tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6388568611606791599..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: How can she go wrong?—let us count the ways ...Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44057764482156676112015-10-09T12:50:04.513-04:002015-10-09T12:50:04.513-04:00Ace - you wrote:
If all genetic entropy is leadin...Ace - you wrote:<br /><br /><i>If all genetic entropy is leading to the destruction of all genomes, then how come humans and chimpanzees have survived long enough to share a common ancestor while developing novel traits in the mean time?<br /><br />Has a magical being kept our genomes intact all this time?</i><br /><br />Interesting point. A creationist going by "lightwave" on a forum I visit wrote in one thread that mutations are, in effect, God's way of punishing humanity (and apparently all organisms) for Original Sin. The same creationist later proclaimed the greatness of God's design by pointing out that He had Created DNA repair mechanisms.<br />When I asked him how that jived with the whole Mutation is God's punishment", he refused to respond.<br />Creationists seem almost incapable of keeping their arguments straight. I love it!nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56615968971680577262015-10-09T12:44:21.283-04:002015-10-09T12:44:21.283-04:001. Reproduction.
2. Digestive mechanism
3. Sensory...<i>1. Reproduction.<br />2. Digestive mechanism<br />3. Sensory mechanism<br />4. Threat detection mechanism<br />5. Damage control mechanism<br />6. Intra-cellular communication mechanism<br />7. Inter-cellular communication mechanism<br />8. Extra-cellular communication mechanism<br />9. Energy production mechanism<br />10. Endo-symbiosis.<br /><br />None of the above can be explains without reference to intelligence.<br /><br />NONE of them! </i><br /><br />Please demonstrate this to my satisfaction.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86610921096695008442015-10-06T23:17:46.670-04:002015-10-06T23:17:46.670-04:00Peepee peeps: "It took you YEARS to figure ou...<i>Peepee peeps: "It took you YEARS to figure out the coding of CEBPA ? It only has 3 start methionines with good Kozak sequences - and all proteins are in the same frame !"<br /><br />This indeed shows you are not a scientist. You probably know a bit of in silico sequences, but to identify how the code works in vivo is rather elaborate, peepee. It needs hundreds of experiments. In particular because the detection of the proteins is so hard.</i><br /><br />I have cloned and sequences almost a dozen genes.<br /><br /><i>That is why the "junk DNA" of the Darwinians is such a hopeless and non-scientific approach to unknown sequences.</i><br /><br />RiiIIiiiIIIight ! Just imagine a function for all of it and prance about like you be a genius and HOPE people fall for your act.<br /><br />Given mutation rates, mutations to junk DNA would be MORE devastasting to health than mutations to 'mere' coding regions.<br /><br /><i>Tell me, peepee, how do you identify unique functional code in the human genome with your big fat computer?</i><br /><br />By not presuming there is a code there in the first place, and letting EVIDENCE show whether a pattern I see actually means something.<br /><br />Codes do not need an external intelligence to install them.<br /><br /><i>You cannot because you are miles away from an experiment. Go to the wetlab and design AND perform an experiment, before you start peeping again. Thanks.</i><br /><br />Did it 20+ years ago - I cloned the cubitus interruptus gene from Drosophila melanogaster by taking advantage of the fact that the mutation was caused by the insertion of a gypsy element (a retrotranson) into the regulatory region.<br /><br />Initiating standard blowhard posturing : <br /><i>The problem nowadays: belief in in silico models, rather than in observations. The observations killed NeoDarwinism, any kind of evolution by random mutations. That the hard facts you have to live with. So they turn to in silico models.</i><br /><br />The mutations are random, but selection isn't. Why is it that most gibbering creationuts, IDiots and theoloons ALWAYS overlook that part ?<br /><br />Oh, right - it negates the need for a Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer' to explain things.<br /><br /><i>But I understand why you are so upset: Biology killed your god. Too bad. But don't blame me or the creationist...blame science.</i><br /><br />'Interesting' delusion there PB !<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334704093482459074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-846140463375988422015-10-06T23:16:01.005-04:002015-10-06T23:16:01.005-04:00Peer stamps his foot and screams :
Yes, peepee, y...Peer stamps his foot and screams : <br /><i>Yes, peepee, you are unscientific. And not even updated unscientific, but completely out of date and out of data.<br /><br />There is so much evidence that TEs are simply a part of the regulatory genome and not the remnants of viruses.<br /> It is just the opposite: RNA virsue simply have their origin in TEs. To be precise in what has been coinde retro-transposons. There is ample evidence for this view. For instance, the RSV virus. It is trasposon machinery is almost identical to that of an endogenous ERV-H, but it has picked up small part (the on-switch) of the proto-onco known as SRC. Thus it became an oncovirus. A harmless variation-inducing genetic element transformed (evolved if you like that word better) into an RNA virus.</i><br /><br />Or, as sane and rational folk believe : the RNA virus picked up a bit of genomic DNA when it moved.<br /><br />What is your 'explanation' for the FACT that there are millions of copies of Alu elements littered throughout the genome ?<br /><br />Oh, right - they were directly installed as is by the Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent' Designer ...<br /><br /><i>You, together with all the nonsense-sellers here, believe that RNA virusen are from space. Or leftovers from an utterly hypothetical RNA world (which there is not a scintilla of evidence).</i><br /><br />The ribosome is a riboZYME that interacts with mRNA and tRNA. <br /><br />You 'explanation' is what again ?<br /><br />Oh, right - an unknowable being somehow DIDIT !!1!!1!11!!11!11!11!!1<br /><br /><i>I do not need the RNA world or out-of-space stories to explain RNA viruses. Belief in the unseen and undemonstrable is nice, but it is not science.</i><br /><br />Accurate description of your 'model' of quasi-magical transposable elements leaping about the genome to generate mutations at need.<br /><br /><i>But anyway, as a non-scientist you may not understand what I mean.</i><br /><br />I have a Master's degree and 20+ years experience working with DNA. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334704093482459074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77659528372432667712015-10-06T22:28:24.932-04:002015-10-06T22:28:24.932-04:00"{That is why the "junk DNA" of the..."{That is why the "junk DNA" of the Darwinians is such a hopeless and non-scientific approach to unknown sequences."<br /><br />Peer,<br />The level of nonfunctional DNA in a genome says nothing whatsoever about the validity of evolutionary theory.<br /><br />"Biology killed your god. "<br /><br />Stop projecting.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46754746138516957302015-10-06T22:03:49.398-04:002015-10-06T22:03:49.398-04:00Yes Steve, I know you used quotation marks around ...Yes Steve, I know you used quotation marks around "realize." That does not take away the stupidity of your "questions."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71548564353483660362015-10-06T21:59:49.436-04:002015-10-06T21:59:49.436-04:00Steve,
As I said, these "questions" are...Steve,<br /><br />As I said, these "questions" are easy to answer. the answer is that your questions are nonsensical. they reveal that you have no idea what life is, how it works, and what evolution is.<br /><br />Take a look at your "hard" questions yourself:<br /><br /><i>When did the first organism "realize" it would eventually die?</i><br /><br />This has no meaning whatsoever. What makes you think that the first organism had to realize of such a thing? How is this playing in your mind? Do you think that we "believe" that the first organism had to realize about anything? What exactly makes you think that? As it stands, your "question" is pure nonsense. Mere stupidity in display.<br /><br /><i>When did it 'realize' it would need to do something about death?</i><br /><br />Just like above. What the hell are you thinking here Steve? Be very clear and specific. As it stands, it reveals that you have no idea about how life works, what it does, and huge etc. Man, it looks as if you've never seen what's just around you.<br /><br /><i>When did it 'realize' the solution it would needis to reproduce? When did it "realize" it had to eat?</i><br /><br />See what I mean? Life is a phenomenon that includes such things as eating and reproducing. Organisms never had to "realize" such things because those things are part and parcel with life. Your questions are like asking when did the volcano learn that it was accumulating pressure? How did the volcano realize that the solution was to break and let go of the lava?<br /><br />Yes, you're that astoundingly stupid. Did you realize already?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24833014965368132452015-10-06T17:54:44.707-04:002015-10-06T17:54:44.707-04:00I wasn't complaining about name calling. That&...I wasn't complaining about name calling. That's fair game. I can take it as well as dish it out.<br /><br />What I complained about was that was all that happened. There was no serious attempt to understand the science and discuss the evidence. <br /><br />I shouldn't have been surprised since that's typical creationist behavior. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25087325374948526412015-10-06T14:34:20.189-04:002015-10-06T14:34:20.189-04:00"What happened was that the vast majority of ..."What happened was that the vast majority of commenters on Uncommon Descent called me names."<br /><br />Cry me a river! When you quit being a name caller, you can scold others for calling you names.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50507771586448098252015-10-06T10:45:01.598-04:002015-10-06T10:45:01.598-04:00LOL :-)LOL :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18532143710268005592015-10-06T04:53:11.980-04:002015-10-06T04:53:11.980-04:00Explain the above list of designed object without ...<i>Explain the above list of designed object without reference to intelligence</i><br /><br />They were not designed. Done. You're welcomeDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84516231933592007992015-10-06T04:47:59.283-04:002015-10-06T04:47:59.283-04:00> BTW, there is diddly squat in the way of evid...> BTW, there is diddly squat in the way of evidence for unintelligent evolution. <br /><br />Steve I get the feeling that if I gave you evidence for evolution, you would just slap the word "intelligent" in front of it and say "but that's also evidence for intelligent evolution".<br /><br />In any case if you're going to make the claim that a magical invisible man guided evolution each step of the way, then you are the one that will need to provide evidence for that.<br /><br />All I presume are the things we are already familiar with - the natural forces we see around us today. Pointing out "flaws" in a theory doesn't make what you're doing science. You need to propose an alternative and then suggest a way that this alternative can be tested.<br /><br />There are plenty of hypotheses for the origin of sexual reproduction. The problem isn't that we think these are all too unlikely to have evolved with out a magical being waving a wand. The problem is that all scientific ideas need to be tested (something IDists haven't cottoned on to yet) and it's kind of difficult to test the evolution of sexual reproduction given the time scales that we work with in the lab.<br /><br />So right off the bat - in your first point we see that you are talking shit. Given that you can't even take 2 seconds to Google a problem, I don't see why it is worth my time to do all your homework for you. Your gish-gallop won't work here - I'll let you find out for yourself what the current hypotheses are for the other points you listed.Aceofspadeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09534611408824723712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24805425115344494002015-10-06T04:38:16.841-04:002015-10-06T04:38:16.841-04:00But Steve ... you already assume these 'object...But Steve ... you already assume these 'objects' to be designed ... that is not how questions work.<br /><br />Also, you seem to confuse the engineering definition of 'mechanism' with the biological one (see top two items at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism )Eelco van Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766626420689307304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8792466432078323502015-10-06T04:17:39.024-04:002015-10-06T04:17:39.024-04:00OK, photo. Here's your chance to answer thos...OK, photo. Here's your chance to answer those simple questions.<br /><br />Explain the above list of designed object without reference to intelligence.<br /><br />But WAIT....i gotta go to 7-11 for the popcorn first. So you've a got a few minutes headstart.<br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48159433408620979292015-10-06T04:15:32.280-04:002015-10-06T04:15:32.280-04:00Hence ACE, the quotation marks around "realiz...Hence ACE, the quotation marks around "realize". Duh.<br /><br />Evolution without reference to intelligence explains only the most superficial of observations.<br /><br />BTW, there is diddly squat in the way of evidence for unintelligent evolution. Evolution has been forced to co-opt a slew of designed objects to make any attempt at an explanation.<br /><br />And these are a good sample of the designed objects which evolution tries to claim for itself....well because....it has not other choice:<br /><br />1. Reproduction.<br />2. Digestive mechanism<br />3. Sensory mechanism<br />4. Threat detection mechanism<br />5. Damage control mechanism<br />6. Intra-cellular communication mechanism<br />7. Inter-cellular communication mechanism<br />8. Extra-cellular communication mechanism<br />9. Energy production mechanism<br />10. Endo-symbiosis.<br /><br />None of the above can be explains without reference to intelligence.<br /><br />NONE of them! <br /><br /><br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84113143965479605942015-10-03T18:56:17.287-04:002015-10-03T18:56:17.287-04:00I never realized that "material stuff" i...I never realized that "material stuff" is now off-limits in science. But I have a feeling that your new rule only applies to a certain theory that further states:<br /><br /><i>At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.<br /><br />For machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.<br /><br />For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.</i>Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12635610479061604922015-10-03T18:30:54.104-04:002015-10-03T18:30:54.104-04:00And as I already told you, that's even worse. ...And as I already told you, that's even worse. Not only you tie "intelligence" to "motor muscles", "sensory sensors" and all kind of material stuff, you also claim that the designer's confidence decreases as he fails. <br /><br />But of course if you believe in a god that created you in his own image, a god that fails certainly fits the bill, LOLDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76083571369536941782015-10-03T18:01:49.100-04:002015-10-03T18:01:49.100-04:00Then after that the theory states:
Reciprocal cau...Then after that the theory states:<br /><br /><i>Reciprocal cause/causation goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These communicative behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.<br /><br />Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”. </i>Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41378989373825043402015-10-03T17:41:59.574-04:002015-10-03T17:41:59.574-04:00But what is more damning for your "theory&quo...But what is more damning for your "theory", as already pointed out at antievolution.org, is that neither Molecular, Cellular or Multicellular Level Intelligence allow for any kind of disembodied Intelligent Designer, AKA God. You're essentially shooting yourself in the foot, it's plain to see, unless you're an IDiot, of courseDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23502811016928705112015-10-03T17:36:10.844-04:002015-10-03T17:36:10.844-04:00I don't give a rats ass for your nonsensical d...I don't give a rats ass for your nonsensical drivel about biological "intelligent cause".<br /><br />Theories and hypothesis need explanatory power, and evidence to back them up. You have none of that and nobody cares if you think it's ok to call that a premise to part with the burden of proof you retard. Dazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46662490533481456252015-10-03T17:15:39.264-04:002015-10-03T17:15:39.264-04:00Dazz, you are so "dense" that at this po...Dazz, you are so "dense" that at this point I could consider you a lost cause. But it's easy enough to show what the premise looks like after adding theory that explains how biological "intelligent cause" works, which begins by stating the following:<br /><br /><i>The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:<br /><br />[1] Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).<br /><br />[2] Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).<br /><br />[3] Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life, where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.</i>Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81387812604316374642015-10-03T17:06:18.317-04:002015-10-03T17:06:18.317-04:00Damn, we need an edit button. Everyone please excu...Damn, we need an edit button. Everyone please excuse my terrible wording thereDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67744478517726557172015-10-03T17:04:39.126-04:002015-10-03T17:04:39.126-04:00So by calling it "premise" you accept as...So by calling it "premise" you accept as true, without needing to prove it, that ID is the best explanation for "certain features" of the universe. How is that scientific? Fail #1<br /><br />And read that definition of theory again: <br /><br />An <b>explanation</b> of <b>how</b> something works or happened<br /><br />Claiming that "certain features" are best explained by design is not explaining how or what anything was designed. So it's not a theory, it's just your stupid, unscientific premise that doesn't explain anything.<br /><br />And no, your retard lab doesn't explain anything eitherDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59583721067109139322015-10-03T16:57:08.887-04:002015-10-03T16:57:08.887-04:00Hypothesis: An idea you can test.
Premise: A stat...Hypothesis: An idea you can test.<br /><br />Premise: A statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument.<br /><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise" rel="nofollow">merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise</a><br /><br />Theory: An explanation of how something works or happened. <br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11207187153447863002015-10-03T16:26:36.876-04:002015-10-03T16:26:36.876-04:00You don't even understand the difference betwe...You don't even understand the difference between premises and hypothesis. smfhDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.com