tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7989117171340695017..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Revisiting Michael Behe's challenge and revealing a closed mindLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26762985460129795042017-01-02T16:11:48.283-05:002017-01-02T16:11:48.283-05:00If I were in the courtroom, I would press you for ...<i>If I were in the courtroom, I would press you for evidence that accidents build complex things. And you would fail, because they don’t.</i><br /><br />So you'd succeed because you know oh so much more than all the experts the defense lawyers in Dover were able to find, including Michael Behe and Scott Minnich?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18367931632499864912017-01-02T14:04:44.261-05:002017-01-02T14:04:44.261-05:00txpiper,
"See, all it takes is appearing, ev...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"See, all it takes is appearing, evolving and waiting around for something else to appear. Why would any thinking person dare to question an explanation like that?"</i><br /><br />As I have been trying to explain to you. This is not about "accepting" any kind of explanation. I, for one, am very unsatisfied by what you quoted from wikipedia. But I really mean tremendously unsatisfied. To accept that explanation, or any other, I need to see and understand the evidence. Otherwise I'll stay unsatisfied and say "who the hell knows about the origin of ribosomes!?" That doesn't mean that I will jump into a god-did-it bandwagon. Why not? Because gods are imaginary. It's that simple. <br /><br />It doesn't escape me that you preferred to completely ignore my explanations and went back to your "standard" misunderstanding that it's all accidents, while ignoring the rest. I suspect you won't allow yourself to think about the rest because, dare you try and understand, you might lose your faith in all that nonsense you wrote. If you were so sure, you would not ignore answers. Understanding the answers would not be problematic for you. Yet, there you are, stubbornly ignoring as much as possible. Holding to your straw-men and rhetorical numbers.<br /><br />Nice attempt at an appeal to authority there, by the way. Unfortunately for you, the fantasies remain fantasies regardless who believed them before you. Sorry.<br /><br />Have a great week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30738429215509597312017-01-02T03:54:40.806-05:002017-01-02T03:54:40.806-05:00Hey Tx, you wrote:
"You don’t have to accept ...Hey Tx, you wrote:<br />"You don’t have to accept my beliefs."<br /><br />Thanks, but it still doesn't explain a thing, I asked you "Perhaps this time you could come up with positive evidence in favor of ID? ". Want to give it a try?<br /><br />"But you should recognize that replacing ‘goddidit’ with ‘accidents/DNA replication errors/natural selection didit’ is just putting a different god in charge of the gaps."<br /><br />Tx, you do understand this is another twist of the "evolution can't do this, can't do that" mantra. <br /><br />"If you find this substitution satisfying, well good for you."<br /><br />I don't, because you've been duped into believing that evolution is just random stuff. Like Don Quixote you both are attacking what you think are giants (evolution), but in fact you're both attacking windmills (the strawman version of evolution you've been told/ taught). <br /><br />"But it has not jack to do with science."<br />Yep, your strawman/ windmill version of evolution isn't what's been studied in many labs on this planet.<br /><br />"It is just absurd faith."<br /><br />Yeah, your strawman verion of evolution is absurd, I agree.<br /><br />"If I were in the courtroom, I would press you for evidence that accidents build complex things. And you would fail, because they don’t. "<br /><br />Sorry, Tx. You're still attacking windmills here.<br /><br />So, once again, would you be so kind to answer my question:<br />"Perhaps this time you could come up with positive evidence in favor of ID? "<br /><br />Good luck!Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92144794629839038772017-01-01T21:46:03.219-05:002017-01-01T21:46:03.219-05:00photosynthesis,
“..gods are imaginary friends. Wh...photosynthesis,<br /><br />“..gods are imaginary friends. What about this facts eludes you?”<br /><br />Well, whatever it is, it eluded a very long list of people like Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, Herschel, Dalton, Morse, Faraday, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur, Lister and many, many other scientists. I understand that you’re very enlightened, but perhaps you ran right by their reasons for maintaining the friendship. Newton, for instance, recognized that prophecies recorded many centuries before he was born were forecasting events that would occur centuries after his death, and wrote more about that than he did the stunning scientific advances he is credited with. <br /><br />I’m confident most of the people I listed knew about first advent prophecies, and saw them closed out in the New Testament. And now, lots of us Bible thumpers are on the edge of our seats because there is much more to come leading up to a second visitation. Israel, Russia, China, Iran and Syria are all players. There is much that we don’t understand, but we are not flying completely blind. And we have sense enough to recognize that a God who can steer human history towards a forecast conclusion should not be ignored. We accept His ability to do that as validation of the rest of the record, including the Genesis account.<br /><br />But you’re way too smart to get tangled up in such superstitious nonsense. You only entertain accidental miracles, so this stuff is way to conspicuous for you.<br />-<br />“Your ignorance won't be satisfied with that, of course.”<br /><br />photo, if that’s what you call science, I am thrilled with my ignorance. What is really remarkable is that lots of un-ignorant peer reviewers would let your synopsis fly. It is a pretty standard summary. As an illustration, Wikipedia has this to say about the origin of ribosome:<br /><br />“The ribosome may have first originated in an RNA world, appearing as a self-replicating complex that only later evolved the ability to synthesize proteins when amino acids began to appear.”<br /><br />See, all it takes is appearing, evolving and waiting around for something else to appear. Why would any thinking person dare to question an explanation like that?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32887943103525076362017-01-01T18:03:44.017-05:002017-01-01T18:03:44.017-05:00txpiper,
"You don’t have to accept my belief...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"You don’t have to accept my beliefs. But you should recognize that replacing ‘goddidit’ with ‘accidents/DNA replication errors/natural selection didit’ is just putting a different god in charge of the gaps"</i><br /><br />The huge difference being that accidents, DNA replication errors, natural selection, etc, refer to real things, while "god" refers to imaginary friends.<br /><br /><i>"If you find this substitution satisfying, well good for you. But it has not jack to do with science."</i><br /><br />It has everything to do with science. Again: gods are imaginary friends. What about this facts eludes you?<br /><br /><i>"It is just absurd faith."</i><br /><br />Well, if you find faith troubling, then stop it. Stay with what's possible to know instead of pretending that your lack of understanding and knowledge means that your imaginary friend is real.<br /><br /><i>"If I were in the courtroom, I would press you for evidence that accidents build complex things. And you would fail, because they don’t"</i><br /><br />Sorry, but there's lots of work about complex system that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the combination of random events with the nature of chemical/physical phenomena build complex systems. All someone would have to do is a google scholar search and present that to the courtroom.<br /><br /><i>"I never said that. I only pointed out how many genes play a part in human mitosis as a reference point."</i><br /><br />Thanks for the admission that you choose that 600 genes example for mere rhetorical effect. That's an advance.<br /><br /><i>"... 25 genes ... how would you describe the evolutionery mechanism responsible for the formation and integration of those critical, functioning genes into an organism?"</i><br /><br />As a mixture of random events combined with the nature of chemical and physical phenomena that resulted in metabolisms energized by chemical/sun energy, and the gathering of catalysts and information carrying molecules, perhaps some molecules that did both (catalysis and information carrying), and a plethora of events that, in the end, left a genome with a set of 25 genes that are much more co-dependent than they were at the beginning of this beautiful mess.<br /><br />Your ignorance won't be satisfied with that, of course. Your main problem, as Ed said, is that you think that if we don't know every detail or if we don't have some answer,, it must certainly be that god-did-it. Sorry. Your fantasies will remain fantasies no matter how hard you try and find gaps where to put your imaginary friends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33533518138365356232017-01-01T17:12:09.001-05:002017-01-01T17:12:09.001-05:00Ed,
“Once again this is another example of your s...Ed,<br /><br />“Once again this is another example of your standard "evolution can't do this, evolution can't do that, thus goddidit" claim.”<br /><br />You don’t have to accept my beliefs. But you should recognize that replacing ‘goddidit’ with ‘accidents/DNA replication errors/natural selection didit’ is just putting a different god in charge of the gaps. If you find this substitution satisfying, well good for you. But it has not jack to do with science. It is just absurd faith. If I were in the courtroom, I would press you for evidence that accidents build complex things. And you would fail, because they don’t. <br /><br />===<br /><br />photosynthesis,<br /><br />“At least now you must acknowledge that some life forms, even if dependent on other life forms, can do DNA replication with much fewer than 600 proteins. Congrats on this little advance!”<br /><br />I never said that. I only pointed out how many genes play a part in human mitosis as a reference point. <br /><br />But, just as an exercise, let’s see if you can demonstrate your comprehension of the evolutionary processes that I just can’t grasp. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there is a prokaryote somewhere that needs only 25 genes for self-maintenance and replication. (Just 25, because I don’t want you to be rhetorically devastated.) Starting with no genes, how would you describe the evolutionery mechanism responsible for the formation and integration of those critical, functioning genes into an organism?<br /><br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78488485226386701952017-01-01T15:35:20.567-05:002017-01-01T15:35:20.567-05:00txpiper,
"Actually, they have. This is old n...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"Actually, they have. This is old news ... symbionts ..."</i><br /><br />That's arrogant for someone who has no idea about science. No tx, we haven't explored a lot of life forms. So that particular symbiont might no be the one organisms with the smallest number of genes.<br /><br />At least now you must acknowledge that some life forms, even if dependent on other life forms, can do DNA replication with much fewer than 600 proteins. Congrats on this little advance!<br /><br /><i>"This is classic evolutionary double-talk. Empty environmental niches cannot solicit accidental molecular formations (or helpful mutations)."</i><br /><br />Because you say so? Sorry, but they can. Empty niches means places where life forms can potentially expand. So, mutations allowing the use of some other potential nutrients, etc, will move life's evolution forward. There's no double-talk at all, you just don't understand evolution too well. If your misunderstanding was true, new niches would never be populated.<br /><br /><i>"They are complicated to you as well. You can’t describe, or even imagine, the series of complimentary DNA replication errors that supposedly defined"</i><br /><br />I know where to stat exploring to figure out such evolutionary events. while you're stuck in your stubbornness that it must be impossible. Therefore they look very complicated to you, not so to me. But you're missing the point. The point is that you take examples with the highest complexity you imagine for rhetorical effect. If you knew about that symbiont, why talk about DNA replication requiring 600 proteins? For rhetorical effect and nothing else, of course!<br /><br /><i>"There are huge disease databases that describe what mutations actually do. Can you link to one that lists positive results?"</i><br /><br />Those databases are dedicated to harmful mutations in the first place. How's that an unbiased example? SHouldn't you look for databases of any kinds of mutations? Who would fund such an effort? It's not interesting to catalogue just about any kinds of mutations. So funding agencies have never focused on such efforts. Harmful mutations have this tendency to be noticed because they make people sick. Beneficial mutations don't go anywhere for treatment.<br /><br />Are you truly that stupid?<br /><br />Anyway, you're missing lots of points. You choose examples for rhetorical effect, not for understanding. You ignore that we haven't explored everything in microbial life. You ignore that of course life must have started simpler.<br /><br />The only reason you ignore all that is because considering anything outside your bubble of ignorance and rhetorically kept stubbornness requires you to consider that your fantasies about gods might be false.<br /><br />That doesn't give you the right to dictate what's true or false. That only gives you the right to remain being an ignorant fool, but not to try and impose your stupidity on the rest of us.<br /><br />Just like you have the right to remain an ignorant self-deluded fool, we have the right to use our intelligences beyond the limitations you impose on yourself. If you prefer not to understand how we approach open problems in nature, then, fine, keep yourself ignorant and stupid. But don't pretend to be wise when you're obviously making a fool out of yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10980851902906614782017-01-01T14:51:11.028-05:002017-01-01T14:51:11.028-05:00Hey Tx, you making the same classic mistake over a...Hey Tx, you making the same classic mistake over and over again, here's another example:<br />"You can’t describe, or even imagine, the series of complimentary DNA replication errors that supposedly defined, configured and arranged your (or anything else’s) teeth. Starting from a point of no teeth anywhere in the universe, how many mutations would you suppose were involved? "<br /><br />Once again this is another example of your standard "evolution can't do this, evolution can't do that, thus goddidit" claim. <br />Perhaps this time you could come up with positive evidence in favor of ID? In a court case a defense laywer can't get away with "my client is innocent until the police has excluded the 6 billion other people on this world of this crime".<br />So, now it's your time to shine Txpiper and give positive evidence for ID... Perhaps you might even make it to the top story for 2017 on EvoNews (sic)! How wonderful would that be?! <br />Good luck Tx! Perhaps your mate Don can help you out... I've asked him this question too, give positive evidence for ID and he must be very busy in the lab, because he hasn't responded yet...Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85078545046842300162017-01-01T11:28:03.098-05:002017-01-01T11:28:03.098-05:00photosynthesis,
" those life forms with few ...photosynthesis,<br /><br />" those life forms with few genes are just what we know, we haven't explored much of microbial life diversity."<br /><br />Actually, they have. This is old news, but it notes that even the smallest known (in 2006) symbiotic bacterium has 182 protein-coding genes. <br />http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061009/full/news061009-10.html<br /><br />Symbiosis means dependence, which just highlights the fact that there are natural limits. Some things are not naturally possible. Pumpkins cannot turn into carriages. Humans can’t jump over a hundred foot wall, or run a mile in 30 seconds. Dinosaur soft tissue cannot last for 68 million years. And no living, self-replicating organism can exist without a minimal gene set. <br /><br />Try looking at it from a different starting point. Once upon a time, there were no genes at all. Start there, and don’t lie to yourself.<br />-<br />“Primitive life would not have competition, so it;s all about niches to fill, and thus lots of evolutionary windows.”<br /><br />This is classic evolutionary double-talk. Empty environmental niches cannot solicit accidental molecular formations (or helpful mutations). Competition is actually a central element of natural selection. But you are trying to bridge a gap between dead elements and living organisms, so DNA replication failures and natural selection are not even in view. The only thing you can appeal to for the formation of ‘primitive life’ is accidents. Even assuming random assemblies occurred, they would have been instantly destroyed by a hostile environment. Entropy does not make exceptions for materialist fantasies. <br />-<br />“You take examples that look very complicated (to you), and conveniently forget to take a better look at other life forms.”<br /><br />They are complicated to you as well. You can’t describe, or even imagine, the series of complimentary DNA replication errors that supposedly defined, configured and arranged your (or anything else’s) teeth. Starting from a point of no teeth anywhere in the universe, how many mutations would you suppose were involved? <br /><br />There are huge disease databases that describe what mutations actually do. Can you link to one that lists positive results?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14328467200008346322016-12-31T17:37:01.080-05:002016-12-31T17:37:01.080-05:00txpiper,
"That isn't an assumption. It i...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"That isn't an assumption. It is an acknowledgment of biological reality.</i><br /><br />As I said, you sarted with 600 proteins for human cell replication, I quickly showed that even today some life forms can make it with much less than that, and your answer is that your assumption is not an assumption? can you read at all?<br /><br />And those life forms with few genes are just what we know, we haven't explored much of microbial life diversity. So, again, your assumption that primitive life must be like modern life is not just an assumption, it's an ignorant and very stupid one (sorry, if you missed the message the first time, you deserve no respect, since you don't respect yourself enough to pay attention when an explanation is given to you).<br /><br /><i>"There is nothing known or even conceivable to support a belief in 'original life' that could survive, replicate and accidentally 'evolve' into more sophisticated forms."</i><br /><br />Of course there is. Primitive life would not have competition, so it;s all about niches to fill, and thus lots of evolutionary windows.<br /><br /><i>"What has been discovered about the mechanisms thus far is that the barest minimums are fantastically complex." That is the factual truth."</i><br /><br />No you ignorant fool. Lots of life forms we know are already much less complex than anything you've listed. This means that you take your examples for rhetorical effect, not out of understanding or knowledge. Are you stupid enough to think we don't know any better? Oh, sorry, yes, yes you are that stupid.<br /><br /><i>"I’m sure, but then lots of scientists think that rare DNA replication errors and natural selection configured and arranged enamel-coated dentin structures in your mouth so that you have incisors up front and molars in the back."</i><br /><br /><br />See what I say? You take examples that look very complicated (to you), and conveniently forget to take a better look at other life forms. Therefore your imaginary friend is real. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're just showing either ignorance, stupidity, and/or dishonesty.<br /><br /><i>"So, I don’t really get too worked up about what they think. Being a scientist does not make people immune to stupidity."</i><br /><br />Sure it doesn't, but being a creationist seems to immunize you against intelligence.<br /><br />Think about this: if all you can offer is examples you chose for rhetorical effect, and you cannot understand an explanation when given to you, then why should anybody think that you have good reasons for believing in your imaginary friend? If you cared about readers, for example, what makes you think that your obvious self-deception will help them believe as you do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5637476308190371882016-12-31T14:29:29.752-05:002016-12-31T14:29:29.752-05:00Google doesn't work on your computer, Bill?
h...Google doesn't work on your computer, Bill?<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?q=primitive+cell+membranea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=fs&bcutc=sp-006#q=primitive+cell+membraneFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53282317726074821672016-12-31T14:18:17.699-05:002016-12-31T14:18:17.699-05:00BW
"BC, You've missed the point, in a big...BW<br />"BC, You've missed the point, in a big way. There is a plausible mechanism by which primitive cell membranes could assemble without DNA. Therefore, the question "which came first, the membrane or the DNA" is not a problem for evolution. It's a bad argument for you. Stop using it."<br /><br />What are primitive cell membranes? How do you validate this even exists other then speculation? Can you assign any real confidence factor to the past existence of primitive cell membranes?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52790740262810765192016-12-31T13:56:38.563-05:002016-12-31T13:56:38.563-05:00photosynthesis,
"...some bacteria have less ...photosynthesis,<br /><br />"...some bacteria have less than 600 genes and still manage to do quite a lot of stuff, metabolism, and cell division. Your problem is the assumption that the original life must have been like modern life."<br /><br />That isn't an assumption. It is an acknowledgment of biological reality. There is nothing known or even conceivable to support a belief in 'original life' that could survive, replicate and accidentally 'evolve' into more sophisticated forms. What has been discovered about the mechanisms thus far is that the barest minimums are fantastically complex. That is the factual truth. <br />-<br />“Scientists could not care less.”<br /><br />I’m sure, but then lots of scientists think that rare DNA replication errors and natural selection configured and arranged enamel-coated dentin structures in your mouth so that you have incisors up front and molars in the back. So, I don’t really get too worked up about what they think. Being a scientist does not make people immune to stupidity. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66298147424237699932016-12-31T12:10:59.175-05:002016-12-31T12:10:59.175-05:00txpiper,
"Why would anybody believe otherwis...txpiper,<br /><br /><i>"Why would anybody believe otherwise? Cell division is a highly regulated process involving numerous genes (almost 600 play a part in human cell mitosis)."</i><br /><br />But some bacteria have less than 600 genes and still manage to do quite a lot of stuff, metabolism, and cell division. Your problem is the assumption that the original life must have been like modern life. You have no other reason to believe that, but your commitment to believing that your imaginary friend is real. But, guess what? Scientists don't have such limitations. They observe and conclude that if simpler forms exist today, then even simpler forms can have existed before, and that the original life could have worked in much simpler ways. If you have a problem with that, then that's your problem. Scientists could not care less.<br /><br /><i>"DNA replication requires a whole suite of highly specialized enzymes. These are facts."</i><br /><br />Again, in some life forms, not in other, currently existing, life forms.<br /><br /><i>"Supposed less sophisticated antecedents are nothing more than materialist fantasies. "</i><br /><br />Ironic that the only reason you say so is because of your commitment to your fantasies.<br /><br />Try and think. Otherwise you just ridicule your own position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82920952483001923212016-12-31T12:08:31.950-05:002016-12-31T12:08:31.950-05:00lutesuite,
“Because "anybody" might pos...lutesuite,<br /><br />“Because "anybody" might possess half a brain.”<br /><br />The idea of simpler, self-replicating life forms is not a scientific hypothesis. It's just a mythical belief, one that you are ideologically stuck with. I think your atheism is eclipsing your fact management. For all your supposed interest in science, you've only wound up accepting a ridiculous version of spontaneous generation. <br />-<br />"IDiots claim that life was created by "intelligence." However, all available evidence shows that intelligence only arises from living things. So intelligence could not possibly exist before life.”<br /><br />You'll have to take this rationale up with someone limited to intelligent design. I'm a Bible-thumping creationist. I suspect that the inquisitive, pioneering scientists I admire would consider this train of thought to be rather droll. <br /><br />Why are you even interested in stuff like this? You’re creed declares that you have all the value and significance of a termite. If I had you’re mindset, I’d feel like I was pissing my life away. <br /><br />===<br /><br />bwilson295,<br /><br />"There is a plausible mechanism by which primitive cell membranes could assemble without DNA."<br /><br />No, the bubble idea is not plausible at all. This wasn't discovered. It's just the best you can do.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25114137870291504582016-12-31T12:03:54.719-05:002016-12-31T12:03:54.719-05:00BC, You've missed the point, in a big way. Th...BC, You've missed the point, in a big way. There is a plausible mechanism by which primitive cell membranes could assemble without DNA. Therefore, the question "which came first, the membrane or the DNA" is not a problem for evolution. It's a bad argument for you. Stop using it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79096726752398992952016-12-31T07:36:06.766-05:002016-12-31T07:36:06.766-05:00txpiper drools insipidly:
Why would anybody belie...<b>txpiper</b> drools insipidly:<br /><br /><i>Why would anybody believe otherwise?</i><br /><br />Because "anybody" might possess half a brain.<br /><br />But, hey, since you think "chicken and egg" scenarios are a good way to invalidate scientific hypotheses, maybe you could take a crack at the one I posed to your IDiot buddy, Bill Cole:<br /><br />IDiots claim that life was created by "intelligence." However, all available evidence shows that intelligence only arises from living things. So intelligence could not possibly exist before life.<br /><br />C'mon, txpiper. "Sweeping things under the rug is not helpful", as you say. Time for you IDiot creationists to stop trying to sweep this glaring problem out of view.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49170862545521120312016-12-31T00:00:13.170-05:002016-12-31T00:00:13.170-05:00lutesuite,
"Bill continues to assume that th...lutesuite,<br /><br />"Bill continues to assume that the earliest form of the membrane must exactly resemble that which exists today. Who knows why he believes this?"<br /><br />Why would anybody believe otherwise? Cell division is a highly regulated process involving numerous genes (almost 600 play a part in human cell mitosis). DNA replication requires a whole suite of highly specialized enzymes. These are facts. Supposed less sophisticated antecedents are nothing more than materialist fantasies. <br />-<br />"maybe you should just shut up with the fatuous "chicken and egg" arguments."<br /><br />Scientific discovery depends on curiosity, so sweeping things under the rug is not helpful.<br /><br />"The ribosome is a complex molecular machine, found within all living cells, that serves as the site of biological protein synthesis..."<br /><br />But, on the other hand:<br /><br />"In eukaryotes, the [ribosome synthesis] process takes place both in the cell cytoplasm and in the nucleolus....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 />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome <br /><br />That's one fat chicken, and one enormous egg. Neither can be attributed to mutations or natural selection. They would have to 'evolve' on the basis of impossibly miraculous accidents. So I can understand why things like this are unpleasant for you. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87712944851323920542016-12-30T19:21:28.644-05:002016-12-30T19:21:28.644-05:00Bill Cole tries to sound scientific:
You currentl...Bill Cole tries to sound scientific:<br /><br /><i>You currently have no idea if you make a bacterias cell membrane without DNA. This is just one of several OOL problems that require all the chicken and eggs to show up at once.</i><br /><br />Bill continues to assume that the earliest form of the membrane must exactly resemble that which exists today. Who knows why he believes this?<br /><br />Hey, speaking of chickens and eggs, Bill: If you IDiots are correct, and life was created by "intelligence" that means there must've existed a form of intelligence that wasn't alive. So could you perhaps point me to the ID research that has found such a thing actually exists? Or, if not, maybe you should just shut up with the fatuous "chicken and egg" arguments. <br /><br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37070002367822959562016-12-30T19:03:40.762-05:002016-12-30T19:03:40.762-05:00Judmarc
" Gates is also on record as saying t...Judmarc<br />" Gates is also on record as saying that folks who want to jump from this to conclusions about the universe being a computer simulation are not doing science."<br /><br />I agree this is Gate's position. Thanks again for the dialog.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45014739450087757602016-12-30T19:01:33.532-05:002016-12-30T19:01:33.532-05:00Bwilson295
"BC, if we wanted to make sure we ...Bwilson295<br />"BC, if we wanted to make sure we kept the membrane/DNA "problem" unsolvable, we might take your approach. If we actually wanted to know how early cell membranes could develop, we'd look at it differently. "<br /><br />I am not suggesting you stop doing science. I am suggesting you keep your claims consistent with the current evidence. You currently have no idea if you make a bacterias cell membrane without DNA. This is just one of several OOL problems that require all the chicken and eggs to show up at once.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61406394073613387562016-12-30T17:59:03.178-05:002016-12-30T17:59:03.178-05:00viruses require the replication machinery of a hos...<i>viruses require the replication machinery of a host cell to propagate.</i><br /><br />Don't let anyone tell you that you don't have a keen grasp of the obvious, tx!<br /><br />Would you put money and labor into farming if you could buy your food more cheaply from a grocery next door?<br /><br />The idea is that viruses would start out using chemical components from the environment, but once the "grocery store" was there in the form of the chemicals they needed pre-packaged (i.e., bacterial or other living cells), viruses that utilized that source would have come to dominate to the exclusion of the originals.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35284877724574387292016-12-30T17:12:22.692-05:002016-12-30T17:12:22.692-05:00Looks like we're not getting our answer. The ...Looks like we're not getting our answer. The creationists disappoint yet again. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37940620373227228632016-12-30T17:05:19.660-05:002016-12-30T17:05:19.660-05:00BC, if we wanted to make sure we kept the membrane...<i>BC, if we wanted to make sure we kept the membrane/DNA "problem" unsolvable, we might take your approach. If we actually wanted to know how early cell membranes could develop, we'd look at it differently.</i><br /><br />It's very strange what these IDiots do, isn't it? They concoct experiments that would confirm some straw man version of an opposing hypothesis, but which they know will fail. And then, when the experiments do fail, they declare their hypothesis has been vindicated. I wonder who told them this is how science is done? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67237054093992188022016-12-30T16:59:24.257-05:002016-12-30T16:59:24.257-05:00OMD! I'd hoped you boys would do better than t...OMD! I'd hoped you boys would do better than this. Not that I didn't expect it, but I didn't expect it to be this bad...<br /><br />You can't provide one scientific piece of evidence that at least suggests that you have bases for your beliefs? <br /><br /><br />Please tell me you have more! I beg you! If you don't, I'm going to assume that this (whatever) was build on some kinds of assumption that doesn't really exist... <br /><br />If I'm correct, why would you, or anybody, want to deceive millions of people?Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.com