Quality Control the Gold Standard

When present in certain concentrations in aqueous solutions, proteinoids form small structures called microspheres or protocells. This is due to the fact that some of the amino acids incorporated into proteinoid chains are more hydrophobic than others, and so proteinoids cluster together like droplets of oil in water. These structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells:a film-like outer wall.
osmotic swelling and shrinking.
budding.
binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
streaming movement of internal particles.There I just poured a can of Pennzoil 10w-40 into a bucket of warm water and bingo everyone of the above properties are observed right there.PLease forward the contact in Sweden to all the posters so they can nominate me for the Nobel Prize in biology.

So does oil produce polypeptides, nucleotides etc? Cyclosis? excitability? motility and conjugation? Does your oil/water mixture do all the things I have previously mentioned?If it does, publish it and the Swedes will review it.

Actually Pakicetus was most certainly not a member of Canis so not it was not a wolf.And I was speaking in particular with regard to your glib that you could go from Pakicetus to a whale in a weekend. Evolution does not work on the time scale of a weekend. If one could take a wolf and produce a whale in 2 days that would refute evolution.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

How convienent for you.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Hi Evopeach,I regret having to drop into admin mode in a thread in which I'm participating, but I feel justified since you seem to be beginning to violate the assurances you provided me via email.The full exchange between you and Jazzns was this: As Jazzns said, a wolf turning into a whale in a single afternoon would not be evolution. Pulling juvenile bait and switch tricks is not the tactic of someone interested in informed discussion. This kind of stuff and the bait and switch trick as very occasional diversions are usually not a concern. We don't want to be stuffy and boring here. We don't want to discourage debate that includes lively give and take. But your history indicates that you easily drop into a mode where silly tactics and digs become your dominant form of participation. We'd like to give you the room to express the full range of your personality, but EvC Forum does have a set of Forum Guidelines that we enforce in order to maintain the site's high quality, to keep discussion fair and focused, and to make it interesting and entertaining for as many members and lurkers as possible. Please follow the Forum Guidelines. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think, if you know jack squat about the subject, you would know that chemists don't thing the first life was DNA based. Therefore you shoud drop references to it.

As at least Percy has pointed out life spent nearly 3 billion years before significant multicellular life arose. So "how quickly" is probably answerable with a time span of many 100's of millions of years.With generation times measured in hours and days (if current life is a measure) how many individual different trails were there between the first imperfect replicator and the trilobite?

Is that "lower" or "higher"?If 1 in a billion is the number you are critisizing and calling 10E-9. Then 10E-3 is a higher rate of mutations isn't it?

You seem to be very quick to make firm, even dogmatic, statements about this "unobservable" past. On what basis do you do that?

I think the "Unobservable Past" may be a great theme to explore, but this topic is definitely not the place to do it.Maybe someone needs to state/restate what is the core theme of this topic?AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-09-2006 02:49 PM

---

The fact that there is a miniscule amount of information, data of any kind about these billions of years of biological development. It is unrepeatable, unknowable, undemonstrable and yet talked about as though it were the facts of science garnered by the scientific method.This is the height of intellectual dishonesty and mythology parading around as science.A complete lack of scientific data, experimental results, repeatable observations and a complete departure from the historic scientific method by evolutionsts are firm grounds for "dogmatic" statements on my part. {OFF-TOPIC - PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. SEE MESSAGE 100. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-09-2006 02:53 PM

Okay, now that you've got that out of your system, can you perhaps provide an argument or chain of logic justifying drawing a comparison between human designs and genetic copying? I think to most evolutionists the comparison seems invalid because hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary refinement through competition and changing environments should produce much better results than anything mere humans could achieve.--Percy

Greetings,

quote:

---

The IBM family of OS for mainframes as well as everyother OS in teh last 25 years has error correcting code and yet the average number of patches to fix bugs is about 25 per month.
  —"Evopeach"

---

Error correcting codes are hardware mechanisms that fix errors (e.g. memory errors) detected in HARDWARE.Patches fix errors in SOFTWARE.They are completely different things, totally un-related.

quote:

---

Again I spent 25 years in that business so please don't feed me that sort of cr--.
  —"Evopeach"

---

Really?
But you don't know the difference between hardware and software?Your comment makes as much sense as this :
" my car has anti-skid brakes, but I nearly had an accident, and now I have skid-marks in my shorts "Iasion

okIt seems consistent to talk about "REFINEMENT" which means that evolution is makings "better" or toward some goal and what is declard as a process totally undirected with no goal at all without any purpose or sense of achievement.That inconsistency aside, the argument is this.The designer had creative abilities some of which he embued us with namely intellect, reasoning ability, consciousness, cognitive thought and a desire to create and improve our own well being and life.In every aspect of life science in particular we always see acvitivies where we use the above abilities to impose plans, designs, work, experience reasoning etc. on some form of matter to cause it to conform to our wishes and desires and carry out our designed purposes.
There is no case where we just sit back and wait for chance and time and natural predestinated forces to bring abour the organization of matter to achieve our purposes or see whay happens and hope it turns out to be what we desire.When we analyze ourselves at the ever greater level of detail now occurring in science we observe astoundingly similar processes and mechanisms that in some cases we have ourselves proposed in previous applications of our thoughts and abilities.Thus it is intirely logical and scientific to conclude based on the evidence that we are in fact behaving precisely like the Intelligent designer as predicted and declared by the Designer.This is so far factual as to observation and argument from analogy in a logical framework.. we do it all the time in every sort of problem solving.The alternative is to suppose that all of these human attributes were purely the result of an undirected purposeless chance process whose only "creative tool" is the preservation of certain random changes by the fortuitous intersection in time and space of the random change and a favorable environmental state in which the event occurred.This is entirely at odds with our own creative experiences and is illogical, highyly improbable and does not conform with the principle of Occums razor or best evidence.Thus in the case of computer code, algorithms and such we are dealing with the result of precisely the human approach to creation.No code , computer, transister, compiler, hardware or software of any kind let alone the harnessing of electrical circuits and such ever arose by evolutionary processes.Yet somehow it is supposed to demonmstrate some efficacy of evolution when assuming all of the above a final step is taken at our behest to imploy some minor random algorithm which arose not on its own but again at our behest.The facts and logic dictate the choice of intellient design but we choose the polar opposite ... how illogical.

Hi Evopeach,More than anything other point, your reply makes clear that you are a believer: As declared by the Designer with a capital "D"?You cannot draw upon arguments of faith to form arguments of science. But you didn't draw a logical framework, you drew a religious one. Have you forgotten that your topic is sigma seven? Sure they have. I believe genetic algorithms have already been mentioned in this thread. We can discuss them if you like.--Percy