big of a problem, can it?
Hela cells/lab pandemic said:
The creationist claim that species always appear suddenly only serves to highlight your lack of familiarity with the actual fossil record. There are numerous examples of smooth fossil transitions.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
And the intermission is over, and my dissection continues. Look my more thorough dissection of what you did wrong for more detailed specifics.
Again, I am not a biologist, nor do I pretend to be one. I am a statistician. And I told you substantiate your claim of a calculation. Your response fails to meet even the most basic criteria for statistical modelling
I could write a long winded response to this, but why beat around the bush. I do not care what you think is true. Show that it is 'all but impossible' Statistics require empirical evidence. A whole lot of empirical evidence.
We really need a broken record icon thing.
Empiricism is your friend. Well, maybe not yours, but its certainly the friend of statistics. Unsubstantiated drivel. Spades of it
Yes you did.
Check your calculations. An amino acid exists at a single point in time by your model. The formation of an amino acid is a single event. An absurd idea (unless an amino acid instantaneously composed, hence my labelling of 'lacking realism.
Really? When did Darwinism become a mathematical model?
Oh wait, its not. And it never was.
And for my last trick, the biggest rabbit from my hat, if you will.....
Abiogenesis is not Darwinism nor is it in the Darwinistic paradigm.
So, assuming your model is valid (and it most certainly isn't.) you have shown that abiogensis is mathematically impossible.
But, as mentioned before abiogenesis is not darwinism.
Again the need for me to repeat myself. This appears to be a trend in these 'debates'.
I do not need to provide a competing model to invalidate yours.
You either reject the null, or fail to reject the null. And your position sure ain't the null.
On a more serious note, if somebody took the time and gave me the parameters, I could produce a model. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion as I dislike bringing calculus (which has an almost 100% chance of being required for modeling) into a discussion
[qupte]To reiterate : " The Odds for selecting exclusively left handed AA's at random , from spontaneously generated AA's ( which science predicts would be half ' right handed ) are indeed ( .5 ) [/quote]
I will alert every statistician that any binomial distribution follows B(n,.5) no matter what. I am sure they will be astonished.
I hope I don't need to point out the idiocy of that statement
Or to put this very very bluntly so you can't dance around
Prove that the formation of proteins from amino acids can be broken down into several steps, each totally independent of one another.
I feel like vomiting now.
What you posted was one of the largest butcheries of basic probability theory I have in a long long long time.
You aren't even in the same order of magnitude. Your model basically says this
1. Because we cannot envision a reason why amino acids formed are left handed, we can arbitrarily assign a probability of .5
2: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding can be considered independent events
3: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding of amino acids can be treated as single events
There are more, but these three are enough to demolish the validity of your model.
[quote[
Find me a single scientist Yossarian...with ' CLUE ONE' as to how a protein could be spontaneously made in the prebiotic soup ? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT Kemosabey ! [/quote]
I'll pass thanks. I do not keep myself up to date with this stuff. I made my comment for a reason. Either you were lying and would leave, or would attempt to offer an extremely weak attempt to create and define a model which flawed at the most fundamental level, revealing your poor grasp of probability.
Either way, I never once demanded you to show the calculation (apologies if it seemed like I did) I asked you to cite the calculation. Yours is too flawed to be acceptable. Even a cursory glance over it reveals three massive fundamental flaws.
I say again, cite on these legions of experts who created a model about this. I am not adverse to being wrong, I have no vested interest in the validity of evolution.
Convenient. Nevertheless, I am sure you could paraphrase one of the models. The abstracts are good.
My local library lacks this paper.
That's not the problem. Even if I agreed with you, my response would be roughly the same. Stop butchering probability theory. Just a request. i could proceed to systematically demolish every single attempt at a counter point, but I figure this way is faster. Your model is critically flawed. Furthermore, I am not going to dig up your evidence and refute them.
Again, I am not a biologist, nor do I pretend to be one. I am a statistician. And I told you substantiate your claim of a calculation. Your response fails to meet even the most basic criteria for statistical modelling
I could write a long winded response to this, but why beat around the bush. I do not care what you think is true. Show that it is 'all but impossible' Statistics require empirical evidence. A whole lot of empirical evidence.
We really need a broken record icon thing.
Empiricism is your friend. Well, maybe not yours, but its certainly the friend of statistics. Unsubstantiated drivel. Spades of it
Yes you did.
Check your calculations. An amino acid exists at a single point in time by your model. The formation of an amino acid is a single event. An absurd idea (unless an amino acid instantaneously composed, hence my labelling of 'lacking realism.
Really? When did Darwinism become a mathematical model?
Oh wait, its not. And it never was.
And for my last trick, the biggest rabbit from my hat, if you will.....
Abiogenesis is not Darwinism nor is it in the Darwinistic paradigm.
So, assuming your model is valid (and it most certainly isn't.) you have shown that abiogensis is mathematically impossible.
But, as mentioned before abiogenesis is not darwinism.
Again the need for me to repeat myself. This appears to be a trend in these 'debates'.
I do not need to provide a competing model to invalidate yours.
You either reject the null, or fail to reject the null. And your position sure ain't the null.
On a more serious note, if somebody took the time and gave me the parameters, I could produce a model. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion as I dislike bringing calculus (which has an almost 100% chance of being required for modeling) into a discussion
[qupte]To reiterate : " The Odds for selecting exclusively left handed AA's at random , from spontaneously generated AA's ( which science predicts would be half ' right handed ) are indeed ( .5 ) [/quote]
I will alert every statistician that any binomial distribution follows B(n,.5) no matter what. I am sure they will be astonished.
I hope I don't need to point out the idiocy of that statement
Ah, so they are independent? Do you have even an inkling of evidence to support this?
Or to put this very very bluntly so you can't dance around
Prove that the formation of proteins from amino acids can be broken down into several steps, each totally independent of one another.
I feel like vomiting now.
What you posted was one of the largest butcheries of basic probability theory I have in a long long long time.
You aren't even in the same order of magnitude. Your model basically says this
1. Because we cannot envision a reason why amino acids formed are left handed, we can arbitrarily assign a probability of .5
2: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding can be considered independent events
3: The formation of amino acids and subsequent bonding of amino acids can be treated as single events
There are more, but these three are enough to demolish the validity of your model.
[quote[
Find me a single scientist Yossarian...with ' CLUE ONE' as to how a protein could be spontaneously made in the prebiotic soup ? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT Kemosabey !
[/quote]I'll pass thanks. I do not keep myself up to date with this stuff. I made my comment for a reason. Either you were lying and would leave, or would attempt to offer an extremely weak attempt to create and define a model which flawed at the most fundamental level, revealing your poor grasp of probability.
Either way, I never once demanded you to show the calculation (apologies if it seemed like I did) I asked you to cite the calculation. Yours is too flawed to be acceptable. Even a cursory glance over it reveals three massive fundamental flaws.
I say again, cite on these legions of experts who created a model about this. I am not adverse to being wrong, I have no vested interest in the validity of evolution.
Well, lets see em. I am not going to do your research for you, and neither is anybody else.
Convenient. Nevertheless, I am sure you could paraphrase one of the models. The abstracts are good.
My local library lacks this paper.
That's not the problem. Even if I agreed with you, my response would be roughly the same. Stop butchering probability theory. Just a request. i could proceed to systematically demolish every single attempt at a counter point, but I figure this way is faster. Your model is critically flawed. Furthermore, I am not going to dig up your evidence and refute them.
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Mestemia:
Au contraire...as per usual u misconstrue what I’m saying ( purposely, or simply due to a lack of understanding ? ) I believe in Evolution remember ?...An INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...A PURPOSEFUL EVOLUTION...But NOT in THE Un-intelligent/blind/Spontaneous/ Darwinian EVOLUTION OF LIFE/THE COSMOS ...There’s a Big Big BIG DIFFERENCE !
Mestemia:
Sorry, but that’s pure nonsense...I have merely contended that a blind/ chance/ purely Darwinian Evolution NEVER HAPPENED ! And this debate is most assuredly NOT IRRELEVANT , irrespective of ur nonsensical assertions here.
****
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam Mestemia....I’m NOT saying evolution did not happen. I’m saying evolution was NOT, and could NOT have been underpinned by blind Darwinian forces...That’s Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE IMO ( and again to my knowledge, every mathematician whose ever considered the odds, agrees with me about this ! )
In terms of sheer probability... belief in blind Darwinism IS irrational. Seriously, Find me a single Mathematician who claims otherwise/ has composed any probabilistic models which conclude anything different...I’ll lay dollars to donuts...YOU WON’T FIND ONE
***
Ok Here’s a simple / real life analogy Mestemia ...I’ve used it before, in another thread...BUT ( assuming any here read it ) some obviously didn’t GET IT the first time
Alright Mestemia ( I’m trying to be patient here ) suppose we substitute the word CARS for LIFE in ur above commentary.
Now imagine there’s some ' Manic/Mestemia-wannabe' who’s fully convinced that modern CARS got here because of blind/random/purely naturalistic forces...I don’t know ? the wind, rain, earth upheaval volcanism, take ur pick...Of course, I’m being ( purposely ) nonsensical/irrational... But then again, so were u , in ur original post IMO
Obviously , CARS have evolved, so has the cosmos, and so has LIFE ....I’m certainly NOT denying any of this...BUT has this evolution, been underpinned by INTELLIGENCE? or by purely spontaneous/ blind / dispassionate Darwinian forces? ...CLEARLY Kemosabey that's the crux of the biscuit/ the core of our debate
Now if u said to me; ‘ the ONLY possibility is that CARS evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection / consumer’s taste/ choice etcetera... ) Otherwise CARS would NOT be here for us to DRIVE...I’d have to bite my tongue not to laugh at you...
And by the same token.....if u said to me ( and u basically did ) that: ‘ the ONLY possibility is that LIFE evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection/ predator’s taste/choice etcetera... ) Otherwise WE would NOT be here to DISCUSS LIFE...I’d have to bite my tongue again.
****
Ok this is called learning thru repetition ...so for all those who ( sad to say ) haven't been paying attention...kindly repeat after me :
When it comes to the final victor in this ID vs. Darwinism debate... NOTHING has been absolutely/irrefutably determined yet...so please stay tuned !
CHEERS ET AL.
Au contraire...as per usual u misconstrue what I’m saying ( purposely, or simply due to a lack of understanding ? ) I believe in Evolution remember ?...An INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION...A PURPOSEFUL EVOLUTION...But NOT in THE Un-intelligent/blind/Spontaneous/ Darwinian EVOLUTION OF LIFE/THE COSMOS ...There’s a Big Big BIG DIFFERENCE !
( insert edit here ) What we are really arguing here, is NOT wether something ( the appearance of life/ life's evolution in this case ) happened... BUT rather ' HOW '( I REPEAT, ' HOW !' ) it happened. Did it happened this way ? or did it happen that way ? Basing our arguments ( in this case ) on probability estimates/ logical analysis / what we know about biochemistry and its astounding complexity etcetera . So was the appearance of life spontaneous/ simply a fortuitous accident ? Was it's evolution underpinned by blind Darwinian forces ? Or does it appear that life, based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, was Purposefully/ Intelligently Designed ? Truth be told, the hard science is leaning heavily toward the ID hypothesis.
Evolutionary biologists IMO, definitely have a strong vested interest in sustaining the Darwinian Paradigm/status quo, and again IMO are fighting tooth and nail to preserve it ( not very successfully -its crumbling fast ) BUT every mathematician , I know of ( and mathematicians have no obvious vested interest in Darwinism ) who has studied the complexities of biochemistry has declared unequivocally that :' LIFE/THE COSMOS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT ! ... anyone care to take the pepsi challenge on this one/ try to find a renown mathematician who claims otherwise ?
Mestemia:
Sorry, but that’s pure nonsense...I have merely contended that a blind/ chance/ purely Darwinian Evolution NEVER HAPPENED ! And this debate is most assuredly NOT IRRELEVANT , irrespective of ur nonsensical assertions here.
****
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam Mestemia....I’m NOT saying evolution did not happen. I’m saying evolution was NOT, and could NOT have been underpinned by blind Darwinian forces...That’s Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE IMO ( and again to my knowledge, every mathematician whose ever considered the odds, agrees with me about this ! )
In terms of sheer probability... belief in blind Darwinism IS irrational. Seriously, Find me a single Mathematician who claims otherwise/ has composed any probabilistic models which conclude anything different...I’ll lay dollars to donuts...YOU WON’T FIND ONE
***
Ok Here’s a simple / real life analogy Mestemia ...I’ve used it before, in another thread...BUT ( assuming any here read it ) some obviously didn’t GET IT the first time
***
Alright Mestemia ( I’m trying to be patient here ) suppose we substitute the word CARS for LIFE in ur above commentary.
Now imagine there’s some ' Manic/Mestemia-wannabe' who’s fully convinced that modern CARS got here because of blind/random/purely naturalistic forces...I don’t know ? the wind, rain, earth upheaval volcanism, take ur pick...Of course, I’m being ( purposely ) nonsensical/irrational... But then again, so were u , in ur original post IMO
Obviously , CARS have evolved, so has the cosmos, and so has LIFE ....I’m certainly NOT denying any of this...BUT has this evolution, been underpinned by INTELLIGENCE? or by purely spontaneous/ blind / dispassionate Darwinian forces? ...CLEARLY Kemosabey that's the crux of the biscuit/ the core of our debate
Now if u said to me; ‘ the ONLY possibility is that CARS evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection / consumer’s taste/ choice etcetera... ) Otherwise CARS would NOT be here for us to DRIVE...I’d have to bite my tongue not to laugh at you...
And by the same token.....if u said to me ( and u basically did ) that: ‘ the ONLY possibility is that LIFE evolved spontaneously ( albeit honed by Natural Selection/ predator’s taste/choice etcetera... ) Otherwise WE would NOT be here to DISCUSS LIFE...I’d have to bite my tongue again.
****
Ok this is called learning thru repetition ...so for all those who ( sad to say ) haven't been paying attention...kindly repeat after me :
When it comes to the final victor in this ID vs. Darwinism debate... NOTHING has been absolutely/irrefutably determined yet...so please stay tuned !
CHEERS ET AL.
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Sorry but I want to re-cap , before responding to some of the latest posts ( which btw... I havent even read yet/ too many distractions/ pressed for time...I WILL ! )
Ok ...DEJA VU TIME :
Yossarian
Ah Yes...It was u Yossarian who was doing all the cheap/trash talking earlier...Id quite forgotten ...Well I HAVE responded ...And if u need more , rest assured youll get it ...But now, it's my turn to issue a Challenge...
Seriously, STEP UP TO THE PLATE Sonny B...Lets C if You Can Handle The High Heat ?... Which I DOUBT
Actually, I thrown this One...Twice before...and u didnt even offer so much as a FEEBLE SWING Y ?...Which leads me to think that ur Bravado is Bogus....But Hey , maybe youll surprise me this time...Ok Here comes the Pitch... SWING BATTER
Mestemia :
Seems to me that I ( a self confessed Creationist ) although heavily out numbered in this thread,.by staunch Materialists/ Darwinists...Have met their smug challenges head on...
Funny, But when the tables are turned...all I hear are CRICKETS CHIRPING ?
****
Sorry but no more time...to post today...Ive gotta Bug out...( P.S. Yossarian, as mentioned earlier, I havent had time to read all the posts, so maybe uve responded to my repeated challenge/question already ??? Hopefully, u have ...)
CHEERS AGAIN ET AL..
Ok ...DEJA VU TIME :
Yossarian
Ah Yes...It was u Yossarian who was doing all the cheap/trash talking earlier...Id quite forgotten ...Well I HAVE responded ...And if u need more , rest assured youll get it ...But now, it's my turn to issue a Challenge...
Seriously, STEP UP TO THE PLATE Sonny B...Lets C if You Can Handle The High Heat ?... Which I DOUBT
Actually, I thrown this One...Twice before...and u didnt even offer so much as a FEEBLE SWING Y ?...Which leads me to think that ur Bravado is Bogus....But Hey , maybe youll surprise me this time...Ok Here comes the Pitch... SWING BATTER
DNA/RNA is nothing less than an informational code or symbolic language.( WHICH IMO, MIGHT AS WELL BE A MESSAGE FROM ON HIGH, SENT BY DIVINITY !)
So Name me a comparably complex code, or any code at all ( YOSSARIAN ) which was not the brainchild of an Intelligent Mind or Minds ?
I am interested, ( in ur response Y-man ) so go ahead ( take ur best swing ). It should be easy ( for a big time intellectual jock like u ) The rest of your post can wait
Mestemia :
Seems to me that I ( a self confessed Creationist ) although heavily out numbered in this thread,.by staunch Materialists/ Darwinists...Have met their smug challenges head on...
Funny, But when the tables are turned...all I hear are CRICKETS CHIRPING ?
****
Sorry but no more time...to post today...Ive gotta Bug out...( P.S. Yossarian, as mentioned earlier, I havent had time to read all the posts, so maybe uve responded to my repeated challenge/question already ??? Hopefully, u have ...)
CHEERS AGAIN ET AL..
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Hmmm, this sounds much like how Muslims react when people do not "defeat" their erroneous assumptions. It is not proven to be incorrect, so, by default, it IS correct. How cavalier is that? Not to forget mentioning... utterly convenient, if not intellectually dishonest. I rather suspect that this chirping you are hearing is the distant sound of laughter. BTW: Do you have the slightest understanding of probability theory? Have you had any training in mathmatics beyond elementary school, that is?Mestemia :
Seems to me that I ( a self confessed Creationist ) although heavily out numbered in this thread,.by staunch Materialists/ Darwinists...Have met their smug challenges head on...
Funny, But when the tables are turned...all I hear are CRICKETS CHIRPING ?
How fascinating that you cherry pick what he is saying in order to refute what he is saying, without bothering to try to understand WHAT he is saying, lol. Does that even sound reasonable to you?
Hela, it is very plain to see that you have no real training in many of the fields that you are touching on in your discussions. Am I wrong in this notion? Linguistic adeptness is handy, but sadly, it is no replacement for cold hard facts. I suspect that is what Yossarian was getting at in his statements about "BS-ing". You talk a good game, but your thinking on ambiogenesis is flawed. Nice try though.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
What you have attempted to discredit is a strawman and has no relation whatsoever to the Theory of Evolution proposed by Darwin or anyone else in the biological sciences.
Since you apparently like playing games, let me suggest one that will better illustrate how evolution and natural selection actually works.
- Start by writing down the word "life" on a piece of paper. This represents the spontaneous emergence of a simple life form.
- Randomly change one of the letters to a different letter. This represents the random mutations we see in the replication of DNA. Throw in numbers and punctuation marks if you wish to make it more realistic.
- Compare the new word to any dictionary to see if it spells a new word. If you spelled a new word or phrase, give yourself a point, a new species has evolved. Misspelled words don't count against you since most DNA mutations are benign to the organism.
- If you spelled any of George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words, the organism dies. Cross it out and go back to the previous set of letters. You don't have to start over from the beginning because living organisms typically produce multiple offspring so the loss of a single offspring does not end the game.
- If you draw the letter 'z', draw another random letter and add it to the end of your word. If you spell the word "copy" anywhere then add the word "copy" immediately behind it. This represents the insertion of base pairs due to transcription errors in the DNA replication process.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
So you admit to having an entirely faulty model which fails upon even the most cursory inspections
A pity the RF forum rules prevent me saying what I think right now. We really need an area where we can swear at anything that happens to fall under our crosshairs
Anyhow, on to your challenge, which, by the way, is invalid. I made exactly one claim throughout this thread. There is no probability calculation for abiogenesis, and any model which claims to do so is bunk. You made a claim, and I challenged it. There is no reason for me to respond to your feeble counter challenges, especially considering you have no idea what my views on evolution are. Because I disagree with you, I must automatically be a staunch Darwinist eh? I will reiterate for the final time. I have no vested interest in the validity of Darwinism. Oh, and I apoligize for the earlier 'or shut up bit'. That was more than rude.
Now to your challenge.
We do not know of any other natural 'storage mediums' because DNA was the most successful amongst them.
I suggest you read my thorough dissection before making any more attempts at defending your model.
Hela cells/lab pandemic
Panentheist sans dogma
Hela :
YmirGF:
Muslims ???....Ah yes ...Guilt by association...what a clever ( read undignified and completely crass ) response ...I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m NO KIND of religious fundamentalist...I’ve described myself as a ‘ panentheist sans dogma’ ( ' sans ' is French for ‘without’ btw ) .
I believe in the essential unity of all religions ( and all sciences too...once science embraces its own innate spirituality ) all paths IMO lead ultimately to the Creator...Another way I might describe myself is : Deeply Spiritual but NOT Religious ...I don’t think I could belong to any Church / Mosque / Temple / Synagogue etc, that would have me for a member
YmirGF:
Hmmm....If my assumptions/arguments are ‘ ERRONEOUS’ it should be easy for you *cough, cough* Intellectual giants... to DEFEAT them
YmirGF
By ' IT ' are u referring to Darwinism/ Materialism ? ..IF so , I agree...that’s precisely how most Darwinists do tend to think, which is why I consider many of them ‘ irrational’ in their thinking/ blind faith in this unscientific / intellectually unsupportable paradigm ....
Notably, u staunch defenders of Darwin's ' T.O.E '. ... STILL haven’t come up with a single noteworthy mathematician, who has come out in support of Darwinism ( based on his own probability calculations/ scientific papers )...Every renown mathematician, I know of ( and I’ve named names already ) who has contemplated the ‘ origin of life ’ enigma...has come out STRONGLY in support of the ID hypothesis !
YmirGF :
Sorry BUT, you’re the one whose being DISINGENUOUS here IMo...I’ve provided rational arguments to support my preferred ID/ Intelligent- Evolutionary paradigm...All u’ve done thus far, is sling mud...while safely ensconced on the sidelines...Tut Tut...Guess you’re feeling threatened Eh ?
YmirGF
Do you ? IF SO....Why not provide probability calculations to support the Darwinian paradigm ?...I won’t hold my breath How about ‘ information theory’...are you familiar with that ? If so, I'm still waiting to hear tell of a symbolic form of language / code ( comparable to DNA ) which was NOT composed by an Intelligent Mind/ Minds...again I won’t hold my breath
YmirGF :
So YOU say...BUT that does NOT make YOU correct . If YOU think otherwise, kindly point out the FLAWS in my arguments... rather than again, simply sitting safely on the sidelines slinging mud.
BTW...Did YOU mean to say ‘ ABIOGENESIS ?’ ...just wanna be sure we’re talking about the same thing here
For the record, It is NOT my thinking, but rather ABIOGENESIS itself which is FLAWED. ABIOGENESIS: is the nonsensical and largely discredited theory that life could spontaneously emerge from insensate matter ( which strangely enough still underpins Darwinism/ Materialism ??? )
There is NO probabilistic / mathematical / rational basis for either Abiogenesis or Darwinian theory, as I maintained earlier : ‘ Darwinism is Impossible !’ ‘ Darwinism does NOT compute !’
YmirGF:
Do you mean , training in ‘ mathematics’ ? Why , do you need help with your homework or something ?
CHEERS ET AL
YmirGF:
Muslims ???....Ah yes ...Guilt by association...what a clever ( read undignified and completely crass ) response ...I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m NO KIND of religious fundamentalist...I’ve described myself as a ‘ panentheist sans dogma’ ( ' sans ' is French for ‘without’ btw ) .
I believe in the essential unity of all religions ( and all sciences too...once science embraces its own innate spirituality ) all paths IMO lead ultimately to the Creator...Another way I might describe myself is : Deeply Spiritual but NOT Religious ...I don’t think I could belong to any Church / Mosque / Temple / Synagogue etc, that would have me for a member
YmirGF:
Hmmm....If my assumptions/arguments are ‘ ERRONEOUS’ it should be easy for you *cough, cough* Intellectual giants... to DEFEAT them
YmirGF
By ' IT ' are u referring to Darwinism/ Materialism ? ..IF so , I agree...that’s precisely how most Darwinists do tend to think, which is why I consider many of them ‘ irrational’ in their thinking/ blind faith in this unscientific / intellectually unsupportable paradigm ....
Notably, u staunch defenders of Darwin's ' T.O.E '. ... STILL haven’t come up with a single noteworthy mathematician, who has come out in support of Darwinism ( based on his own probability calculations/ scientific papers )...Every renown mathematician, I know of ( and I’ve named names already ) who has contemplated the ‘ origin of life ’ enigma...has come out STRONGLY in support of the ID hypothesis !
YmirGF :
Sorry BUT, you’re the one whose being DISINGENUOUS here IMo...I’ve provided rational arguments to support my preferred ID/ Intelligent- Evolutionary paradigm...All u’ve done thus far, is sling mud...while safely ensconced on the sidelines...Tut Tut...Guess you’re feeling threatened Eh ?
YmirGF
Do you ? IF SO....Why not provide probability calculations to support the Darwinian paradigm ?...I won’t hold my breath
How about ‘ information theory’...are you familiar with that ? If so, I'm still waiting to hear tell of a symbolic form of language / code ( comparable to DNA ) which was NOT composed by an Intelligent Mind/ Minds...again I won’t hold my breath YmirGF :
So YOU say...BUT that does NOT make YOU correct . If YOU think otherwise, kindly point out the FLAWS in my arguments... rather than again, simply sitting safely on the sidelines slinging mud.
BTW...Did YOU mean to say ‘ ABIOGENESIS ?’ ...just wanna be sure we’re talking about the same thing here
For the record, It is NOT my thinking, but rather ABIOGENESIS itself which is FLAWED. ABIOGENESIS: is the nonsensical and largely discredited theory that life could spontaneously emerge from insensate matter ( which strangely enough still underpins Darwinism/ Materialism ??? )
There is NO probabilistic / mathematical / rational basis for either Abiogenesis or Darwinian theory, as I maintained earlier : ‘ Darwinism is Impossible !’ ‘ Darwinism does NOT compute !’
YmirGF:
Do you mean , training in ‘ mathematics’ ? Why , do you need help with your homework or something ?
CHEERS ET AL
camanintx
Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting to hear tell of a symbolic form of language / code ( comparable to DNA ) which was NOT composed by an Intelligent Mind/ Minds...again I wont hold my breath
First you would have to show that DNA is a symbolic form of language/code composed by an intelligent mind.