Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 106 of 238 (285333)
02-09-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
02-09-2006 7:44 PM


Re: Unobservable past
If you care to parse the posts and omit the presenirnt sections cherry picking the elements you can asset your comment into go ahead... just dont confuse it with logical rebuttal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 7:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:43 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 107 of 238 (285334)
02-09-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
02-09-2006 7:44 PM


Re: Unobservable past
Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history debated the existance of God in purely logical argument.
Were they engaging in non-science when using the methods of induction and deduction in their arguments.. were they transformed into non-scientists by their actions.
The second greatest debate historically speaking free will vs predestination in the most general sense. Like wise they were often from the population of scientists.
Aguemnts of htis tpye are scientific when done properly.. rewriting history and redefining terms to fit your world view is hardly logical or scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 7:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:49 PM Evopeach has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 238 (285338)
02-09-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 8:24 PM


Getting back on topic
Evopeach writes:
If you care to parse the posts and omit the presenirnt sections cherry picking the elements you can asset your comment into go ahead... just dont confuse it with logical rebuttal.
Say what? Are we still speaking English around here?
You offered a religious argument in the first half of your post (Designer with a capital "D" declared it be so), and you offered an argument from personal incredulity in the second half of your post. It isn't possible to respond to scientific arguments not made.
What you need to do is provide an argument or chain of logic that justifies a comparison between human designs and genetic copying. As I said earlier, 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
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-09-2006 08:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 8:24 PM Evopeach has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 238 (285340)
02-09-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
Evopeach writes:
Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history debated the existance of God in purely logical argument.
Evopeach, you seem to have lost your way. This is your thread, and the topic is seven sigma as it pertains to genetic copying. The topic is not the existence of God. Besides, you won't be successful convincing people that ID is science and not religion if you have to rely upon God as an authority.
I still recommend that you follow my suggestion from my previous post.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-09-2006 08:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 8:31 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:57 PM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 110 of 238 (285351)
02-09-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
02-09-2006 8:49 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
The evolutionist insist that a seven sigma quality process can be developed by random muation of a string of sequenced molecules and supporting entities also developed by the same processes.
Thus it should be possible to demonstrate this without intervention of intelligence of any kind intervening in any way other than to start with single molecules in an uncorodinate state in a prebiotic state.
A person equipped with the intelligence and training folowing a methodology arising from intelligence based activities and using tools and eqipment similarly developed are in no way demonstrative of the evolutionary scheme.
Unless and until the former is demonstrated in a repeatable scientifically authentic experiment the only thing demonstrated is that ID theory ,ie, intelligence can create such a process or approach it given the acquired knowledge, capacity for cognitive thought , etc.
The example of algorithms is precisely an example of ID and antithetical to the evolutionary assertion.
Scientists prove my point with their every endeavor and activity.
Intelligent design is the only creative process that can be demonstrated or has been to date.
ID can be completely refuted by the former demonstration and experimental result.
I've been waiting for that demonstration showing the most basic premise of evolution underlying all of its constructs.. waiting and waiting and waiting.
This message has been edited by Evopeach, 02-09-2006 09:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:20 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:21 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 115 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-10-2006 1:32 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 9:36 AM Evopeach has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 111 of 238 (285355)
02-09-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Getting back on topic

This is OFF TOPIC. Do not respond in this thread.

Well, it is a matter of time. We may never know because our life span is only may be 80-90 years. May be we should wait longer. After all, everything takes millions of years!!!!!!!!! Nothing happens before this.
Mt.St. Helen's eruption produced instant fossils. Is it not strange?!!!!!!!This was instant.By the way, this does not conform to the common belief that fossils took millions of years.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-09-2006 11:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:57 PM Evopeach has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 112 of 238 (285356)
02-09-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Getting back on topic

This is OFF TOPIC. Do not respond in this thread.


Well, it is a matter of time. We may never know because our life span is only may be 80-90 years. May be we should wait longer. After all, everything takes millions of years!!!!!!!!! Nothing happens before this.
Mt.St. Helen's eruption produced instant fossils. Is it not strange?!!!!!!!This was instant.By the way, this does not conform to the common belief that fossils took millions of years.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-09-2006 11:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:57 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminNosy, posted 02-09-2006 11:09 PM inkorrekt has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 113 of 238 (285368)
02-09-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:21 PM


Not on topic
A deck of cards do not organize. Pieces of any puzzle do not self organize.
This is NOT on topic here.
If you think you can support that then I suggest you open a new topic and explain why you thing the above is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:21 PM inkorrekt has not replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4952 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 114 of 238 (285387)
02-10-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by NosyNed
02-09-2006 1:14 PM


Re: mutation rate
OMG!
Thanks Ned, what a Friggin stupid mistake on my part.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2006 1:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4952 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 115 of 238 (285390)
02-10-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
The evolutionist insist that a seven sigma quality process can be developed by random muation of a string of sequenced molecules and supporting entities also developed by the same processes.
Hmmm...seems u choose to ignore posts that refute your claims, EP.
As stated previously, biological mutation rate is not at sigma 7 levels

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:57 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 8:56 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 116 of 238 (285446)
02-10-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by U can call me Cookie
02-10-2006 1:32 AM


Re: Getting back on topic
Actually I checked about ten googles and found the range of measurements and estimates published in peer reviewed materials to in clude my figure.
One of the more current papers by University of Texas researchers was 2.4 10**-09.
Rather than quoting your one favorite source that enables you to post a cynical swipe why not do a wider review .. if you had it would have saved you embarrassment and me some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-10-2006 1:32 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by AdminWounded, posted 02-10-2006 9:03 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 152 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-13-2006 1:45 AM Evopeach has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 238 (285451)
02-10-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 8:56 AM


References
This would be greatly enhanced by some link to the research you are discussing, or to an abstract if the full text is not available.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 8:56 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 9:51 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 238 (285455)
02-10-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
Hi Evopeach,
You're mostly just repeating your initial premise again. We already know you don't believe natural processes are sufficient for the emergence and evolution of life
By the way, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but your view contains an inherent contradiction. Because only human intelligence has been observed creating complex and intricate things, you conclude that only an intelligence can create something as complex and intricate as life. You draw parallels between life and human designs. Then you conclude that because human intelligence has failed to synthesize life in the lab, that proves that life must have been designed.
Your reasoning is obviously backward. If life was designed by an intelligence, and if the structures of life are really analogous to human designs, then human intelligence should be able to duplicate that feat. You must therefore reason that since human intelligence has so far failed to create life that intelligence is insufficient for the task, and that life must have been created naturally.
Of course, the fallacy in all this is that the structures of life are not analogous to human designs. False assumptions yield false conclusions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:57 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 11:25 AM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 119 of 238 (285459)
02-10-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by AdminWounded
02-10-2006 9:03 AM


Re: References
A rate of 10-9 substitutions per base pair year for humans and apes is assumed in (Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences, PNAS 1997 94:
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic (various)
My number is for the single one time replication of the human genome and its 3 billion base pairs.
http://prfdb.umd.edu/BSCI437/6/6.doc
High mutation rates: genome replication is inaccurate
Evolution requires mutation
Mutations occur when nucleic acids are copied (i.e. genome replication)
Baseline chemical mutation rate (keto to enol tautamarization of thymidine) = 10-4
Error rate of human DNA polymerase is approximately 10-9 (3 mutations per replication of the human genome).
Error correction machinery lowers this to 10-11
Virus RNA and DNA polymerases are much more error prone
RNA dependent RNA pol error rates: 10-4 - 10-5
DNA polymerases: 10-6 - 10-7
People must compare apples to apples . They may be looking at base pair errors per generation or per year or other figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AdminWounded, posted 02-10-2006 9:03 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 9:58 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2006 10:07 AM Evopeach has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 238 (285461)
02-10-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 9:51 AM


Re: References
Yeah but you're just looking at substitution rates. There are many other kinds of mutation that you are apparently ignoring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 9:51 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 12:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024