Quality Control the Gold Standard

PLease no proteinoid or any Fox stuff ever resembled a cell, made deoxyribose, DNA, RNA or anything else.You're normally pretty realistic but this is over the top inaccurate.

Sure show me one authenticated paper peer reviewed that experimentally demonstrates the formation of a Fox protenoid or protocell that evolves into ATP or a nucleic acid used in life processes? LOLThere was no resemblance between Fox stuff and a real cell.

Surely you understand that I/O routines and comunications routines and screen handlers etc. are part of the OS and do incorporporate error correcting code as well as memory correcting code implanted as firmware.I am not implying the code itself is rewritten on the fly although thats a possibility that may be out there but I am not aware of it in practice.Anyway you are not commenting on the challenge presented.

Reading your post is illuminating in the sense it is consistent with all evolutionary explantions...90% I don't know, unmeasured, unquantifiable assertions about the unobservable past, just so and what if and maybe statements without a scintilla of evidence and highly improbable of occuring by any standard.For instance explain in detail the selective mechanism that operated on the pre rna to the rna etc that resulted in a "quick" move to a more reliable replicator. Assertions are not science.Besides your post simply begs the question which was how do higly error prone early replicators ever evolve into the current state of seven sigma operation by evolutionary mechanisms?

I don't respond to crude talking trashmouth posts.

Actually a placental prehistoric wolf is the most popular candidate for the direct ancestor of the whale ... that is if you care to read the current literature.Not the hair of my chinny chinny chin... I'll spout and I'll spout til I drown you out.LOL!!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 - 10-7People must compare apples to apples . They may be looking at base pair errors per generation or per year or other figure.

Actually you have rather missed the entire point.. rather badly.The Intelligent Designer would have no limits to their creative abilities, obviously we do, and by definition could accomplish instantaneously de novo what was designed. A scientist should be wary of total intellectual committment to a theory which cannot demonstrate a scintilla of evidence for its most basic underlying premise. That is mysticism not science.The argument is:Reasoning from analogy properly persued is a completely legitimate exercise and has historically and contemporaniously yielded much fruit.The fact that scientific and all human endeavor of consequence is carried out precisely as I described and never by evolutionary paradigms is beyond dispute.. please show me wrong with referenced examples.I am unaware of any theory that that gains credible acceptance until its most fundamental premises have been adequately demonstrated so as to gain universal support (more than 50% of the American public doubts the theory of evolution) except the theory of evolution.Keeping you on track and not wandering off into goat trails then ... Why cannot evolutionists demonstrate the fundamental premise that a seven sigma quality biologic process , namely the copying of a single human DNA molecule with only 1 error per billion base pairs copied can arise step by step from precursers of life right up to the current life we observe. Because that is precisely what you believe happened, there is no substitute construct of merit ( leaving out panspermia, space visitors, universal life force it simply must be done sir. If you want the American public including IDers and Creationists to join your camp it is all that need be done.But then for 100 years that is precisely what has been attempted by thousands with total abject failure.Even Einstein had to wait for the perihelion of Mercury.. the point is the reault was successful and his theory gained much more acceptance. LIkewise atomic clocks in jets trafveling the earth demonstrated time differences between clocks.When will evolutionists live up to the scientific method and demonstrate this fundamental tenet by other than assertion?