42 Questioons
spintronic
noctiluca
James Goetz
> Bacterial Flagellum!
Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
Behe.
spintronic
Not quite what I had in mind.
spintronic
Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
I just have 42 questions.
James Goetz
I have a question. Do you plan on telling us that you have 42
questions while you keep those questions to yourself or do you have
any intention of asking those questions in public?
Steven L.
> Bacterial Flagellum!
Which question is that? The 17th or the 31st?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
spintronic
I have, one question for each protein.
noctiluca
No, no, you're supposed to say something like Enzyme affinity! or
Epigenetic inhibition!, and then someone else will say Nuclease assay!
Get it?
The claim that you actually have something in mind is one that
requires extraordinary evidence. Until such evidence is forthcoming,
it seems best to appreciate your posts for the only benefit they
offer, mindless diversion.
In other words, you're about as interesting as a penguins-are-the-best-
birds thread.
RLC
James Goetz
Do you have answers for the 42 questions?
Ye Old One
And I'm sure each protein will do the wise thing and ignore you.
--
Bob.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats funny, thats related to question 17.
spintronic
> In other words, you're about as interesting as a penguins-are-the-best-
> birds thread.
That really caught your attention? Wow, you should get out more.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont even have questions, at this point.
My challenge to TO, is that I can ask 42 questions on this topic that
cannot be answered.
Frank J
> Bacterial Flagellum!
One "questioon": What's your alternative?
Zaius
I thought 42 was the answer,
Rolf
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91f1ad3-f6c5-4893...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Just make sure you know what you are asking for before asking. Idiots have a
tendency to ask stupid questions from ignorance and stupidity.
r norman
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My challenge to TO, is that I can ask 42 questions on this topic that
>cannot be answered.
Your real challenge is to ask even a single question that cannot be
answered.
spintronic
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:00:00 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
>
> >My challenge to TO, is that I can ask 42 questions on this topic that
> >cannot be answered.
>
> Your real challenge is to ask even a single question that cannot be
> answered.
Not boiled yet.
spintronic
Since you have answered 0/42 of my questions, I feel no obligation to
answer 1/1 of yours.
spintronic
question :1)
"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
All 'PROOF' to the latter is welcome.
As a sideline I will answer any questions, on the 'Infinite
possibilities' of 'COULD'.
E.G. I 'could' just as easily say the 'Flagellum' could have been
ancestors of 'Royal-Prince space aliens'.
Enjoy.
Free Lunch
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
You've done a fine job of deluding yourself about your brilliance. The
rest of the world recognizes that the first syllable of your name is all
you offer.
Free Lunch
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On 5 Jul, 22:05, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
My objection is that your questions have been asked and answered before,
you have chosen to ignore the answers.
spintronic
> >> One "questioon": What's your alternative?
>
> >Since you have answered 0/42 of my questions, I feel no obligation to
> >answer 1/1 of yours.
>
> My objection is that your questions have been asked and answered before,
> you have chosen to ignore the answers.
How could you possibly know that, when I have yet to ask the
questions?
Silly Boy!
Free Lunch
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On 5 Jul, 22:57, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
You've been asking questions and ignoring answers for years. It doesn't
take a crystal ball to know what you will do.
>Silly Boy!
spintronic
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
You implied that you knew my questions.!
All crystal balls -----------> way!
Leave a tip on your way out!
Free Lunch
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
You still have zero unanswered questions. I predict that every single
question you ask will have already been answered.
spintronic
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5 Jul, 23:11, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >> >On 5 Jul, 22:57, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> One "questioon": What's your alternative?
>
> >> >> >Since you have answered 0/42 of my questions, I feel no obligation to
> >> >> >answer 1/1 of yours.
>
> >> >> My objection is that your questions have been asked and answered before,
> >> >> you have chosen to ignore the answers.
>
> >> >How could you possibly know that, when I have yet to ask the
> >> >questions?
>
> >> You've been asking questions and ignoring answers for years. It doesn't
> >> take a crystal ball to know what you will do.
>
> >> >Silly Boy!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >You implied that you knew my questions.!
>
> >All crystal balls -----------> way!
> >Leave a tip on your way out!
>
> You still have zero unanswered questions. I predict that every single
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm, Still have no answer to question 1).
Question 2_ doesnt seem to have been uploaded yet.
Frank J
Your choice. The lurkers can see for themselves who answers the
serious questions and who increasingly evades them.
Frank J
Since you're not a fan of IC, will you ask them of Behe too?
spintronic
Is that why you post to impress lurkers?.lol
Ron O
This is so moronic that you just have to laugh. How many posts did it
take this bonehead to even ask a question? Now, we find out that it
is a question that this bonehead doesn't even have an answer for that
he can support in any reasonable fashion.
Science estimates that the flagellum likely evolved over 2 billion
years ago. I think that the estimate that I saw was 2.5 billion years
based on how the proteins of related flagella have diverged from one
another. Why should science be able to demonstrate how it evolved?
At that age we have trouble telling how it has evolved since it
originated. Tell us what the initial conditions were. What were the
starting materials? We can't even tell the relationships between some
of the proteins and their possible precursors. 2.5 billion years is a
very long time ago. The proteins have changed so much that it is
difficult to determine where some of the pieces came from, so why
should science have such an explanation?
If you have an alternative, spit it out and put up the evidence for
it. We can tell how a lot of the proteins are related to other
proteins in the bacteria. They do have possible precursors.
Biological evolution expects to build on what is already there, and we
have protein sequence evidence that at least some flagellum parts came
from proteins that do other things in the cell. Compared to that,
what do you have? Just check out the ATPase at the base of the
flagellum and compare it to other ATPases.
This would be funny if it were some type of comedy routine. As it is
it is just tragic.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by noctiluca
<rober...@hotmail.com>:
>On Jul 5, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bacterial Flagellum!
>
>Meiotic drive!
Dean drive!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>On Jul 5, 7:49 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Bacterial Flagellum!
>> Meiotic drive!
>Not quite what I had in mind.
Since your "question" was in the form of an exclamation,
what's your complaint?
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 5, 8:12 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Bacterial Flagellum!
>>
>> > > Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
>> > > compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
>> > > Behe.
>>
>> > Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
>>
>> > I just have 42 questions.
>>
>> I have a question. Do you plan on telling us that you have 42
>> questions while you keep those questions to yourself or do you have
>> any intention of asking those questions in public?
>
>I have, one question for each protein.
I see no questions you've posted in this thread. Try again?
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bacterial Flagellum!
>>
>> Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
>> compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
>> Behe.
>
>Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
>
>I just have 42 questions.
Well, then post them, or at least the first one. So far,
you've posted no questions (hint: a question ends in a
question mark, not an exclamation point).
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zaius
<cr...@techapps.net>:
42 is always the answer. Except when the answer is "4".
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
Here's a hint, Sparky. Before anyone can answer even one of
your questions you have to ask at least one question. So
far, you've failed to ask anything.
Bob Casanova
>O.K,
>
>question :1)
>
>"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
>evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
Start here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
When you've read and understood that, please assemble your
list of potential refutations, come back, and the group can
address them.
Next question...
<snip>
spintronic
> On Jul 5, 4:52 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > O.K,
>
> > question :1)
>
> > "Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
> > evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>
> > All 'PROOF' to the latter is welcome.
>
> > As a sideline I will answer any questions, on the 'Infinite
> > possibilities' of 'COULD'.
>
> > E.G. I 'could' just as easily say the 'Flagellum' could have been
> > ancestors of 'Royal-Prince space aliens'.
>
> > Enjoy.
>
> This is so moronic that you just have to laugh. How many posts did it
> take this bonehead to even ask a question? Now, we find out that it
> is a question that this bonehead doesn't even have an answer for that
> he can support in any reasonable fashion.
It was a question designed to show your ignorance & arrogance.
But obviously you dont need my help for that as your do all the hard
work for me in your next paragraph.
> Science estimates that the flagellum likely evolved over 2 billion
> years ago. I think that the estimate that I saw was 2.5 billion years
> based on how the proteins of related flagella have diverged from one
> another.
Utter bullshit.! Fin moron!
How do you derive these figures?
> Why should science be able to demonstrate how it evolved?
Science requires observation and evidence, since you have neither on
this subject (as you dont have a 2billion year old bacteria flagellum)
you cant formulate a "testable hypothesis".
> At that age we have trouble telling how it has evolved since it
> originated.
Hmm. So we both agree, No answer to question 1).
> Tell us what the initial conditions were.
I dont pretend to know how flagellum originated.
> What were the
> starting materials? We can't even tell the relationships between some
> of the proteins and their possible precursors.
Yet you know the steps its evolutionary path took.
> 2.5 billion years is a very long time ago.
Wow this guys a genius.
> The proteins have changed so much that it is
> difficult to determine where some of the pieces came from, so why
> should science have such an explanation?
So not only do you have to explain the formation of the 42 proteins,
but now you have to explain all the precursor's as well.
> If you have an alternative, spit it out and put up the evidence for
> it.
Will do, when you answer my questions first.
> We can tell how a lot of the proteins are related to other
> proteins in the bacteria.
And? I can tell you that a 13mm hexnut is used in many different
engines.
> They do have possible precursors. Biological evolution expects to build on what is already there, and we
> have protein sequence evidence that at least some flagellum parts came
> from proteins that do other things in the cell.
And? I can show you that a language sequence, (say "origin") is used
all over this forum. What does that prove? People use useful tools
more than once.
> Compared to that, what do you have?
A lot more than you apparently! You have squat.
> Just check out the ATPase at the base of the
> flagellum and compare it to other ATPases.
And? ATP is a major source of energy.
Thats like saying, just check that your "kettle" is "240V" 'proves'
that your kettle is related to your "iron". Quite stupid really.
> This would be funny if it were some type of comedy routine. As it is
> it is just tragic.
Glad we agree.
spintronic
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>
> >On Jul 5, 7:49 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 5, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Bacterial Flagellum!
> >> Meiotic drive!
> >Not quite what I had in mind.
>
> Since your "question" was in the form of an exclamation,
> what's your complaint?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
I dont have a complaint. But I have 42 questions, not 1. And the
initial "statement" was not a question.
spintronic
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:52:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>
> >O.K,
>
> >question :1)
>
> >"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
> >evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>
> Start here:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
>
> When you've read and understood that, please assemble your
> list of potential refutations, come back, and the group can
> address them.
>
> Next question...
>
> <snip>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Ah, so after all that "spouting off" you found question no 1)
spintronic
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>
> >O.K,
>
> >question :1)
>
> >"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
> >evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>
> Start here:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
>
> When you've read and understood that, please assemble your
> list of potential refutations, come back, and the group can
> address them.
>
> Next question...
>
> <snip>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Ah right. You want me to refute a paper that refutes itself? Clever!
Frank J
And if your alternative is "I don't know," you never have to explain
anything. We get the game. And sorry to burst your bubble, but the DI
plays it a lot better than you do.
(snip)
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
And they are awful at it.
Will in New Haven
Well your flagellum question has been answered and you have ignored
the answers. No, I do NOT have to repeat the answers, you tiresome
piece of shit.
Cordially as always,
--
Will in New Haven
Ron O
If you would actually try to learn something instead of blow smoke you
would probably already know.
You compare the protein sequences of the extant flagella and you see
how they are similar and how they are different and you can tell how
long ago they were once the same sequence. See you have to come up
with an explanation for why all the related flagella are so different
at this time, but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
parts and that these parts are related in such a way as to make it
look like there was some ancestor with an ancestral sequence that has
evolved to what we see today. This is evolution after the flagellum
evolved. It has existed for a very long time. What is your
explanation for the differences and similarities? Just take chimps
and humans. Why are our proteins nearly identical to a chimps, but
alot of the various flagella have such different proteins?
>
> > Why should science be able to demonstrate how it evolved?
>
> Science requires observation and evidence, since you have neither on
> this subject (as you dont have a 2billion year old bacteria flagellum)
> you cant formulate a "testable hypothesis".
We have the extant proteins that tell a story, what do you have.
Don't be shy give your explanation for the data and the evidence for
it. We can watch these proteins change today, and we can measure the
changes in closely related bacteria and back to less closely related
bacteria. What can you do?
>
> > At that age we have trouble telling how it has evolved since it
> > originated.
>
> Hmm. So we both agree, No answer to question 1).
More of an answer than you have. That is a fact. Science doesn't
have to know everything, but you have to have something, so what is
it? Compare it to what science has backing up it's explanation. No
comparison, right?
>
> > Tell us what the initial conditions were.
>
> I dont pretend to know how flagellum originated.
Neither does science in that detail. Even though it happened so long
ago we still know where some of the parts probably came from, what do
you know?
>
> > What were the
> > starting materials? We can't even tell the relationships between some
> > of the proteins and their possible precursors.
>
> Yet you know the steps its evolutionary path took.
No one claims that. All we claim is the simple prediction that a lot
of the parts came from preexisting parts, and when we look at the
flagellum that prediction is verified. No one that I know of claims
that they know how the parts came together or what the selective
environment was. What prediction do you have about the flagellum? We
have a scientific prediction that has already been verified.
>
> > 2.5 billion years is a very long time ago.
>
> Wow this guys a genius.
So what does that make you, but just some bonehead that doesn't have
an alternative worth putting forward.
>
> > The proteins have changed so much that it is
> > difficult to determine where some of the pieces came from, so why
> > should science have such an explanation?
>
> So not only do you have to explain the formation of the 42 proteins,
> but now you have to explain all the precursor's as well.
No we don't. Like I said, science doesn't have to explain
everything. You have to worry about what we have already explained.
We can estimate when the flagellum evolved and how old it might be.
Can you do that?
>
> > If you have an alternative, spit it out and put up the evidence for
> > it.
>
> Will do, when you answer my questions first.
No, you won't because you have jack and you know it.
>
> > We can tell how a lot of the proteins are related to other
> > proteins in the bacteria.
>
> And? I can tell you that a 13mm hexnut is used in many different
> engines.
It isn't like that. The proteins are related in a specific way. The
pattern of the relationships tell us which flagellum are more closely
related to eachother than some others. We can trace them through less
and less closely related bacterial species and can even estimate how
long ago they started diverging from each other. It isn't the same
hex nut in all the species. As an example we have an identical
cytochrome c protein as chimps in terms of amino acid sequence, but
monkeys are two amino acids different in sequence from humans, other
mammals like horses have more differences in the protein sequence,
reptiles more, amphibians even more and fish even more differences.
They fall into the pattern where the we know from evolutionary
inference that our fish common ancestor had to come first, then
amphib, then reptile, then mammal, monkey, ape and human. Apes and
humans have only been separated for a few million years and that
hasn't been enough time for the protein sequence to have evolved any
differences in cytochrome c, but that isn't the case for some other
proteins. Over all we have looked at a lot of proteins and they
produce about the same pattern. Something that isn't explained by
your hex nut analogy.
>
> > They do have possible precursors. Biological evolution expects to build on what is already there, and we
> > have protein sequence evidence that at least some flagellum parts came
> > from proteins that do other things in the cell.
>
> And? I can show you that a language sequence, (say "origin") is used
> all over this forum. What does that prove? People use useful tools
> more than once.
So produce your alternative that explains the data. Remember you have
to explain the apparent evolutionary relationships between these
proteins. They do not all have the same sequence in all species, but
the sequences vary by how divergent the species are. How do you
explain that if it is just using the word "origin" over and over?
>
> > Compared to that, what do you have?
>
> A lot more than you apparently! You have squat.
You have less than squat, or you would put it forward.
>
> > Just check out the ATPase at the base of the
> > flagellum and compare it to other ATPases.
>
> And? ATP is a major source of energy.
So, we are talking about the protein, not the nuclotide triphosphate.
>
> Thats like saying, just check that your "kettle" is "240V" 'proves'
> that your kettle is related to your "iron". Quite stupid really.
Nope, you still don't understand. The ATPases are not identical in
sequence. They may do pretty much the same thing, and have apparently
some common ancestral sequence, but they are not identical.
>
> > This would be funny if it were some type of comedy routine. As it is
> > it is just tragic.
>
> Glad we agree.-
Just put up your alternative. Demonstrate that you have more than
squat.
No one really expects you to have a valid alternative. If losers like
you had an alternative the creationist perps wouldn't be running a
bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters. If they had
some viable alternative they would be teaching that instead of the
stupid obfuscation scam that guys like you are stuck with.
No science, no alternative, no argument.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie
> O.K,
>
> question :1)
>
> "Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
> evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>
> All 'PROOF' to the latter is welcome.
>
> As a sideline I will answer any questions, on the 'Infinite
> possibilities' of 'COULD'.
>
> E.G. I 'could' just as easily say the 'Flagellum' could have been
> ancestors of 'Royal-Prince space aliens'.
Well, clearly the answer to your first question is "Yes". Someone
here will demonstrate how the "Bacterial Flagellum" evolved, since I
believe that was recently figured out. I can tell you additionally
that it won't be me.
If you would like me to look at more of your questions, please go
ahead.
Frank J
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@comcast.net>
Unfortunately, with ~70% of adult Americans still thinking that it's
OK to "teach the controversy," the DI's way (misrepresent evolution),
in public school science class no less, they don't need to be any
better than awful.
spintronic
I don't think you understand, the logistics of the argument. Do you
have a 2 billion year old bacteria? At best you can only offer,
"probabilities" or "could have's".
My argument (No1) is that, there are infinite possibilities of "could
have" What makes yours correct?
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 6 Jul, 00:18, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Jul 5, 7:49 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 5, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Bacterial Flagellum!
>> >> Meiotic drive!
>> >Not quite what I had in mind.
>>
>> Since your "question" was in the form of an exclamation,
>> what's your complaint?
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
>I dont have a complaint.
Yes you don it is a mental problem. Get treatment.
> But I have 42 questions, not 1. And the
>initial "statement" was not a question.
--
Bob.
spintronic
Sure, could you tell me why my "car radio", is 'similar yet not
similar' to my next door neighbours?
You could do some analysis, compare millions of radios, and make some
hierarchical structure. But their still man-made. Your argument proves
nothing. Only that you would interprit the data in a different light.
It is impossible to derive a "period or date" spanning 2.5 billion
year based on the genetic drift of 42 proteins. Or you could do the
math! And show me.
> but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
> parts
So what? I could argue that it is easier to use "biobricks" in
constructing functional machines. Henry ford thought so.
Could you show me the sequences anyway. Thanks.
In the end, all life is made up of 4 parts.
spintronic
You say that each of the 42 or so "parts" that make a flagellum, had
to have evolved in a certain "order" & be each stage must have been
"useful".
O.K. Question 2).
"Could you list some of the 42 types of bacteria, at each of the 42
stages of evolutionary development, and explain the usefulness of each
stage"?
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 6 Jul, 00:01, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 4:52 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > O.K,
>>
>> > question :1)
>>
>> > "Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
>> > evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>>
>> > All 'PROOF' to the latter is welcome.
>>
>> > As a sideline I will answer any questions, on the 'Infinite
>> > possibilities' of 'COULD'.
>>
>> > E.G. I 'could' just as easily say the 'Flagellum' could have been
>> > ancestors of 'Royal-Prince space aliens'.
>>
>> > Enjoy.
>>
>> This is so moronic that you just have to laugh. How many posts did it
>> take this bonehead to even ask a question? Now, we find out that it
>> is a question that this bonehead doesn't even have an answer for that
>> he can support in any reasonable fashion.
>
>It was a question designed to show your ignorance & arrogance.
And ended up demonstrating your abject stupidity.
>
>But obviously you dont need my help for that as your do all the hard
>work for me in your next paragraph.
>
>
>> Science estimates that the flagellum likely evolved over 2 billion
>> years ago. I think that the estimate that I saw was 2.5 billion years
>> based on how the proteins of related flagella have diverged from one
>> another.
>
>Utter bullshit.! Fin moron!
>
>How do you derive these figures?
Science.
>
>
>> Why should science be able to demonstrate how it evolved?
>
>Science requires observation and evidence, since you have neither on
>this subject (as you dont have a 2billion year old bacteria flagellum)
>you cant formulate a "testable hypothesis".
Just shows you how wrong you can be.
>
>> At that age we have trouble telling how it has evolved since it
>> originated.
>
>Hmm. So we both agree, No answer to question 1).
>
>> Tell us what the initial conditions were.
>
>I dont pretend to know how flagellum originated.
True, you are ignorant of all science.
[snip more Spincronic crap.]
--
Bob.
Will in New Haven
You stole it from a different junkayrd?
gregwrld
Do your own homework,
you lazy-assed moron.
gregwrld
spintronic
Easier for me to just say they dont exist.
Frank J
From the reply list that looks like a reply to me, even though my post
mentions nothing about the "42 or so parts," and the top was snipped,
possinly due to a Google glitch, as I have seen it before today.
Anyway, those are excellent questions for Behe and Dembski. Make sure
they define all terms clearly before replying.
Free Lunch
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Go ahead, give yourself a zero for the assignment.
Ron O
If you knew the molecular data you wouldn't say that, but ignorance is
bliss.
>
> You could do some analysis, compare millions of radios, and make some
> hierarchical structure. But their still man-made. Your argument proves
> nothing. Only that you would interprit the data in a different light.
>
> It is impossible to derive a "period or date" spanning 2.5 billion
> year based on the genetic drift of 42 proteins. Or you could do the
> math! And show me.
Somebody already has.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1586193&blobtype=pdf
>
> > but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
> > parts
>
> So what? I could argue that it is easier to use "biobricks" in
> constructing functional machines. Henry ford thought so.
> Could you show me the sequences anyway. Thanks.
>
> In the end, all life is made up of 4 parts.-
It is more accurate and complex of an analysis than that, and it falls
out of what we have already learned about biological evolution. It
isn't just how different the sequences are, but how they are related
and the nesting and branching of the sequences. Look at the
phylogenetic trees in the paper that I put up. How do you think that
they assemble such a phylogeny if they were just looking at
differences? You could understand it if you wanted to, but you aren't
interested in understanding anything.
Ron Okimoto
spintronic
> On Jul 6, 9:34 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is impossible to derive a "period or date" spanning 2.5 billion
> > year based on the genetic drift of 42 proteins. Or you could do the
> > math! And show me.
>
> Somebody already has.
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1586193&blobtyp...
Guess you didnt read the whole article.
"Figure 1
The logic and problems of paralogue rooting. In theory (A),
two genes that arose from a single parent by duplication
immediately prior to the common ancestor of the group
under study should yield two identical trees joined together
by a line (shown extra thick) between the roots (stars) of
each tree. Letters are taxa. In practice (B), stochasticity and
systematic biases in evolutionary modes and rates yield trees
with partially incorrect topology and often-misplaced roots
[1]. Misplaced branches (red) are shown as extra long, but in
practice misplaced taxa often do not reveal themselves so
neatly. In practice, root positions in paralogue subtrees may
both be right (very rare: I recall no examples), both wrong
but the same (implying strong systematic biases), both wrong
but different (often reflecting stochasticity and poor resolution),
or one right and one wrong. When such conflicts
occur among different paralogue pairs (or triples, etc.), as is
almost invariable, other means are required to decide
between them".
> > > but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
> > > parts
>
> > So what? I could argue that it is easier to use "biobricks" in
> > constructing functional machines. Henry ford thought so.
> > Could you show me the sequences anyway. Thanks.
>
> > In the end, all life is made up of 4 parts.-
>
> It is more accurate and complex of an analysis than that, and it falls
> out of what we have already learned about biological evolution. It
> isn't just how different the sequences are, but how they are related
> and the nesting and branching of the sequences.
> Look at the
> phylogenetic trees in the paper that I put up. How do you think that
> they assemble such a phylogeny if they were just looking at
> differences? You could understand it if you wanted to, but you aren't
> interested in understanding anything.
The trees on which page?
Is this a phylogenetic tree of the actual flagellum proteins? Or the
actual bacteria?
Do you have both trees? And do they match?
Woland
Guess you didn't understand what you read; Quel suprise!
Ron O
Yes, so what? He is pointing out the possible problems. He spends
most of the paper dealing with how he got around them.
>
> > > > but we can tell that they are made of a lot of the same
> > > > parts
>
> > > So what? I could argue that it is easier to use "biobricks" in
> > > constructing functional machines. Henry ford thought so.
> > > Could you show me the sequences anyway. Thanks.
>
> > > In the end, all life is made up of 4 parts.-
>
> > It is more accurate and complex of an analysis than that, and it falls
> > out of what we have already learned about biological evolution. It
> > isn't just how different the sequences are, but how they are related
> > and the nesting and branching of the sequences.
> > Look at the
> > phylogenetic trees in the paper that I put up. How do you think that
> > they assemble such a phylogeny if they were just looking at
> > differences? You could understand it if you wanted to, but you aren't
> > interested in understanding anything.
>
> The trees on which page?
Which pages?
The flagellum is used as a structure that can be used to differentiate
evolutionary benchmarks that have occurred in the evolution of life on
earth. Information on how it is used is strung through out the
paper. He uses various parts to identify various branch points and
what the inferred common ancestor at that branch point would have
had. A lot of other data from geophysics and geochemistry along with
ages of various rock formations is used to infer probable dates when
these things evolved.
Look where flagella are placed in Fig. 3 and Fig 7. Pages 25-30 has a
summary of some of his inferences involving the flagellum.
>
> Is this a phylogenetic tree of the actual flagellum proteins? Or the
> actual bacteria?
> Do you have both trees? And do they match?-
Fig 1 would be possible types of phylogenies. He doesn't produce
figures for all the phylogenies, he just discusses the results. It is
not your ordinary paper, but an idea with an amazing amount of
information reviewed and accounted for.
This is the type of analysis that you are trying to blow off. It is
obvious that you can't do it by just claiming it doesn't matter or the
data doesn't exist.
So what is your alternative? Do you have anything like this analysis
to back it up?
Ron Okimoto
spintronic
> On Jul 6, 12:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Guess you didn't understand what you read; Quel suprise!- Hide quoted text -
Sorry, you lost me at "quel".
Earle Jones
<e95e7080-3d79-416e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 20:34, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, you're about as interesting as a penguins-are-the-best-
> > birds thread.
>
>
> That really caught your attention? Wow, you should get out more.
*
Spinhead: Here's a question for you:
If elephants had feathers, what color would they be?
earle
*
r norman
That's because it is properly written: "Quelle surprise!"
Earle Jones
<38edff3a-31b0-43bb...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Bacterial Flagellum!
> >
> > > Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
> > > compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
> > > Behe.
> >
> > Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
> >
> > I just have 42 questions.
>
> Since you're not a fan of IC, will you ask them of Behe too?
*
Here is a question for you, Spin. (It is actually an intelligence test.)
Q: You are standing outside.
It begins to rain.
What do you do?
earle
*
Earle Jones
<113cab40-3713-46df...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:21 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On 5 Jul, 23:11, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> > >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >
> > >> >On 5 Jul, 22:57, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> One "questioon": What's your alternative?
> >
> > >> >> >Since you have answered 0/42 of my questions, I feel no obligation
> > >> >> >to
> > >> >> >answer 1/1 of yours.
> >
> > >> >> My objection is that your questions have been asked and answered
> > >> >> before,
> > >> >> you have chosen to ignore the answers.
> >
> > >> >How could you possibly know that, when I have yet to ask the
> > >> >questions?
> >
> > >> You've been asking questions and ignoring answers for years. It doesn't
> > >> take a crystal ball to know what you will do.
> >
> > >> >Silly Boy!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > >You implied that you knew my questions.!
> >
> > >All crystal balls -----------> way!
> > >Leave a tip on your way out!
> >
> > You still have zero unanswered questions. I predict that every single
> > question you ask will have already been answered.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hmmm, Still have no answer to question 1).
>
> Question 2_ doesnt seem to have been uploaded yet.
*
I must have missed question 1. What was it?
All I saw was an outburst: Bacterial Flagellum!
That's not a question. That was an exclamation.
BTW, there is a very good discussion of the bacterial flagellum,
including a possible evolutionary pathway -- check YouTube.
Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
After you see that, please give us your question again.
Thanks,
earle
*
r norman
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
>
>You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
>
Tsk, tsk. That is argument from authority. Spin believes that
argument from ignorance is equally valid.
Earle Jones
<0e85ee16-f844-4d87...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
It fits the observed evidence.
What, by the way, is your explanation?
earle
*
Earle Jones
<8dbdb5c8-5f0e-47f2...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Why don't you just say, "Goddiddit!" Or perhaps, "Jesusdiddit!"
After all, William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design genius says:
"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ
and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."
--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206
earle
*
spintronic
> In article
> <38edff3a-31b0-43bb-9a70-2949f652d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I cover myself with pink elephant feathers.
spintronic
spintronic
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:34:27 -0700, Earle Jones
>
> >Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
>
> >You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
>
> Tsk, tsk. That is argument from authority. Spin believes that
> argument from ignorance is equally valid.
Oh, no. I just knew that the other paper was a "shot in the dark".
spintronic
>
> >Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
>
> >You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
>
> Tsk, tsk. That is argument from authority. Spin believes that
> argument from ignorance is equally valid.
Wow Dec 2003. Bet he's wishin he hadn't of spouted off what he did
about the human-chimp similarities bein as close as he (& you)
claimed.
Question (0/42): What exactly does he mean when he infers that he
introduced ("WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING") at the trial. A lie surely?
Even the human genome to date has large gaps. I guess he doesn't
understand the concept of "full disclosure".
Either in the sense of giving his "evidence to the defence" before the
trial, or "Claiming he has "WHOLE" data which is a damn fuckin lie!
spintronic
> > > Do your own homework,
> > > you lazy-assed moron.
>
> > > gregwrld
>
> > Easier for me to just say they dont exist.
>
> *
> Why don't you just say, "Goddiddit!" Or perhaps, "Jesusdiddit!"
Or both? O.k "Gddidit". There happy.
Back on topic.
Why don't you show me bacterium that have "partially developed
flagellum"?
Or perhaps you are goint to tell us what happened before the big bang?
Or why a singularity is impossible? Or how to solve the worlds energy
crisis?
r norman
Everybody in the world except you is aware of the fact that there
remain gaps in the genome. To help alleviate your ignorance, here is
an official statement dated April 14, 2003 about the "finished
sequence".
http://www.genome.gov/11006929
"Finished sequence is a technical term meaning that the sequence is
highly accurate (with fewer than one error per 10,000 letters) and
highly contiguous (with the only remaining gaps corresponding to
regions whose sequence cannot be reliably resolved with current
technology). That standard was first achieved for a human chromosome
when a team of British, Japanese and U.S. researchers produced a
finished sequence for human chromosome 22 in 1999."
"The finished sequence produced by the Human Genome Project covers
about 99 percent of the human genome's gene-containing regions, and it
has been sequenced to an accuracy of 99.99 percent. ..."
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>On 6 Jul, 00:29, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:52:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >O.K,
>>
>> >question :1)
>>
>> >"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
>> >evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
>>
>> When you've read and understood that, please assemble your
>> list of potential refutations, come back, and the group can
>> address them.
>>
>> Next question...
>>
>> <snip>
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
>Ah right. You want me to refute a paper that refutes itself?
Please show where that paper "refutes itself".
> Clever!
No, you're not.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
spintronic
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 6 Jul, 19:45, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:34:27 -0700, Earle Jones
>
> >> <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
>
> >> >You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
>
> >> Tsk, tsk. That is argument from authority. Spin believes that
> >> argument from ignorance is equally valid.
>
> >Wow Dec 2003. Bet he's wishin he hadn't of spouted off what he did
> >about the human-chimp similarities bein as close as he (& you)
> >claimed.
>
> >Question (0/42): What exactly does he mean when he infers that he
> >introduced ("WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING") at the trial. A lie surely?
>
> >Even the human genome to date has large gaps. I guess he doesn't
> >understand the concept of "full disclosure".
>
> >Either in the sense of giving his "evidence to the defence" before the
> >trial, or "Claiming he has "WHOLE" data which is a damn fuckin lie!
>
> Everybody in the world except you is aware of the fact that there
> remain gaps in the genome.
Ah right, (lets look closely hey?) the person in your video clearly
states that the "ID" proponents were basically bedazzled by his
"introduction of WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCES".
So 2 things are obvious.
1) The guy in the video, did not beleive that "Everybody in the
world ...is aware..(of the genome data, let alone its terminology)".
2) With this knowlesge, he then deceives the court by Using
"terminoloigy" that a court hearing would not understand. By saying
"WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCES".
> To help alleviate your ignorance,
<snip> dont bother.
> "The finished sequence produced by the Human Genome Project covers
> about 99 percent of the human genome's gene-containing regions, and it
> has been sequenced to an accuracy of 99.99 percent. ..."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which is about 10% of our actual genomic base length.
Bob Casanova
>On 6 Jul, 00:29, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:52:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >O.K,
>>
>> >question :1)
>>
>> >"Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
>> >evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
>>
>> When you've read and understood that, please assemble your
>> list of potential refutations, come back, and the group can
>> address them.
>>
>> Next question...
>>
>> <snip>
>Ah, so after all that "spouting off" you found question no 1)
Whoopee... I read through threads in order; BFD.
And you can't address the answer to your first question.
Next!
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>On 6 Jul, 00:18, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Jul 5, 7:49 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 5, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Bacterial Flagellum!
>> >> Meiotic drive!
>> >Not quite what I had in mind.
>>
>> Since your "question" was in the form of an exclamation,
>> what's your complaint?
>I dont have a complaint. But I have 42 questions, not 1. And the
>initial "statement" was not a question.
So quit bitching that no one's answering you and ask your
questions. And just so you'll know in the future, a noun
with modifying adjective followed by an exclamation point
isn't a "statement".
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net>:
It's been quite a while; "surprise" is feminine?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
No, we lost you a lot earlier than that.
Bob Casanova
>On 6 Jul, 15:50, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 10:38 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Right.
>>
>> > You say that each of the 42 or so "parts" that make a flagellum, had
>> > to have evolved in a certain "order" & be each stage must have been
>> > "useful".
>>
>> > O.K. Question 2).
>>
>> > "Could you list some of the 42 types of bacteria, at each of the 42
>> > stages of evolutionary development, and explain the usefulness of each
>> > stage"?
>>
>> Do your own homework,
>> you lazy-assed moron.
>>
>> gregwrld
>
>Easier for me to just say they dont exist.
Just as it would be easy for me to say that you don't exist.
Unfortunately for both of us, we'd both be wrong.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Right.
>
>You say that each of the 42 or so "parts" that make a flagellum, had
>to have evolved in a certain "order" & be each stage must have been
>"useful".
No, no need for any order.
>
>O.K. Question 2).
>
>"Could you list some of the 42 types of bacteria, at each of the 42
>stages of evolutionary development, and explain the usefulness of each
>stage"?
What 42 stages?
--
Bob.
Woland
Dummy!
Bob Casanova
>Right.
Are you addressing someone? Who?
>You say that each of the 42 or so "parts" that make a flagellum, had
>to have evolved in a certain "order" & be each stage must have been
>"useful".
Who's "you"? Are you channeling Nando?
>O.K. Question 2).
>
>"Could you list some of the 42 types of bacteria, at each of the 42
>stages of evolutionary development, and explain the usefulness of each
>stage"?
Why? You'll just resist learning anything, as usual.
Bob Casanova
>On 6 Jul, 19:34, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yeah, he understands English grammar. Recently left US
public school, did you?
r norman
I have 42 questions for you. The first is: do you understand
anything at all about molecular biology?
The next 41 are all very similar: do you understand anything at all
about ..... ? (fill in any area of biology or science here)
Robert Carnegie
> On 6 Jul, 13:59, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
> >
> > > question :1)
> >
> > > "Is anyone here going to demonstrate how the Flagellum 'COULD' have
> > > evolved 'OR' how the Flagellum 'DID' evolve"?
> >
> >
> > > As a sideline I will answer any questions, on the 'Infinite
> > > possibilities' of 'COULD'.
> >
> > > E.G. I 'could' just as easily say the 'Flagellum' could have been
> > > ancestors of 'Royal-Prince space aliens'.
> >
> > Well, clearly the answer to your first question is "Yes". Someone
> > here will demonstrate how the "Bacterial Flagellum" evolved, since I
> > believe that was recently figured out. I can tell you additionally
> > that it won't be me.
> >
> > If you would like me to look at more of your questions, please go
> > ahead.
>
> I don't think you understand, the logistics of the argument. Do you
> have a 2 billion year old bacteria? At best you can only offer,
> "probabilities" or "could have's".
>
> My argument (No1) is that, there are infinite possibilities of "could
> have" What makes yours correct?
Science does. And it's what I think you don't understand.
Robert Carnegie
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:28:21 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by r norman
> <r_s_norman@_comcast.net>:
>
> >On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> ><spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 6 Jul, 18:29, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 12:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Guess you didn't understand what you read; Quel suprise!- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >>Sorry, you lost me at "quel".
> >
> >That's because it is properly written: "Quelle surprise!"
>
> It's been quite a while; "surprise" is feminine?
And eight letters long. ;-) (Easily done!)
Shane
Do you mean the feathers of a pink elephant, or elephant
feathers that are pink.
Do you see your problem? you are almost incapable of posting
anything that clearly says what you mean.
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
> In article
> <e95e7080-3d79-416e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jul, 20:34, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, you're about as interesting as a penguins-are-the-best-
>>> birds thread.
>>
>> That really caught your attention? Wow, you should get out more.
>
> *
> Spinhead: Here's a question for you:
>
> If elephants had feathers, what color would they be?
Octagonal!
--
I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille. - The Waco Kid
Vernon Balbert
> In article
> Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bacterial Flagellum!
>>>> Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
>>>> compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
>>>> Behe.
>>> Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
>>>
>>> I just have 42 questions.
>> Since you're not a fan of IC, will you ask them of Behe too?
>
> *
> Here is a question for you, Spin. (It is actually an intelligence test.)
>
> Q: You are standing outside.
> It begins to rain.
> What do you do?
So many questions! Is it cold or warm? Am I on a golf course? Is the
sun shining through breaks in the clouds? Am I Gene Kelly in love with
Debbie Reynolds?
--
Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He roundhouse kicks the cows and the
butter comes straight out.
Free Lunch
<vbal...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Such a good question for spin, I knew that the answer could not have
come from him since it showed wit, knowledge, and curiousity.
Earle Jones
<146ea63a-db3a-423f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Wrong answer.
The correct answer is:
"Bacterial flagellum!"
earle
*
Earle Jones
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:34:27 -0700, Earle Jones
> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
> >
> >You will see an excellent PhD biologist discuss the subject.
> >
>
> Tsk, tsk. That is argument from authority. Spin believes that
> argument from ignorance is equally valid.
*
I'm afraid you're right! There's no hope for people like Spinhead.
earle
*
"...I said evil -- and I mean it, because fear leads to cruelty.
The slightest knowledge of the Inquisition makes one ashamed to belong
to the human species ... One of the most revolting books ever
published was the _Hammer of Witches_, written by a couple of sadistic
perverts and describing the tortures the Church authorized --
encouraged! -- to extract "confessions" from thousands of harmless old
women, before it burned them alive ... The Pope himself wrote an
approving foreword!
... There's never been anything, however absurd, that myriads of
people weren't prepared to believe, often so passionately that they'd
fight to the death rather than abandon their illusions. To me, that's
a good operational definition of insanity.''
-- "Dr. Theodore Khan"
Earle Jones
<ed104c07-0c1b-4dd3...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Spin: Don't forget this: When an intermediate form is found in one of
the gaps in the fossil record, it produces *two new gaps* -- one above
and one below the new intermediate. Therefore finding intermediates
does not help the evolutionary argument. It creates even more problems
for those so-called 'scientists'.
earle
*
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.
But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have
been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made
them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
--John Adams
Max
> On 5 Jul, 20:39, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:19 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 8:12 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I just have 42 questions.
>
> > > > questions while you keep those questions to yourself or do you have
> > > > any intention of asking those questions in public?
>
> > > I have, one question for each protein.
>
> > Do you have answers for the 42 questions?
>
> I dont even have questions, at this point.
>
> My challenge to TO, is that I can ask 42 questions on this topic that
> cannot be answered.-
In the "Yes I do/ No I don't" category
Devil's Advocaat
> On Jul 5, 8:12 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 3:03 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jul 5, 2:41 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bacterial Flagellum!
>
> > > > Yes, yes. Billions of years ago, aliens visited Earth and felt
> > > > compassion for immobile bacteria. The rest is documented by Michael
> > > > Behe.
>
> > > Think you miss the point. Not really a fan of I.C.
>
>
> > I have a question. Do you plan on telling us that you have 42
> > questions while you keep those questions to yourself or do you have
> > any intention of asking those questions in public?
>
> I have, one question for each protein.
Excuse me, but there are a heck of a lot more than 42 proteins
spinney, the total space of all proteins is estimated to be 20^50,000.
So you may have to ask that many questions, if you have "one question
for each protein".
Good luck in asking them!