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:   What exactly is ID?
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1183 of 1273 (550598)
03-16-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1175 by Jazzns
03-13-2010 1:40 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
That is an unsupported assertion. With SETI, it is simply out of the bounds of our current technological capabilities to get from the design to the designer. They do NOT proclaim it out of bounds by fiat like ID does.
You are the one who drew the comparison, it is up to you to support it with more than just your say so.
The point is that based on science of design detection alone we can't know the identity of the designer. If we had better technology, to actually eitehr go to outer space and find some alien designer, than that would not be the case of design detection. But of simply observing the designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1175 by Jazzns, posted 03-13-2010 1:40 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1190 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2010 10:24 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1184 of 1273 (550599)
03-16-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1176 by PaulK
03-13-2010 2:20 PM


Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
What is true ? Are you now trying to assert that you did NOT argue for the loss of all function ?
Nope, why would I say that?
quote:
You said that they weren't different proteins. That is why I have to point out that more copies of the same protein isn't that unlikely.
I know, and now, I'm asking you what if they were differnet but of the same size N.
quote:
Since DNA replication was preceded by RNA replication we cannot say that the assembly of any protein was by chance. You are treading on unknown ground when you make that claim.
You very well know that this is a pure assertation. Nobody knows what preceded what. So if we are going to accept the idea that something came first, than one of them came by chance, by your logic. So which one was it?
quote:
I would say that y is proportional to the logartihm of x
Great.
quote:
It's an inverse logarithmic relation.
Thank you. So it's an inverse logarithmic relation. Fine. So do you now accept that complexity and probability have an inverse logarithmic relation?
quote:
No, I don't want to stop science in it's tracks. The progress of science does mnot depend on making wild guesses that happen to be convenient to ID proponents
Saying that the Sun will rise tommorow is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT a wild guess! It's an inference, with which you would agree on. And it's based on an assumption!
WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT WILL RISE TOMMOROW! WE ASSUME IT!
But this is the best assumption we can make. If we don't make it, science is DEAD! Do you understand this or not?
quote:
Also your long paragraph is very, very silly. We conclude from induction that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very, very high. We do not conclude that it is just as likely not to rise or to perform odd manouevres as you suggest, There is no similar body of evidence validating the use of uniform probabilities - a method recognised as unsound by statisticians.
You got your analogy wrong. Infering that the Sun will rise tommorow is a generalized case of principle of insufficient reason.
We claim uniforma probability not that the sun will make a wild action in the sky tommorow, but that it will continue doing the same thing it has been doing from the past few thousand years.
Just as we assume that the probability will decrease in the same way when we increase the number of dice. This is also an assumption. The same one as assuming that the Sun will rise tommorow.
quote:
No, I am CONTRADICTING the point by poiting out that the choice of uniform probability in this case is supported by knowledge. If it were not, it would be unreliable.
AND YOU ARE WRONG!
The article clearly says that PoIR is use not because we DO know something, but because we DON'T know something! We use it because, in this case, we do not precisely know the mechanical laws that govern the dice!
The assumption is taken because of our ignorance, not knowledge!
quote:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. However the fact is that inference to naturally existing intelligences is entirely permissable within methodological naturalism - which is based on the natural/supernatural dichotomy, not the natural/artificial dichotomy. Thus any assertion that methodological naturalism rules out intelligence is false and a strawman.
I said materialism rules out intelligence.
quote:
No, our universe (which includes the Big Bang) is not regarded as necessarily all of nature.
Wow, that's wrong on so many levels.
1.) I didn't say BB itself. But the CAUSE of BB. The cause is obviously outside our universe.
2.) As I said, unter the multiverse hypothesis, our nature is just one of many natures. And any one of them is by definition supernatural becasue it's outside our nature.
3.) If you claim that our universe is just a part of the whole nature, than this is an unfalsifiable claim, thus not science. Becasue that emans that everything is nature, and thus nothing is nature. Eitehr soemthing is, or isn't nature.
quote:
Which is completely by Kol irrelevant since they are sequences and have a Kolmogorov complexity whether it is calculated or not. And that complexity is not determined by the length of the sequence.
Which is why I ddin't use KC for the probability, obviously.
quote:
Not really. Two different proteins would be more complex than two copies of the same protein - and very likely more complex than three or four. Certainly by Kolmogorov complexity - and Dembski's measure is even more sensitive to other factors.
But we are NOT using KC for protein formation. We are using SI instead. And you very well know that the higher the complxity, that SI claims the lower the probability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2010 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1189 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2010 7:36 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1185 of 1273 (550600)
03-16-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1177 by hooah212002
03-14-2010 3:27 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
That is by and far one of the worst websites I have ever come across. I wouldn't use it for a reference even if it were advocating evolution.
It hasn't even been updated in 4 years, the layout is garbage, navigation is terrible, links mostly end up nowhere (some even lead to pornographic material). You really should have something better.
quote:
This page was last modified 16:19, 2 March 2010. This page has been accessed 28,947 times.
LOL, anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1177 by hooah212002, posted 03-14-2010 3:27 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1186 of 1273 (550601)
03-16-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1178 by Theodoric
03-14-2010 4:05 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
Well SETI isn't a field of science. It is using science to try to find some evidence of ET life, but It is in no way a "field" of science.
Care to try again?
Also, Percy has explained clearly why it doesn't work as an answer, but as always you refuse to even consider you might be wrong.
If something is "using" science, than it's science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1178 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 4:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


(1)
Message 1187 of 1273 (550602)
03-16-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1180 by Taq
03-15-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Numbers
quote:
How does this put their origin and mechanism of insertion in doubt? If an ERV induces variation how does that discount their insertion through standard retroviral mechanisms?
Where did I say it does? In some cases it might, but not in all cases. The fact that ERV regions that code for reproduction must have been present from the start, or the animal would not be able to reproduce, does mean it was there from the start. But not so for others.
quote:
It relates to your use of magic to discount obvious conclusions.
What magic?
quote:
You have consistently shown that ID is not able to detect anything in biology. Therefore, I can only conclude that there is no intelligent design in biology, otherwise ID could explain these features.
Non sequitur. Aren't you tiered of making logical fallacies? Wether ID can detect anything in biology or not, has nothing to do with explaining the patterns of characteristics we see.
quote:
No, it is not. I am asking you to use ID to explain observations. That is what scientific hypotheses/theories do, they explain observations. The observation is that an ERV shared by all apes has more LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and apes.
Again, it's a non sequitur. ID is not supposed to explain that. Can General relativity explain that? Can quantum mechanics explain that? No, because they aren't even trying.
quote:
Evolution can explain this. If common ancestry and evolution is true this is exactly what we should observe. You are saying that common ancestry is wrong. You are saying that ID explains things better. So how does ID explain this observation?
You just keep making assertations. Why does evolution explain that? How? Where did you even show that evolution is able to produce something like that? You can't ascribe the explanatory power to a cause that has not demonstrated the ability to perform it. Do you, or do you not understand that?
quote:
False. The random insertion of retroviruses is OBSERVED. It is an observation. Even an ERV rescued from the human genome (i.e. Phoenix) randomly inserts into the genome just like its modern counterparts.
So once again you have to ignore observations to make ID work. That doesn't bode well.
Okay, how do you know it's a randm insertation. Based on what exactly?
quote:
How does that put the origin of the ERV in doubt? Can you please show us how it is impossible for an ERV that is produced by random insertion of a retrovirus into the germline CAN NOT result in a function in the lineage? How does function negate the very natural origin of these sequences?
Hello? If the ERV was notht here from the start the sheep would not be able to reproduce.
quote:
Based on what evidence? If they have degenerated then how do you explain the higher divergence in ERV's shared by all apes than in ERV's that are lineage specific or shared by just 2 species of ape? If they all degenerated from a set time in history then all of them should be equally distant, but they aren't.
Based on the fact that some of them are useful. But some could have degenerated, not all of them.
quote:
You stated that common ancestry is impossible. Are you retracting that statement?
I said no such thing. I specifically said that we have no evidence of universal common ancestry. And that common ancestry of all dogs, or all cats, does not imply that dogs and cats had a common ancestro. Even less that all life has a universal common ancestor.
quote:
I already told you what is stopping it. A drastic reduction in fitness. Such an organism would be selected against, strongly. Evolution can't go backwards. You might as well claim that gravity can make rivers flow uphill.
No, that just means it's very unlikely. Not that it's not going to happen. Besides, how do you knwo there would be no beenfit to that. Surely evolving lungs out of gills would mean that there would be a drastic reduction in fitness too. But hey, you believe there wasn't.
quote:
This forum is about ID. What does ID say?
I'll tell you, but first, tell me did that non-standard code evolve or was it designed?
quote:
No it is not. A bat with feathers would violate the nested hierarchy and would falsify the theory of evolution even though feathers would be a homologous structure shared by bats and ducks. Homology in and of itself does not indicate common ancestry or evolution. Not every pattern of homology will indicate evolution.
Why!? You keep saying this but you don't explain why. Explain exactly why would this falsify evolution.
quote:
There is only one pattern that will indicate evolution, and that happens to be the pattern we observe.
Why? What's so special about it?
quote:
Cars and frying pans do not fall into a nested hiearchy. You have just supported my argument. Designed things do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
Why do you keep avoiding facts? Designed things, do fall into a nested hierarchy.
quote:
Matryoshka dolls, also known as nesting dolls or russian dolls. Each doll is encompassed inside another until the smallest one is reached. This is the concept of nesting. When the concept is applied to sets, the resulting ordering is a nested hierarchy.
Hierarchy - Wikipedia
How long do you keep denying this fact?
quote:
If they did then only one lineage of cars would have airbags.
If that's the case than only one lineage of animals would have eyes. But that's not the case. But than you just take those animal that have the most similar eyes and call them one lineage and claim that they are a nested hierarchy. That's unfalsifiable. I could calim that only certain lineages of cars have airbags, only those that I pick and they than fall into a nested hierarchy.
quote:
Only one lineage of frying pans would have teflon coating. This is not what we see. For example, we can find a Mazda and Chevy that have the same tires, but different engines. We can find two Mazdas that have the same engine, but different tires. There is no nested hierarchy even though there is homology. Do you understand the difference or not?
And again. Fish have eyes, humans have eyes. But humans don't hve gills, like fish do. Therefore no nested hierarchy.
quote:
Because bats were never birds.
So what!? That's a total non sequitur. Neitehr were birds - birds, before they supposedly evolved to birds! So why couldn't bats evolve featehrs?
quote:
For bats to evolve feathers you would need to give bats the same genetic background as the non-feathered ancestors of birds. It is impossible for a bat to have that genetic background. Not only that, but once the bats have this impossible to get genetic background they need to acquire the same random mutations in the same order, another near impossibility.
Let's sse... umm... no. Convergent evolution. Ring any bells? Genetically different animals yet have the same features. They simply converged. They are genetically differnet yet have the same feature. If you think it's not possible due to low probability, than tell me does htat mean that evolution has limits?
quote:
So your only recourse now is to put words in my mouth in order to discount my arguments? That's dishonesty at its acme. Why don't you find an ostrich with teats and then see how I react. Or why don't you give us the ID explanation of why we don't see a single species with teats and feathers. Care to explain?
Do you, or do you not accept tht eyes evolved many times?
quote:
Secondly, the vertebrate eye evolved once. The insect eye evolved once. The cephalopod eye evolved once. These are lineage specific adaptations. They have lineage specific anatomy, histology, and development. The only thing that ties them together is their end function. You might as well try to claim that the insect leg, bear leg, and squid leg are also homologous because you can call them legs.
Just becasue you call them LINEAGE SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS doesn't mean anything! I don't care how you call them. The fact is they evolved over and over again. So if they evolved over and over again, than why wouldn't bats evolve feathers!?
quote:
What is being said is that the tool is too crude to resolve branches that are very close together. You might as well claim that binoculars don't work because they can not resolve separate stars in the Andromeda galaxy.
I coul also claim that the tool is too crude and that is why it shows a nested hierarchy where there actually is none. Just like looking at mirage at a distance. You come closer and than you noticce it's not really there.
quote:
It's not the equipment. It's the lack of data. Modern species represent a tiny fraction of the species that have existed. Using their genomes as a phylogenetic tool will not be able to resolve branches of extinct species that branched very close to one another due to the missing data. What it can give us is a cruder, larger picture, and it does that quite well.
Two things.
1.) If this is true. Than any claim of a unifying tree are dead. Because you yourself agree that the data is crappy. And thus can't be used to support anything. If it can't be used to show that the tree doesn't exist, than it even can be used to show that it does exist.
2.) This is not about the missing animals. It's about those we have. The fact that 35% of data was simply thrown out to make a nested hierarchy means there is not a lack of data, but that it simply doesn't fit. They are throwing out data that doesn't fit. They aren't lacking any.
quote:
Please show how all known kachina dolls fall into a single nested hiearchy. Please compare the characteristics of each kachina doll population and show how they fall into a single nested hierarchy.
BTW, the ability of something to physically fit inside another is not a nested hierarchy.
LOL? Yes it is. Only certain dolls fit the order. You can't put a larger doll into a smaller one. You can put a smaller one into a larger one, but if it's not the correct one, you can't fit them all in. There is a specific, and only one way to fit them all in. This is a nested hierarchy.
quote:
The individual is meaningless in terms of evolution. If all we look at is the individual then we have to remove two of the important mechanisms in evolution: differential reproductive success and competition between organisms. If an individual has two offspring, what does that mean? What if that individual has 100 offspring, what does that mean? How can we make heads or tails of what the individual means without comparing the individual WITH THE REST OF THE POPULATION?
I never said we won't compare what is going on in the population. But the fact is that evolution is supposed to be going on on the molecular level. So, let's look at what's going on on that level, in one individual. How he get's evaluated and selected or not.
quote:
You tell us? Why call it design when you have shown that ID can not explain any observations in biology?
Depends on what observations you are talking about. ID never claimed to to explain anythign you ascribed to it.
quote:
That was my question. Why should we or shouldn't we? What does ID predict as to the existence of fish with fur, mammals with gills, birds with teats, bats with feathers, etc.?
Why do you keep asking me that? ID doesn't predict anything about that.
quote:
Why do we only see the combination of features predicted by the theory of evolution?
You keep saying that. But you never say why. Why does evolution predict things we observe. Please explain in detail.
quote:
The problem is that scientists can use the characteristics of the radio signal to reverse engineer the mechanisms that the alien race used to create the design. From the strength of the signal and the frequency one can derive the types of coils used, as one example. One can infer the mechanism of design from looking at the design. IDer's can't or won't do this.
You need to find a new example.
You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, you do not who is sending the signal. If they could do that, than they wouldn't have mistaken pulsars for aliens. Regardless, of that. That still doesn't bring you to a designer. Even if they did find a radio signal. They can't know who is sending it.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1180 by Taq, posted 03-15-2010 1:04 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1191 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 10:44 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 1192 by Peepul, posted 03-17-2010 12:54 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1197 of 1273 (550952)
03-19-2010 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1188 by Percy
03-16-2010 7:25 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
Are you daft? Based on just the presence of a signal and the way it is modulated we'd know their minimal level of technological achievement.
No we wouldn't, because you do not know what's producing the signal.
quote:
and based on the direction we'd know where in the sky they were. Based on the content of the signal we'd know whatever they care to tell us, maybe that they have two heads and three legs.
And how would you know the information was true or false? If they said that they had 3 heads, yet actually had ona 1. How would you know?
quote:
If they tell us the original frequency of the signal then we'd know their motion relative to us, and if it reached cosmological levels of red shift then we'd know they're outside our galactic group.
And that would be great! But that still doesn't tell you two things.
1.) You don't know who the designer still is. You know what the signall thells you but you don't know if it's true or not.
2.) You don't know where the designer is. You know where the signal is coming from, but you don't know if the designer of the signal is still there. Or, if he was there from the start. People sent the PIoneer satellite into outer space. If some alien picked up it's signal, would he be right to conclude that people actually made it there? No. It was made on Earth.
quote:
SETI does not hold as a fundamental premise that it isn't possible to learn anything about an extra terrestrial intelligence whose signal they eventually detect. If they're ever successful they expect to find out a great deal about them.
This is in stark contrast to ID, which unlike any other field within science and in the absence of any evidence holds as a fundamental premise that it isn't possible to know something, specifically, anything about the designer.
Care to try again? Can you name any other field within science that in the absence of any evidence holds as a fundamental premise that there's something we cannot know?
No. I would first like you to show me how would SETI know anything about the designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1188 by Percy, posted 03-16-2010 7:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1205 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 8:38 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 1206 by Admin, posted 03-20-2010 8:42 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1198 of 1273 (550953)
03-19-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by PaulK
03-16-2010 7:36 PM


Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
I don't know why you said it, but you did and even admitted to doing so, not so many posts ago. And by past form you will admit to saying it again and insist that it is correct next...
What exactly would be the correct answer than?
quote:
Perhaps you can go back to my earlier posts where I discussed the point only to be cut off by your insistence that you were using the same proteins...
Look, it doesn't matter if they are the same or not. Youwould still need more information in teh regulatory regions if there were more proteins even if they were similar. Because now you would need to coordinate more proteins. Thus, you would need more information to do so.
And in the case of having the different proteins of teh same size, you would need more information in protein coding regions.
In any case, you need more information. Therefore, probability of them forming by chance decreases.
quote:
The current scientific view is that RNA life preceded DNA life, and this view has been accpeted for some time now.
Fine. So the RNA is the one that formed by chance. How exactly does that help you?
quote:
I haven't changed my mind on the relationship between Dembski's complexity and probabiity.
Oh, I see, so in the light of facts, you still won't change your mind. So why are we even having this conversation? I clearly demonstrated an inverse relation between complexity and probability and you won't change your mind.
quote:
And it's got nothing to do with the point we are arguing.
Of course it does.
CASE 1. - Dice
a.) We don't know the mechanic underlying their movement.
b.) Based on this ignorance we assume that increasing the number of dice will change the probability in a predictable way.
c.) And that's how we infer the probability of dice throws.
CASE 2. - Sun
a.) We don't know the mechanic underlying it's movement.
b.) Based ont his ignorace, we assume that increasing the time we observe the Sun rising and setting will continue in the predictable manner.
c.) And that's how we infer Sun's movement.
As you can see this is the same thing.
quote:
Except that we could base it on induction or on an understanding of the dynamics of the Earth and it's relation to the Sun.
And you miss the point again. Yes that's the part we know. But it could be wrong. The point is that we don't know EXACTLY the mechanics underlying the dynamics between the Sun and the Earth. We could be wrong. In absence of knowledge about how things really work we ASSUME that they are going to work the way we observe them now.
quote:
Rather than assigning equal probabilities to all possible outcomes we know that it is highly unlikely that the Earth will stop spinning unless a drastic and improbably event occurs (conservation of angular momentum tells us it can't "just happen").
And again, this is where you make a false analogy. We do not asign the same probabilities to all outcomes like that. We asign the same probabilities to the uniform motion of the Sun.
If we assume than one die has a probability of 1/6, than we assume that 2 dice have the probability of 1/36.
In the case of the Sun, if we see it rising and setting today, we conclude that it's going to do so tommorow.
In both cases we don't really know. But the change in the probability is the sae as in the movement of the Sun. They continue to change in the same way.
quote:
And the article omits to mention the important things that we do know, that justify assigning equal probabilities to the six faces of the die.
Wrong. You keep missing the point. It doesn't omit anything. We know something about the dice. Yes that's true, the point is we don't know if it's 100% true. And that's what we're ignorant off. And that's where teh PoIR comes in.
quote:
Which is both false and irrelevant to the original claim that methodological naturalism did not consider intelligent causes. Forensics work uses methodological naturalism - it does not consider demons or miracles - but it certainly allows for human action.
I said certain sciences, like biology imply materialism with methodological naturalism.
quote:
The "big bang" not"the cause of the Big Bang. And you would still be wrong if you HAD said "the cause of the Big Bang".
Your point 2 is also wrong.
And I am not sure what the hell your point 3 is supposed to mean. Definitions aren't meant to be falsifiable.
1.) It seems I was not precise enough. I emant the cause of BB. And no, I'm not wrong. Tell me where was teh cause of BB. Inside or outside of our universe?
2.) Umm... Why?
3.) It means that since nature is everything, than there is no sucha a thing as supernatural. Therefore, even God is a natural explanation.
quote:
You don't use Kolmogorov complexity for probability because it isn't a probability. But then I suppose I shouldn't expect somebody who thinks that "50 proteins" is a probability to understand that.
The point is that Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of complexity. And one which is rather better than Dembski's odd definition - and more accepted in the statistics community.
The point you fail to understand is that complexity is the logarithmic inverse of probability. They are in certain cases equivalent.
Imagine a safe with 1.000.000 combinations. And only one that opens the safe. The chances of opening the safe are 1/1.000.000. Now if you have a safe that has 500.000 combinations and only one opens the safe, the cahnce of you opening it is 1/500.000.
So to sum up.
[SAFE 1]
Complexity - 1.000.000
Probability - 1/1.000.000
[SAFE 2]
Complexity - 500.000
Probability - 1/500.000
When the complexity increases, the probability decreases. And in the same way when the complexity decreases the probability increases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2010 7:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1204 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2010 3:04 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1199 of 1273 (550954)
03-19-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1190 by Jazzns
03-16-2010 10:24 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
Exactly, except ID's position is that is impossible IN PRINCIPLE to do designer detection. THAT is why the analogy to SETI is a false analogy.
And how would you or SETI detect the designer. Please do tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1190 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2010 10:24 PM Jazzns has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1200 of 1273 (550955)
03-19-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by Taq
03-17-2010 10:44 AM


Re: Numbers
quote:
I see a lot of assertions and zero evidence. Can you show any evidence that the ancestors of modern mammals required these ERV sequences in order to reproduce? Any at all?
You don't get it. The sheep themselves wouldn't be alive if they didn't have those sequences. So the sheep had to have them from the start. And as far as we know, the sheep are the ancestors of sheep.
quote:
The magical poofing of retroviral insertions into genomes by your supposed intelligent designer.
Why is that considered magical? Have you never heard of genetic engineering?
quote:
We are talking about patterns of characteristics IN BIOLOGY. ID is incapable of explaining these patterns, as you have already shown. Therefore, I can only conclude that there is no ID in biology.
Which is a logical fallacy. Since ID was not supposed to explain those patterns in the first place.
quote:
When a retrovirus inserts into a genome the flanking LTR's are identical. This is due to the mechanism of retroviral insertion. If the retroviral becomes part of the genome, that is becomes endoegenized, then mutations will accumulate in these LTR's over time. More importantly, different mutations will accumulate in each of the LTR's. This will cause the LTR's to diverge in sequence over time. More time equals more divergence.
Why? You simply assume that. There is no reason for there to be more divergence.
For instance. In the case of the Coelacanth, it's supposed fossil dated about 400 million years shows it to be the same as today. Therefore, no divergence took place according to you.
Also the genetic analysis of supposed 250 million year old bacteria showed them to be the same as today's bacteria. So according to your logic, no divergence took place.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1375505.stm
quote:
By applying the theory of evolution you can determine when these ERV's were inserted. The patterns of orthology tell us this.
No, this doesn't tell you anything. You assume it's caused by evolution in teh first place.
quote:
If all apes have the same ERV at the same location in their genome then this insertion had to occur in the common ancestor of all apes. If an ERV is found in just humans and chimps then this insertion had to occur in the common ancestor just humans and chimps, a much more recent ancestor. Therefore, you should see more LTR divergence in ERV's shared by all apes than in an ERV shared by just humans and chimps. This is exactly what we see. LTR divergence matches the insertion time established by orthology.
Which is what you would assume. But you don't know that apes and humans had a common ancestor in the first place. And since time does not equal divergence as we saw from the examples above, we can't predict anything. You can't use evolution to predict anything. Because divergence is not always caused by time. And also you first have to demonstrate that humans and chimps could ever had a common ancestor to begin with.
quote:
So how does ID explain this? Any answers?
Why would ID need to explain that?
Anyway, just to show you how wrong you are, take a look at this. You, for some misterious reason, calim that similarity is produced by common ancestry. And that insertations, either by ERVs, transposons, or any other mutation is random. Which is false.
Take a look at how SINES and LINES are densest in the region where mammalian Alus are rarest. This is a clear case of non random retrotransposons at work.
Second thing that we have are are the rat and mouse chromosome 10. Gene frequencies correspond one to the other as you can clearly see. But the problem is, this is happening in taxon-specific elements. They are not related to each other. Meaning that they did not diverge one from another. So the conclusion is that you can have similarity without common ancestry.
http://ai.stanford.edu/...m/Publications/2004_RAT_Genome.pdf
And now on to ERVs. You have been claiming for some time now that they are inserted at random. This is also demonstrably false. A clear case of insertion hotspots was found for human ERV sequences.
quote:
Retroviral DNA integration occurs throughout the genome; however, local hot spots exist where a strong preference for certain sites over others are seen, and more global preferences associated with genes have been reported.
Just a moment...
There are even more finding, that certain ERV sequences do not model the standard phylogenetic tree. So if some ERV are found to be in the same places as in other animals, just like in humans we should NOT assume common ancestry, precisely because we are sure to find some insertions that do not share the same place. And according to you this wouldn't falsify common descent. By the same logic shared insertions do not support it either.
quote:
However, precise details of the nature of the evolutionary separation of the lineage leading to humans from those leading to the African great apes have remained uncertain. The unique insertion sites of endogenous retroviruses, like those of other transposable genetic elements, should be useful for resolving phylogenetic relationships among closely related species. We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans.
A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans: Current Biology
quote:
Please show that this was so for all of the ancestors of modern sheep.
I don't have to. The sheep would not be able to reporduce. We are talking about sheep, not about their ancestors. I don't care what happened to their ancestors. What we are talking about now is sheep. And as far as we know, their ancestors were always sheep.
quote:
From observing retroviruses inserting into genomes. Here is a really good paper showing a genomic map of the insertions for hundreds and thousands of HIV, MLV, and ASLV retroviral insertions conducted in the lab:
Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences - PMC...
As I showed earlier, an HERV-K (Human-ERV) was rebuilt from the human genome. It too showed this same pattern of random insertion:
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements - PMC...
So modern retroviruses are observed to insert randomly. Reconstructed ancient retroviruses insert randomly as well.
You must be joking!? No, really, is this a joke? Did you even read your own source? Did you?
The article talks about non-random insertions! It clearly sayt that there ae specific sites that ERVs have preference to more than others. Here are some of the examples.
Okay first of all, the damn title of the article is "DISTINCT TARGET SITE PREFERENCES"
quote:
Effects of gene activity on integration targeting were assessed by transcriptional profiling of infected cells. Integration by HIV vectors, analyzed in two primary cell types and several cell lines, strongly favored active genes. An analysis of the effects of tissue-specific transcription showed that it resulted in tissue-specific integration targeting by HIV, though the effect was quantitatively modest. Chromosomal regions rich in expressed genes were favored for HIV integration, but these regions were found to be interleaved with unfavorable regions at CpG islands. MLV vectors showed a strong bias in favor of integration near transcription start sites, as reported previously. ASLV vectors showed only a weak preference for active genes and no preference for transcription start regions. Thus, each of the three retroviruses studied showed unique integration site preferences, suggesting that virus-specific binding of integration complexes to chromatin features likely guides site selection.
How could you have missed any of that?
quote:
Shared codon usage, shared genetic systems, and shared metabolic pathways is the evidence.
No it's not! This is evidence for shared codon usage, shared genetic systems, and shared metabolic pathways. Nothign else. You are just assuming that this similarity is also the evidence for universal common descent. How do you know it is? Where is the evidence for universal common descent?
quote:
That is unless you can show a physical law that requires ATG to code for methionine. Otherwise we will have to conclude that the relationship between DNA codon and amino acid is an arbitrary one.
There is no such a law. And that's precisely why such things are not a product of natural laws. So they either came about by chance or design. So which is it?
quote:
Lungs didn't evolve from gills. There are even MODERN species with both a lung and gills. They are called lungfish. This didn't require a reduction in fitness since it didn't require the destruction of gills while the lungs evolved. A complete remake of the genetic pathways would require a complete destruction of all proteins. You would have to start over from an extremely simple replicator, possibly an RNA replicator. There is no way that this RNA replicator could compete with life that had already been evolving for quite some time.
Like I said, you might as well expect rivers to flow uphill for 5,000 feet.
I never said that they would start from beginning. But liek in my link, I showed you that some sequences code for different actions in different animals. So it would start slowly and gradualy one codon at a time. There is no reason evolution wouldn't be able to do that.
quote:
A bat with feathers would falsify evolution because the genes for feathers can not move from the bird lineage to the mammal lineage through the mechanisms of evolution. However, a designer could easily move genes back and forth between birds and mammals.
Why not? Not only that, but why couldn't the bat evolve feathers independently?
quote:
So I will ask again. Why, if ID is true, don't we see bats with feathers?
Why should we? Has ID ever predicted that? You do know that a designer can practically make any pattern come about? Does that mean that we should actually see any possible pattern? You do know that there are actually more patterns than there are atoms in teh universe? So how could we observe them all?
quote:
A mother with a baby in her womb is not a nested hierarchy, and neither are Matryoshka dolls. A turducken is not a nested hierarchy. A twinky with creme filling is not a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is not something physically put inside of another thing. What is so hard to understand here?
Please don't argue with facts. Matryoshka dolls are a nested hierarchy. Not because they are one inside the other. I never said that. They are a nested hierarchy because they follow a certain patternt. You have only one distinct pattern to assemble them all.
They could have been designed to stand on top of one another. But they weren't. The fact that they were designed to be placed one inside the other is a choice and is irrelevant. The relevant point is that there is only one specific pattern in which you can make them conform to their designed position being inside one another. And that's why they are a nested hierarchy.
This is an example of how shapes fall into a nested hierarchy. The same as the dolls do. The reverse does not follow. By that I mean that "shape" is not a subset of "square" and neither is "doll 4" subset of "doll 1".
quote:
Only one lineage of animal does have vertebrate eyes. The vertebrate lineage. Only one lineage of animals has the cephalopod eye. The cephalopod lineage. These are not homologous eyes.
And you simply defiend them to be one lineage. You picked a specific group of eyes to be called "mammalian", and the otehr group to be called "cephaloplod". If you look at all eyes, without those arbitrary definitions, you would have more eyes in one lineage. So what gives you the right to redefine animals like that?
quote:
The airbags in different makes and brands of cars ARE homologous. Airbags in different makes and brands are often made by the same company.
Not always, so they are not always homologous.
quote:
They ARE lineage specific adaptions, just as we would expect from evolution.
Why would we expect that from evolution?
quote:
Then do it. Show me a bat with DNA sequence that is more like a birds than it is to another mammal.
This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking me to show you a rock that is smaller than an atom. It can't be done. No bat is more like birds than a mammal, because if it was it wouldn't be called a mammal. It would be called a bird.
quote:
And those features are only superficially similar. They are not homologous. The leg of the insect, bear, and squid are perfect examples. They can all be called legs, but they are not homologous. The same for the eye of the insect, the eye of the cephalopod, and the eye of the bear. These are different solutions for the same function.
Using the bat and the bird, we could look at their wings as a very good example of this. Superficially, we can call them both wings. This simply refers to their function. They are superficially alike in that they projections outward from the lateral midline and involve the forelimbs. That is where the similarities end. The bird wing is an airfoil type wing with a reduction in phalanges and an air surface produced by the upper arm and lower arm bones in the front and feathers making up the rest of the airfoil surface. In the bat the majority of the wing is made up of the phalanges with a skin membrane stretched between the phalanges. They are not homologous by any stretch of the imagination.
Convergent evolution could still make that according to you. And how do you determine what is homologous and what is not? Based on what traits?
quote:
Because mutations can not jump between lineages.
I'm not asking them to. I'm simply asking why would they be able to evolve independently?
quote:
However, there is no such restriction for a designer. So I ask again, why don't bats have feathers? Why don't ostriches have teats? What was stopping a designer from mixing and matching design units just as human designers do?
Fish have eyes, humans have eyes. Enough mixing for you?
quote:
You can't determine what is being selected for or against by looking at a single individual, as I have already explained.
If you can't do it for an individual, than how would you be able to do so for 1.000.000 individuals?
quote:
We know exactly the technology being used is. We can know from the modulation, strength of the signal, and frequency the type of coils, voltages, and amperages being used. We can learn a lot about the designers by looking at their radio signals. This is completely different than IDers whose only goal seems to be ignorance.
No you don't know any of that. Where has SETI team claimed to know any of that? And how would you know any of that? Give me some examples!
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 10:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1203 by Coyote, posted 03-20-2010 1:21 AM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 1218 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 1:35 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1201 of 1273 (550956)
03-19-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1192 by Peepul
03-17-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Numbers
quote:
The point of doing phylogenetic trees is that you use multiple characters. Of course, if you use one characteristic of anything, or a few, you can probably generate something that looks like a nested hierarchy for it.
So, if you use say 20 characteristics of cars, you're going to get a confusing picture because there is extensive 'horizontal gene transfer' between models and manufacturers. A clear nested pattern will not emerge.
However, if we use 20 characteristics of living creatures, we find that almost always they happen to fall naturally into a hierarchy. And that different trees constructed via different methods give very similar hierarchies.
This is why we think metazoan life falls into a nested hierarchy.
Yes, because you discard the cases where they don't fall into the nested hierarchy. How hard is to produce a nested hierarchy in that way? Not very...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by Peepul, posted 03-17-2010 12:54 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1217 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 12:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1202 of 1273 (550957)
03-19-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by RAZD
03-17-2010 5:00 PM


Re: on Delusions and Reasonableness and Fish Fossils and Fallacies
quote:
Which they can not possibly do, for the simple reason that they cannot reproduce.
Non sequitur. Them not being able to reproduce has nothing to do witht hem showing a certain pattern. They do show a gradualy changing pattern.
quote:
An evolutionary pattern is based on reproduction and the descent of hereditary traits, and multiple lines of evidence, not on ad hoc similarities complied by a person on a computer.
Again, this is a non sequitur. Has nothing to do with how those traits are passed on. The point is that they either exist or do nto exist. And they exist in both cases.
quote:
Convergent evolution is not an evolutionary pattern, as it does not show direct descent from common ancestors, it shows analogous features that have evolved independently of homologous features.
How do you tell the difference between an analogous structure and a homologous one? And why is one better than the other? And how can you tell which features show direct descent and which do not?
quote:
Your cups and frying pans are only based on superficial analogous features, and thus cannot be similar to the treed structure of homologous features in a hereditary lineage.
If you cannot (or refuse to) understand this simple point then you are incapable (by choice or by ability) of understanding evolution.
But they do show a tree-like structure. The only reason you refuse to accept it is becasue you calim that I used wrong traits. But you didn't explain why they are wrong.
quote:
Except that the structure of cups and frying pans does not exist in the real world or anywhere outside your imaginary ad hoc assemblage.
What does that even mean? Where is the tree of life in the real world? Do anmals stack up to form a tree of life in the real world? No. People took notes and assembled it on a piece of paper.
quote:
No body else would come up with the same pattern you did by taking random pictures off the internet. Scientists, on the other hand, would (will and have) come up with the same pattern/s of hereditary descent in nested hierarchies due to the multiple lines of evidence that are available.
Except when they don't. If you have been paying any attention you would have seen in this here topic that 35% of data has to be discarded to form a mammalian nested hierarchy.
quote:
All you made clear was an inability to grasp a simple point: reproduction in breeding populations produces variations in the following generations, we see this pattern in the world around us, and we see this same pattern in the fossil record. Thus what we see in the world around us explains what we see in the fossil record.
When did I say we don't observe all that int he real world?
quote:
Your pots and pans are missing several elements that are part of the picture when it comes to Pelycodus, as an example.
The most critical is context in time and space. Being an ad hoc arbitrary compilation of pictures there is no context in time and space of where the individual components were taken from.
With Pelycodus you have location in a geographical location that does not vary, and you have a time-line from top to bottom that delineates lineage from older at the bottom to younger at the top.
This is obviously wrong, since you don't know the ages of those layers int eh first place. You do not know which animals is the ancestor of which animal. So you lack the hereditary and time component as well.
quote:
At each level you have fossils of organisms that are the product of reproduction, that had ancestral parents, and they have similarities to the fossils below that show a homologous pattern in their skeletons. This is the same pattern that we see in living populations. It is therefore logical to infer that they are both of the same hereditary lineage and that the lower level is older, ancestral, to the upper level. This holds for every layer in the whole matrix from top to bottom.
Non sequitur. Their similarity is not evidece that they are related. It's evidence that they are similar not related.
quote:
You cannot infer such a pattern from pots and pans because you have no logical basis to infer hereditary lineage, and you have no context placing them in proximity in time and space.
Neither have you got the time component. And I don't have to have the hereditary component. You have one only for specific species. Different speices do not reproduce, so we have no reason to assume they ever could.
quote:
Because the reality is not as simple as your little diagram. In one case you have multiple lines of evidence pointing towards a conclusion, while in the other you have no lines of evidence pointing to any conclusion, because of that simple little difference your analogy fails to represent reality, just your delusion/s.
And what evidence might those be my fine sir?
quote:
Curiously that does not even begin to answer the question of how the layers of fossils show the evidence of hereditary lineage.
They don't. You assume they do. You assume their similarity is due to heredity. An assumption nothing more.
quote:
Fascinatingly, what I said was that when you have burials by catastrophic events that you do not end up with the pattern seen with Pelycodus, not that such layers are not formed by catastrophic events. Providing examples of catastrophic events that provide multiple layers formed in rapid fashion fails to provide the evidence of burial of animals in discrete layers that are sorted in the manner seen with Pelycodus: they are generally all lumped and jumbled.
And how is your example of different than any other? How exactly are the animals neatly packaged in your example?
quote:
A linear equation and a polynomial equation can have the same values of y for given a given x, but one or more points in common does not mean that the curves are identical or that one is analogous to the other.
Which is I never claimed. So why bring it up?
quote:
Here you are equivocating between such simple equalities and actual identities.
No. If I remember correctly, and I do, you are the one who was equivocating between an "equality" and an "implication".
quote:
If, and ONLY If A ≡ B Then and ONLY then does B ≡ A
And you get the same results as saying that IF A = B THEN B = A.
quote:
Obviously, for the average reader anyway, your pots and pans are not equivalent to hereditary lineages in living breeding organisms, so you cannot have A ≡ B, and your analogy fails as a result -- because you have parts of B ≠ A ... the parts that apply to living breeding reproducing populations of organisms, the parts that apply to evolution.
But I neevr claimed that I'm applying them on a hereditary basis. And it's a non sequitur to claim that I can't compare them because one reproduces and the other doesen't.
In one case you have animals that reproduce. In other you have pans that don't. They both show the same pattern of similarity. In one case one implies common descent, in other it doesn't. That's a contradiction. The fact that one doesn't reproduce is what actually show why this is a contradiction. Because it shows that such a pattern can be constructed without heredity.
quote:
In one case the pattern seen is arranged in nature due to natural processes, while in the other case the pattern is arranged in your computer by ad hoc selection of images, images unrelated in time and space, images devoid of any context.
No, both things are arranged ona computer. Tehre exists no such a thing in real life. Let me show you.
This is a PICTURE! DO you understand that? Does your brain realize that? Can you realize that? It's a PICTURE made on a COMPUTER! Animals are not arranged like that in real life. They don't hover one over the other in real life. It's a PICTURE made on a COMPUTER!
quote:
Sorry, no, you are still confused between assumptions made and conclusions that follow. Mathematics in general and logic in particular are based on assumptions, and these assumptions can be false. As a result the conclusions can always be false.
What you have stated here is one of the beginning assumptions, on which further conclusions can be based. It is taken as (assumed to be) fact for the purpose of the argument, but it is still just an intellectual construction and not fact.
In logic there are no conclusions that do not rest on assumptions.
Asserting otherwise does not make it any more valid than before, as your point has been invalidated, and you should know that any logical statement that has been invalidated is falsified, not fact.
Two things. I'm talking about pure logic. Not assuming some physical things. Second. How is 1+1=2 wrong?
quote:
Interestingly, the study attached has absolutely nothing to do with accelerated decay. Either you did not read the abstract or did not understand it. The subject addresses the damage to a proposed containing material for nuclear damage by accelerating the exposure of the material to the radioactive decay. This is their conclusion:
You didn't understand the article. I'll show you the technologfy that this experiment was based on.
quote:
The atomic electrons in an alpha emitter also influence the decay rate. In Th 230 , for example, these electrons generate a constant potential which extends to the nuclear surface, decreasing the height and width of the Coulomb barrier.
quote:
The present invention is based upon the fact that the decay rate of radioactive materials can be accelerated or enhanced and thereby be controlled by a stimulus, such as an applied electrostatic potential. This potential, for instance, is incorporated into the quantum mechanical tunneling equation for the transmission coefficient T*T by including an additional potential energy V a 2eφ.
Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials - Altran Corporation
quote:
Curiously, not only does this paper NOT demonstrate what you claim is actually true, but it doesn't even demonstrate what IT claims is actually true, just that one can fantasize about it in never never land.
The problem is that this article is bogus. It is made up fantasy not science.
Here we see phaque science at it's most despicable -- pretending to be real to fool gullible people.
Okay, let's take it one subject at a time. You claim that my article is wrong. Please explain exactly why.
quote:
Then they conclude that physics must have been different at some time in the past to accommodate this young earth fantasy concept.
No, no they do not. They say that accelerated decay happened. Just like we see today. Physics stay the same.
quote:
Next they play with mathematics (which can be made to show anything) to pretend to demonstrate something, without having a single piece of empirical evidence to substantiate it.
Quote me exactly what they were saying. And what's wrong with it?
quote:
Fascinatingly, they do not show that there is in fact any variation in energy well levels in the real world, nor do they show (the critical part that you need) that this actually occurs without changing the overall decay energy.
This is actually a theoretical model. Which is says so in the title.
quote:
Note that changing the well depth means you are in effect changing the initial isotope that you are then calculating the alpha decay from. Just a little slight-of-hand bogus science from your typical creationist fraud factory.
What are you talking about? What slight of hand are you talking about?
quote:
In other words, god-did-it, pull out the magic rabbit, but not a fact to be had to support a single word.
And do they show how this magic increase in decay rate could actually occur? By changing the whole universe? Sorry, but somehow I missed the relevant evidence for such fantasy.
Here's a clue that this is bogus fantasy wish fulfilling writing rather than a logical conclusion based on facts:
As I said earlier, the physics don't change. Our knowledge about it does. Nuclear decay rates can vary even today, there is nothing new about that. We don't have to change the laws of physics for that to happen.
quote:
Do you know why? The quote is complete - what is missing?
What is missing?
quote:
What this in effect proves is that the Uranium halos are evidence for an old earth, or else you need to turn physics inside out with magic to then produce fake evidence of an old earth, and that as a consequence your god is a joker, a jester, a prankster.
Hmm... no, I don't think so. Actually you have responded to everything except the most important part. I don't know why you went to all the trouble doing so, and than not responding to the most important part.
Even if all I showed you was wrong, that wouldn't mean that Uranium 238 halos were evidence for an old Earth. Uranium halos are not evidence for an old Earth because they are based on two assumptions you don't know anythign about.
So let's take it step by step...
1.) Half life of U238.
2.) Halo itself.
1.) As I said earlier, we do know accelerated alpha decay happens even today. Does that mean that the physics change? No, it simply means that the decay rates chages. So, my point is that you claim that U238 half-life is 4.5 billion years. Okay fine. How do you know that? Where has this been shown to be true. I'll tell you where. NOWHERE! You don't know that. You assume that. And since you don't know it, you don't know that it took 4.5 billion years to make ANY U238 halo. Even if, I repeat, even if, there was no accelerated alpha decay. You still wouldn't have any evidence for an old Earth. Why? Well because you don't know the half-life of the U238 to begin with. You never saw it form. You didn't, nor did anyone else I presume, stand there for 4.5 billion years and observe the U238 halo form. Since you never observe it form, you don't know it's half-life.
2.) And the second assumption, which is even worse. Is the assumption that the U238 halo was produced by a constand decay rate. And than you turn and say that since it was constant decy, it had constant energy, thus a specific halo was formed that can only be produced by constant energy. That circular logic. Since you don't know by what energy strenght was that halo formed, you don't know if it was formed by constant decay, and of course constant energy. And you don't know that, because you never saw a U238 halo form, and what energy it took to form the said halo, that you never saw form int he first place.
In conclusion...
a.) You don't know the half-life of Uranium 238.
b.) You don't know what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo.
c.) For any Uranium 238 halo you see, you don't know if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because you never observed them form in the first place.
d.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old.
e.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght.
f.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
g.) Therefore go back to the drawing board.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 5:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 1:35 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 1209 by AZPaul3, posted 03-20-2010 9:15 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 1210 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2010 11:32 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 1214 by Apothecus, posted 03-21-2010 2:29 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 1229 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2010 7:56 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1219 of 1273 (551617)
03-23-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1204 by PaulK
03-20-2010 3:04 AM


Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
The correct answer would be that we can't tell if it would lose all functionality or not.
For all purposes, we can say it has no function since it had only one and lost it. Sure there could be some unknown function that NOBODY has EVER seen. But why say such a thing?
quote:
It was important enough to you when you insisted on it.
I'm simply trying to make it easier on you, since you have trouble understanding such simple ideas.
quote:
Not necessarily. When dealing with identical units it doesn't matter which one goes into which slot.
Ah, but now you have more slots. Here is an example.
As you can clearly see we have 2 flagella here. Flagella A and B. This is the front intersection view of the flagella's bodies. One consists of 8 proteins and the other of 16. To specify one protein, where it has to be relative to others, in order for it to assemble, you need information. The information consists of 3 spatial (x1, x2, x3) and one temporal (t) dimension. For each and every protein you have to have different coordinates.
In the case of the flagella A you will have 8 proteins, therefore you have 8 different coordinates. In the case of flagella B, you have 16 proteins, therefore 16 coordinates. The information to assemble them is larger for the flagella B than for flagella A.
A = C 8
B = C 16
C = coordinates.
Therefore, for a larger flagella, consisting of more protein, you do need more complexity, therefore, it's less probable.
quote:
That is entirely the wrong way around. You can't use your guesses about information to argue the probability.
Let's see, let me quote myself to show you that YES I CAN!
quote:
Imagine a safe with 1.000.000 combinations. And only one that opens the safe. The chances of opening the safe are 1/1.000.000. Now if you have a safe that has 500.000 combinations and only one opens the safe, the cahnce of you opening it is 1/500.000.
So to sum up.
[SAFE 1]
Complexity - 1.000.000
Probability - 1/1.000.000
[SAFE 2]
Complexity - 500.000
Probability - 1/500.000
When the complexity increases, the probability decreases. And in the same way when the complexity decreases the probability increases.
It seems as thoug with increased complexity the probability decreases... Who would have thought!? Not you that's for sure!
quote:
RNA life doesn't need proteins at all. Therefore the synthesis and use of proteins is likely the product of evolution, based on the chemical properties of existing RNA rather than pure chance. Thus your claim that a protein "must" have formed by pure chance is refuted. That's how it helps me.
Hmm... let's see... no, not gonna pass this time.
It doesn't matter if RNA NEEDS proteins or not. That's not the point. The point is that by some crazy chance, those initial RNA chains got information encoded in them. You claim it's by evolution. Fine by me!
The point remains that somehow those RNA chains got the ability to encode for proteins. In this specific case, the proteins that form the flagella. If you claim that this happened by evolution, you have to remember that evolution is an algorithm. And as such does not produce new information. It only transforms existing information by taking existing information from one place and placing it in another. Therefore, the algorithm that produced the flagella proteins was either a product of chance, or another algorithm, or it was intelligently designed. Which one was it?
quote:
You actually suggest that the fact that you have proven that my position was correct and your position wrong is a reason why I shoulod change MY mind ?
I suppose this explains why so much of what you say is wrong.
Was I not climing the INVERSE relation between complexity and rpobability first? And did I not demonstrate it with the example of 2 safes?
quote:
The question is, of course, about the reasons why we assign uniform probability. Something that goes completely unmentioned in either case.
Because we don't know the EXACT mechanics underlying the motion of dice and the Sun.
quote:
In case 2 we DO know the mechanics underlying the movement (the rotation of the Earth) we understand how this may be changed (and that it does change my small amounts over time) and that it is difficult to change to a significant degree.
And if you don't know that muich then you had better retake high school physics.
WRONG! Totally wrong. This is precisely what we DO NOT know. We do not precisely know how the Sun is moving. As I said, we ASSUME it's going around the Earth once a day. But we could be wrong. Tommorow it could do a 360 loop at 12 o'clock in the noon and than continue as if nothing happened.
We simply ASSUME it's not going to do that because it NEVER has before. So there is no REASON (as in PRINCIPLE OF INSUFFICIENT REASON) to think it will. You see, it's even in the name principle. The Principle of insufficient REASON. Since we have no reason to think a certain object is going to do, we assume it's going to continue doing what it has been doing all along.
The the idea that we know how the Sun moves exactly is just too laughable. Hey, Newton's gravity is not a fact, it's a model. It explains the movement of the Sun pretty good. But it later on got improved by Einstein's Relativity, because it showed it's flaws. And Relativty has it's flaws too. So no, we do not know the true mechanism and ture motion of the Sun.
Science is about models and theories, not about ultimate truth. That's why we infer in the first place!
quote:
Since the Sun has very little to do with the Earth's rotation and we don't exactly need to know a lot about that to realise that significantly affecting it is a massive task (conservation of angular momentum plus decent estimates of the Earth's shape, diameter and mass will do) then your point is daft. Especially when it completely ignores the point you are supposedly discussing - there is no mention of uniform probability in it at all.
1.) All those data you are talking about are NOT facts. They are incomplete models. They are inferences. Not facts. Therefore, we do not know precisely thir mechanics.
2.) The uniform probability in this case is the inference of the continuation of Sun's movement around the Earth, just as it has been doing for the past few thousand years. That's the uniform probability, and it's an assumption based on our ignorance of true mechanics.
quote:
The same as WHAT ? Non-uniiform motion ?
Same as uniform probability of dice outcome. It's same as assuming the uniform continuation of Sun's movement around the Earth. You assume the Sun is going to rise up tommorow, you don't know that.
quote:
And what we know about the dice justifies the use of uniform probabilities. Not ignorance.
WRONG. In every singel case it's the IGNORANCE, not KNOWLEDGE! Let me show you, it's the same for dice, cards and coins. In every case it's the ignorance. Here we go...
quote:
In a macroscopic system, at least, it must be assumed that the physical laws which govern the system are not known well enough to predict the outcome. As observed some centuries ago by John Arbuthnot (in the preface of Of the Laws of Chance, 1692),
...
It is impossible for a Die, with such determin'd force and direction, not to fall on such determin'd side, only I don't know the force and direction which makes it fall on such determin'd side, and therefore I call it Chance, which is nothing but the want of art....
...
It is implicit in this analysis that the forces acting on the coin are not known with any precision. If the momentum imparted to the coin as it is launched were known with sufficient accuracy, the flight of the coin could be predicted according to the laws of mechanics. Thus the uncertainty in the outcome of a coin toss is derived (for the most part) from the uncertainty with respect to initial conditions.
...
This example, more than the others, shows the difficulty of actually applying the principle of indifference in real situations. What we really mean by the phrase "arbitrarily ordered" is simply that we don't have any information that would lead us to favor a particular card.
1.) THERE! You see! The laws of motion are not well known!
2.) There you go again. It's the ignorance again. Our ignorance to determine how the dice will fall that makes us assume uniform probability.
3.) In the case of coins, the same thing. We do not know the conditions to know how the coin would land. Only if we knew exactly everything that we needed, than we would know how it would land.
4.) And once more. The same goes for the cards. Our ignorance of their position is what makes us use PoIR, not our knowledge.
quote:
No, you said:
Yes, and that's true.
quote:
Your question in 1) is unanswerable since we do not even know if our universe is all there is or if it is embedded in a larger naturak reality.
Your point 2) is wrong because the multiverse is considered part of nature. The only difference between it and our universe is that the study must rest on theoretical study since it is not directly accessible (i.e. it IS "governed by natural law" and therefore natural).
3) Claiming that there may be more to nature does not entail that everything is natural. Your assertion is simply illogical and fallacious.
1.) Fine.
2.) Oh, okay than. Than God and demons are also part of nature. They are outside of our universe but are still part of nature. Thus invoking God and demons is perfectly natural and methodological naturalism supports the invokation of Gods and demons.
3.) Fine again. That means that God, angels, unicorns, demons etc. are also part of nature and are thus supported by methodological naturalism.
quote:
No, I fully understand that that is Dembski's measure of complexity. What you fail to grasp is that it does not even agree with your intuitive ideas of complexity - let alone more widely accepted measures like Kolmogorov complexity.
Care to explain what exactly am I doing wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1204 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2010 3:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1223 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2010 12:34 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1220 of 1273 (551618)
03-23-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Percy
03-20-2010 8:38 AM


Re: ID and the Designer
quote:
You seem to be having trouble understanding the question. It's irrelevant what you believe about SETI. It's what SETI believes about SETI that counts.
So I repeat the question yet again: Can you name any other field within science that in the absence of evidence holds as a fundamental premise that there is something it isn't possible to know.
I hesitate to clarify because it seems that the more words that are written the more opportunity it affords you to veer off the path of rationality, but ID holds that it isn't possible to know anything about the designer. It is ID, not me, saying things like this from Of Pandas and People:
You don't have to repeat yourself. I know what SETI knows about itself. I don't think, I know.
Any field of science that deals with inference of design holds that views as it's premise. They don't have to say it explicitly. Why? Because nobody is dumb enough to ask them.
We know, at least a person of average intelligence knows that you can't get from design to the designer. It has never been demonstrated, so there is no reason to believe it's possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Percy, posted 03-20-2010 8:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1221 of 1273 (551619)
03-23-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1210 by RAZD
03-20-2010 11:32 PM


Re: on Delusions and Reasonableness and Cold Fusion
quote:
Please refer to this paper for the details of what this paper is based on and don't try to change the topic to something else. It is rather explicit:
I have to, becasue you are unable to understand it in any other way.
quote:
There is absolutely no mention of accelerating the rate of decay by any mechanism:
There is no mention of any change in the rate of decay of the plutonium.
That's becasue they weren't testing the acceleration of decay rates! They were accelerating it by themselves in order to perform an experiment.
quote:
Now it seems, that not content with fabricating fantasy physics for yourself, you are fabricating what the researchers in the original paper you cited were using in their study of the effect of four years of (normal) plutonium decay on the proposed containment materials.
There is no link between the paper Plutonium-238 Alpha-Decay Damage Study of A Glass-Bonded Sodalite Ceramic Waste Form Journal of ASTM International (JAI) Volume 2, Issue 1 (January 2005) ISSN: 1546-962X Published Online: 3 January 2005 by Frank, SM, DiSanto, T, Goff, MK, Johnson, SG, Jue, J-F, Barber, TL, Noy, M, O'Holleran, TP, and Giglio, JJ and the invention of Barker that I could find.
Again, the point, that you are missing is that this kind of invention is used to accelerate the rate of decay. That's why I cited it.
quote:
So far they have not been shown to produce any marketable result. Wonder why?
I also found that this patent is about to expire: United States Patent 5,076,971 Barker Dec. 31, 1991, Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials,Inventors: Barker; William A. (Los Altos, CA). Assignee: Altran Corporation (Sunnyvale, CA). Appl. No.: 400,180, Filed: Aug. 28, 1989.
This invention is 20 years old and has not been used for anything practical, nor has it been studied further.
So much for the gay art of cloud riding.
Now perhaps you could prove me wrong by citing the journal published information on the actual documented change in the rate of decay in plutonium from the Frank et al paper, but I won't hold my breath.
And just for chuckles, even if your Barker invention is the real thing, what they would have done would have changee the energy of the alpha particles, thus still leaving you with the problem mentioned before:
This is a giant ad hominem attack. So what if it's going to expire? That's what patents do after a certain period of time.
quote:
Change the decay rate and you change the alpha energy.
Change the alpha decay energy and you change the halo diameter.
Aside from the problem of somehow pretending that a massive world wide Van de Graaff generator big enough to affect the whole world magically operates in a natural universe.
Fantasy is like that.
Listen, for the third time, my sources have nothing to do with my main argument. Even if everything I showed you was wrong, your U238 halos are still not evidence for an old Earth.
I told you already, it doesn't matter if the decay rate changes and with it the energy changes. So what? Maybe the observed U238 halos are actually the products of just such an increased energy. You don't know they're not, because you never saw a U238 halo form.
Again, let me cite myself once more. Maybe this time you'll get it.
quote:
Even if all I showed you was wrong, that wouldn't mean that Uranium 238 halos were evidence for an old Earth. Uranium halos are not evidence for an old Earth because they are based on two assumptions you don't know anythign about.
So let's take it step by step...
1.) Half life of U238.
2.) Halo itself.
1.) As I said earlier, we do know accelerated alpha decay happens even today. Does that mean that the physics change? No, it simply means that the decay rates chages. So, my point is that you claim that U238 half-life is 4.5 billion years. Okay fine. How do you know that? Where has this been shown to be true. I'll tell you where. NOWHERE! You don't know that. You assume that. And since you don't know it, you don't know that it took 4.5 billion years to make ANY U238 halo. Even if, I repeat, even if, there was no accelerated alpha decay. You still wouldn't have any evidence for an old Earth. Why? Well because you don't know the half-life of the U238 to begin with. You never saw it form. You didn't, nor did anyone else I presume, stand there for 4.5 billion years and observe the U238 halo form. Since you never observe it form, you don't know it's half-life.
2.) And the second assumption, which is even worse. Is the assumption that the U238 halo was produced by a constand decay rate. And than you turn and say that since it was constant decy, it had constant energy, thus a specific halo was formed that can only be produced by constant energy. That circular logic. Since you don't know by what energy strenght was that halo formed, you don't know if it was formed by constant decay, and of course constant energy. And you don't know that, because you never saw a U238 halo form, and what energy it took to form the said halo, that you never saw form int he first place.
In conclusion...
a.) You don't know the half-life of Uranium 238.
b.) You don't know what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo.
c.) For any Uranium 238 halo you see, you don't know if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because you never observed them form in the first place.
d.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old.
e.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght.
f.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
g.) Therefore go back to the drawing board.
This is my main argument. These are the facts. Stop evading them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2010 11:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 1222 of 1273 (551621)
03-23-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1217 by Taq
03-22-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Numbers
quote:
You are trying to see stars in distant galaxies with binoculars. For branches close together the genetic tools would not resolve them EVEN IF THEY EXISTED. The phylogenomic tools used are incapable of resolving lineages that branched off close to one another in the distant past. However, these phylogenomic tools are capable of detecting a nested hierarchy WHERE THEY SHOULD DETECT THEM, in well resolved branches that are widely spaced.
Back to the "crappy tools" argument again I see? Okay, than here's mine... The only reason we have nested hierarchies in the first place is because of crappy tools. You see, you are using bad tools that's why you get nested hierarchies in the first place.
Sure a ball might seem perfectly smooth from 10 meters away. But once you get close it ain't so anymore. And once you take the magnifying glass it's even worse. Than you can see it's not smoot at all! The same thing goes with nested hierarchy. Once when we get better tools, we will be able to discern even the smallest branches and all nested hierarchies will disappear.
quote:
Again, you are making assertions with no evidence. Please show that all of the ancestors of sheep were sheep, and that all of these ancestors required specific ERV insertions.
This is a logical fallacy. I'm not supposed to show that. It's like me asking you a videotape of evolution of all animals that was taking 3.6 billion years. You are not asking for reasonable evidence.
We go from what we have. And what we have is this. Sheep produce sheep. No sheep came from a non-sheep. And no sheep has ever produced a non-sheep. All sheep need a specific ERV to reproduce. Therefore, all sheep that ever existed, as far as we know, needed that too.
quote:
Have you ever heard of creationism?
Is genetic engineering equal to creationism? If so, than creationism is science!
quote:
So ID is not supposed to explain the pattern of designs in biology? Really?
It's supposed to detect it.
quote:
Why is it an assumption that every generation will accumulate mutations? That is what we observe. The more generations since the insertion of the ERV the more mutations the ERV will have, and the more divergence between the LTR's. This is population genetics 101.
Becasue it doesn't have to happen. Like in the case of ANY living fossil. Here is fine list of them. None of them accumulated any mutations for more than 100 million years.
Living fossil - Wikipedia
Why hasen't any of those species ever changed?
quote:
There is no living Coelacanth that is the same as today. Living coelacanths are in their own genus. No fossil species is in the same genus as the living species. There is no fossil species (which there are around 150 known species) of coelacanth that is identical to the living species.
I don't care how they got classed. They look identical!
quote:
As far as divergence, you can not determine genetic divergence by comparing physical divergence.
Oh snap! You have just killed your own argument, just like that! If I can't infer genetic divergence by morphology, you can't either. So looking at any animal anywhere, including the fossil record doesn't tell you anything about their genetics! That means it doesn't tell you anything about their evolution! Therefore, you have nothing to base evolution on anymore, since you can't infer genetic change based on morphology.
quote:
Those claims are highly suspect.
As suspect as saying that people came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago?
quote:
Common ancestry is not assumed. It is tested for, and the test clearly points to common ancestry.
Explain how do you test for CD?
quote:
If humans and other apes did not share a common ancestor then you would not expect to find ERV's at the same locations in their genomes, but you do.
You would. As I explained to you in previous post, ERV insertions are non-random.
quote:
If there was no common ancestor you would not expect LTR divergence to produce the same tree as orthology.
Why not?
quote:
Due to the OBSERVED random nature of retroviral insertion finding multiple ERV's at the same locations in both humans and other apes is slam dunk evidence of common ancestry. No two ways about it.
Excuse me but no. My link showed non-random ERV insertions. You posted a link about ERVs, and it too showed non-random ERV insertions. So you can expect common insertions without common descent.
quote:
Did you look at the x axis? That's 10 million base pairs. For ERV's, we are talking resolution down to the same base, not within a few hundred thousand bases.
It doesn't matter. I'm jsut showing you the non-random nature of genetic change.
quote:
Those hotspots comprise nearly half of the genome, as was stated in the reference I already gave you (the paper on HIV, ASLV, and MLV). That's billions of bases. ERV's shared by humans and other apes are found at the same base. Hotspots can not explain this, and it also can not explain LTR divergence which is an independent test that produces the same tree as orthology.
Please explain this. How do hotspots explain the observation that ERV's that are shared by all apes have a higher LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps? Hotspots can't explain this.
Why not? Why can't hotspots explain this?
quote:
Again, what you are looking for is the signal. If 99.9% of ERV's fall into the predicted pattern and 0.1% do not what do you think the conclusion should be?
That the idea of CD is falsified. Oh, and it's not 99.9%. You know that as well as I do.
quote:
I already explained this. This would require bats to re-evolve the genome of the common ancestor of non-feathered birds. Once that occurred bats would have to acquire the same feather mutations in the same order. Such a pathway is impossible. Evolution does not go backwards any more than rivers flow 5,000 ft uphill.
This is a meaningless explanation. It simply has to mutate a certain part of the genome and that's that. There is no reason why it can't do that. Why are all those things you said impossible? What's so impossible about them?
quote:
Yes I did, especially this part:
"For HIV the frequency of integration in transcription units ranged from 75% to 80%, while the frequency for MLV was 61% and for ASLV was 57%. For comparison, about 45% of the human genome is composed of transcription units (using the Acembly gene definition)."
Only HIV showed a strong trend towards inserting into transcription units while MLV and ASLV only showed a weak trend. On top of that, these "hotspots" comprise 45% of the human genome. For a 3 billion base haploid genome, that's about 1.5 billion bases in these hotspots. That means the chances of a single ERV inserting into the same base through two different insertions is 1 in 1.5 billion. And that's just for one retroviral insertion. Humans and other apes share tens of thousands of orthologous insertions. Hotspots can not explain this, nor can it explain LTR divergence as discussed above.
Some ERV's have a higher rate of non-random insertions some have a lower one. So what? I still see no reason why same insertions can't possibly be explained by hotspots. I see absolutely no reason.
quote:
Then show how you can arrange Matryoshka dolls into a nested hierarchy using shared characteristics. Physically putting one inside another is not a nested hierarchy.
I told you already. It doesn't matter if they are put inside of one another or not. Tehy could have been designed to be put on top of each other! This is simply what designer chose! That's all.
The chared characteristics in this case is the size. There is only one specific pattern that they can follow to all be arranged in a nested hierarchy. From smaller to the largest.
quote:
If you arrange them by size then each doll is a separate lineage, not nesting. You also need to put ALL matryoshka dolls into your cladogram so you must list common characteristics (synapomorphies) and derived features for all matryoshka dolls and show how they form a nested hierarchy. Where is that nested hierarchy?
Why would nesting them by size mean they are a separate lineage? It wouldn't, that's the only way they form a nested hierarchy.
quote:
Shared characteristics let me do that.
And if there was a different set of similar characteristics you would pick them. So what does that prove? Nothing! Except that you can group animals as you wish once you take into account all their characteristics.
quote:
A fish and human eye develop in the same way, share the same cell types, and share the same arrangement of parts. Both the fish and human eye differ greatly from the squid eye in all of these departments. Both the human and fish eye have an inverted retina, have the same retina cell type, and have the same developmental process as embryos. The squid and octopus also have similar development, cell types, and a non-inverted retina, but the squid/octopus eye differs from the fish/human eye in all of these categories. You can read more here.
They eyes of all vertebrates are more similar to one another than any vertebrate eye is to a cephalopod eye. What more can be said?
There you go again. You pick similarities that you like, and drop those you don't like. This is unfalsifiable.
quote:
I already showed you a fish with a gene that is an exact copy of a jellyfish gene and not found in any other fish (i.e. Glofish). We know how that gene got there, through intelligent design. So why don't we see a gene in bats that is identical to a gene in birds but not found in any other mammal? Why don't we see this?
Why should we?
quote:
Humans and fish are both vertebrates, and they sare the same eye with all other vertebrates. Enough common ancestry for you?
So what if they are vertebrates? That doesn't imply common ancestry!
Don't you see that you're just picking certain characteristics and naming speices after them! You can't have a different mammal becasue it wouldn't be called mammal anymore! It's impossible to find a mammal with featehrs because it wouldn't be called a mammal anymore.
quote:
Because selection is determined by the RELATIVE rate of reproduction. You need to compare the fecundity of the individual with the fecundity of the rest of the individuals in the population.
Let's use an example. John competed in the 100m dash. His time was 11.23 sec. Where did John place? If you can't answer this for one person then how can you answer this question if I give you the times for the other competitors?
What has this got to do with determining the unit of selection?
quote:
It's simple physics, bro.
Let's hear it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1217 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 12:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 2:02 PM Smooth Operator 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