Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Nope not very quickly although I can almost always understand what I read.I suspect the first is related to the theory of linear algebra and convex spaces, the basis is generally associated with the number of vectors participating in the solution of a system of equations. Honestly my only exposure outside of Engr Math would be a class in Hadleys Linear Programming Class in grad school and six years of developing all sorts of LP and MIP business models as the supervisor of an O.R. group for an energy company. Cardinality I recall is just the number of participating vectors, which could be rows or columns depending on whether one is solving the primal or dual problemAlthough I did make an A in nuclear physics I confess I am not remembering the spin of electrons and other particles up down or "sideways".You said HERE in Oklahoma when insulting our schools where do you teach sweety.

I wish to join my Brother WK in trying to view the future...

quote:

---

Lo.. when the sun is in the sign of Leo and before it reaches the sign of Virgo, a pom[unclear from translation] ass will be cast out

---

Something about a donkey's maybe?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 04:54 PM

We don't need to do that to see that your proposal is invalid. It's ill-formed on the face of it.If you had the capability to step back and examine it honestly and dispassionately, you'd see that too.

Dismissing me is out of hand is your way of debate and stating your superiority is one way of fallacious reasoning and not useful, its just a big egocentric booster.This hypothesis is of course not unique to me as your knowledge is probably not unique to you.. maybe.Wilder-Smith proposed something like it ten years ago and if you think a guy who ran a large drug reseach company in Europe, wrote several books,published research results extensively in Europe and taught senior lectures all over the world and had 3 earned Phds is not worthy of your superior intellect so be it.Ill formed means not in the jargon you demand, the hyper vocabulary you demand and no amont of logical persuasion can sway you from your dogmatic approach to any one who disagrees with you.I don'tr need your approval there are quite a few respected scientists who are of the same view and that's good enough for me.Stand back and look realistically ... from your camp that's a laugh.

LOL! Look who's talking.

So it does appear that you know something. I'll give you full credit.Now, are you ready to discuss the topic without comments like: and and Insults rarely distract from the emptiness of one's arguments; indeed, they are usually a signal that there is no content.

I never said anything that was a suggestive of putting amino acids as substitues for DNA base pairs or such. I was saying that in the DNA molecule and the machinery of life molecules there are essentially no working real, as we find it, examples of such that do not make exclusive use of either L forms of the four amino acids of the code or D form of same or other necessary molecules such as sugars. In any one type of molecule be it an amino acid, an enzyme, a sugar etc the specificity of their purpose and function almost without exception dictate only one optically active form. And if one tries to interject the use of another form in such it will not work whether making a
protein, reading mrna or whatever.As to the accuracy of the copying of the dna molecule and the genetic code which afterall is the method used both to make the enzymes of replication and the enzymes that build those enzymes.The complete replication of the dna by its own information and the cooperative machinery it codes for takes about seven hours to complete some 6,000,000,000 base pairs as to being divided, recognized, transported, read, duplicated, stitched, inspected, repaired and made finally into a new molecule which on average contains a few dozen errors in type or sequence. This in a volume of information storage and retrieval about one one hundred trillionth that of the most current manmade storage and retrieval mechanism.Now as to the code word and the information word the term book of detailed instructions, a dictionary of explicit coded instructions,twelve feet of shelf space for books the size of the Wedsrters New International Dictionary make up the total instructional information in the human genome at the same type size for the four letter of the code. On and on in the evolutionary literature exhaustively driving home the point that the codeis information in codes sequences which have reeal meaning when decoded by etc etc etc.Please refer your criticisms to Chris Wills Professor of Biology at UC San Diego and the roughtly 100 scientists who reviewed, edited and otherwise contributed to his work in "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes" from which the above material references were taken.Thus with a half hour lunch the entire personalattach and silly assertion about how inefficient and error prone the code is and clarifying in childs english the role of saparating functtionally L&D forms of molecules ... well lets say back to the books kiddies.

Those are some great assetions, do you have any reference, links, papers, to back them up?

You really can't read can you. Unbelievable! I gave you the principal source as Dr. Chris Wills book and his entire body of references and the names of his peer review committee for the book one hundred scientific types, ISBN 0-465-05020-4 or Harper Collins title "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes. I am not going to list the index of references, papers, etc. for you as I am not your personal secretary.Do a little homework for once.

Exons Entrons and Talking GenesMaybe he means - "Exons, Introns, and Talking Genes: The Science Behind the Human Genome Project".INtrons not entrons.I notice you got it wrong previously

quote:

---

Please refer your criticisms to Chris Wills Professor of Biology at UC San Diego and the roughtly 100 scientists who reviewed, edited and otherwise contributed to his work in "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes" from which the above material references were taken.

---

No need to thank me for correcting you - "well let's say back to the spelling books.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 06:36 PM

Sorry for the typo that one letter must have been the enigmatic puzzle that prompted the acidic comment about no sources... really.Off Topic comments below this. Please do not reply to them.

​

Now don't all of you go team up on poor Chris Wills and all those reviewers about how you're a punk nobody ,turncoat, cluck headed , mentally disturbed ex scientist. I mean poor Chris is just a good scientist , evolutionist and a person capable of truth without losing his entire self esteem, ego and self confidence. He's probably not so paranoid as to believe that disagreement is the root of all evil except of course George Bush, Red State voters, the Supreme Court and what did I miss.

​

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-04-2005 05:42 PM

You really are a laugh riot!Did you cultivate this personae over several years, or were you just born this way?I can't believe someone as rude, arrogant, abrasive, abusive, headstrong, and downright mean ever even made it onto this board!Why the heck did you come to the EVC? Did you think you were gonna walk in here and have everyone fall to your feet as they whiteness the glory of your intellectual might?I don't even know what your point is half the time! Your like an evil Brad McFall who spent a weekend with Kent Hovind and Michael Behe, swallowed a thesaurus, then came over here to "rain on our parade".I'm done with you. Really I am.From the looks of it, you won't last here long anyway.

Yes I suspect you will take the easy way out and not review the referenced material.As to the threats they are just typical of the onesided oversight wI find on every such site. I wrote a calm piece to those nice folks and of course did not receive even the courtesy of a reply.That is why you will lose in the court of public opinion too smart to reply to we inferior types.

Priceless

Well, that would be rather surprising, since I did once hold a dogmatic view, but was swayed out of it - and into evolution - by logic, reason, and evidence.My track record makes it pretty obvious that I can be swayed by logic and evidence. How about yours? Then why do you keep posting to me? Looks like there's something you need, I guess.