tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3142595510257361371..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A refreshing admission on Uncommon DescentLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30693635739586561102016-08-27T21:14:22.829-04:002016-08-27T21:14:22.829-04:00And that granddaughter was Albert Einstein.And that granddaughter was Albert Einstein.flounderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17732961315016540215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23885240040157011832016-08-17T21:15:21.589-04:002016-08-17T21:15:21.589-04:00It's only a quote mine if there is a larger co...It's only a quote mine if there is a larger context where the above has a different interpretation.<br /><br />I suspect that no such context exists.<br /><br />And speaking of quote mines ...<br /><br />Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byerssteve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62797115670750169432016-08-16T17:56:48.452-04:002016-08-16T17:56:48.452-04:00OK. I'm going to give away some money. Not my ...OK. I'm going to give away some money. Not my own money but some money.<br />I don't have any money. I'm renewing my mortgage and the bank made my cry.<br /><br />Here is the interesting thing. Some retired wealthy people may be willing to sponsor experiments that could lead to the revelations of the origins of life. I don't know these people personally but some of them had sponsored $2 million projects so, they may be in for real...I don't know. <br /><br />Actually I have a retiring colleague who inherited some money and he might like to put it into a good cause. He loves animals though, so it maybe difficult to convince him to sponsor experiments without any hope. Maybe someone can convince that it is worth it? I can't. I'm sorry. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63999607750545047062016-08-15T18:24:29.599-04:002016-08-15T18:24:29.599-04:00No evidence in the whole world will convince one t...No evidence in the whole world will convince one to believe otherwise if he/she has already made up his or her mind.<br /><br />In real world one can't argue with YEC's like Robert Bobbies who has not idea what he believes in but his beliefs put him too much apart form Darwin Lions. When I read Robert's arguments and the Darwinian Police they seem to sound the same. No logic. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4506312613985082722016-08-15T11:02:00.110-04:002016-08-15T11:02:00.110-04:00We need to meme it.We need to meme it.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33602488508811315622016-08-15T07:12:11.871-04:002016-08-15T07:12:11.871-04:00Well, I don't know what "triggering the D...Well, I don't know what "triggering the DNA" means and I doubt you do either.<br />But, rather than being opposed to the idea of evolution, it appears you recognize that a young earth scenario would not provide enough time for currently described mechanisms to effect the morphological changes observed.<br /><br />You know, many people have become famous for revolutionary new ideas not because of their own experimental efforts necessarily, but because they recognized that existing data could not be explained by a currently accepted idea or model.<br />Amongst your YEC crowd, it sounds like you have an opportunity to be the first to propose that the evidence does not support the commonly held young earth scenario. This, most likely because of the not-implaubible possibility that humans have misinterpreted either the importance of, or substance of, scripture. <br /><br />Since you already accept evolution of a sort (and I imagine many YECs do not), you could well be on the way to being a revolutionary thinker at least in your YEC sphere. <br /><br />Or, like the rest, you could continue to claim that the data must conform to a young earth scenario.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2451000380461145852016-08-14T22:38:49.665-04:002016-08-14T22:38:49.665-04:00First comes the insight that marine mammals were f...First comes the insight that marine mammals were first land creatures who after the flood adapted to empty seas. <br />Then mechanism must be figured out. Evolutionism is a impossible mechanism, as I see it , and eventually everyone.<br />In fact people seeing the results does indeed persuade them evolution is true. A careless analysis.<br />Whether people or critters biological change came from quick triggering mechanisms after thresholds were crossed that triggered the dna. Thats what it must be.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-663440890295529502016-08-14T17:21:11.585-04:002016-08-14T17:21:11.585-04:00" What requirements of the above do you think..." What requirements of the above do you think you can remove and still have an energy converting self replicating organism?"<br /><br />Bill, this question is irrelevant to my point. It is the argument Otangelo wants to have, but it is not the question of origins he thinks he is having. As William Spearshake told you, Venter is working on a minimum number of genes necessary for life more or less as we know it. That's a different question.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30462393794964492272016-08-14T16:39:13.347-04:002016-08-14T16:39:13.347-04:00Ventner's work is investigating the minimum nu...Ventner's work is investigating the minimum number of genes necessary for modern life. Nobody is suggesting that the first life was DNA based. Please keep up. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60112798763815742652016-08-14T15:35:59.591-04:002016-08-14T15:35:59.591-04:00If the egg is essentially a cell that divides, and...If the egg is essentially a cell that divides, and sub-divides and cellular colonies became cellular organisms and cellular organisms became what we call a species ( a specialised colony of highly organised cells)... Does that not answer the chicken and egg quandary? It was the EGG¬! http:diggingupthefuture.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17214658848949135807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51373894823586218742016-08-14T15:29:13.426-04:002016-08-14T15:29:13.426-04:00heh heh. And I bet that granddaughter then enrolle...heh heh. And I bet that granddaughter then enrolled in university, where she used the same arguments to shame an atheistic professor into angry tears.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5795237037239221162016-08-14T15:02:44.255-04:002016-08-14T15:02:44.255-04:00I agree marine mammals were once land lovers and l...<i>I agree marine mammals were once land lovers and later adapted to the seas. Yet not by evolutions mechanism/Darwin.</i><br /><br />Robert, you mention that you think marine mammals (e.g. whales) indeed were once terrestial and presumably would have had different morphological features, and you mention the word adaptation. Can you clearly outline a mechanism for changes in morphology that is not akin to standard evolution ideas? I know you are a YEC, but did god first create terrestial whales, then at some later point re-model them into aquatic organisms?<br />SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76006640528768856242016-08-14T12:17:03.236-04:002016-08-14T12:17:03.236-04:00Go ahead, religionists, have your god if you wish....Go ahead, religionists, have your god if you wish. But as has been said many times. all you have done is move the 'first cause' one step back. Intellectual honesty now requires you to investigate the origin of your god. And don't give us this 'It was always here' argument, and expect us to roll over, because you'll also need to prove that.<br /><br />Knock yourselves out.<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19781583386297566772016-08-14T12:02:01.738-04:002016-08-14T12:02:01.738-04:00Chris B
"Life may require all of these elemen...Chris B<br />"Life may require all of these elements today, but you are unable to prove the above point. Your arguments from personal incredulity do not count. If you want to argue this way, you have to show that the first self-replicating forms on Earth required all of these elements."<br /><br />Dr Craig Venters work is trying to show the minimum amount of genes that can support life. At this point the minimum number is about 470 functioning genes. What requirements of the above do you think you can remove and still have an energy converting self replicating organism?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30090138772676331462016-08-13T19:11:55.647-04:002016-08-13T19:11:55.647-04:00"over an order of magnitude greater than bibl...<i>"over an order of magnitude greater than biblically based <b>fantasies</b> about the age of the Earth"</i><br /><br />That's exactly the problem with creationists. They just want to validate fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13853690265141434082016-08-13T15:06:35.705-04:002016-08-13T15:06:35.705-04:00Which of course isn't a very difficult questio...Which of course isn't a very difficult question to answer.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65007463355440652932016-08-13T12:52:22.708-04:002016-08-13T12:52:22.708-04:00"Furthermore, if just one of these parts is n..."Furthermore, if just one of these parts is non functional or not exisisting, life cannot start. "<br /><br />Life may require all of these elements today, but you are unable to prove the above point. Your arguments from personal incredulity do not count. If you want to argue this way, you have to show that the first self-replicating forms on Earth required all of these elements. Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26419969508338879622016-08-13T10:23:52.606-04:002016-08-13T10:23:52.606-04:00Otangelo says:
“Someone wants x or y to be true, ...Otangelo says:<br /><br />“Someone wants x or y to be true, and tries to find evidence that confirms its views, and ignores the evidence in contrary.”<br /><br />Otangelo describes himself so well. He quote mines this paper: <br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23201682 to suggest there is scientific evidence humans, or the Earth, or the imaginary “Flood” is 5-10K years old. He cherry picks “We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000-10,000 years” from the abstract. However, when you read the paper, you discover that these come primarily from SNVs unique to the European sequences they examined. He conveniently leaves out the fact that SNVs common to both European and African sequences they analyzed were estimated at well over 100,000 years old, over an order of magnitude greater than biblically based fantasies about the age of the Earth. This is how ID/creationists misrepresent science.<br /><br />Of course, these sad efforts by Otangelo are essentially rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The age of the Earth has been clearly established beyond any rational doubt by physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology (4.543 billion years old). And there was no worldwide flood 5-10K years ago.<br />Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48254302033562209282016-08-13T08:01:09.182-04:002016-08-13T08:01:09.182-04:00Diogenes wrote:
"This, frankly, is absurd, ...Diogenes wrote: <br /><br />"This, frankly, is absurd, and Grasso can't be excused on the basis of ignorance-- because I just debunked Dembski's CSI in the thread immediately previous to this, in comments addressed to Grasso, which he must have read, and which he did not respond to."<br /><br />When a topic here has reached 200 or so posts, i am suddenly unable to see further posts. I don't know why.<br /><br />Neither you, nor anyone else has shown that CSI can be generated without intelligence, just by random chance. Simple statistical calculations show why. <br />The probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Lets say there would not be just one, but trillions natural attempts to get one amino acid sequence right, like trillions of chimps randomly type on a typewriter for trillions of years, and after trillions of attempts produce a functional protein. But there is a even bigger problem than just statistics. There is much more involved, beside getting the right sequence . You need to select the 20 right hand amino acids used by life amongst 500 amino acids occuring in nature. Lets suppose nature would have climbed mount unsurmountable, and got to the top, and produced a functional protein. This protein must aggregate and be placed into the right place in the cell, in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order. The right amino acids must be available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. Coordinating and instruct the assembly of the individual proteins in just the right way: even if all of the enzymes of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. The proteins must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual molecules will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, etc. Furthermore, if just one of these parts is non functional or not exisisting, life cannot start. <br /><br />1. The Cell membrane <br />2. DNA repair mechanisms <br />3. Plasma membrane gates <br />4. The Cytoplasm <br />5. Glycolysis<br />6. Left handed Amino Acids<br />7. Membrane-enclosed vesicles <br />8. Ribosomes<br />9. tRNA<br />10. right handed DNA <br />11. Signal-Recognition Particles (SRP) <br />12. Lysosomes<br />13. A complete transcriptional machinery<br />14. Protein-processing, -folding, secretion, and degradation functions and two proteases.<br />15. FtsZ <br />16. Cation, ABC transporters, a PTS for glucose transport, phosphate transporters<br />17. Dihydroxyacetone phosphate<br />18. ATP synthase Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91992914203290706842016-08-13T01:46:26.124-04:002016-08-13T01:46:26.124-04:00Grasso says: "Another study in Nature found t...Grasso says: <i>"Another study in Nature found that after the flood of the period there was a common ancestor to all mankind. The study argues that racial differences people have a recent origin: between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago."</i><br /><br /><b>I call total, absolute bullshit on that.</b> No study published in Nature would say something like "racial differences people have a recent origin: between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago." <br /><br />Most likely this was a paper discussed and misrepresented at a creo website like Ken Ham or Creation Ministries International, that got picked up by ID pushers like BornAgain77 or He Who Shall Not Be Named and twisted some more, like a game of telephone, with each re-telling becoming less and less similar to the original article.<br /><br />Never mind that some people have alleles that are more similar to alleles in *chimpanzees* than they are to the alleles in their fellow human beings--showing that there are variations in the population which predate the human-chimpanzee split.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61251517133759225312016-08-13T01:38:07.169-04:002016-08-13T01:38:07.169-04:00You lot sound profoundly like people asking the qu...You lot sound profoundly like people asking the question "Which came first : the chicken or the egg ?"opithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621946866211400380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57099226698903695982016-08-13T01:38:05.967-04:002016-08-13T01:38:05.967-04:00Grasso: "In over twenty years, since Behe pub...Grasso: <i>"In over twenty years, since Behe published his book Darwins black box, and Dembsky about CSI information, both main tenets of ID Theory have withstand scrutiny"</i><br /><br />This, frankly, is absurd, and Grasso can't be excused on the basis of ignorance-- because I just <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/08/this-anti-science-creationist-could-be.html?showComment=1470766969573#c8945746841365139032" rel="nofollow">debunked Dembski's CSI in the thread immediately previous to this</a>, in comments addressed to Grasso, which he must have read, and which he did not respond to. Now he drags up the corpse of CSI <b>again</b> when I at least, and some others here (Joe) have debunked it over and over and over and over and over, not to mention real mathematicians like Elsberry and Shallit with <a href="http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf" rel="nofollow">their detailed refutation of Dembski</a>, or the time a "mere" undergraduate, Richard Wein, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/" rel="nofollow">debunked Dembski's pathetic mathematical "proofs" and Dembski responded, ultimately weeping and crying as an undergrad kicked his ass</a>.<br /><br />But the IDers just get big anime eyes, and try to look all innocent, and pretend they haven't seen the mathematical and practical refutations of Dembski and Behe-- <i>I see nothing!</i>-- they play innocent and say things like <i>"both main tenets of ID Theory have withstand scrutiny".</i><br /><br />This is just an attempt to win by repeating the same crap over and over, to win by exhausting the refuters.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67146172226281030312016-08-13T01:36:02.281-04:002016-08-13T01:36:02.281-04:00"Is Intelligent Design “Creationism in a Chea..."Is Intelligent Design “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” ?" <br />No, it's creationism in a very shabby cloak. Like creationism, it has rarely, if ever, put forward testable evidence. Instead it relies on the false dichotomy fallacy, the idea that if it can disprove evolution, then creationism must be correct. It's really all they've got.<br /><br />Dave BaileyThe Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50053204810034189322016-08-12T22:51:51.407-04:002016-08-12T22:51:51.407-04:00You first? that would then be a good point.
Scienc...You first? that would then be a good point.<br />Science is not self correcting. it is itself just people trying to figure things out.<br />All people get stuck in presumptions.<br />Its not a failure of logic or smarts.<br />Its something else goingon which many people have investigated everywhere.<br />For example.<br />I find that evolutionists/supporters pertsuade them,selves as to evolutionary mechanism BECAUSE they are so persuaded there waas change/evolution between this into that.<br />So leggy whales or apes looking like me and other people, is so settled in thier minds as to prove a biological origin or biological journey of body plan that they imagine the mechanism has been proved.<br />Or rather being convinced Erasumus Darwin was right about evolution they are convinced Charles dArwin was proved right.<br />The fact of evolutionary change proves the fact of how.<br /><br />I agree marine mammals were once land lovers and later adapted to the seas. Yet not by evolutions mechanism/Darwin.<br />I agree we have a apes body plan but its not proof at all to common descent. We are not related. <br />The conclusion , so convincing, for evolutionists/supporters deceives them that the mechanism is proved.<br />Its not illogic but failure of higher scrutiny of thought.<br />Yet a frustrated ID/YEC critic would sincerly think they are illogical or unreasonable/desperate.<br /> Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39841471608769935222016-08-12T19:31:01.535-04:002016-08-12T19:31:01.535-04:00Well, ok, ... I get the irony part. But I also get...Well, ok, ... I get the irony part. But I also get that people on both sides of an issue often genuinely feel like the other side is dogmatic and immune to reason. The remainder of the quote doesn't come as a surprise to me. But ok, I will stop digging now. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.com