|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Artifical life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ramoss,
Gleevec? No, Bendamustine\Treanda Home | TREANDA® (bendamustine HCl) for Injection
quote: That's me - non-Hodgkins (follicular) lymphoma which is fairly resistant to treatment. It came back the second time after only 8 months and aggressively. Then had rituximab (CHOP-R) and then an "autogenic transplant" http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...artfailure/celltherapy.aspx See Message 61 on Cancer Survivors I was originally stage 3-4Welcome lymphomation.org - BlueHost.com After the autogenic transplant I had two years before it came back, and then only at stage 1. The bendamustine appears to have done the job so far, but we are only 4 months after end of treatment. A recent symposium of oncologists across the nation shows a strong positive support for bendamustine being effective against nH-lymphomas. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Logic REQUIRES that a claim, a big claim, is technically proved.
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology. Showing stability on every level, and organisms remaining the same, does not match that claim. Secondly, while the ToE doesn't predict fruit flies will become not fruit flies, as that is not a necessary consequent for a normalized selection, what I am looking for on a personal level, is a very stron evidence of the major claim that says that things like fruit flies came from other completely different things. If you take a human from 5 thousand years ago and compare him to me, sure - you can CLAIM he's a transitional. And if you show speciation whereby there are no new morphological designs, sure you can CLAIM this leads to macro evolution, but on a logical level, technically you have not proved a thing. This is why for me, the ToE is a weak paradigm. The proof of it was always none-existent and yet it was accepted despite the powerful facts of design, because people don't want to believe in God, otherwise He is God and they are not, and that way they get to say their sins aren't sin. So, yeah - nothing to do with prediction, but everything to do with the soundness of a syllogism that would apparently prove the ToE. All you can do, is go for evidence of the ponen form, which is tenuous, if you are honest. This is all I am saying. All the best. (The claim that there is no mutational barrier or is a barrier, for me is exactly the same as stating; "this completely paralyzed person has been confined to this room" OR; "there is nothing stopping you from flying to the moon like superman.".) It is irrelevant because the power isn't there. If you continue with fruit flies they don't slowly become anything else. look up a frog, look at it's fossil. It was a frog, is a frog and will become a frog, while mutations were there. Look at a coelocanthe or a chambered nautilus. They were X are X and will be X. Those are the facts. Now sure - you can say, "ah but millions of years of evolution". Now that's fine - you're entitled to do that but I want to see facts of that and I don't. Simarly, you can create a phylogenetic tree, using creatures that ALREADY exist, and say that homologous features mean they evolved, but logically this doesn't prove they are related or that mutations did it. First prove the power of a mutation - that it can make a new design. The burden of proof is not upon us to prove it can't, when all the facts show it can't. (I believe I have argued excellently, my case. Ignore it as usual) bye for now. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Technically, anything with DNA is life. I won't argue against it. However, did I, before these discoveries, expect some kind of supernatural activity in order for DNA to work? I can't say I did, but thaty was what I was being told I thought, or some such thing about the breath of life.
So, I am not saying that no true DNA puts sugar on it's chromosome, I am just saying that if I kill a fly, I don't really care much, or if I chop a plant to pieces, for me, this is not the same thing as chopping an evolutionist's head off. I just think it's a bit dishonest to place words in believer's mouths. I never claimed that I thought artificial DNA would not work. That would be like saying that I didn't think a frizby would work or wings I created wouldn't work. Why on earth wouldn't they if they obey the principles of nature? God made DNA to work. Artificial intelligence shows that it does indeed work. Now if a scientist created something other than DNA that worked, ex nihilo..............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is why for me, the ToE is a weak paradigm. The proof of it was always none-existent... In science we don't use "proof" but rather, as in a court, preponderance of the evidence. The only ones seemingly demanding proof all the time are creation "scientists" who, for some reason, keep on with this strawman no matter how often they are corrected. The theory of evolution, whether you like it or not, explains the evidence. Further, it makes predictions that can be checked, and so far those predictions have not been falsified. No other hypothesis has been able to reach this standard. Certainly not "design theory."
...yet it was accepted despite the powerful facts of design, because people don't want to believe in God, otherwise He is God and they are not, and that way they get to say their sins aren't sin. There is no evidence for creationists' "design theory" in science. "Design theory" is strictly a religious belief -- as your sentence demonstrates. You present no evidence, just a catechism recital. Do you think that is going to impress scientists? And don't you realize that creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Notice all those negatives?
I don't see anything proving a connection, only proposed theoretics, of a hypothetical nature, representing a paradigm that basically proves itself by definition, without having to prove anything else. Now, a bacteria, or a fruit fly, or HIV, all reproduce thousands of times faster than humans. Therefore for such organisms, we should see their entire history over about a million years. However, what we see, is not one example of a new creation of unique morphology, but instead we see a bacteria flagellum becoming a bacteria flagellum, and surviving, and that is supposed to convince me? That is exactly like saying; " This man is the best football player to have ever existed, and now we will prove it by showing that he can kick a ball into a goal that is not manned by a goalkeeper. "
I can't convince my reasoning brain that this is sufficient, IN ALL HONESTY, cavediver! I will never be convinced that God did not design humans. DNA alone contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Now I go and look at all of the genius designs and how humans can only copy them. The torpedo fish has battery cells, that's how we invented the battery. The bacteria flagellum has a rotary motor that propels it through it's surroundings. It's all about personal beliefs, and your own reasoning. I believe it is so obvious we need God, and evolution by comparison, after looking into it for years, is just so feeble and unconvincing. Bye for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Infact design is factual. You can read this in the book, "In the beginning was information, by Dr Werner Gitt".
I am not putting a strawman out there, I am saying that the ToE is weak and that logically you can't prove it at all. I know how science works, as I have told you several times pertaining to induction, modus ponen, tentative confirmation versus powerful falsification via the modus tollens. By all means ignore me again. If it works for you, fine, but for me facts versus evidence, facts will always win. Designs are factual - they are simply there, and whether mainstream scientists take this seriously or not, will not remove such truth. I do not care that scientists reject design, because I know why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
THIS CONCLUDES MY PARTICIPATION
I would apreciate folk that have debated with me in this thread to read my blog Blog not found. In my blog I take time to discuss things. I would hope you can read some of these short topics, to get an understanding of my reasoning, without judging me, I am grateful for you to be open minded. Bye. (Excerpt from blog as example of how I defend evolution against irreducible complexity
mikey writes: With evolution, to be fair to evolutionists, the claims of evolution do state that relationships between parts changes. So for example, if I had one stick (X) and a small square plank of wood, (Y), and I balanced the plank with the stick, then the relationship between the two is set, as the stick is in the middle of the plank. But if we add another stick, (T), then the relationship will change. Now, the first stick will be placed on one side under the plank, and the new stick on the other side. Now if we removed one stick, the system would fall apart. HOWEVER, this does not describe the original relationship of the original two-part system. So the system, with three parts, will fall apart, if you remove part T, and only have parts X and Y, but originally, parts X and Y did function together successfully without part T. (A retroactive problem or illusion).
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hotjer Member (Idle past 4572 days) Posts: 113 From: Denmark Joined: |
quote: You will actual never be convinced and further you believe we need God? Interesting, that explains why you are unqualified to speak about science even as a layman. Still, you are stating some "obvious logical points" that you, for some reason, think the whole scientific community (not just the mainstream) ignore or cannot comprehend. By definition; you do not accept the scientific method to determine whether a hypothesis is correct or not: A) nothing can convince you, B) Implicit assumption that we need God C) you are referring to your blog (agenda). Actually, I think you just want to preach the word of God. I might be wrong, however, then I wonder why you respond to such thread. About the topic:Personally, I think it is quite fascinating that they started to do such thing, despite it was expected. Not because of the EvC debate (since ToE has nothing to say about the creation of life) but rather because of the progress and possible benefits of such development. I look forward to hear more about this field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology. You neglect Occam's razor. It's not that there isn't a second or third pathway and ToE clearly does not demand a single pathway but that there isn't any evidence for any other then the one known. Extraordinary pathways require extraordinary evidence. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Praise be. Are you gone for good?
Lately your MO is to throw a few bombs, then advertise your blog and move on. You have no desire to actually debate or discuss an issue. You are nothing but a proselytizer. I hope the mods and admin notice and restrict you from being allowed to disrupt threads solely so you can promote your pitiful blog. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology. If you are asking us to show you a new morphology poofing into existence in one generation, you are setting an impossible standard, and again requiring the ToE to produce something that it doesn't claim to. New morphologies appear over time, as existing structures change over time into something different. If you'd like an example of that, I'll happily comply:
Well, you asked for "ONE," and I gave you one. Where are you going to move the goalposts to now, Mikey? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
There are also potentials for making specific drugs, including things like insulin, and some of the meds that are used for cancer and arthritis that cost an arm and a leg to make right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
There are a lot of problems with your assumptins.. for example, there has been no evidence shown for any supernatural agency .. yet we ahve been able to see self replicating rna
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 16 Joined:
|
I don't see what evidence this event gives to either side, intelligent design, or Darwinism. (you'll notice that I prefer the word Darwinism, has less baggage. There are multiple types of evolution, and evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with design.)
The cell was created by an intelligent person, using already existing code. Therefore this doesn't show that life can arise from non-living matter. It hasn't evolved into something more than what it is yet (and they obviously don't expect it to, since they included watermarks, which would be distorted in the case of a mutation) Therefore it doesn't support Darwinism. If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hotjer Member (Idle past 4572 days) Posts: 113 From: Denmark Joined: |
Origin of life is abiogenesis. Not The Theory of Evolution (ToE) which explain diversity of life.
I think you use the term Darwinism as to try to view ToE as an "-ism", a dogma. If I am to guess, you see the ToE as a belief, right? In any case, it does not matter since ToE does not explain origin of life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024