Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Universities
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 310 (205150)
05-05-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by paisano
05-05-2005 1:15 AM


quote:
Problem for IDists is, this isn't ancient Greece. And that's a good thing. The Greeks probably failed to reach the industrial age because they were wed to their deductive approach to science, and never developed modern empiricism and the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And you'd have us go back to that. How misguided.
In 2005 A.D., we have evidence that stochastic processes can indeed generate designs. In fact, humans use them. Genetic algorithms are used in the layout of elements on VLSI circuits, among other things.
What? I made that point to show how rich in history ID is. Not to recommend that we recede science back to the B.C. era. Sheeze....How did you ever read that into what I posted? You might want to expound on your VLSI circuit deally-whacker as I doubt anyone understands what you mean here. Surely you are not suggesting that genes had a role in the motherboards of computers. Expansion, please?
quote:
You'll no doubt say something along the lines of "yes, but someone has to design the algorithm or cost function".
No. since I haven't any idea what the heck you are talking about and highly doubt anyone reading this does, there is little chance I will say that.
quote:
If you want to learn some real thermodynamics, instead of the sham version you seem to have picked up, you might look for information on simulated annealing. This is an optimization algorithm that was developed in the modern scientific era not by teleological analogies, but by the quite opposite idea of modeling the stochastic thermodynamic process of annealing in metals.
I'll go anywhere with you in thermodynamics you wish to go, Mr. Physicist. I'll change hats and get right back to you like....um...now? BLINK! Ok, I'm in physics mode now. Want to do some physics?
Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system?
Do you also agree with the stipulation that with any chemically spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase as stated here? Let me know and we'll boogie down in thermo, I'm well versed and formally trained in that subject. One of my faves.
quote:
The argument that the human eye, or bacterial flagellum, or biostructures in general, cannot arise from stochastic processes, is just specious argument from incredulity. The biologists have plausible scenarios, supported by evidence, that say otherwise.
Like what? Please don't throw this stuff out there without the specifics. Biologists have all kinds of plausible scenarios, you just don't what they are?
quote:
Unless and until ID can generate testable scientific hypotheses, it's not going to get much respect from those who do science for a living.
We have tons of testable hypotheses. I'll match you one for one with those in Darwinism. What say you? The molecular biologist seems to have got the heck out of Dodge on the first round of this issue.
quote:
And you really should consider checking your hubris about your scientific knowledge at the door of the forum. There are several Ph.Ds in physical sciences that participate on this forum. To paraphrase Pauli, your assertions about the 2LOT are so bad, they're not even wrong.
I like my hubris, thank you. It fills my puddle.
quote:
You come across as the type who would step into an operating room after reading an undergraduate anatomy textbook, and tell the surgeon "Stand aside, I'm taking over !"
LOL...Well thank you. Please get this rant out of your system. I am here for you.
quote:
Certainly not in ID. With your "wedge strategy", you reveal a postmodern view of scientific knowledge as something socially and politically constructed to conform to a particular ideology, right down there on all fours with Lysenko or the leftist postmodernists that Allan Sokol so thoroughly exposed.
*burp*

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 1:15 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2005 5:25 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 93 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 1:11 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 310 (205178)
05-05-2005 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Parasomnium
05-05-2005 5:25 AM


Re: Speak for yourself, Jerry.
quote:
The fact that you've never even heard of genetic algorithms doesn't mean nobody has, but it does put your hubris in a new light. It's pathetic.
LOL....Does this forum have any way of dealing with trolls, or do I just have to put up with you periodically in every thread I participate in? Please don't post further to me. Thank you.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2005 5:25 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Parasomnium, posted 05-05-2005 1:12 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 310 (205366)
05-05-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by tsig
05-05-2005 8:06 AM


quote:
Can you show some of the science and mathematics?
I'm glad to. What area would you like to further understand?

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by tsig, posted 05-05-2005 8:06 AM tsig has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 310 (205374)
05-05-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by scordova
05-05-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Greetings Jerry
Back atcha, Sal:
Haven't heard from you for awhile:
quote:
I hope the Nature article has encouraged you that our efforts are not in vain. There are at least 20 bio majors in our Virginia IDEA chapters that I know, the number of ID friendly bio majors at the universities in our chapter's sphere is probably upwards of 80 and growing. We're slowly making inroads on the campuses. I believe that is a long term trend.
Yep. I caught the Nature article and we featured it front and center on our Web Site ID Theorist Salvador Cordova Appears in Nature
I haven't been discouraged at all. I love the way things are going especially with the "gagging" of Darwinists from participating in the Kansas hearings by the AAAS. Lol--They are afraid that having to publicly defend Darwinism "might confuse people."
Their new strategy: Make us look like "asses" and target people that are poorly educated (link below). They also openly admit they have been trying to "convert" creationists to their 'science.'
Keep up the great work on the campuses. Young and curious minds seek truth and you are providing it. You've discovered your niche and appear to be soaring with it. Quite frankly, I'm very proud of you and your work. Now, get that PhD in cosmology as Uncle Bill advised you and I think we gots us another point man. Hmmm....who is encouraging who.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by scordova, posted 05-05-2005 9:58 AM scordova has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 310 (205376)
05-05-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by paisano
05-05-2005 11:21 AM


paisano, are you going to answer my post back to you, or just ignore it and hope it goes away? I wanted to do a little physics with our resident physicist.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 11:21 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 6:20 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 310 (205380)
05-05-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by mikehager
05-05-2005 1:11 PM


quote:
Hubris is something you should be ashamed of.
What? I can't be proud of pride? And you guys just missed how I tied in my hubris to the puddle analogy and therefore into ID.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 1:11 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 7:07 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 310 (205389)
05-05-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by paisano
05-05-2005 6:20 PM


quote:
I've yet to see any evidence in your posts of anything other than an ability to quote equations. Let's see you develop one of your assertions with a technical argument.
Well heck. I mean it's not like I can get the PhDs in here to the point where I can actually CALCULATE something. Every time I introduce some formulas and get to the calculation stage of my argument you guys all drop out and refuse to answer my posts.
What is it you're afraid of, paisano? I know that none of you are mathematically illiterate, yet you just will not go there when someone comes on this forum like Sal and I that can actually show ID to be true both scientifically and mathematically.
Interesting. There's got to be a truism in that fact somewhere.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 6:20 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 6:45 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 103 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 7:13 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 310 (205420)
05-05-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by paisano
05-05-2005 6:45 PM


quote:
Rather than back this assertion up with a technical argument, you quoted a completely unrelated paper, and were soundly refuted by another poster.
*chuckle* Soundly refuted by his suddenly getting the heck out of Dodge and no longer addressing my posts to him on the subject? Boy. If that's how you guys refute things in here then I suppose I must have been refuted a 100 times or so thus far. But, indeed, I will construct a technical argument to throw out.
quote:
I don't think you can construct a technically sound argument that the 2LOT supports your position, because the 2LOT simply does not have the implications you think it does.
But, if you think otherwise, let's see the calculation. Unsupported assertions won't cut it.
Yes, let's do, Doctor. And I expect you actually to do something mathematically to refute this, not refuse to address this post, run and hide and proclaim with hubris to the masses that you have refuted another IDist.
I tried to show you this in our last major exchange but you simply refuse to answer the post even with me goading you a bit. Speaking, in this case biologically, considering the genome of vertebrates:
As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.
In other words, since genes are loose information (information that is not "fixed" in a manner it cannot change as it diffuses, like a library book or video tape) we do not expect to see macroevolution via increasing information content due to random mutations in a population of organisms over time as Darwin asserted.
In fact, we would expect to see just the opposite: a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations and that species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record. The trouble is that considering vertebrates, we never had any studies on this until Eyre-Walker and Keightley published their study in Nature on a comparison of the genomes of Chimp and Man over a period of about 6 million years considering homo sapiens evolutionary walk from hominids.
Once this was published (See Mick? Here is a paper that supports ID but it's gasp...biology!) Eyre-Walker brought our observation into the scientific method experimentally because lo and behold, the researchers did not show the genome to be evolving via increasing information over time but to be devolving by the steady increase of detrimental mutations as this information is diffused down lineages from progenitors to progeny.
In fact, the study concludes in the abstract: "Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages."
Note that these accumulating deleterious mutations are considered AFTER those that were weeded out by natural selection. Then knowing this, we can learn just how this study was accomplished having it further explained to us by professor of genetics James Crow (I believe at U of Nebraska) who served as an interpreter in this study.
HERE we read: "Eyre-Walker and Keightley have made the analysis feasible by concentrating on protein-coding regions. They measured the amino-acid changes in 46 proteins in the human ancestral line after its divergence from the chimpanzee. Among 41,471 nucleotides, they found 143 nonsynonymous substitutions -- mutations where swapping one DNA base for another changes an amino acid, and therefore the final protein made by that gene."
Now let's get into some mathematical physics with the physicist. I asked you: "Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system?
Do you also agree with the stipulation that with any chemically spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase as stated here?" I'll answer this for since you simply refuse to, "Yes I do!" Thank you.
The Eyre-Walker study showed this entropy increasing at the rate of 1.6 deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome each generation and our plight is to show this entropically. It just so happens that W in this formula stands for statistical weight--the total number of ways that matter/energy can be arranged-- and can be calculated as Feynman told us how to calculate it: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
Reference
Feynman never used Boltzmann's formula in this particular lecture but it is clear he is referring to it. So let's calculate this. Infodynamic theorists (IDists) use the same statistical method as do thermodynamicists and physicists as those "numbers of ways" are calculated using combinatorials or factorials.
The University of New South Wales, physics department has a good page on calculating entropy HERE.
In fact they use the same formula that ID theorists use:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deletariously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula if you are a math purest, but most no longer do this, and we can go with Uncle Claude and calculate this in bits, if you like, just holler.
Anyhow, there you have it, my new friend. If I have pushed all the right buttons (which I'm prone to NOT do occasionally--just correct me), then the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism stands refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history. ID walks tall. See why the Darwinists refuse to publicly debate us in Kansas? They KNOW they would lose because the science and math is all in ID's camp!
NOTE TO READERS: If you want to learn this type of ID insight for yourself sign up for my summer course on this at designdynamics.org ~
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-05-2005 09:31 PM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 6:45 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by JustinC, posted 05-05-2005 10:39 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 112 by nator, posted 05-05-2005 10:54 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 113 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 11:03 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2005 1:13 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 310 (205422)
05-05-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by mikehager
05-05-2005 8:31 PM


quote:
Perhaps you can answer a simple question. I doubt it, but I will give you a shot.
Mike, if you learn one thing from this thread I hope you will learn that people will not respond to provocative posts like this at the professional level. We all tend to trade insults and that's human nature, but in the first post? Think about that.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 8:31 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by mikehager, posted 05-06-2005 12:11 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 310 (205468)
05-05-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by JustinC
05-05-2005 10:39 PM


Justin, I will try you one more time because you seem a nice guy at heart. But if you go getting snippy on me again, I will ignore your posts as the big moose moderator (lol, whoever that was) advised in our last thread. Don't get FRUSTRATED. I'm not out to degrade you personally, I simply disagree with your arguments. And, fairly vigorously so.
quote:
Can you go into a little more detail about how that equation, which apparently is used to calculate the entropy associated with a box filled with gaseous particles, can be applied to the genome the way you did?
It doesn't matter what it applies to, it is the total number of ways that something can be arranged. Any something; and that's what the statistical weight is in infodynamic formulas, such as Botzmann's S = K log W, or Shrodinger's S = K log 1/D.
Consider a simple system created by the flipping of 4 coins. One would think that total microstates might be calculated as the total number of available states (heads or tails) taken to the power of the number of coins, or with 4 coins, 2^4 = 16 ways. Well, this is partially true, and here they are:
But this only relates to the state of each coin and not how that state interacts with other states. IOW, we can take it further and discover more microstates. But we must calculate it combinatorially to do so, or 4! = 24. When we allow each coin to be represented by a color, it is easier to see how they really interact:
There are really 24. With me? I might also jog your memory and remind you that Boltzmann fully considered his expanding atoms in a gas as information. Here is how he defines the entropy in the formula I used:
"Gain in information is loss in entropy"
Finally, as I stated, we can also calculate it with Shannon's information formula:
quote:
Also, can you explain how finding the solution to a state function indicates a change in something? That is, usually when I see someone showing the change in entropy is decreasing or increasing using the Boltzmann equations, they use (change)S=k ln (W2/W1). This is because S is just the entropy associated with the state of matter (or energy), not the change in entropy.
Yep, correct. I was calculating S considering only a single generation. But you can bring an argument that I also could calculate deltaS, or the change in entropy from generation to generation. The formula you threw out is a valid one I am very familiar with. Or it works as well with simple subtraction such as deltaS = Sf - Si, or change in entropy is represented by final entropy minus initial entropy. It doesn't matter as long as we all use the same math to compare when we are quantifying the same system.
quote:
I'm also not trying to imply your wrong, since my background in entropy is limited to chemistry and physics, and I'm not sure how to apply to information.
Matter is information. A pebble laying in the road is information, as an information channel (light reflecting from the pebble to my eyes) is established and an information recipient (me) records the fact that a pebble is there into the neurons of my hard drive. Boltzmann was correct that his atoms were information. IOW, there isn't a difference in this particular situation if we wish to define one atom as one bit of information, under Shannon's description of bits in his original paper, we can certainly do so.
Now we be doin' some ID!

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JustinC, posted 05-05-2005 10:39 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by JustinC, posted 05-06-2005 3:35 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 310 (205470)
05-06-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by paisano
05-05-2005 11:03 PM


quote:
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the only thing you computed is a meaningless number, and the only thing you refuted is the already slim evidence that you actually understood either thermodynamics or information theory.
This post is absolutely ludicrous and contains no science at all. Is this why you posted no references to back up your assertions? Did you note that I posted references with every step in my post to you? Why can you not, because it's all Darwinist propaganda claptrap with no science or math anywhere in it?
You see, it is very common to do exactly what I did and scientists often express statistical entropy thermodynamically. Yet, I did not express mine thermodynamically because thermodynamic entropy always deals with heat. Thermo means heat in Greek. Did you see any heat in the form of Joules/degrees Kelvin in that calculation?
No, but I could rightfully do so as others before me have. Here's a page with a college professor expressing the flipping of quarters thermodynamically; in heat never-the-less.
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Also, I'm afraid you do not even know what Shannon entropy is. Shannon entropy is summed over and calculated via this formula:
Now did you see this anywhere in the post I just sent to you? No. Therefore your assertion that I am confusing thermodynamic entropy with Shannon entropy is simply ridiculous and obvious to any reader. The fact is, I calculated logical entropy. You might want to Google that as you obviously are not that familiar with the infodynamics in your field.
And finally, your implication that natural selection was ignored and that this should be considered in only one generation of a population is just as preposterous. Change by mutation and selection in one generation? Talk about punk eek!

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by paisano, posted 05-05-2005 11:03 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by paisano, posted 05-06-2005 1:14 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 310 (205471)
05-06-2005 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
05-05-2005 10:54 PM


I'm sorry. Do you recall that I gave you the last word on our argument? Please format your final post on it and it will stand.
There simply has not been any science in your posts that I can address.
According to you, I am a creationist and all creationists do not understand methodological naturalism. Despite the fact that most of science used in the lab today was brought to you complements of creationists.
I asked you to show pakicetus to be true under your qualifications as to what is science and you did not. You just came back with more opinion.
Fine. You are entitled to hold opinions as we are all and I grant you that right. But I cannot scientifically refute opinions as those are subjective. So you win. Your opinions stand as your opinions!
Accept this and move on to another discussion as ours is over. Thank you for your participation.
In fact, have a great evening!
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 01:19 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 05-05-2005 10:54 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 05-07-2005 8:12 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 310 (205477)
05-06-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by NosyNed
05-06-2005 1:13 AM


Re: Entropy
Ned:
quote:
Your claim that the entropy must increase in the system under study must consider the system to have no inputs of energy.
Not quite. I did not assert that the entropy must increase in that system. But the study showed that it did. Sorry. There's the science. Science says macroevolution didn't happen. Math shows entropy actually increased.
quote:
In fact, this is incorrect. An evolving population has inputs into it. One manifestation of this is the selection of genenomes. Selection can weed out what you refer to as deleterious mutations and this negates your application of thermodynamics to this situation. That is spearate from the fact that thermodynamics (and the 2nd law in particular) are not intended to be applicable to the situation here.
The second law is a universal law of nature that applies to EVERYTHING. Another thing you are missing is that the study considered the deleterious mutations that were weeded out in natural selection and concluded that only about 38% of them were. This is stated in the abstract. The 1.6 accumulation is considered after natural selection has done its magic.
Prigogine showed that systems maintain a far from equilibrium state by the flow of energy, which I believe is what you are touching on here. Organisms eat food, water heaters use gas or electricity to correct the situation every time the second law tries to take them to equilibrium with their environment.
But how is there a flow of energy in genomes to keep them from detrimentally mutating? There isn't. This is what you are going to have to show to further your argument, I'm afraid.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2005 1:13 AM NosyNed has not replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 310 (205479)
05-06-2005 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by paisano
05-06-2005 1:14 AM


quote:
I see your errors, and so do others in this forum. That you are uncorrectable is regrettable, but not surprising. After all you aren't about to let your postmodern agenda be derailed by the facts.
You haven't presented any facts. I bring my argument to you using references, usually from the science departments of respected universities. You come back with nothing more than your opinion, and even that supported by no math or science at all that can be addressed or cross-referenced.
On what do you base your rebuttal? On the fact that you do not like what I presented because of your particular religious views? Yep.
That doesn't cut it. Either bring a rebuttal based on science and math using references as I did or just be honest and admit you cannot. Your peers will better respect you. There's nothing dishonorable about simply admitting you are wrong.
quote:
That's exactly my point. The generalized Boltzmann equation, and the Shannon entropy equation, are of the same form. They represent two different quantities, however.
You used S= k ln W for your computation. I said you were assuming , without evidence, the the microstates were equiprobable. Those little p's with the little subscript i's are the microstate probabilities. If you assume the microstates are equiprobable, you get the simplified equation.
That is why your calculation was completely specious. You can't assume equiprobability. Your arguent is doomed by a fundamental error from the start.
This could not be any further from the truth. Random mutations ARE equiprobable as any nucleotide can mutate at any time in the transcription process where mutations normally occur (or any other scenario I can think of). To suggests that transcription stochastically favors certain mutations over others is simply a misunderstanding of biology.
quote:
More equivocation. You asserted that the human genome was "best when designed, and degraded over many generations". Now you are moving the goalposts by asserting one generation.
So what? I did not calculate many generations. You can calculate several generations if you want to, it's not that difficult. It's just a matter of extrapolating the average decay in one generation to as many as you want. This is not exactly brain surgery.
quote:
Your posts are the very definition of pseudoscience - crafted to resemble science to a layperson, but with fatal, fundamental flaws that are obvious to someone with some training.
LOL...Well there ya go, people. Paisano's sole argument is that he has some "training" and even though he does not know me, I must not because he disagrees with me. He presents no science, no math and absolutely nothing backed up with references to show one of his point to be correct and generally accepted by others that study this subject.
I'm sorry my friend, your argument isn't rational. If you don't start posting some references as the rest of us do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that you simply stand by yourself trying to mask your faith as science. There's your pseudo-science by anyone's standards.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 02:21 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by paisano, posted 05-06-2005 1:14 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Wounded King, posted 05-06-2005 4:35 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 310 (205495)
05-06-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by PaulK
05-06-2005 3:09 AM


Re: Mike Hager asked
Now Paul, you either are blinded by religion or you have a reading comprehension problem. ONE did not express that opinion, read what the danged article says:
"His main question for each person was on their opinion of the age of the earth. All said it was billions of years old, except for William Harris who quipped he thought it was "really old."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 3:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 3:43 AM Jerry Don Bauer 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