tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post342432022200092243..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Intelligent Design Creationists are very confused about epigeneticsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44871672321557090902021-03-05T12:07:49.475-05:002021-03-05T12:07:49.475-05:00LOL you're an idiotLOL you're an idiotscaredofblondeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282561195268460131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19625560292149547522021-02-21T17:25:59.664-05:002021-02-21T17:25:59.664-05:00There was a time in my life when I would attempt t...There was a time in my life when I would attempt to have a rational discussion with people like you. <br /><br />That time has passed.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39082580301715897752021-02-21T08:14:12.530-05:002021-02-21T08:14:12.530-05:00Epigenetics clearly contradicts darwinian evolutio...Epigenetics clearly contradicts darwinian evolution in the sense of the bottom-up common ancestry mythology. Asides from the fact that when DNA was discovered we learned that it is impossible for matter to create even a single bit of new information and that everything loses information with each generation, now with epigenetics we know that the DNA does not even have the capacity to create the body structures required for it to work so the original ones already had to be there, it is exactly as one would expect according to Genesis.<br /><br />The weirdest part is that the only people in the world who are so desperate in defending darwinism are angry and miserable atheists, with most of them being white males from the united kingdom and the united states, not only that, because atheists are always bitter, angry and miserable, but when darwinism is shown to be wrong they get completely emotionally unstable and have mental breakdowns, if they really believed in their asisine darwinian mythology then why are they so terrified? The answer is obvious, noone can hide from the truth and it is impossible to find peace without God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09263840046249755213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66748259827162876152016-01-17T22:07:49.224-05:002016-01-17T22:07:49.224-05:00judmarc,
“if you are sufficiently ignorant it all...judmarc,<br /><br />“if you are sufficiently ignorant it all looks like an impossible chicken and egg problem.”<br /><br />No, it doesn’t just look like that. It is like that. All proteins are synthesized by ribosomes, and lots of proteins are necessary to synthesize ribosome. There is no place to hide from this. If ignorance is involved, it is just the ability to willfully ignore the problem.<br /><br /><br />“the aiming algorithm, which worked better than anything directly designed by humans, was "evolved" through a mutation and selection process.”<br /><br />Well, algorithms are instructions and procedures which are directly designed by humans. Your friend was not standing with his hands in his pockets watching an algorithm occur. He was using deliberation and intent, and was trying to achieve a desired result. There is no kind of equivalency between what he was doing and the accidental formation of hyper-complex molecular machines.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58091202042838574442016-01-17T17:07:21.227-05:002016-01-17T17:07:21.227-05:00“kindly demonstrate the exact step or steps you be...“kindly demonstrate the exact step or steps you believe are inconsistent with what is known about how chemical process operate”<br /><br />Despite the title of the piece, I don’t recall any exact steps being mentioned. Nor do I recall any proposals for a mechanism to initiate orderly chemical processes. But you seem convinced, so perhaps I overlooked these things. Can you copy and paste the steps, and what caused the reactions to occur?<br />—<br />“ "It's too complicated to have happened" is not a valid scientific argument. You need specifics.” <br /><br />I do? I believe I’m pointing out that you’ve accepted ideas with no specifics at all, and now you want me to critique something you haven’t provided. Fox’s email address is provided in the paper. Why don’t you ask him about some of the exact steps you are curious about?<br /><br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59938174266482770042016-01-17T12:00:49.954-05:002016-01-17T12:00:49.954-05:00This is a chicken/egg problem the size of a galaxy...<i>This is a chicken/egg problem the size of a galaxy</i><br /><br />And how do galaxies come about, txpiper? These days in the universe you need stars to make galaxies and galaxies to make stars. So God had to invent galaxies? Again, it's an example just like your views on the origin and evolution of life: if you are sufficiently ignorant it all looks like an impossible chicken and egg problem. If you are sufficiently familiar with the science, on the other hand, the surprising thing would have been if life and galaxies had *not* happened. The chemistry that gives rise to life is so common and prosaic that the building blocks of proteins are found in space rocks.<br /><br />One recent example of an artificial difficulty created by your lack of knowledge is your statement that there could have been no selection without phenotypic differences. This would be news to my friend who worked on the "Star Wars" anti-missile program (and who last year won the armed services' award for best engineering project), where the aiming algorithm, which worked better than anything directly designed by humans, was "evolved" through a mutation and selection process. Please show me the phenotype of an aiming algorithm.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46364481197771323632016-01-17T11:44:53.366-05:002016-01-17T11:44:53.366-05:00Well, if you think there is "nothing plausibl...Well, if you think there is "nothing plausible about his model", kindly demonstrate the exact step or steps you believe are inconsistent with what is known about how chemical process operate. Then go publish your finding in a peer-reviewed journal, as this would be valuable information to people working on OOL issues.<br /><br />Time to put up or shut up, txpiper. "It's too complicated to have happened" is not a valid scientific argument. You need specifics. Let's hear them. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35528388671222762522016-01-17T11:29:20.451-05:002016-01-17T11:29:20.451-05:00"He openly states that his model is speculati..."He openly states that his model is speculative."<br /><br />And so it is a poor reference. There is nothing plausible about his model. I showed you what all it is involved in eukaryotic ribosome synthesis:<br /><br />"The assembly process involves the coordinated function of over 200 proteins in the synthesis and processing of the four rRNAs, as well as assembly of those rRNAs with the ribosomal proteins." <br /><br />You are trivializing that, and "nothing more than chemical processes" demonstrates the difference between science and religious materialism. The former is characterized by intense curiosity and difficult questions. The latter is satisfied by some idiot saying that “the translation machinery was originally a discovery of the RNA world”. Did you even pause when you read that?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1743329614970297492016-01-17T10:51:43.019-05:002016-01-17T10:51:43.019-05:00He openly states that his model is speculative. T...He openly states that his model is speculative. The point, which has sailed a mile over your pointy little head, is that his scenario is entirely plausible and relies on nothing more than chemical processes. No gods needed, and your desperately conceived "chicken and egg" problem is thusly blown up to smithereens. My condolences. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50712279351918760272016-01-17T10:09:25.814-05:002016-01-17T10:09:25.814-05:00No, too many gaps filled up with conjecture. Not t...No, too many gaps filled up with conjecture. Not the kind of thing you would notice.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59336474219750191412016-01-17T07:20:41.297-05:002016-01-17T07:20:41.297-05:00I gave you the reference, txpiper. What's the...I gave you the reference, txpiper. What's the problem? Too many big words for you?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55103179684147276512016-01-16T20:44:44.852-05:002016-01-16T20:44:44.852-05:00And the mechanisms that produced ribosome were wha...And the mechanisms that produced ribosome were what? My beliefs are partly based on the fact that you can't name any. You just believe it happened.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92180444248895449682016-01-16T17:28:37.905-05:002016-01-16T17:28:37.905-05:00"No, I'm claiming that accidental origins...<i>"No, I'm claiming that accidental origins for things like ribosome are silly."</i><br /><br />Well then, that's one powerful argument right there. I hope your beliefs serve you well. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88873555664348390912016-01-16T16:27:23.207-05:002016-01-16T16:27:23.207-05:00"The article you quote does not say that the ..."The article you quote does not say that the only thing that produced the ribosome is natural selection."<br /><br />So what would be the other things?<br />---<br />"You seem to be claiming you know the state of the origin of the translation system so much you can assign a probability to it."<br /><br />No, I'm claiming that accidental origins for things like ribosome are silly.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12314561604958153452016-01-16T12:15:30.634-05:002016-01-16T12:15:30.634-05:00"This is really, really stupid. You have to a...<i>"This is really, really stupid. You have to appreciate his use of the word 'discovery'. It would have been unsettling to readers like yourself if he’d said "ridiculously implausible accident”. But it would have been honest."</i><br /><br />How improbable? You seem to be claiming you know the state of the origin of the translation system so much you can assign a probability to it. Then do it and tell us how you know. <br /><br />Also, merely having a probability of it is meaningless if you don't have a probability for your suggested alternative. How unlikely is the explanation you would replace evolution with? We need two probabilities to compare so we can pick the highest.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85238900894013736502016-01-16T12:06:28.628-05:002016-01-16T12:06:28.628-05:00"You could call statements like this several ...<i>"You could call statements like this several things; canned evolutionary double-talk, appeal to imaginary influence, or just so much horse shit."</i><br /><br />I'd just stick to pointing out you've failed to understand what the difference between "driving force" and the entirety of the mechanisms of evolution is. The article you quote does not say that the only thing that produced the ribosome is natural selection. <br /><br />So you're just plainly wrong. All your issues go away once you acquire the ability to read. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18685067879827200732016-01-16T11:31:22.281-05:002016-01-16T11:31:22.281-05:00"Although the modern translation machinery is..."Although the modern translation machinery is very complex, two small RNAs, the PTC RNA fragment and tRNAs are at its core. Both of these are less than 100 nucleotides in length, and their importance supports the notion that the translation machinery was originally a discovery of the RNA world. In fact, the ability to synthesize coded peptides of increasing complexity would eventually terminate the RNA world and create the RNA/protein world."<br /><br />This is really, really stupid. You have to appreciate his use of the word 'discovery'. It would have been unsettling to readers like yourself if he’d said "ridiculously implausible accident”. But it would have been honest.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87931221830786018962016-01-16T07:40:30.922-05:002016-01-16T07:40:30.922-05:00Yes, txpiper. We know how desperate you creationi...Yes, txpiper. We know how desperate you creationists are to find a gap that can only be filled with "Goddidit." Unfortunately, scientists keep filling those gaps:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926754/" rel="nofollow">Origin and Evolution of the Ribosome</a><br /><br />Not to say that model is necessarily correct, but just to point out that solutions to your "chicken/egg" problem exist. Ignorance and intellectual laziness are not the only options. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20357394010433298062016-01-15T22:00:46.693-05:002016-01-15T22:00:46.693-05:00“I don't see how you come to the conclusion th...“I don't see how you come to the conclusion that it is not similar in scope.”<br /><br />Because it was a mechanical problem, with no chicken/egg complications. <br /><br />Ribosome assembly “involves the coordinated function of over 200 proteins in the synthesis and processing of the four rRNAs, as well as assembly of those rRNAs with the ribosomal proteins”. And on the other hand, protein synthesis depends on ribosome. See the problem? You could call it hyper-complex interdependence. <br /><br />Mutation and natural selection can’t be the mechanisms behind ribosome origins. It is not phenotypically expressed, so there could not have been any kind of advantage to be “selected for”. The only method available is raw, random, accidents. You’ve been taught to think in terms of simpler antecedents (accidentally) occurring and evolving, but there is not a speck of genuine science to support such a sappy notion. Minimal gene sets necessary for life are a baseline reality, and they are anything but simple.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69896033379883441972016-01-15T20:34:48.327-05:002016-01-15T20:34:48.327-05:00Not quite similar in scope, but I can appreciate y...<i>Not quite similar in scope, but I can appreciate your dilemma in finding something that is.</i><br /><br />I don't see how you come to the conclusion that it is not similar in scope. The solution to the question seems quite simple now, but that is only because we know it. The question was highly vexatious and defied human understanding until only very recently, as a result of which theological answers were the only ones considered. If this was such a simple question, why did its answer evade all of those supposed great thinkers that you supernaturalists hold in such high esteem? Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. None of them had the faintest clue what was happening to the sun at night. Today, that knowledge is possessed by the average primary school child.<br /><br /><i>And you think they, along with the mechanisms that regulate them, are miraculous, accidental assemblies that just happen to have a specific biological purpose.</i><br /><br />I do? That's news to me.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85050307855011508272016-01-15T20:07:31.258-05:002016-01-15T20:07:31.258-05:00The IDiots at Uncommon Descent are now complaining...The IDiots at Uncommon Descent are now complaining about "censorship" because journals and websites don't immediately acquiesce to their demands when they want something printed. I'd like to explain to them that editorial oversight is not censorship, but I can't. Because I've been banned from their website. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79419348227885069272016-01-15T20:06:04.419-05:002016-01-15T20:06:04.419-05:00" "What happens to the sun at night?&quo..." "What happens to the sun at night?" is the first one that comes to mind."<br /><br />Not quite similar in scope, but I can appreciate your dilemma in finding something that is.<br /><br />"you think that all the proteins involved in RNA processing had to come into existence at once"<br /><br />And you think they, along with the mechanisms that regulate them, are miraculous, accidental assemblies that just happen to have a specific biological purpose. That's not funny at all.<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11521186023789150202016-01-15T19:56:00.435-05:002016-01-15T19:56:00.435-05:00Anyway, it would appear you think that all the pro...Anyway, it would appear you think that all the proteins involved in RNA processing had to come into existence at once. That's very funny.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49583033945285210722016-01-15T19:53:13.722-05:002016-01-15T19:53:13.722-05:00What would you use as an example of a problem of s...<i>What would you use as an example of a problem of similar scope that was solved?</i><br /><br />"What happens to the sun at night?" is the first one that comes to mind.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55104966239518435792016-01-15T18:57:09.552-05:002016-01-15T18:57:09.552-05:00You have faith that far exceeds mine, lutesuite. I...You have faith that far exceeds mine, lutesuite. I think you're gonna have to come to terms with the feebleness of proposed evolutionary mechanisms. You could start by noticing what DNA replication errors actually do, as opposed to what the rules of materialism demand that they do. I'll give you a hint: They screw things up.<br /><br />What would you use as an example of a problem of similar scope that was solved? I see this one as being up there with arriving at a complete collection of homochiral amino acids coming from deep sea vents and/or meteorites.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.com