Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artifical life
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 71 (561599)
05-21-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ramoss
05-21-2010 9:58 AM


Hi ramoss,
Gleevec?
No, Bendamustine\Treanda
Home | TREANDA® (bendamustine HCl) for Injection
quote:
TREANDA for injection is indicated for the treatment of patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. TREANDA is also indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Efficacy relative to first-line therapies other than chlorambucil has not been established.
That's me - non-Hodgkins (follicular) lymphoma which is fairly resistant to treatment. It came back the second time after only 8 months and aggressively. Then had rituximab (CHOP-R) and then an "autogenic transplant"
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...artfailure/celltherapy.aspx
See Message 61 on Cancer Survivors
I was originally stage 3-4
Welcome lymphomation.org - BlueHost.com
After the autogenic transplant I had two years before it came back, and then only at stage 1.
The bendamustine appears to have done the job so far, but we are only 4 months after end of treatment.
A recent symposium of oncologists across the nation shows a strong positive support for bendamustine being effective against nH-lymphomas.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2010 9:58 AM ramoss has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 71 (561637)
05-22-2010 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by subbie
05-21-2010 12:35 PM


Re: no barrier to mutation/s
Logic REQUIRES that a claim, a big claim, is technically proved.
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology. Showing stability on every level, and organisms remaining the same, does not match that claim.
Secondly, while the ToE doesn't predict fruit flies will become not fruit flies, as that is not a necessary consequent for a normalized selection, what I am looking for on a personal level, is a very stron evidence of the major claim that says that things like fruit flies came from other completely different things.
If you take a human from 5 thousand years ago and compare him to me, sure - you can CLAIM he's a transitional. And if you show speciation whereby there are no new morphological designs, sure you can CLAIM this leads to macro evolution, but on a logical level, technically you have not proved a thing.
This is why for me, the ToE is a weak paradigm. The proof of it was always none-existent and yet it was accepted despite the powerful facts of design, because people don't want to believe in God, otherwise He is God and they are not, and that way they get to say their sins aren't sin.
So, yeah - nothing to do with prediction, but everything to do with the soundness of a syllogism that would apparently prove the ToE.
All you can do, is go for evidence of the ponen form, which is tenuous, if you are honest.
This is all I am saying. All the best.
(The claim that there is no mutational barrier or is a barrier, for me is exactly the same as stating; "this completely paralyzed person has been confined to this room" OR; "there is nothing stopping you from flying to the moon like superman.".) It is irrelevant because the power isn't there. If you continue with fruit flies they don't slowly become anything else.
look up a frog, look at it's fossil. It was a frog, is a frog and will become a frog, while mutations were there. Look at a coelocanthe or a chambered nautilus. They were X are X and will be X.
Those are the facts. Now sure - you can say, "ah but millions of years of evolution". Now that's fine - you're entitled to do that but I want to see facts of that and I don't. Simarly, you can create a phylogenetic tree, using creatures that ALREADY exist, and say that homologous features mean they evolved, but logically this doesn't prove they are related or that mutations did it.
First prove the power of a mutation - that it can make a new design. The burden of proof is not upon us to prove it can't, when all the facts show it can't. (I believe I have argued excellently, my case. Ignore it as usual)
bye for now.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 05-21-2010 12:35 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2010 6:57 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 39 by lyx2no, posted 05-22-2010 8:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 05-22-2010 12:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 71 (561638)
05-22-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
05-21-2010 4:16 PM


Technically, anything with DNA is life. I won't argue against it. However, did I, before these discoveries, expect some kind of supernatural activity in order for DNA to work? I can't say I did, but thaty was what I was being told I thought, or some such thing about the breath of life.
So, I am not saying that no true DNA puts sugar on it's chromosome, I am just saying that if I kill a fly, I don't really care much, or if I chop a plant to pieces, for me, this is not the same thing as chopping an evolutionist's head off.
I just think it's a bit dishonest to place words in believer's mouths. I never claimed that I thought artificial DNA would not work. That would be like saying that I didn't think a frizby would work or wings I created wouldn't work.
Why on earth wouldn't they if they obey the principles of nature?
God made DNA to work. Artificial intelligence shows that it does indeed work. Now if a scientist created something other than DNA that worked, ex nihilo..............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2010 4:16 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ramoss, posted 05-22-2010 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 34 of 71 (561639)
05-22-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 6:39 AM


Creation "science" again
This is why for me, the ToE is a weak paradigm. The proof of it was always none-existent...
In science we don't use "proof" but rather, as in a court, preponderance of the evidence. The only ones seemingly demanding proof all the time are creation "scientists" who, for some reason, keep on with this strawman no matter how often they are corrected.
The theory of evolution, whether you like it or not, explains the evidence. Further, it makes predictions that can be checked, and so far those predictions have not been falsified. No other hypothesis has been able to reach this standard. Certainly not "design theory."
...yet it was accepted despite the powerful facts of design, because people don't want to believe in God, otherwise He is God and they are not, and that way they get to say their sins aren't sin.
There is no evidence for creationists' "design theory" in science. "Design theory" is strictly a religious belief -- as your sentence demonstrates. You present no evidence, just a catechism recital. Do you think that is going to impress scientists?
And don't you realize that creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 6:39 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 7:08 AM Coyote has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 71 (561640)
05-22-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by cavediver
05-21-2010 11:18 AM


Re: no barrier to mutation/s
Notice all those negatives?
I don't see anything proving a connection, only proposed theoretics, of a hypothetical nature, representing a paradigm that basically proves itself by definition, without having to prove anything else.
Now, a bacteria, or a fruit fly, or HIV, all reproduce thousands of times faster than humans.
Therefore for such organisms, we should see their entire history over about a million years.
However, what we see, is not one example of a new creation of unique morphology, but instead we see a bacteria flagellum becoming a bacteria flagellum, and surviving, and that is supposed to convince me?
That is exactly like saying; " This man is the best football player to have ever existed, and now we will prove it by showing that he can kick a ball into a goal that is not manned by a goalkeeper. "
I can't convince my reasoning brain that this is sufficient, IN ALL HONESTY, cavediver!
I will never be convinced that God did not design humans. DNA alone contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
Now I go and look at all of the genius designs and how humans can only copy them. The torpedo fish has battery cells, that's how we invented the battery. The bacteria flagellum has a rotary motor that propels it through it's surroundings.
It's all about personal beliefs, and your own reasoning.
I believe it is so obvious we need God, and evolution by comparison, after looking into it for years, is just so feeble and unconvincing.
Bye for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 05-21-2010 11:18 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by hotjer, posted 05-22-2010 7:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 71 (561641)
05-22-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
05-22-2010 6:57 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Infact design is factual. You can read this in the book, "In the beginning was information, by Dr Werner Gitt".
I am not putting a strawman out there, I am saying that the ToE is weak and that logically you can't prove it at all. I know how science works, as I have told you several times pertaining to induction, modus ponen, tentative confirmation versus powerful falsification via the modus tollens. By all means ignore me again.
If it works for you, fine, but for me facts versus evidence, facts will always win.
Designs are factual - they are simply there, and whether mainstream scientists take this seriously or not, will not remove such truth.
I do not care that scientists reject design, because I know why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2010 6:57 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 05-23-2010 2:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 71 (561642)
05-22-2010 7:13 AM


IRREFUTABLE DEPARTURE
THIS CONCLUDES MY PARTICIPATION
I would apreciate folk that have debated with me in this thread to read my blog Blog not found. In my blog I take time to discuss things. I would hope you can read some of these short topics, to get an understanding of my reasoning, without judging me, I am grateful for you to be open minded.
Bye.
(Excerpt from blog as example of how I defend evolution against irreducible complexity
mikey writes:
With evolution, to be fair to evolutionists, the claims of evolution do state that relationships between parts changes.
So for example, if I had one stick (X) and a small square plank of wood, (Y), and I balanced the plank with the stick, then the relationship between the two is set, as the stick is in the middle of the plank. But if we add another stick, (T), then the relationship will change. Now, the first stick will be placed on one side under the plank, and the new stick on the other side.
Now if we removed one stick, the system would fall apart. HOWEVER, this does not describe the original relationship of the original two-part system.
So the system, with three parts, will fall apart, if you remove part T, and only have parts X and Y, but originally, parts X and Y did function together successfully without part T. (A retroactive problem or illusion).
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 05-22-2010 9:16 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4544 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 38 of 71 (561643)
05-22-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 7:03 AM


Re: no barrier to mutation/s
quote:
I will never be convinced that God did not design humans. (...) I believe it is so obvious we need God
You will actual never be convinced and further you believe we need God? Interesting, that explains why you are unqualified to speak about science even as a layman. Still, you are stating some "obvious logical points" that you, for some reason, think the whole scientific community (not just the mainstream) ignore or cannot comprehend. By definition; you do not accept the scientific method to determine whether a hypothesis is correct or not: A) nothing can convince you, B) Implicit assumption that we need God C) you are referring to your blog (agenda). Actually, I think you just want to preach the word of God. I might be wrong, however, then I wonder why you respond to such thread.
About the topic:
Personally, I think it is quite fascinating that they started to do such thing, despite it was expected. Not because of the EvC debate (since ToE has nothing to say about the creation of life) but rather because of the progress and possible benefits of such development. I look forward to hear more about this field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 39 of 71 (561647)
05-22-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 6:39 AM


Re: no barrier to mutation/s
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology.
You neglect Occam's razor. It's not that there isn't a second or third pathway and ToE clearly does not demand a single pathway but that there isn't any evidence for any other then the one known. Extraordinary pathways require extraordinary evidence.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 6:39 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 71 (561652)
05-22-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 7:13 AM


Re: IRREFUTABLE DEPARTURE
Praise be. Are you gone for good?
Lately your MO is to throw a few bombs, then advertise your blog and move on. You have no desire to actually debate or discuss an issue. You are nothing but a proselytizer.
I hope the mods and admin notice and restrict you from being allowed to disrupt threads solely so you can promote your pitiful blog.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 7:13 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 71 (561681)
05-22-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 6:39 AM


Re: no barrier to mutation/s
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology.
If you are asking us to show you a new morphology poofing into existence in one generation, you are setting an impossible standard, and again requiring the ToE to produce something that it doesn't claim to.
New morphologies appear over time, as existing structures change over time into something different. If you'd like an example of that, I'll happily comply:
Well, you asked for "ONE," and I gave you one. Where are you going to move the goalposts to now, Mikey?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 6:39 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 42 of 71 (561685)
05-22-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
05-21-2010 2:47 PM


There are also potentials for making specific drugs, including things like insulin, and some of the meds that are used for cancer and arthritis that cost an arm and a leg to make right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 05-21-2010 2:47 PM Taq has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 43 of 71 (561686)
05-22-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 6:44 AM


There are a lot of problems with your assumptins.. for example, there has been no evidence shown for any supernatural agency .. yet we ahve been able to see self replicating rna

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 6:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


(1)
Message 44 of 71 (561692)
05-22-2010 3:44 PM


I don't see what evidence this event gives to either side, intelligent design, or Darwinism. (you'll notice that I prefer the word Darwinism, has less baggage. There are multiple types of evolution, and evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with design.)
The cell was created by an intelligent person, using already existing code. Therefore this doesn't show that life can arise from non-living matter. It hasn't evolved into something more than what it is yet (and they obviously don't expect it to, since they included watermarks, which would be distorted in the case of a mutation) Therefore it doesn't support Darwinism.
If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by hotjer, posted 05-22-2010 4:15 PM agent_509 has replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2010 5:27 PM agent_509 has replied
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 05-22-2010 5:27 PM agent_509 has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4544 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 45 of 71 (561696)
05-22-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509
05-22-2010 3:44 PM


Origin of life is abiogenesis. Not The Theory of Evolution (ToE) which explain diversity of life.
I think you use the term Darwinism as to try to view ToE as an "-ism", a dogma. If I am to guess, you see the ToE as a belief, right?
In any case, it does not matter since ToE does not explain origin of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 3:44 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:06 PM hotjer 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