Translation evolution

[RonO]

There have been two recent papers that have elucidated some interesting
things about protein translation. Translation is the process where the
messenger RNA (mRNA) is decoded and the protein is made based on the
coding of the RNA. The mRNA is usually created using a DNA sequence
template. So a given gene can be transcribed into mRNA and this mRNA
can be translated into a specific protein.

Translation is a complex process that requires intermediaries called
transfer RNAs (tRNA) that allow the ribosomes to read the mRNA and make
strings of amino acids. Each tRNA has an anticodon that is used to
decode the triplet code. The anticodon for methionine is 5' CAU and
matches the 5' AUG codon of the mRNA.

UAC
|||
AUG

The methionine tRNA has to be "charged" with a methionine amino acid.
The enzyme that matches up the methionine with the correct tRNA is
called an aminoacyl-tRNA synthase. Unless the synthase does it job
properly the methionine does not get matched up with the proper codon to
make the correct protein sequence.

Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
first synthases identified amino acids by size. Differentiation by
polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
tRNA. Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.

The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
stage of evolution of the translation system. It turns out that two
major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.

S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T

So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.

So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
remarkable. Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened and the two
proteins could evolve independently and improve their size
differentiation to include a wider specificity of amino acid types. In
fact, it looks like gene duplication happened multiple times and we
ended up with the full set of synthases that we have today.

Identification by size:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/JdDom5hnXNQ/PgNPNp23JR4J

Two for one:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/srrtRVlJ3U8/8W4g1VN9x5QJ

Obviously science has a long way to go to understand the evolution of
the translation system, but we now have a better idea of how this system
evolved. It has been acknowledged for a long time that the genetic code
evolved. There had to be something that came before, then the genetic
code and the translation process evolved. Somewhere in that time period
DNA started to be used as the genetic material.

The translation process is a very complex and highly regulated system at
this time, but it looks like at the beginning it could not even
differentiate amino acids very well, and that it got lucky in that two
synthases that had different amino acid specificities happened to come
from the same piece of DNA. This is the type of lucky accident that
IDiots like Behe should want to identify in the evolution of the
flagellum because they are less likely to occur than the usual
evolutionary steps we observe.

This means that we can identify when some of these unlikely events
occur, but what does that mean? What happened obviously happened.
There isn't much anyone can do about it once it does happen. That is
why Behe claimed that the number and arrangement of such improbable
events mattered. Somehow he needs to figure out that a string of really
improbable events occurred and they are so improbable that it makes his
alternative appealing. Behe has never been able to do that, and my
guess is that he can't do it with this example either.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:mnpi8s$62t$1...@dont-email.me...

> The translation process is a very complex and highly regulated system at
> this time, but it looks like at the beginning it could not even
> differentiate amino acids very well, and that it got lucky in that two
> synthases that had different amino acid specificities happened to come
> from the same piece of DNA. This is the type of lucky accident that
> IDiots like Behe should want to identify in the evolution of the
> flagellum because they are less likely to occur than the usual
> evolutionary steps we observe.
>

Same navel you always had, Ron.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Seriously, we're not interested in what you think of Ron's
navel. Perhaps you could address the point.

--
- There is no harm in being a fool; harm lies in being a
fool at the top of your lungs. (Author Unknown)

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:04:31 +0000 (UTC), "Dexter" <n...@home.org>
wrote:

>Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>> "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:mnpi8s$62t$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > The translation process is a very complex and highly
>> > regulated system at this time, but it looks like at the
>> > beginning it could not even differentiate amino acids
>> > very well, and that it got lucky in that two synthases
>> > that had different amino acid specificities happened to
>> > come from the same piece of DNA. This is the type of
>> > lucky accident that IDiots like Behe should want to
>> > identify in the evolution of the flagellum because they
>> > are less likely to occur than the usual evolutionary
>> > steps we observe.
>> >
>> Same navel you always had, Ron.
>______________________________________________
>
>Seriously, we're not interested in what you think of Ron's
>navel. Perhaps you could address the point.

...and then the spark is snuffed out...
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

what spark?

[RonO]

Is this really all that you can do? Sad is an understatement.

Ron Okimoto

[RSNorman]

It is actually a great improvement on his usual.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:52:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

True; it makes no claims, notes a single easily-confirmed
fact, and has nothing relevant, but incorrect, to add to the
thread - a win-win-win over his usual.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Perhaps the spark that animated this particular subthread.
I suppose the image was just a bit too much for jillery.
My apologies.

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:39:51 +0000 (UTC), "Dexter" <n...@home.org>

My comment was not directed at you.

[RonO]

So it looks like when the current translation system was evolving early
lifeforms got two synthases from a single piece of DNA, and the evidence
is that the initial synthases were not as specific in matching up the
correct amino acid with the tRNA.

I was hoping that this would spawn some discussion and not just the
usual denial. IDiots can put this into their model of design and see
what comes out, but none of them ever were interested in how their model
fit into what science has discovered. Whenever we learn something new
it is just more to deny.

The science side can start using this information. We have sort of a
sigularity when it comes to the evolution of our current lifeforms. The
common ancestor of all known life on earth already had the basic DNA
based replication and cellular organization.

If the inference of getting two distinct classes of synthases from one
piece of DNA is correct. The basic genetic code was already in place
when our current synthases were evolving. This means that they are
replacements, and that something else was doing their jobs before. So
the two new pieces of information make sense and are consistent, but we
are still left with the problem of what came before DNA encoded synthases.

Something like the scenario that there was a system of replication
before DNA and RNA. RNA systems evolved translation capability, but
there likely had to be something before RNA. RNA can have enzymatic
function and can replicate using antisense strands of RNA, and antisense
strands of RNA can be made from the enzymatic RNA. So it could have
been that the genetic code began evolving once RNA established itself as
the major self replicator.

It would be highly speculative, but my guess is that the initial
synthases were either RNA or made up of RNA and the self replicators
that came before RNA.

This just means that what we can observe now in the current synthases is
the transition from a previous system to one encoded in DNA that relied
on protein enzymatic functions. We aren't getting down to abiogenesis,
but are just getting a hint of what went on as the current system
evolved from a previous system.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 10 July 2015 16:55:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> There have been two recent papers that have elucidated some interesting
> things about protein translation. Translation is the process where the
> messenger RNA (mRNA) is decoded and the protein is made based on the
> coding of the RNA. The mRNA is usually created using a DNA sequence
> template. So a given gene can be transcribed into mRNA and this mRNA
> can be translated into a specific protein.
>
> Translation is a complex process that requires intermediaries called
> transfer RNAs (tRNA) that allow the ribosomes to read the mRNA and make
> strings of amino acids. Each tRNA has an anticodon that is used to
> decode the triplet code. The anticodon for methionine is 5' CAU and
> matches the 5' AUG codon of the mRNA.
>
> UAC
> |||
> AUG
>
> The methionine tRNA has to be "charged" with a methionine amino acid.
> The enzyme that matches up the methionine with the correct tRNA is
> called an aminoacyl-tRNA synthase. Unless the synthase does it job
> properly the methionine does not get matched up with the proper codon to

> make the correct protein.

Wow! That truly is a complex process. How did it come about without an intelligent
designer?
One thing we know about complex processes: The more complex the process, the
harder it is to change without wrecking the system.

>
> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
> first synthases identified amino acids by size

The evidence? The fact that if it didn't happen that way, evolutionists have
no idea how evolution could possibly have caused life.There's absolutely
no positive evidence that the researchers know what they're talking about;
just blind speculation based on their belief that "if evolution didn't do it,
then it wouldn't have happened." Okay, on with the story:

Differentiation by
> polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
> precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
> tRNA.

"INITIALLY the process was not as precise as it is now..."
Oh, so you KNOW what the "INITAL process" was like?

> Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
> early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
> more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
> so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.

"Beats me"?
Considering that you "know" that this earlier process gave rise to the current
process by unguided evolution, I was expecting something a little more definite.

>
> The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
> stage of evolution of the translation system.

"Life got lucky"?
That's their conclusion?
Translation:Evolutionary theory has NO EXPLANATION how the following process
arose:

> It turns out that two
> major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
> same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
> lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
> precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.
>
> S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
> UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
> ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
> T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T
>
> So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
> strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.
>
> So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
> remarkable.

"Pretty remarkable" alright.
Translation: Highly improbable

> Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
> difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
> coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened

You know that "gene duplication happened" HOW? By the fact that, if it
DIDN'T happen, there would be NO WAY for evolution to proceed.

> and the two
> proteins could evolve independently and improve their size
> differentiation to include a wider specificity of amino acid types. In
> fact, it looks like gene duplication happened multiple times

Oh, gene duplication happened "multiple times"!
Translation: This step is highly improbable, but we don't care; it's the
only evolutionary alternative.

> and we
> ended up with the full set of synthases that we have today.

We just somehow "ended up" with the full set of synthases we have today?
Wow, how detailed and scientific!
Translation: How improbable!

>
> Identification by size:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/JdDom5hnXNQ/PgNPNp23JR4J
>
> Two for one:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/srrtRVlJ3U8/8W4g1VN9x5QJ
>
> Obviously science has a long way to go to understand the evolution of
> the translation system, but we now have a better idea of how this system
> evolved.

Yes, by a series of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE EVENTS (which cannot be explained by
evolutionary theory)

> It has been acknowledged for a long time that the genetic code
> evolved.

Well, there you go - evolution of the genetic code "has been ACKNOWLEDGED" by evolutionists, so it must be true!
Frankly, I didn't think "consensus" was scientific evidence.

> There had to be something that came before,

Why did there have to be "SOMETHIING" that came before?
Well, if there wasn't SOMETHING that came before, then you couldn't call it
EVOLUTION. You'd have to widen your search for options, and perhaps consider
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

then the genetic
> code and the translation process evolved. Somewhere in that time period
> DNA started to be used as the genetic material.

"Somehwere" DNA just "started to be used" all by itself? Of course it did,
because if it didn't, you couldn't call it EVOLUTION.

>
> The translation process is a very complex and highly regulated system at
> this time, but it looks like at the beginning it could not even
> differentiate amino acids very well, and that it got lucky in that two
> synthases that had different amino acid specificities happened to come
> from the same piece of DNA.
> This is the type of lucky accident that
> IDiots like Behe should want to identify in the evolution of the
> flagellum because they are less likely to occur than the usual
> evolutionary steps we observe.

Well, thank you for identifying all of the "lucky accidents" that are speculated
to have happened for evolution to produce the genetic system that we have.

>
> This means that we can identify when some of these unlikely events
> occur, but what does that mean?

It means, obviously, that the unguided evolution of life is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

> What happened obviously happened.

Yes, obviously. But WHAT HAPPENED? You only speculate that IF IT HAPPENED BY UNGUIDED
EVOLUTION, then this is roughly how life MUST HAVE been produced. As for details,
"WHAT DETAILS? We have a CONSENSUS. What more do we need?"

> There isn't much anyone can do about it once it does happen. That is
> why Behe claimed that the number and arrangement of such improbable
> events mattered. Somehow he needs to figure out that a string of really
> improbable events occurred and they are so improbable that it makes his
> alternative appealing. Behe has never been able to do that, and my
> guess is that he can't do it with this example either.

Well, you have your opinion, but what you just described is exactly
"a string of really improbable events". Any alternative should be seriously
considered.
Specifically, intelligent design.

>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/16/2015 6:01 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 16:55:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> There have been two recent papers that have elucidated some interesting
>> things about protein translation. Translation is the process where the
>> messenger RNA (mRNA) is decoded and the protein is made based on the
>> coding of the RNA. The mRNA is usually created using a DNA sequence
>> template. So a given gene can be transcribed into mRNA and this mRNA
>> can be translated into a specific protein.
>>
>> Translation is a complex process that requires intermediaries called
>> transfer RNAs (tRNA) that allow the ribosomes to read the mRNA and make
>> strings of amino acids. Each tRNA has an anticodon that is used to
>> decode the triplet code. The anticodon for methionine is 5' CAU and
>> matches the 5' AUG codon of the mRNA.
>>
>> UAC
>> |||
>> AUG
>>
>> The methionine tRNA has to be "charged" with a methionine amino acid.
>> The enzyme that matches up the methionine with the correct tRNA is
>> called an aminoacyl-tRNA synthase. Unless the synthase does it job
>> properly the methionine does not get matched up with the proper codon to
>> make the correct protein.
>
> Wow! That truly is a complex process. How did it come about without an intelligent
> designer?
> One thing we know about complex processes: The more complex the process, the
> harder it is to change without wrecking the system.

Wow! who would have expected anything, but more denial?

How did the intelligent designer do it?

>>
>> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
>> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
>> first synthases identified amino acids by size
>
> The evidence? The fact that if it didn't happen that way, evolutionists have
> no idea how evolution could possibly have caused life.There's absolutely
> no positive evidence that the researchers know what they're talking about;
> just blind speculation based on their belief that "if evolution didn't do it,
> then it wouldn't have happened." Okay, on with the story:

What evidence do you have for an alternative?

How can you make the claim that there is no positive evidence to support
the researchers claims? They have the protein sequence and they
understand how the active site works. What do you not get?

Why is denial all that you have? Wouldn't you rather have evidence
supporting your alternative. You don't even have an alternative except
the designer did it.

>
> Differentiation by
>> polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
>> precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
>> tRNA.
>
> "INITIALLY the process was not as precise as it is now..."
> Oh, so you KNOW what the "INITAL process" was like?

What does it tell you when the synthases identified amino acids by size
when other factors matter for differentiating the 20 amino acids
currently used? Stupid denial is really just stupid.

>
>> Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
>> early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
>> more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
>> so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.
>
> "Beats me"?
> Considering that you "know" that this earlier process gave rise to the current
> process by unguided evolution, I was expecting something a little more definite.

We obviously do not know everything, but that is better than nothing.
What is it that you have? Nothing comes to mind. Why is that?

>
>>
>> The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
>> stage of evolution of the translation system.
>
> "Life got lucky"?
> That's their conclusion?
> Translation:Evolutionary theory has NO EXPLANATION how the following process
> arose:

What do you call it? Two for one would not be the normal expectation
for any given DNA sequence. Do you know anything about the genetic
code? If your designer did it why was it only temporary and he decided
to make two genes instead of just the one before evolving all the other
synthases from the two?

>
>> It turns out that two
>> major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
>> same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
>> lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
>> precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.
>>
>> S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
>> UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
>> ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
>> T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T
>>
>> So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
>> strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.
>>
>> So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
>> remarkable.
>
> "Pretty remarkable" alright.
> Translation: Highly improbable

So what? What is your alternative again? Oh, that is right, you don't
have anything except denial because you know that what you have isn't as
good as what you keep claiming isn't good enough.

>
>> Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
>> difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
>> coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened
>
> You know that "gene duplication happened" HOW? By the fact that, if it
> DIDN'T happen, there would be NO WAY for evolution to proceed.

If the two classes of synthases were encoded by the same piece of DNA
they had to be duplicated and each one would have had to evolve
separately to form all the synthases that were needed for the current 20
amino acids. It is obvious that they evolved by gene duplication. Why
didn't your designer create many totally different proteins to do
exactly what they needed to do instead of altering some existing gene to
make it do something slightly differently? Why did he start by encoding
the two different classes on one piece of DNA?

What is your alternative. We know that gene duplication is common. You
can't keep it from happening. What do you know?

>
>> and the two
>> proteins could evolve independently and improve their size
>> differentiation to include a wider specificity of amino acid types. In
>> fact, it looks like gene duplication happened multiple times
>
> Oh, gene duplication happened "multiple times"!
> Translation: This step is highly improbable, but we don't care; it's the
> only evolutionary alternative.

What is your alternative again? Oh, right, you don't have one that is
backed up by anything.

>> and we
>> ended up with the full set of synthases that we have today.
>
> We just somehow "ended up" with the full set of synthases we have today?
> Wow, how detailed and scientific!
> Translation: How improbable!

What is your explanation for what we ended up with?

We know what we have. We can see that the genes are obviously related.
What do you know?

>
>>
>> Identification by size:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/JdDom5hnXNQ/PgNPNp23JR4J
>>
>> Two for one:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/srrtRVlJ3U8/8W4g1VN9x5QJ
>>
>> Obviously science has a long way to go to understand the evolution of
>> the translation system, but we now have a better idea of how this system
>> evolved.
>
> Yes, by a series of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE EVENTS (which cannot be explained by
> evolutionary theory)

How does your alternative work? Oh, that is right, you don't have one.

Nothing but denial is stupid.

>
>> It has been acknowledged for a long time that the genetic code
>> evolved.
>
> Well, there you go - evolution of the genetic code "has been ACKNOWLEDGED" by evolutionists, so it must be true!
> Frankly, I didn't think "consensus" was scientific evidence.

What is that alternative? What!? You don't have one that you are
willing to put forward? Why is that?

When what you have is worse than what you claim is not good enough what
kind of stupid jerk would keep doing what you are doing?

>
>> There had to be something that came before,
>
> Why did there have to be "SOMETHIING" that came before?
> Well, if there wasn't SOMETHING that came before, then you couldn't call it
> EVOLUTION. You'd have to widen your search for options, and perhaps consider
> INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Geeze, my guess is that even in your non alternative something had to
come before. All the way except for your designer that for some unknown
reason doesn't seem to need a designer.

In this case we can tell that if the inference about the synthases is
what actually happened then there was already a genetic code before
there were protein based synthases. Think about it for just a second.
The inference is that because a highly conserved section of the active
site of one class of synthase is the anti sense of a conserved section
of the active site of the other class of synthases. For this to work
there would already have had to be something very similar to the
existing genetic code. The ancient code and antisense are preserved in
the existing synthases. This could not have happened unless the code
already existed. It means that before proteins took over the job of
synthases something else was charging tRNAs to make proteins. The
protein based synthases evolved later after proteins were being made by
a translation system for other things.

This actually makes sense because no one really believed that DNA came
first. The code had to evolve somehow, and if this inference is correct
it is consistent with the fact that the code evolved before the
synthases required by our current translation system. There was
obviously a translation system that used the genetic code, but the
sythases were made of something else other than the genes we have today.
The evidence that we have indicates that the existing synthases
evolved and took over a job that was already being done by something else.

Just for a rational moment think about what this means. This is
evidence that life's current reliance on protein based enzymes evolved
after self replication. There was a system of replication that evolved
the genetic code as a means of making proteins, but the initial
synthases may not have been proteins, but would have been made of what
ever these first replicators were made of. The synthases that we
currently have replaced what came before after the genetic code was in
place. it is actually a sensible scenario.

Work backwards. We know what we have today. The common ancestor of all
extant lifeforms had the same system. We don't expect everything to
have been the same before this common ancestor evolved. We now have
evidence that a very important component of the translation system
evolved after the genetic code had evolved and something was already
making protein based components. The synthases that were being used
when our current synthases were evolving did not have to depend on the
protein based system because it obviously didn't have to all exist at
that time. These synthases may have been made of anything. My guess is
that they were made of RNA by the time the genetic code was evolving
because the rest of the system depends on RNA (tRNA, mRNA and rRNA,
transfer, messenger, and ribosomal, respectively) so the synthases would
have been sRNA (synthase RNA).

In this scenario self replicators would have evolved the ability to make
RNA that became useful in replication and enzymatic functions. The
genetic code evolved as something that RNA could do to make a flexible
set of protein molecules and store the instructions for making them.
This initial code and translation of the code would not have depended on
the protein molecules that it produced, but it looks like the
translation process eventually evolved protein replacements that could
be stored by the same genetic mechanism that was making other useful
proteins.

How does that fit into your alternative? Oh, that is right, you don't
have one as good as what you claim isn't good enough.

>
> then the genetic
>> code and the translation process evolved. Somewhere in that time period
>> DNA started to be used as the genetic material.
>
> "Somehwere" DNA just "started to be used" all by itself? Of course it did,
> because if it didn't, you couldn't call it EVOLUTION.

What is your alternative again? Oh, right, you are too embarassed to
make any claims about something that you know isn't even as good as what
you claim isn't good enough.

>
>>
>> The translation process is a very complex and highly regulated system at
>> this time, but it looks like at the beginning it could not even
>> differentiate amino acids very well, and that it got lucky in that two
>> synthases that had different amino acid specificities happened to come
>> from the same piece of DNA.
>> This is the type of lucky accident that
>> IDiots like Behe should want to identify in the evolution of the
>> flagellum because they are less likely to occur than the usual
>> evolutionary steps we observe.
>
> Well, thank you for identifying all of the "lucky accidents" that are speculated
> to have happened for evolution to produce the genetic system that we have.

They may have identified one that is not as likely to occur as what we
usually observe. What have the IDiots managed to do in the last 13
years of their running the bait and switch ID scam on creationist rubes
such as yourself? How many IDiots have gotten the promised ID science?
What kind of acceptable answer is zero?

>
>>
>> This means that we can identify when some of these unlikely events
>> occur, but what does that mean?
>
> It means, obviously, that the unguided evolution of life is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

What is your alternative again? Oh, right you don't have one as good as
what you claim isn't good enough. How much more highly improbable would
that make your option? Do you even understand what your stupid denial
means?

>
>> What happened obviously happened.
>
> Yes, obviously. But WHAT HAPPENED? You only speculate that IF IT HAPPENED BY UNGUIDED
> EVOLUTION, then this is roughly how life MUST HAVE been produced. As for details,
> "WHAT DETAILS? We have a CONSENSUS. What more do we need?"

What is your alternative again? Stupid denial is just stupid denial.

>
>
>> There isn't much anyone can do about it once it does happen. That is
>> why Behe claimed that the number and arrangement of such improbable
>> events mattered. Somehow he needs to figure out that a string of really
>> improbable events occurred and they are so improbable that it makes his
>> alternative appealing. Behe has never been able to do that, and my
>> guess is that he can't do it with this example either.
>
> Well, you have your opinion, but what you just described is exactly
> "a string of really improbable events". Any alternative should be seriously
> considered.
> Specifically, intelligent design.

Go for it demonstrate something that no other IDiot has been able to
demonstrate. You'd become world famous, so why not do it? Why is
denial all that you can muster? What does it mean when what you have
isn't as good as what you claim is not good enough? Why keep
pretending? The only IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. When did you become all three? Was it only after you found
out what a scam ID was or did you know that it was a scam from the start?

Ron Okimoto

>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

[Steady Eddie]

The Intelligent Designer created life by means of intelligence, wisdom, and
power beyond human comprehension.

The Intelligent Designer of life, whose name is Jehovah, gave us an idea of the magnitude of His superiority over us by comparing himself to a potter, and us
to a pot he made.
How much superior is a potter to a pot, in intelligence, wisdom, and power?
That is how superior Jehovah is to his human creation. -Isaiah 29:16, 64:18.

So why do you insist on an explanation from our Creator when we almost
certainly would not understand this explanation?

Jehovah has told us in the Bible book of Genesis the general order of the
processes He used, and that he created each kind of life separately, and that's
all we need to know about how life came about.

>
> >>
> >> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
> >> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
> >> first synthases identified amino acids by size
> >
> > The evidence? The fact that if it didn't happen that way, evolutionists have
> > no idea how evolution could possibly have caused life.There's absolutely
> > no positive evidence that the researchers know what they're talking about;
> > just blind speculation based on their belief that "if evolution didn't do it,
> > then it wouldn't have happened." Okay, on with the story:
>
> What evidence do you have for an alternative?

The best scientific evidence for an alternative to evolution of life is exactly
what the researchers tell us - that the evolutionary explanation is highly
speculative and highly improbable.

>
> How can you make the claim that there is no positive evidence to support
> the researchers claims? They have the protein sequence and they
> understand how the active site works. What do you not get?

I get that the researchers confirm what researchers have been confirming all
along - that IF life originated by unguided natural processes, we only have
vague speculation on how it might have happened, and even if our speculations
are correct, we have to postulate a HELL of a list of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE OCCURENCES that strain the credulity of any reasonable person.

Why are you in denial that, according to the researchers' own speculations,
it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for life to have arisen by unguided evolution?

>
> Why is denial all that you have? Wouldn't you rather have evidence
> supporting your alternative. You don't even have an alternative except
> the designer did it.

Yes. The Designer did it. That's the alternative.

>
> >
> > Differentiation by
> >> polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
> >> precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
> >> tRNA.
> >
> > "INITIALLY the process was not as precise as it is now..."
> > Oh, so you KNOW what the "INITAL process" was like?
>
> What does it tell you when the synthases identified amino acids by size
> when other factors matter for differentiating the 20 amino acids
> currently used? Stupid denial is really just stupid.

Correction: the synthases are SPECULATED to have identified amino acids by
SIZE in the past (a ridiculous idea, but necessary in order to deny the need for a designer).
Who is really in denial here?

>
> >
> >> Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
> >> early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
> >> more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
> >> so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.
> >
> > "Beats me"?
> > Considering that you "know" that this earlier process gave rise to the current
> > process by unguided evolution, I was expecting something a little more definite.
>
> We obviously do not know everything, but that is better than nothing.

"Beats me" means that you KNOW NOTHING about how functional proteins could
have been produced by your hypothetical "ancestral" translation system.
Yet we KNOW how functional proteins are made now - by FUNCTIONAL CODE in the
DNA. Why is the code in DNA functional? The same way code in computer programs
becomes functional - by the application of INTELLIGENCE in writing the code.
No intelligence? NO FUNCTIONAL CODE.

> What is it that you have? Nothing comes to mind. Why is that?

No alternative comes to mind for you because you are enslaved by the decree that
all science must find ONLY NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS for natural phenomena. You
are literally NOT ALLOWED by your superiors to posit a supernatural designer,
even if the evidence points to one.
That's DENIAL at an INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.

>
> >
> >>"
> >> The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
> >> stage of evolution of the translation system.
> >
> > "Life got lucky"?
> > That's their conclusion?
> > Translation:Evolutionary theory has NO EXPLANATION how the following process
> > arose:
>
> What do you call it? Two for one would not be the normal expectation
> for any given DNA sequence.

Correct. So it's time to re-evaluate your theory.

Do you know anything about the genetic
> code? If your designer did it why was it only temporary and he decided
> to make two genes instead of just the one before evolving all the other
> synthases from the two?

If "my" designer did it, he would not have been constrained by your theories
to follow the steps that you speculate. Unlike you, He KNOWS HOW TO CREATE LIFE.

>
> >
> >> It turns out that two
> >> major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
> >> same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
> >> lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
> >> precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.
> >>
> >> S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
> >> UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
> >> ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
> >> T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T
> >>
> >> So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
> >> strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.
> >>
> >> So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
> >> remarkable.
> >
> > "Pretty remarkable" alright.
> > Translation: Highly improbable
>
> So what?

"So what"?
You don't mind that your explanation is "highly improbable", as long as it is
Evolutionary.
LOL!

> What is your alternative again? Oh, that is right, you don't
> have anything except denial because you know that what you have isn't as
> good as what you keep claiming isn't good enough.

You call recognizing a Creator "denial"?
The ONLY REASON that evolutionists cling to their wacky, highly improbable
speculations is that they DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR.
That's what I call "denial".

>
> >
> >> Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
> >> difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
> >> coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened
> >
> > You know that "gene duplication happened" HOW? By the fact that, if it
> > DIDN'T happen, there would be NO WAY for evolution to proceed.
>
> If the two classes of synthases were encoded by the same piece of DNA
> they had to be duplicated and each one would have had to evolve
> separately to form all the synthases that were needed for the current 20
> amino acids. It is obvious that they evolved by gene duplication. Why
> didn't your designer create many totally different proteins to do
> exactly what they needed to do instead of altering some existing gene to
> make it do something slightly differently? Why did he start by encoding
> the two different classes on one piece of DNA?
>
> What is your alternative. We know that gene duplication is common. You
> can't keep it from happening. What do you know?

...more of the same...

Temper, temper...

>
> >
> >> There had to be something that came before,
> >
> > Why did there have to be "SOMETHIING" that came before?
> > Well, if there wasn't SOMETHING that came before, then you couldn't call it
> > EVOLUTION. You'd have to widen your search for options, and perhaps consider
> > INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
>
> Geeze, my guess is that even in your non alternative something had to
> come before. All the way except for your designer that for some unknown
> reason doesn't seem to need a designer.

Your guess would be wrong.

This doesn't fit at all into the alternative. You just summarized the speculations
necessary in order to deny the existence of a Creator.
Again, if Jehovah created life, He wouldn't have needed to go through all these
steps AS IF he didn't have the intelligence, wisdom, and power to create life forms from scratch.

Okay, so you have no defense against the challenges that the evolutionary
explanations discussed here are both highly speculative and virtually
impossible (when you string together "highly improbable" events, at some point
you have to face the fact that the whole sequence of events is statistically
impossible). Your only reply is "What's your alternative?" which is curious,
because my alternative is so obvious.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <7c9f928a-7447-4786...@googlegroups.com>

And Steadly yet again demonstrates the double standard of IDiocy. They
demand detailed, step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation evidence for every
single chemical in use in the body. And when asked to present their
evidence, they produce a few sentences of pablum, with not a single
checkable fact or verifiable prediction in any of it.

Vacuity, thy name is ID.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[RonO]

So you admit that you have no alternative that you are willing to put
forward because your designer hasn't given you one worth presenting.
For some reason the Biblical model isn't good enough for you or too
embarassing to claim that it came from your creator.

Why don't the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project have the same
issues that you seem to have?

Why don't they require the same level of denial and a belief in what
everyone knows is a bogus creationist scam run on creationists by
creationists?

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

It looks like you can believe in your creator and that you do not have
to go into denial about the science. My guess is that these clergy do
not use the biblical creation mythology as the basis of their
creationist beliefs just like you are refusing to do.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
>>>> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
>>>> first synthases identified amino acids by size
>>>
>>> The evidence? The fact that if it didn't happen that way, evolutionists have
>>> no idea how evolution could possibly have caused life.There's absolutely
>>> no positive evidence that the researchers know what they're talking about;
>>> just blind speculation based on their belief that "if evolution didn't do it,
>>> then it wouldn't have happened." Okay, on with the story:
>>
>> What evidence do you have for an alternative?
>
> The best scientific evidence for an alternative to evolution of life is exactly
> what the researchers tell us - that the evolutionary explanation is highly
> speculative and highly improbable.

The issue is that you have absolutely nothing better. Denial is stupid.
It doesn't matter how improbable something is if it happened and we
know improbable things happen every day. How likely was it that you
were even born? How may sperm did your father inseminate your mother
with at the time that your egg half had ovulated instead of millions of
other candidates? How likely was it that your father and mother ever met?

It is all improbable, yet descent with modification (the production of
yourself) is a known fact of nature.

>>
>> How can you make the claim that there is no positive evidence to support
>> the researchers claims? They have the protein sequence and they
>> understand how the active site works. What do you not get?
>
> I get that the researchers confirm what researchers have been confirming all
> along - that IF life originated by unguided natural processes, we only have
> vague speculation on how it might have happened, and even if our speculations
> are correct, we have to postulate a HELL of a list of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE OCCURENCES that strain the credulity of any reasonable person.

How can you keep making this claim when you have nothing better? As
science this work is weak, so what does it mean when you have nothing
better than what you claim is not good enough. How can you apply this
same standard to things that are so well confirmed that you are either
highly incompetent and or ignorant to believe that such an argument
applies. You cite guys like Behe and yet these guys do not deny that
life evolved on this planet. They understand enough science to
understand that biological evolution is a scientific fact. You claim
that it isn't factual enough and yet you have absolutely nothing by
comparison. We aren't just talking about weak inferences based on a
couple of DNA sequences from multiple organisms. Your denial is as
stupid as the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project understand it
to be.

Highly improbable means nothing in this case. You have to demonstrate
that it means something. The IDiots have never been able to demonstrate
that. Again look at Behe. He has made this improbable argument and IC
is basically a rewording of this argument, but what has he accomplished.
He did a simulation paper that showed how improbable an event was, but
then had to admit that the event was likely to occur in a single
generation of the number of organisms in a cubic meter of pond mud.
That is why Behe's argument requires a string of improbable occurances.
They can't just happened as you might expect at random, but they have
to be arranged in such a way as to make it impossible for it to have
happened naturally. Behe nor anyone else has ever been able to do that.
That is why the bait and switch went down on IDiot rubes such as
yourself over a decade ago and nothing has changed since.

>
> Why are you in denial that, according to the researchers' own speculations,
> it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for life to have arisen by unguided evolution?

The fact is that scientists are still learning about this aspect of
biology. They are making progress. What are you doing. The more they
learn the more you just deny. It has been that way for your kind for
centuries. Most Christians of your type gave up on that attitude when
Newton demonstrated that we were not the center of creation and that the
designer was not making the unverse revolve around us. Newton was born
the same year that Galileo died under house arrest for those types of
heretical views, and within a generation things changed.

Before Darwin YEC had already died. Kelvin was arguing hundreds of
millions of years and the geologists of the time were telling him that
he was wrong, and that the earth was much older than that. Who turned
out to be correct?

>>
>> Why is denial all that you have? Wouldn't you rather have evidence
>> supporting your alternative. You don't even have an alternative except
>> the designer did it.
>
> Yes. The Designer did it. That's the alternative.

So you really don't have an alternative worth putting forward.

Go for it. Put your alternative forward and the evidence for it.

>>
>>>
>>> Differentiation by
>>>> polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
>>>> precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
>>>> tRNA.
>>>
>>> "INITIALLY the process was not as precise as it is now..."
>>> Oh, so you KNOW what the "INITAL process" was like?
>>
>> What does it tell you when the synthases identified amino acids by size
>> when other factors matter for differentiating the 20 amino acids
>> currently used? Stupid denial is really just stupid.
>
> Correction: the synthases are SPECULATED to have identified amino acids by
> SIZE in the past (a ridiculous idea, but necessary in order to deny the need for a designer).
> Who is really in denial here?

Speculated is so much more than you have that it is absolutely stupid
for you to keep pretending. What does it mean when even this level of
speculation is better than what you have? What should it mean when what
you have isn't as good as not good enough?

>>
>>>
>>>> Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
>>>> early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
>>>> more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
>>>> so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.
>>>
>>> "Beats me"?
>>> Considering that you "know" that this earlier process gave rise to the current
>>> process by unguided evolution, I was expecting something a little more definite.
>>
>> We obviously do not know everything, but that is better than nothing.
>
> "Beats me" means that you KNOW NOTHING about how functional proteins could
> have been produced by your hypothetical "ancestral" translation system.
> Yet we KNOW how functional proteins are made now - by FUNCTIONAL CODE in the
> DNA. Why is the code in DNA functional? The same way code in computer programs
> becomes functional - by the application of INTELLIGENCE in writing the code.
> No intelligence? NO FUNCTIONAL CODE.

Demonstrate that what we know is not better than your nothing?

It is a simple argument. That you refuse to understand it is just more
denial on your part.

Really, everyone acknowledges that abiogenesis is among the weakests of
sciences, but it is a fact that you have nothing better.

What do you have that is better than the fact that we know that RNA has
enzymatic function and still actually does part of the translation
process. It hasn't all been converted over to the protein DNA encoded
system. Ribosomal RNA still is part of the system and it obviously
could have been working before we had the DNA encoded system.

That is so much more than what you have that it has to be obvious that
your denial of reality is stupid. Your designer did it this way. Why?

Why aren't the IDiots doing their own research and finding out how
creation works?

>
>> What is it that you have? Nothing comes to mind. Why is that?
>
> No alternative comes to mind for you because you are enslaved by the decree that
> all science must find ONLY NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS for natural phenomena. You
> are literally NOT ALLOWED by your superiors to posit a supernatural designer,
> even if the evidence points to one.
> That's DENIAL at an INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.

You never bother to put your alternative forward. All you do is claim
to have it. Go for it. Since you think that this translation work is
so speculative tell us how the information fits into your model. It
obviously fits into what science has come up with so far, so how does it
work in your model.

>>
>>>
>>>> "
>>>> The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
>>>> stage of evolution of the translation system.
>>>
>>> "Life got lucky"?
>>> That's their conclusion?
>>> Translation:Evolutionary theory has NO EXPLANATION how the following process
>>> arose:
>>
>> What do you call it? Two for one would not be the normal expectation
>> for any given DNA sequence.
>
> Correct. So it's time to re-evaluate your theory.

Why is that? It is not impossible, it is just not the usual. There are
other cases where currently functional genes are encoded on both strands
of a piece of DNA. It isn't the normal case, but it obviously has happened.

>
> Do you know anything about the genetic
>> code? If your designer did it why was it only temporary and he decided
>> to make two genes instead of just the one before evolving all the other
>> synthases from the two?
>
> If "my" designer did it, he would not have been constrained by your theories
> to follow the steps that you speculate. Unlike you, He KNOWS HOW TO CREATE LIFE.

So how did he do it? What does it mean when what you have isn't as good

as what you claim is not good enough?

Why is worse than not good enough better for your model?

>>
>>>
>>>> It turns out that two
>>>> major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
>>>> same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
>>>> lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
>>>> precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.
>>>>
>>>> S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
>>>> UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
>>>> ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
>>>> T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T
>>>>
>>>> So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
>>>> strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.
>>>>
>>>> So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
>>>> remarkable.
>>>
>>> "Pretty remarkable" alright.
>>> Translation: Highly improbable
>>
>> So what?
>
> "So what"?
> You don't mind that your explanation is "highly improbable", as long as it is
> Evolutionary.
> LOL!

Your birth is remarkable, and yet billions of people have been born.
Scientists want to identify remarkable things. It is called learning
something about nature.

>
>> What is your alternative again? Oh, that is right, you don't
>> have anything except denial because you know that what you have isn't as
>> good as what you keep claiming isn't good enough.
>
> You call recognizing a Creator "denial"?
> The ONLY REASON that evolutionists cling to their wacky, highly improbable
> speculations is that they DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR.
> That's what I call "denial".

What do you have but denial? You still haven't put anything postive
forward. Really, go back through this mess and demonstrate that you
ever put your alternative forward. All that you have claimed is that
you have an alternative, but you have nothing that you can support about it.

Put something forward as "speculatively" as the translation speculation.
Why is that not an option? Why don't you have anything as good as
your not good enough?

All you have is claims that you have an alternative, but you haven't put
up your alternative to the translation data and your evidence to back it
up. That is what you need to do, but all you can muster is denial.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
>>>> difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
>>>> coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened
>>>
>>> You know that "gene duplication happened" HOW? By the fact that, if it
>>> DIDN'T happen, there would be NO WAY for evolution to proceed.
>>
>> If the two classes of synthases were encoded by the same piece of DNA
>> they had to be duplicated and each one would have had to evolve
>> separately to form all the synthases that were needed for the current 20
>> amino acids. It is obvious that they evolved by gene duplication. Why
>> didn't your designer create many totally different proteins to do
>> exactly what they needed to do instead of altering some existing gene to
>> make it do something slightly differently? Why did he start by encoding
>> the two different classes on one piece of DNA?
>>
>> What is your alternative. We know that gene duplication is common. You
>> can't keep it from happening. What do you know?
>
> ...more of the same...

Denial is stupid.

Denial is stupid.

>>
>>>
>>>> There had to be something that came before,
>>>
>>> Why did there have to be "SOMETHIING" that came before?
>>> Well, if there wasn't SOMETHING that came before, then you couldn't call it
>>> EVOLUTION. You'd have to widen your search for options, and perhaps consider
>>> INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
>>
>> Geeze, my guess is that even in your non alternative something had to
>> come before. All the way except for your designer that for some unknown
>> reason doesn't seem to need a designer.
>
> Your guess would be wrong.

Denial is stupid.

Denial is stupid.

What is your alternative and the evidence to back it up. Just claims
that you have an alternative is just part of your stupid denial.

Look at what you are denying. We have no evidence to deny that your
designer did what we are discovering happened. For some reason you want
to believe that your designer didn't do it that way, but you have
nothing but denial to make that claim. A lot of the Clergy that signed
the Clergy letter project would likely assume that the creator was
involved in the process (if it is scientifically confirmed) even if they
did not know how, when or why. They do not deny what we find, they may
just ignore it until it matters to them.

I have all of scientific knowledge and the fact that your alternative
has a zero success rate in that category. Really, ID has a 100% failure
rate. Not a single bit of IDiocy left standing once we are able to test
it. That is what you are up against and why the translation
"speculation" above is something that you have nothing by comparison.

What does it mean when what you have isn't as good as what you claim is

not good enough? That is obviously my argument. We have all of
scientific knowledge to date and what do you have? You can't go to the
Discovery Institute and find any counters to the 100% failure rate of
IDiocy in science. That is why they ran the bait and switch. All they
needed was one success and we would already be teaching ID as part of
science.

That is what you are up against, and you are late to the party. The ID
perps that you depend on for IDiocy gave up on it over a decade ago.
What do you get from them instead when you need the ID science? What
does it tell you when the switch scam that you get does not even mention
that ID ever existed?

Denial is stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Now you're just ranting.
I just told you that I agree with the Biblical model, and you say that I'm too
embarrassed to claim that it is the Creator's explanation for us.
That doesn't even make sense.

>
> Why don't the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project have the same
> issues that you seem to have?

The clergy have curried political favor ever since their inception in Roman times.
They have always sought man's approval rather than God's - why would this be
any different?

>
> Why don't they require the same level of denial and a belief in what
> everyone knows is a bogus creationist scam run on creationists by
> creationists?
>
> http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
> It looks like you can believe in your creator and that you do not have
> to go into denial about the science. My guess is that these clergy do
> not use the biblical creation mythology as the basis of their
> creationist beliefs just like you are refusing to do.

Again, not making sense...

>
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
> >>>> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
> >>>> first synthases identified amino acids by size
> >>>
> >>> The evidence? The fact that if it didn't happen that way, evolutionists have
> >>> no idea how evolution could possibly have caused life.There's absolutely
> >>> no positive evidence that the researchers know what they're talking about;
> >>> just blind speculation based on their belief that "if evolution didn't do it,
> >>> then it wouldn't have happened." Okay, on with the story:
> >>
> >> What evidence do you have for an alternative?
> >
> > The best scientific evidence for an alternative to evolution of life is exactly
> > what the researchers tell us - that the evolutionary explanation is highly
> > speculative and highly improbable.
>
> The issue is that you have absolutely nothing better. Denial is stupid.
> It doesn't matter how improbable something is if it happened and we
> know improbable things happen every day. How likely was it that you
> were even born? How may sperm did your father inseminate your mother
> with at the time that your egg half had ovulated instead of millions of
> other candidates? How likely was it that your father and mother ever met?

Now you're showing your true colors.
"It doesn't matter how improbable something is if it happened" LOL!
That's the blind spot of evolution - they don't care if their own research
deems it statistically impossible for life to have arisen on its own; Their
faith in Evolution is such that they don't need it to be possible - in other
words, THEY DON'T NEED ANY EVIDENCE - they already BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, and
nothing will shake their faith, short of an actual intervention by the Creator
(which is coming).

This probablistic comparison of the spontaneous organization of life to the birth of an
individual is just rhetorical slight-of-hand; Try using that argument in any
other context, say engineering, or forensics, and you'd be laughed out of the room.
It's just a demonstration of their hubris that evolution apologists put that
sort of argument out there and expect their submissive flock to swallow it.

>
> It is all improbable, yet descent with modification (the production of
> yourself) is a known fact of nature.

Ahh, and here lies Evolution's bait-and-switch:
Because a human always descends from a human and is not identical to either of his parents, that proves that all life forms
"descended" from one life form, and through that, from inanimate matter, all by
chance.
That's a colossal non-sequetir; in other words, a FALLACIOUS RHETORICAL DEVICE
intended to deceive the gullible.

>
> >>
> >> How can you make the claim that there is no positive evidence to support
> >> the researchers claims? They have the protein sequence and they
> >> understand how the active site works. What do you not get?
> >
> > I get that the researchers confirm what researchers have been confirming all
> > along - that IF life originated by unguided natural processes, we only have
> > vague speculation on how it might have happened, and even if our speculations
> > are correct, we have to postulate a HELL of a list of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE OCCURENCES that strain the credulity of any reasonable person.
>
> How can you keep making this claim when you have nothing better?

That's your whole defence? Your claim that I have nothing better doesn`t
dissolve the fact that what you claim is admittedly impossible.
Maybe you should develop a little self-awareness and face the failure of
YOUR OWN THEORY, then perhaps YOU would be looking for `something better`
yourself.

As
> science this work is weak, so what does it mean when you have nothing
> better than what you claim is not good enough. How can you apply this
> same standard to things that are so well confirmed that you are either
> highly incompetent and or ignorant to believe that such an argument
> applies. You cite guys like Behe and yet these guys do not deny that
> life evolved on this planet. They understand enough science to
> understand that biological evolution is a scientific fact. You claim
> that it isn't factual enough and yet you have absolutely nothing by
> comparison. We aren't just talking about weak inferences based on a
> couple of DNA sequences from multiple organisms. Your denial is as
> stupid as the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project understand it
> to be.
>
> Highly improbable means nothing in this case. You have to demonstrate
> that it means something.

There you go again...

The IDiots have never been able to demonstrate
> that.

For your information, that is EXACTLY what pro-ID scientists have demonstrated
EXPERIMENTALLY - that the formation of EVEN ONE NEW PROTEIN by gene duplication
and mutation is statistically impossible to have occurred in the entire period
of life on Earth.

See:
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family
Mariclair A. Reeves, Ann K. Gauger, Douglas D. Axe
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4

So, while Evolutionists stare at their navels, congratulate each other, and
viciously insult all dissenters, pro-ID scientists are going ahead with the
hard work of actually experimentally calculating the probabilities of evolutionary
explanations.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh, and for the complete main scientific case against Evolution, and for
Intelligent Design, see the following books:

`Darwin`s Doubt` by Stephen Meyer, 2013
-By far my first recommendation. It refers often to the previous books, and
includes citations to a lot of new research.

Signature In the Cell` by Stephen Meyer, around 2009

`The Edge of Evolution` by Michael Behe, 2007

`Darwin`s Black Box` by Michael Behe, 1996

[RonO]

Denial is stupid. You can't just call reality ranting and then run
away. So why not put the model forward and tell us how it fits.

Go for it. Just claiming that you have a model is stupid. Why not
demonstrate that you have a model. The reason that you can't do that is
probably because you are YEC and just short of being a geocentric flat
earth credeationist. Put up your model and lets see how it fits in with
the existing data.

>>
>> Why don't the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project have the same
>> issues that you seem to have?
>
> The clergy have curried political favor ever since their inception in Roman times.
> They have always sought man's approval rather than God's - why would this be
> any different?

Why try to lie about people that you don't know anything about? Why
trust guys like Meyer that you know for a fact lied to you?

>
>>
>> Why don't they require the same level of denial and a belief in what
>> everyone knows is a bogus creationist scam run on creationists by
>> creationists?
>>
>> http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>>
>> It looks like you can believe in your creator and that you do not have
>> to go into denial about the science. My guess is that these clergy do
>> not use the biblical creation mythology as the basis of their
>> creationist beliefs just like you are refusing to do.
>
> Again, not making sense...

Denial is stupid.

Reality is just what it is. Even Behe does not contest that if
something happened it obviously happened no matter how improbable it is.
What does Behe try to do to get around that simple fact? Think for a
moment. It may dawn on you why IC was such a failure that they had to
run a bait and switch scam on IDiot rubes like yourself.

>
> This probablistic comparison of the spontaneous organization of life to the birth of an
> individual is just rhetorical slight-of-hand; Try using that argument in any
> other context, say engineering, or forensics, and you'd be laughed out of the room.
> It's just a demonstration of their hubris that evolution apologists put that
> sort of argument out there and expect their submissive flock to swallow it.

It is the creationist scam artists that claim spontaneolus organization
of life. The evidence from the translation papers is that primative
life evolved to the state of the commmon ancestor that all current life
forms descend from. Really, don't you understand that? The evidence is
that it wasn't just fiat creation. It might have been multiple stage
fiat creation, but it wasn't a spontaneous orgnaization of life.
Really, what you have to do is fit the evidence into your model and see
what you get. Denial is stupid.

>>
>> It is all improbable, yet descent with modification (the production of
>> yourself) is a known fact of nature.
>
> Ahh, and here lies Evolution's bait-and-switch:
> Because a human always descends from a human and is not identical to either of his parents, that proves that all life forms
> "descended" from one life form, and through that, from inanimate matter, all by
> chance.
> That's a colossal non-sequetir; in other words, a FALLACIOUS RHETORICAL DEVICE
> intended to deceive the gullible.

You should know about the bait and switch since you are the rube falling
for it constantly, so why get it mixed up? There was no bait and
switch, just a simple statement of fact. You are not identical to your
parents. You don't even have the identical genetic material inherited
from your parents because along with what you got from them there were
new mutations that occurred in the first cell division. You can't keep
evolution from happening. That is a fact.

We don't just have descent with modification that is just the tip of the
branch of knowledge that evolutionary theory is based on. We have
centuries old theories (scientific theories not IDiot type theories)
like cell theory that are basic to biology. What happens wnen you put
cell theory, and descent with modification, together? What happenes
when you add the genetic relationships between closely related species?
This relationship isn't just simple similarity, but is the exact
relationship that would happen if you put cell theory together with
descent with modification and known modern genetics. You can add the
fossil record. You can add in the age of the earth. What happens?

Do that with your model.

The reason that you can't do it is the reason why ID became a bogus scam
that creationists ran of themselves. They had no credible science so
they ran the bait and switch on rubes such as yourself. Haven't you
gone to the Discovery institute and found out what you get instead of
any ID science? What do the legislators and schoolboards get from the
guys that sold you the ID scam? What does that tell you?

>>
>>>>
>>>> How can you make the claim that there is no positive evidence to support
>>>> the researchers claims? They have the protein sequence and they
>>>> understand how the active site works. What do you not get?
>>>
>>> I get that the researchers confirm what researchers have been confirming all
>>> along - that IF life originated by unguided natural processes, we only have
>>> vague speculation on how it might have happened, and even if our speculations
>>> are correct, we have to postulate a HELL of a list of HIGHLY IMPROBABLE OCCURENCES that strain the credulity of any reasonable person.
>>
>> How can you keep making this claim when you have nothing better?
>
> That's your whole defence? Your claim that I have nothing better doesn`t
> dissolve the fact that what you claim is admittedly impossible.
> Maybe you should develop a little self-awareness and face the failure of
> YOUR OWN THEORY, then perhaps YOU would be looking for `something better`
> yourself.

Obviously not. We have so much that is so much better than your not
good enough that it is actually stupid for you to try to deny it in this
fashion. Don't you know anything about science or biology?

The point here is that you have nothing as good as what you whine about
not being good enough when science left those whines behind centuries
ago in some cases.

Put up your model and we will see how out of date it is. Young earth
creationism was out of date before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.
One global flood bit the dust before Darwin. Gencentrist? That died
with Newton centuries before that. So how much not as good as not good
enough are you talking about? Flat earth creationism? That was likely
out of date before Christ was born in terms of your belief.

>
> As
>> science this work is weak, so what does it mean when you have nothing
>> better than what you claim is not good enough. How can you apply this
>> same standard to things that are so well confirmed that you are either
>> highly incompetent and or ignorant to believe that such an argument
>> applies. You cite guys like Behe and yet these guys do not deny that
>> life evolved on this planet. They understand enough science to
>> understand that biological evolution is a scientific fact. You claim
>> that it isn't factual enough and yet you have absolutely nothing by
>> comparison. We aren't just talking about weak inferences based on a
>> couple of DNA sequences from multiple organisms. Your denial is as
>> stupid as the Clergy that signed the Clergy letter project understand it
>> to be.
>>
>> Highly improbable means nothing in this case. You have to demonstrate
>> that it means something.
>
> There you go again...
> The IDiots have never been able to demonstrate
>> that.
>
> For your information, that is EXACTLY what pro-ID scientists have demonstrated
> EXPERIMENTALLY - that the formation of EVEN ONE NEW PROTEIN by gene duplication
> and mutation is statistically impossible to have occurred in the entire period
> of life on Earth.

Demonstrate that IDiots have demonstrated anything. What ID science do
legisators and school boards get from the IDiot scam artists? If
anything had been scientifically demonstrated the bait and switch would
have never gone down.

Go for it. Become world famous. Steal their junk and publish in a real
science journal so that the world will know what has been done. Would
the ISCID have died if there was any valid ID science? What is your
excuse for the bait and switch? What did all the IDiots get instead of
the ID science? Why has that been true for over a decade?

>
> See:
> The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
> http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

Try to get that science to teach in the public schools from the ID perps
that are selling it to you. What will they do if you try? What have
they done in every single case?

>
> Enzyme Families--Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family
> Mariclair A. Reeves, Ann K. Gauger, Douglas D. Axe
> http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4

Go for it. Take this to your local school board and tell them that you
think that this is valid science that all the students should be aware
of. What will happen? What has happened in every case for over 13 years?

Say that you could demonstrate that what they claim is true, what does
that tell you? Most likely that they did not have the correct model or
that they did something wrong in their analysis. Why can I say that?
What has happened in every other case? The IDiots do not have and never
have had a single IDiot success. What is sad is if they do learn
something by doing their "research" it likely will tell them that they
are wrong. Why is that? Why are there no IDiot successes that you can
point to? Why has there been a 100% failure rate for designer did it
notions? You know that you can't go to the Discovery Institute and get
a single IDiot success. They have no such list because it does not
exist. That is why the bait and switch went down. IC and specified
information and the new law of thermodynamics that they were claiming
existed didn't amount to anything. Go find a single designer did it
success. If real IDiot science existed wouldn't you expect to have a
scientific sucess by now? IDiocy was the default explanation for
Western science for centuries and never amounted to anything. It wasn't
for lack of trying, it is just a fact that nothing ever came out of the
effort. This is the reality that you are up against. Denial is stupid.

Adam didn't have a navel. Prove me wrong. Projection is stupid. Who
is the one with absolutely no science of any value to add to the
discussion? Why can't you discuss something as old as cell theory and
the implication for your model when we have all the other evidence that
combines with cell theory at this time?

Look it up. It is basic biology that is even uncontested by IDiots.
Cell theory predates the theory of biological evolution, but like all
good science new knowledge got added to it and the theory just got
better with time. Why hasn't that happened with any of the IDiot
"theories?"

Why hasn't there been a single IDiot designer did it success in the
entire history of science? So with no valid successes who has to stare
at their navels?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

No one cares, not even the ID perps that sold you this claptrap. Just
take this junk and put together some science supplements just like the
Louisiana and Texas IDiots did a couple years ago, and put it before
your local school board to teach in the public schools and find out how
much faith the ID perps that wrote this junk have in it.

What has happened every single time for over 13 years?

It is very safe to say that this junk is garbage, demonstrate otherwise.
Try to use these books for more than toilet paper. The sad thing is
that Meyer will likely lead the effort to stop you.

You don't have to believe me. I've given you enough references to
determine the facts for yourself, and what do you continue to do in the
face of that reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf Aalberg]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fab86185-2389-46a1...@googlegroups.com...

What's probable about Intelligent Design?

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:moc2mf$lbi$1...@dont-email.me...

The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
invented, it explains everything and nothing.

That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.

[Steady Eddie]

Due to the dialectical nature of this issue, to the extent that the evidence
demonstrates the decreasing probability of Evolutionary explanations, it demonstrates the increasing probability of Intelligent Design.

[Steady Eddie]

If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes, because
it's not the correct term.

Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events that neither
side can explain with our current scientific knowledge. So both sides are forced
to invoke 'magic' - the difference between the two is that the ID side openly
admits this fact, and transparently accounts for it in the most logical way. The
Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences that their
theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all. They simply keep trying
to find an account for these events that doesn't require the work of a
'magician'. So far they've been unsuccessful.
I don't begrudge their continuing on their course, but only expect transparency
and a little bit of self-skepticism when they encounter these problems.

> >>>>>>> guess is that he can't do it with...

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:18:28 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>> The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
>> invented, it explains everything and nothing.
>>
>> That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
>> it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
>> god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.
>
>If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes, because
>it's not the correct term.

If God is supposed to be breaking the laws of nature in order to
create what he supposedly creates, that would have to count as magic.

>Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events that neither
>side can explain with our current scientific knowledge.

There are mysteries remaining to be solved, but the broad brushstrokes
are clear and favor the evolutionists.

> So both sides

The two sides being

a) evolution on one side ,

and

b) "rubbish ready to be debunked" on the other.

> are forced
>to invoke 'magic' - the difference between the two is that the ID side openly
>admits this fact, and transparently accounts for it in the most logical way

In the most pseudoscientific way -- misinterpreting well-established
scientific results, conducting "research" that's structured only to
validate their religious belief system, etc.

> The
>Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences that their
>theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.

"We don't know yet" does not equal "we should invoke magic." But
evolutionary theory is more plausible than Intelligent Design *at
worst*, and empirically *demonstrated fact* at best, depending on what
you're referring to here.

> They simply keep trying
>to find an account for these events that doesn't require the work of a
>'magician'.

There's a lot of evidence for major evolutionary change. Magic isn't
needed.

>So far they've been unsuccessful.

No, evolutionary theory has been spectacularly successful.

>I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,

Maybe because you know they're right.

>but only expect transparency
>and a little bit of self-skepticism when they encounter these problems.

Scientists are self-skeptical enough by nature and training; they
don't need your help for that.

And the "problems" they encounter are like bugs in software; you don't
throw away an entire theory just because you don't understand
everything about it.

But I think you meant problems of a more serious nature than the kind
of "bugs in evolutionary theory" I just talked about, in which case I
would invite you to post them so they can be debunked.

[Steady Eddie]

That's been the whole thrust of my participation on this thread. Please read my
posts above for my allegations of serious problems with Evolution.

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 19:20:34 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 July 2015 06:50:34 UTC-6, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
>
> > The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
> > invented, it explains everything and nothing.
> >
> > That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
> > it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
> > god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.
>
> If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes,
> because it's not the correct term.
>
> Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events
> that neither side can explain with our current scientific knowledge.

When we can't explain some detail of something with our knowledge then
we do not know it. Period.

> So both sides are forced to invoke 'magic' - the difference between
> the two is that the ID side openly admits this fact, and transparently
> accounts for it in the most logical way.

No. Only you are trying to explain things that we do not know with
ungrounded fantasies about magical beings.

> The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> when they encounter these problems.

What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
investigate.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 17:20:33 UTC-6, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 July 2015 19:20:34 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 06:50:34 UTC-6, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> >
> > > The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
> > > invented, it explains everything and nothing.
> > >
> > > That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
> > > it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
> > > god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.
> >
> > If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes,
> > because it's not the correct term.
> >
> > Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events
> > that neither side can explain with our current scientific knowledge.
>
> When we can't explain some detail of something with our knowledge then
> we do not know it. Period.

"Some detail" alright! "It's only the minor detail of the ORIGIN OF LIFE that we
know nothing about. We know all about what happened from then on, though."

So let me get this straight:
You KNOW that every life form came from the life form immediately preceding it.
But you DON'T KNOW how the first life form was produced.

Hmmmm...
That sounds a lot like a tower with many floors, each founded on the one beneath it.

If I were to ask you "What is the thirtieth floor founded on?"
You would undoubtedly answer: "The twenty ninth floor, of course."
"What is the twenty-ninth floor founded on?"
"The twenty-eighth floor, of course."
And so on down the line; you get the picture.
When it came to the question "What is the first floor founded on?"
the answer is a staggering "I don't know."
Tell me: If you don't know what the first floor is founded on, can you honestly
say that you know what the thirtieth floor is founded on?

>
> > So both sides are forced to invoke 'magic' - the difference between
> > the two is that the ID side openly admits this fact, and transparently
> > accounts for it in the most logical way.
>
> No. Only you are trying to explain things that we do not know with
> ungrounded fantasies about magical beings

If you don't know something, then the prudent thing to do is shut your mouth,
sit down, and listen to the one who DOES have a logical explanation, no matter
how fantastic it may seem.

>
> > The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> > that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> > They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> > doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> > unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> > but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> > when they encounter these problems.
>
> What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
> There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
> investigate.

Yes, 'SOMETHING" like the small issue of the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 02:45:32 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 July 2015 17:20:33 UTC-6, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 19:20:34 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 06:50:34 UTC-6, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
> > > > invented, it explains everything and nothing.
> > > >
> > > > That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
> > > > it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
> > > > god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.
> > >
> > > If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes,
> > > because it's not the correct term.
> > >
> > > Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events
> > > that neither side can explain with our current scientific knowledge.
> >
> > When we can't explain some detail of something with our knowledge then
> > we do not know it. Period.
>
> "Some detail" alright! "It's only the minor detail of the ORIGIN OF LIFE
> that we know nothing about. We know all about what happened from then
> on, though."

Yes, but how we can know the true origin of life on our planet? We have
rather few information. Only some sedimentary rocks and fossils
from 3.5 billions of years or more ago.

> So let me get this straight:
> You KNOW that every life form came from the life form immediately
> preceding it.

There are no 100% certainty about anything, however Francesco Redi
showed already 1668 that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were
prevented from laying eggs there. Our food industry is entirely built
upon the knowledge that we need to seed to crop. It is good knowledge
for applying in practice and relying on it.

> But you DON'T KNOW how the first life form was produced.

Popular hypothesis is that autocatalytic and cross-catalytic
molecules formed more stable circles of mutual support over time and
that resulted with abiogenesis of most primitive life-forms.
It sounds plausible in general. Thing that can support its existence
exists and what can't dissolves. So it has at least some logic in it.
Lot of research has been done about it but what actually happened
we don't know.

> Hmmmm...
> That sounds a lot like a tower with many floors, each founded on
> the one beneath it.
>
> If I were to ask you "What is the thirtieth floor founded on?"
> You would undoubtedly answer: "The twenty ninth floor, of course."
> "What is the twenty-ninth floor founded on?"
> "The twenty-eighth floor, of course."
> And so on down the line; you get the picture.
> When it came to the question "What is the first floor founded on?"
> the answer is a staggering "I don't know."
>
> Tell me: If you don't know what the first floor is founded on, can
> you honestly say that you know what the thirtieth floor is founded
> on?

If there are information gathered about twenty ninth floor then what
is the reason to doubt?

> >
> > > So both sides are forced to invoke 'magic' - the difference between
> > > the two is that the ID side openly admits this fact, and transparently
> > > accounts for it in the most logical way.
> >
> > No. Only you are trying to explain things that we do not know with
> > ungrounded fantasies about magical beings
>
> If you don't know something, then the prudent thing to do is shut your mouth,
> sit down, and listen to the one who DOES have a logical explanation, no matter
> how fantastic it may seem.

What *is* the logical explanation here? We can apply logic only to
deduce something from known facts. What is your theory, even? Your
Bible does say nothing about God making microorganisms (and why?) 3.5
billions of years ago. It is because its authors did know nothing
about microorganisms and did not even have numbers to represent
billion. Ron is correct that ID does not even have a story conformant
with what we observe.

Reading papers of various religions shows that authors of those think
about philosophy like of some fairy tale contest and do not care about
outright contradicting with observable reality. Abiogenesis does
sound lot more plausible than any of those.

> > > The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> > > that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> > > They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> > > doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> > > unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> > > but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> > > when they encounter these problems.
> >
> > What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
> > There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
> > investigate.
>
> Yes, 'SOMETHING" like the small issue of the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Origin of the evolving system does not matter to evolution.
I can write computer software that evolves its algorithms based
on random mutations and gains efficiency and accuracy benefits
that way out of blue. So evolution works in primitive fully
designed system.

Do you know a reason why that should not work in spontaneously
formed more complex system? Also why you argue against evolution
if you have such reason? If you had some proof that evolution can
happen only in designed systems (hardly imaginable but lets say)
then that would logically turn evolution into support of designer.

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:50:34 UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 July 2015 02:45:32 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 17:20:33 UTC-6, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 19:20:34 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 18 July 2015 06:50:34 UTC-6, Rolf Aalberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Biblical model? So magic is your model? Magic is the best model ever
> > > > > invented, it explains everything and nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the first model ever inventd by mankind: Something happens? Gods did
> > > > > it. Winds, rains, thunder and lightning, sunrise, just about everything -
> > > > > god(s) made the world, us, and runs the show.
> > > >
> > > > If you insist on using the term 'magic', I'll have to put it in quotes,
> > > > because it's not the correct term.
> > > >
> > > > Both sides of this debate are dealing with the occurrence of events
> > > > that neither side can explain with our current scientific knowledge.
> > >
> > > When we can't explain some detail of something with our knowledge then
> > > we do not know it. Period.
> >
> > "Some detail" alright! "It's only the minor detail of the ORIGIN OF LIFE
> > that we know nothing about. We know all about what happened from then
> > on, though."
>
> Yes, but how we can know the true origin of life on our planet? We have
> rather few information. Only some sedimentary rocks and fossils
> from 3.5 billions of years or more ago.

You have all of the microbiological information that you need to examine what
life is REALLY made of.

And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
"The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340

Here is the logical explanation:
"How did the Universe and Life Originate?"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102002402?q=origin+of+life&p=par

>
> Reading papers of various religions shows that authors of those think
> about philosophy like of some fairy tale contest and do not care about
> outright contradicting with observable reality. Abiogenesis does
> sound lot more plausible than any of those.
>
> > > > The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> > > > that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> > > > They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> > > > doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> > > > unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> > > > but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> > > > when they encounter these problems.
> > >
> > > What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
> > > There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
> > > investigate.
> >
> > Yes, 'SOMETHING" like the small issue of the ORIGIN OF LIFE.
>
> Origin of the evolving system does not matter to evolution.
> I can write computer software that evolves its algorithms based
> on random mutations and gains efficiency and accuracy benefits
> that way out of blue. So evolution works in primitive fully
> designed system.

Perhaps. But notice your system is DESIGNED by an intelligent designer-you.

>
> Do you know a reason why that should not work in spontaneously
> formed more complex system? Also why you argue against evolution
> if you have such reason? If you had some proof that evolution can
> happen only in designed systems (hardly imaginable but lets say)
> then that would logically turn evolution into support of designer.

I don't know a reason (and neither do you) why "more complex systems" than a
computer program would be "spontaneously formed".
The more likely explanation is that, just as in the case of a computer program,
life was intelligently designed.
That's what this environmental consultant concluded:

“I Am Convinced That Life Was Designed by God”
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102013125#h=1:0-27:0

[Öö Tiib]

I have information that life forms billion years ago were lot simpler than
sponges or amoebas. 3.5 billions of years ago were lot simpler organisms
than billion years ago. I can't have information what those were made of.

> And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340

Ok I answer since you did ask.

* How did life begin?
I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
life from our Universe.

* Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".

* Where Did the Instructions Come From?
We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
little, seemingly random changes.

* Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.

* Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
(2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.

It looks like fight with strawman on one side (science does not have uniform
theory about life's origin) and on other side there is Genesis that can't be
taken as (and possibly does not pretend to be) full truth anyway.

> > Reading papers of various religions shows that authors of those think
> > about philosophy like of some fairy tale contest and do not care about
> > outright contradicting with observable reality. Abiogenesis does
> > sound lot more plausible than any of those.
> >
> > > > > The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> > > > > that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> > > > > They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> > > > > doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> > > > > unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> > > > > but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> > > > > when they encounter these problems.
> > > >
> > > > What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
> > > > There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
> > > > investigate.
> > >
> > > Yes, 'SOMETHING" like the small issue of the ORIGIN OF LIFE.
> >
> > Origin of the evolving system does not matter to evolution.
> > I can write computer software that evolves its algorithms based
> > on random mutations and gains efficiency and accuracy benefits
> > that way out of blue. So evolution works in primitive fully
> > designed system.
>
> Perhaps. But notice your system is DESIGNED by an intelligent designer-you.

Certainly. But evolution is rather simple and cheap way to get passable
results. Lot more expensive is to search whole space of algorithms for
to find ultimately optimal one for certain circumstances.

> >
> > Do you know a reason why that should not work in spontaneously
> > formed more complex system? Also why you argue against evolution
> > if you have such reason? If you had some proof that evolution can
> > happen only in designed systems (hardly imaginable but lets say)
> > then that would logically turn evolution into support of designer.
>
> I don't know a reason (and neither do you) why "more complex systems" than a
> computer program would be "spontaneously formed".

How so? A planet is far more complex system than anyone can hope to fully
model as computer software. It looks very likely that the driving force behind
forming such is gravitation. Resulting heavenly bodies that we can see look
quite random and spontaneously formed. Face of Earth looks very similar
to randomly generated maps of computer games:
http://devblog.jnet.fi/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/openttd_full_map_complete.png

> The more likely explanation is that, just as in the case of a computer program,
> life was intelligently designed.
> That's what this environmental consultant concluded:
>
> “I Am Convinced That Life Was Designed by God”
> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102013125#h=1:0-27:0

It is fine for me that some people have chosen to believe into Biblical God.
However see the reasons: "A professor of zoology confided to me that
he did not believe any of the theories of evolution." Who? Why such a
professor of zoology does not step forward and tell us the real rational
reasons? "However, he did not air his views for fear of losing his job."
How can I trust a story about "trustworthy" person who claims to be
dishonest because of material considerations in next sentence?

[Greg Guarino]

On 7/18/2015 7:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >When we can't explain some detail of something with our knowledge then
>> >we do not know it. Period.

> "Some detail" alright! "It's only the minor detail of the ORIGIN OF
LIFE that we
> know nothing about. We know all about what happened from then on,
though."
>
> So let me get this straight:
> You KNOW that every life form came from the life form immediately
preceding it.
> But you DON'T KNOW how the first life form was produced.
>
> Hmmmm...
> That sounds a lot like a tower with many floors, each founded on the
one beneath it.

This is a common misconception which - if taken seriously - would make
all science (and all human knowledge) impossible.

Can we study the trajectory of cannonballs if we don't know what gravity
"is"?

Can we say that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen without knowing
the origin of oxygen?

I say yes, we can.

We can (and did) investigate the effects of gravity in exquisite detail
without any knowledge of what "causes" gravity itself. We can (and did)
investigate the chemical properties of oxygen before anyone knew how it
was formed.

And we can study the relationships between the various species of life
on Earth - and conclude that all those known are related through common
ancestry - quite without knowing how the first life forms got started.
Evolutionary theory (common descent, mutation, selection, drift) would
work just fine even if the first replicators had been ladled into the
ocean by the hand of God.

[Steady Eddie]

Well, the main difference between the premise of UCA (I think it is) and , either the
changing velocity of a cannonball and the composition of water is:

You can investigate the cannonball and water molecule EMPIRICALLY - you can take the
quantitative data available at the moment to draw conclusions WITHOUT any historical
knowledge of what gravity is, or the origin of oxygen.

As for your premise of Universal Common Ancestry; you CANNOT draw conclusive
conclusions about what you claim to have happened under the premise. There is NO
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that all life forms are the offspring of A SINGLE LIFE FORM.
There's plenty EVIDENCE around, thanks to the hard work of biologists, but it by and large
does not point objectively to the conclusion of UCA. The results ACTUALLY PRODUCED
by the science are as easily interpreted in harmony with special Creation as with UCA.

Take, for example, the similarities across types. All life forms created for inhabiting the
Earth would have a lowest common denominator set of biological needs, that can be
programmed-in to the DNA of each life form upon creation. So that explains pervasive
genetic similarities throughout the spectrum of life.

However, have you ever considered the evidence for why there are so many DIFFERENT
TYPES of life forms? To account for the different types of life, the Creator merely said that
He created different kinds of flying creatures, sea creatures, domestic creatures, etc.
separately.

It's this difference between types that has the evolutionists theorizing to no end...
because they've NEVER WITNESSED, and are STILL TRYING TO SPECULATE on how one
major type of animal spread its progeny into many different major types.

[jillery]

Except that the Creator never said what you said He said, at least not
in the Bible. And even if He did, it still doesn't account for all of
the different types of life, ex. flying fish. How do fish, whales,
and lobsters micro-evolve from a common ancestor

>It's this difference between types that has the evolutionists theorizing to no end...
>because they've NEVER WITNESSED, and are STILL TRYING TO SPECULATE on how one
>major type of animal spread its progeny into many different major types.

How do you tell the difference between a Created kind and an evolved
kind?

[Steady Eddie]

So what information DO you have about them?

>
> > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
>
> Ok I answer since you did ask.
>
> * How did life begin?
> I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> life from our Universe.
>
> * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".

So that's a NO.

>
> * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> little, seemingly random changes.

That's "I DON'T KNOW".

>
> * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.

That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"

>
> * Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
> I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
> clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
> create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
> (2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
> self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.

That's "I'm too lazy to think about what I read in the Bible"

Do you really think that the statement 'science does not have [a] uniform theory about
life's origin' is a "straw man"?

>
> > > Reading papers of various religions shows that authors of those think
> > > about philosophy like of some fairy tale contest and do not care about
> > > outright contradicting with observable reality. Abiogenesis does
> > > sound lot more plausible than any of those.
> > >
> > > > > > The Evo side, meanwhile, tries to disguise the 'magical' occurences
> > > > > > that their theory depends on, and doesn't deal with them at all.
> > > > > > They simply keep trying to find an account for these events that
> > > > > > doesn't require the work of a 'magician'. So far they've been
> > > > > > unsuccessful. I don't begrudge their continuing on their course,
> > > > > > but only expect transparency and a little bit of self-skepticism
> > > > > > when they encounter these problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > What problems? Lack of knowledge is normal state of affairs.
> > > > > There is some cap in our knowledge so there is something to
> > > > > investigate.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, 'SOMETHING" like the small issue of the ORIGIN OF LIFE.
> > >
> > > Origin of the evolving system does not matter to evolution.
> > > I can write computer software that evolves its algorithms based
> > > on random mutations and gains efficiency and accuracy benefits
> > > that way out of blue. So evolution works in primitive fully
> > > designed system.
> >
> > Perhaps. But notice your system is DESIGNED by an intelligent designer-you.
>
> Certainly. But evolution is rather simple and cheap way to get passable
> results. Lot more expensive is to search whole space of algorithms for
> to find ultimately optimal one for certain circumstances.

???

[Öö Tiib]

That it was based on carbohydrates like current life.
What more you expect to read out from biogenic graphite?

> >
> > > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
> >
> > Ok I answer since you did ask.
> >
> > * How did life begin?
> > I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> > even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> > life from our Universe.
> >
> > * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> > Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> > are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".
>
> So that's a NO.

That wasn't "no". That was "it depends".

> >
> > * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> > We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> > little, seemingly random changes.
>
> That's "I DON'T KNOW".

No, that was "from parents".

> > * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> > I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> > because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.
>
> That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"

Yes. I don't know. Common properties, especially such properties that are
not relevant adaptively, indicate common ancestor. The other side responds
with hand-waving so they do not have any good arguments and so I think that
common decent is likely true.

> >
> > * Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
> > I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
> > clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
> > create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
> > (2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
> > self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.
>
> That's "I'm too lazy to think about what I read in the Bible"

Does such insult mean that you are running away? I was not too lazy,
I even cited. I did show that Genesis is self-contradicting information.
Self-contradicting set of axioms can not be used to logically reason, it
is mathematically impossible.

Straw man is that science claims as of those numerous hypothesises being
some sort of firm knowledge. Genesis claims being "knowledge" but
it tells next to nothing and even that in self-contradictory manner.

There are endless ways how to reach a solution to a problem so trying
everything out is endlessly expensive. Trying with random changes is
cheap.

No comment? There is story about a nameless hypocritical professor
somewhere so evolution is wrong and goddidit?

[Steady Eddie]

I think you're putting up another straw man.
Where have I said that fish, whales, and lobsters micro-evolved from a common ancestor?
Man, you're confused.

>
>
> >It's this difference between types that has the evolutionists theorizing to no end...
> >because they've NEVER WITNESSED, and are STILL TRYING TO SPECULATE on how one
> >major type of animal spread its progeny into many different major types.
>
>
> How do you tell the difference between a Created kind and an evolved
> kind?
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Easy - created kinds exist, evolved kinds don't.

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Stop dancing around about what you didn't say, and say what you did
say.

>> >It's this difference between types that has the evolutionists theorizing to no end...
>> >because they've NEVER WITNESSED, and are STILL TRYING TO SPECULATE on how one
>> >major type of animal spread its progeny into many different major types.
>>
>>
>> How do you tell the difference between a Created kind and an evolved
>> kind?
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
>Easy - created kinds exist, evolved kinds don't.

That's called begging the question (Yes it is. I looked it up).

[Steady Eddie]

Try reading it again.

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Try reading it again.


Try writing what you mean.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/28/15 4:18 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> I think you're putting up another straw man.
> Where have I said that fish, whales, and lobsters micro-evolved from a common ancestor?

In your post where you quoted much of Genesis 1. You were asked what
kinds were, and one category you mentioned was "sea creatures". The
rational interpretation is that you said sea creatures were a single kind.

Granted, there are plenty of irrational interpretations which are more
likely.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 22:45:01 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/28/15 4:18 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >
> > I think you're putting up another straw man.
> > Where have I said that fish, whales, and lobsters micro-evolved from a common ancestor?
>
> In your post where you quoted much of Genesis 1. You were asked what
> kinds were, and one category you mentioned was "sea creatures". The
> rational interpretation is that you said sea creatures were a single kind.

What gave you that impression?

>
> Granted, there are plenty of irrational interpretations which are more
> likely.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
> found it." - Vaclav Havel

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[jillery]

Instead of just apologizing, go ahead and make explicit what you
actually mean, if only for the novelty of it.

[Greg Guarino]

An entirely different argument. Does that mean you now abandon the idea
that we must know the ultimate origin of life in order to determine that
evolution has progressed since? If not, please lay out why.

> As for your premise of Universal Common Ancestry; you CANNOT draw conclusive
> conclusions about what you claim to have happened under the premise. There is NO
> EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that all life forms are the offspring of A SINGLE LIFE FORM.

There's voluminous evidence for descent from a single form or a pool of
early forms. There's no videotape, though, which I'm guessing is the
only type of evidence you would accept.

> There's plenty EVIDENCE around, thanks to the hard work of biologists, but it by and large
> does not point objectively to the conclusion of UCA. The results ACTUALLY PRODUCED
> by the science are as easily interpreted in harmony with special Creation as with UCA.

No they aren't, unless the Creator went to great great lengths to feign
a diversity of creatures that perfectly mimic what would arise through
descent with modification.

>
> Take, for example, the similarities across types. All life forms created for inhabiting the
> Earth would have a lowest common denominator set of biological needs, that can be
> programmed-in to the DNA of each life form upon creation. So that explains pervasive
> genetic similarities throughout the spectrum of life.

If the structures and genetics we find were distributed simply according
to utility - as we find in actual classes of designed objects - you
might have a point. They are not. Designers add and subtract features as
they see fit. Life shows none of that. Every structure is a reshaping of
another. Some functions are thus implemented in different ways in
different classes of animal, as the "available parts" were different.
Why would the Christian God be limited to available parts?

>
> However, have you ever considered the evidence for why there are so many DIFFERENT
> TYPES of life forms?

Sure. We call it biology.

To account for the different types of life, the Creator merely said that
> He created different kinds of flying creatures, sea creatures, domestic creatures, etc.
> separately.

Consider that one of the ID side's chief apologists, Behe, disagrees
with you, despite a great yearning to invoke a Creator. He has had to
fashion a "tinkerer" God, who tweaks here and there within common
descent to create the diversity we see. Behe does so precisely because
any detailed survey of life on Earth shows a pattern that can only
reasonably be interpreted as Common Descent.

[Steady Eddie]

It's called "Universal Common Ancestry" because it claims that all life evolved from a single life
form. So what was this single life form, Slick? And where did it come from?
Do you not think that is a major part in validating your theory?

>
> > As for your premise of Universal Common Ancestry; you CANNOT draw conclusive
> > conclusions about what you claim to have happened under the premise. There is NO
> > EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that all life forms are the offspring of A SINGLE LIFE FORM.
>
> There's voluminous evidence for descent from a single form or a pool of
> early forms.

Okay, (here we go again...) you're BUSTED.
Quote me ONE piece of evidence that independently demonstrates descent from a single form

or a pool of early forms.

There's no videotape, though, which I'm guessing is the
> only type of evidence you would accept.
>
> > There's plenty EVIDENCE around, thanks to the hard work of biologists, but it by and large
> > does not point objectively to the conclusion of UCA. The results ACTUALLY PRODUCED
> > by the science are as easily interpreted in harmony with special Creation as with UCA.
>
> No they aren't, unless the Creator went to great great lengths to feign
> a diversity of creatures that perfectly mimic what would arise through
> descent with modification.

Yes, they are.
And despite the GREAT LENGTHS that the "establishment" goes to, in order to eradicate Intelligent Design
from serious scientific consideration (to the extent of firing a professor for mentioning ID in her
lectures), there remain many scientists and academics who deny your claim that everything
"looks like" it evolved.
Your opinion is no more valuable than the next scientist. And much LESS valuable than
specialists in the various fields.

> >
> > Take, for example, the similarities across types. All life forms created for inhabiting the
> > Earth would have a lowest common denominator set of biological needs, that can be
> > programmed-in to the DNA of each life form upon creation. So that explains pervasive
> > genetic similarities throughout the spectrum of life.
>
> If the structures and genetics we find were distributed simply according
> to utility - as we find in actual classes of designed objects - you
> might have a point. They are not. Designers add and subtract features as
> they see fit. Life shows none of that. Every structure is a reshaping of
> another. Some functions are thus implemented in different ways in
> different classes of animal, as the "available parts" were different.
> Why would the Christian God be limited to available parts?

Pathetically transparent baseless assertions.
Try backing up some of your points with real quotes from real scientists that publish in the field.
Slick.

> >
> > However, have you ever considered the evidence for why there are so many DIFFERENT
> > TYPES of life forms?
>
> Sure. We call it biology.
>
> To account for the different types of life, the Creator merely said that
> > He created different kinds of flying creatures, sea creatures, domestic creatures, etc.
> > separately.
>
> Consider that one of the ID side's chief apologists, Behe, disagrees
> with you, despite a great yearning to invoke a Creator. He has had to
> fashion a "tinkerer" God, who tweaks here and there within common
> descent to create the diversity we see. Behe does so precisely because
> any detailed survey of life on Earth shows a pattern that can only
> reasonably be interpreted as Common Descent.

It's OK that Behe disagrees with me.
I don't base my conclusions on Behe's infallibility.

[Steady Eddie]

Okay, so you believe the first life was based on carbohydrates, like current life.
Really going out on a limb there are you, partner?

>
> > >
> > > > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > > > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > > > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
> > >
> > > Ok I answer since you did ask.
> > >
> > > * How did life begin?
> > > I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> > > even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> > > life from our Universe.
> > >
> > > * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> > > Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> > > are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".
> >
> > So that's a NO.
>
> That wasn't "no". That was "it depends".

Yes, "it depends" on complications. I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about SIMPLE
life.

>
> > >
> > > * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> > > We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> > > little, seemingly random changes.
> >
> > That's "I DON'T KNOW".
>
> No, that was "from parents".

And what happens when you run out of parents?
Life has gone only so far back, don't forget.

> > > * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> > > I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> > > because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.
> >
> > That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"
>
> Yes. I don't know. Common properties, especially such properties that are
> not relevant adaptively, indicate common ancestor. The other side responds
> with hand-waving so they do not have any good arguments and so I think that
> common decent is likely true.

Why do you believe that common properties that are not relevant adaptively, indicate common
ancestry?
Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?

> > > * Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
> > > I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
> > > clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
> > > create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
> > > (2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
> > > self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.
> >
> > That's "I'm too lazy to think about what I read in the Bible"
>
> Does such insult mean that you are running away? I was not too lazy,
> I even cited.

You can cite all you want, until you can unify it logically with the context, it's just ranting.

I did show that Genesis is self-contradicting information.
> Self-contradicting set of axioms can not be used to logically reason, it
> is mathematically impossible.

You just showed that you believe a 400 year old translation of the Bible is the Word of God.
I think.

Doubt what?

That doesn't even make sense as a sentence.
What grade are you in?

What are you, an IDIOT?
If you try with random changes, you 'try everything out' in a random fashion!
Did anyone imagine otherwise?

LOL.

[Öö Tiib]

What is unclear here? We see sample of biogenic graphite, that indicates
chains of carbon and that indicates there were carbohydrates. I do not
see any alternative explanations.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > > > > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > > > > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
> > > >
> > > > Ok I answer since you did ask.
> > > >
> > > > * How did life begin?
> > > > I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> > > > even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> > > > life from our Universe.
> > > >
> > > > * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> > > > Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> > > > are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".
> > >
> > > So that's a NO.
> >
> > That wasn't "no". That was "it depends".
>
> Yes, "it depends" on complications. I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about SIMPLE
> life.

It is best idea to try to do everything as simply as is possible but it is
stupid idea to try to do anything more simply than is possible.

If some simple bacteriophage or plasmid is life then life can be in rather
simple forms. If it is not life then what it is? Something as simple
as that can survive, spread, reproduce and exploit others among modern
bacteria. Why something as simple as that can not be successful in far
less competitive primordial environment?

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> > > > We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> > > > little, seemingly random changes.
> > >
> > > That's "I DON'T KNOW".
> >
> > No, that was "from parents".
>
> And what happens when you run out of parents?
> Life has gone only so far back, don't forget.

Yes, I do not know how life began, but that was the first question.

>
> > > > * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> > > > I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> > > > because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.
> > >
> > > That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"
> >
> > Yes. I don't know. Common properties, especially such properties that are
> > not relevant adaptively, indicate common ancestor. The other side responds
> > with hand-waving so they do not have any good arguments and so I think that
> > common decent is likely true.
>
> Why do you believe that common properties that are not relevant adaptively,
> indicate common ancestry?

Ostrich, eagle and penguin all have clearly wings adapted to whatever those
are used for so that indicates different adaptations from common ancestry.

> Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?

On that case the hypothesis is that the designer had taken "common design"
limitation that regardless if bird does fly or does not it *must* have
wings and may not have anything else. We do not follow such limitations
in our design because we do not see it being reasonable. It is particularly
odd choice if we assume that the designer is capable of doing anything
but still *always* follows that. Trickster designer? Norse Loki?

>
> > > > * Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
> > > > I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
> > > > clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
> > > > create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
> > > > (2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
> > > > self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.
> > >
> > > That's "I'm too lazy to think about what I read in the Bible"
> >
> > Does such insult mean that you are running away? I was not too lazy,
> > I even cited.
>
> You can cite all you want, until you can unify it logically with the
> context, it's just ranting.

It is not my business to do that, I am fine with rational conclusions
that I made. Groundless insults sound like giving up to me.

>
> I did show that Genesis is self-contradicting information.
> > Self-contradicting set of axioms can not be used to logically reason, it
> > is mathematically impossible.
>
> You just showed that you believe a 400 year old translation of the Bible
> is the Word of God.
> I think.

I did show that Genesis is logically unsound and describes events in
unbelievable for me manner. The reasons why it is such are not really
mine concern. It is up to people who insist that Genesis is Word of
God to communicate it in form without such clear contradictions.

Doubt that thirtieth floor is founded on twenty ninth floor.

English is fourth language that I learned to speak. How many languages
can you speak? If you do not understand my words then sorry, but that
insult has at least ground.

No. Evolution does not try all combinations out. Example of trying
everything out is trying to attach various fins, paws etc to penguin
and seeing what happens. Evolution instead modifies the wings of
penguin slightly to see if it swims better or worse with those.
That is *lot* cheaper than to try and attach all imaginable feet
to it.

Indeed. That professor would be first I would discard as ally and deny
having anything to do with. Greedy, wimpy and hypocritical. Such "friend"
is worse than fair enemy.

[Steady Eddie]

It's not unclear, it's obvious.
That was an example of sarcasm.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > > > > > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > > > > > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok I answer since you did ask.
> > > > >
> > > > > * How did life begin?
> > > > > I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> > > > > even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> > > > > life from our Universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> > > > > Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> > > > > are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".
> > > >
> > > > So that's a NO.
> > >
> > > That wasn't "no". That was "it depends".
> >
> > Yes, "it depends" on complications. I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about SIMPLE
> > life.
>
> It is best idea to try to do everything as simply as is possible but it is
> stupid idea to try to do anything more simply than is possible.

But you're not talking about ideas, or even DOING anything. You're talking about something
ACCIDENTALLY HAPPENING, remember?

> If some simple bacteriophage or plasmid is life then life can be in rather
> simple forms. If it is not life then what it is? Something as simple
> as that can survive, spread, reproduce and exploit others among modern
> bacteria. Why something as simple as that can not be successful in far
> less competitive primordial environment?

Because it wouldn't have other life forms to live off of.

> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> > > > > We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> > > > > little, seemingly random changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's "I DON'T KNOW".
> > >
> > > No, that was "from parents".
> >
> > And what happens when you run out of parents?
> > Life has gone only so far back, don't forget.
>
> Yes, I do not know how life began, but that was the first question.

Yes, and that is the first question you have to ask when considering how the instructions in DNA
came from.
Just to say "from the parents" is only pushing back the question, by one generation, not answering it.

> >
> > > > > * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> > > > > I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> > > > > because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.
> > > >
> > > > That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"
> > >
> > > Yes. I don't know. Common properties, especially such properties that are
> > > not relevant adaptively, indicate common ancestor. The other side responds
> > > with hand-waving so they do not have any good arguments and so I think that
> > > common decent is likely true.
> >
> > Why do you believe that common properties that are not relevant adaptively,
> > indicate common ancestry?
>
> Ostrich, eagle and penguin all have clearly wings adapted to whatever those
> are used for so that indicates different adaptations from common ancestry.

That doesn't even make sense.

> > Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?
>
> On that case the hypothesis is that the designer had taken "common design"
> limitation that regardless if bird does fly or does not it *must* have
> wings and may not have anything else. We do not follow such limitations
> in our design because we do not see it being reasonable. It is particularly
> odd choice if we assume that the designer is capable of doing anything
> but still *always* follows that. Trickster designer? Norse Loki?

You don't have the intelligence to judge how the designer should have done his work.

> >
> > > > > * Is it reasonable to believe in Bible?
> > > > > I have read it. It contains lot of interesting stories. Some of it is
> > > > > clearly contradicting with itself starting from Genesis. How did Lord
> > > > > create the "every winged fowl" from waters (1:21) or out of the ground
> > > > > (2:19) ? I am too rational person so it is impossible for me to believe
> > > > > self-contradicting information. I can enjoy reading such anyway.
> > > >
> > > > That's "I'm too lazy to think about what I read in the Bible"
> > >
> > > Does such insult mean that you are running away? I was not too lazy,
> > > I even cited.
> >
> > You can cite all you want, until you can unify it logically with the
> > context, it's just ranting.
>
> It is not my business to do that, I am fine with rational conclusions
> that I made. Groundless insults sound like giving up to me.
>
> >
> > I did show that Genesis is self-contradicting information.
> > > Self-contradicting set of axioms can not be used to logically reason, it
> > > is mathematically impossible.
> >
> > You just showed that you believe a 400 year old translation of the Bible
> > is the Word of God.
> > I think.
>
> I did show that Genesis is logically unsound and describes events in
> unbelievable for me manner. The reasons why it is such are not really
> mine concern. It is up to people who insist that Genesis is Word of
> God to communicate it in form without such clear contradictions.

Well then, here you go:
Science And the Genesis Account
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010234

You can just say that the thirtieth floor is founded on the twenty ninth floor, but that does not
explain what the building is founded on.

So you are saying that science DOES NOT claim that its numerous hypotheses are grounds for
any kind of firm knowledge?

Yes, Evolutionary theory IS based on RANDOM mutations - i.e. trying EVERYTHING out, and
discarding those things that don't work.
Again, how could you possibly imagine otherwise?

You are quick to insult someone whose situation you don't even know.

[Öö Tiib]

Why sarcasm? All evidence we have about early life is few pieces of
biogenic graphite. Admitting our ignorance is sane position to take.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you should be trying to answer a few questions by now. See:
> > > > > > > "The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking"
> > > > > > > http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010340
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok I answer since you did ask.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * How did life begin?
> > > > > > I don't know. I don't think that anyone knows. I don't think it is
> > > > > > even possible to know exactly without finding more samples of
> > > > > > life from our Universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
> > > > > > Some bacteriophages, plasmids and viruses are rather simple. However scientist
> > > > > > are uncertain if those can be even considered "life-forms".
> > > > >
> > > > > So that's a NO.
> > > >
> > > > That wasn't "no". That was "it depends".
> > >
> > > Yes, "it depends" on complications. I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about SIMPLE
> > > life.
> >
> > It is best idea to try to do everything as simply as is possible but it is
> > stupid idea to try to do anything more simply than is possible.
>
> But you're not talking about ideas, or even DOING anything. You're talking about something
> ACCIDENTALLY HAPPENING, remember?

No. We talk about simple life form. If that is complex question then
trying to answer it more simply than possible is stupid.

>
> > If some simple bacteriophage or plasmid is life then life can be in rather
> > simple forms. If it is not life then what it is? Something as simple
> > as that can survive, spread, reproduce and exploit others among modern
> > bacteria. Why something as simple as that can not be successful in far
> > less competitive primordial environment?
>
> Because it wouldn't have other life forms to live off of.

That isn't clear reason. Current human would also have that same problem
there as current simplest bacteriophage or plasmid. Question was if any
life form is really simple.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Where Did the Instructions Come From?
> > > > > > We see that DNA of existing life form is DNA of its parent(s) with
> > > > > > little, seemingly random changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's "I DON'T KNOW".
> > > >
> > > > No, that was "from parents".
> > >
> > > And what happens when you run out of parents?
> > > Life has gone only so far back, don't forget.
> >
> > Yes, I do not know how life began, but that was the first question.
>
> Yes, and that is the first question you have to ask when considering
> how the instructions in DNA came from.
> Just to say "from the parents" is only pushing back the question, by
> one generation, not answering it.

The question how life started already has perfect answer, that we do
not know and will likely never find out.

The question about instructions in DNA that penguin must have flippers
and not fins come from its ancestor bird who decided to abandon flying
and concentrate on swimming. The first life forms whatever those were
did not contain plans of wings that are useful for swimming so the
instructions did not come from there.

>
> > >
> > > > > > * Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
> > > > > > I am not certain but it looks very likely that there is common ancestor
> > > > > > because some of metabolism overlaps in all of organisms.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's "I DON'T KNOW (But I think so)"
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I don't know. Common properties, especially such properties that are
> > > > not relevant adaptively, indicate common ancestor. The other side responds
> > > > with hand-waving so they do not have any good arguments and so I think that
> > > > common decent is likely true.
> > >
> > > Why do you believe that common properties that are not relevant adaptively,
> > > indicate common ancestry?
> >
> > Ostrich, eagle and penguin all have clearly wings adapted to whatever those
> > are used for so that indicates different adaptations from common ancestry.
>
> That doesn't even make sense.

Penguin's wings are turned into flippers, ostrich does have large wings but
just uses those for mating ritual show-off and for shading chicks. Is that
the design purpose of a wing?

>
> > > Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?
> >
> > On that case the hypothesis is that the designer had taken "common design"
> > limitation that regardless if bird does fly or does not it *must* have
> > wings and may not have anything else. We do not follow such limitations
> > in our design because we do not see it being reasonable. It is particularly
> > odd choice if we assume that the designer is capable of doing anything
> > but still *always* follows that. Trickster designer? Norse Loki?
>
> You don't have the intelligence to judge how the designer should have
> done his work.

Insult? Running away? I do not buy arguments that "the reasons are
incomprehensible". When there are reasons then these are either sound
or I am being lied to. That is my world view.

That I already told I do not know but that does not affect my conclusions
about thirtieth floor being on twenty ninth. One must not know everything
for to know something. Knowing everything is impossible but finding
something out is what happens every day regardless.

Scientific theory is explanation that has lot of evidence supporting it
and no observations that falsify it. That is considered firm and
accepted knowledge.

Hypothesis is plausibly sounding explanation about some phenomena
that is not explained with available scientific theory. Hypothesis
is always falsifiable but it is often expensive to do substantial
amount of experiments and research to confirm or falsify it. So
hypothesis is sort of work in progress, scientists having an idea,
thinking out experiments and searching for money for those. It is
no way a firm knowledge.

If you think that theory of evolution is claiming that evolution
tries everything out then indeed there are no way it could get anywhere
with 3.5 billions of years. Fortunately that is not the case.
Evolution makes only small changes that may accumulate over time into
bigger ones. Horse with wings can't happen out of blue. In fact it
would falsify TOE. If it is best solution then evolution does not
find that.

Yes I can not imagine myself doing things that contradict with my world
view for money. I can find number of less bitter and counterproductive
ways to feed my family in relatively small and poor country.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/19/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> Why do you believe that common properties that are not
> relevant adaptively, indicate common
> ancestry?
> Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?

Common ancestry leaves a pattern, and we see just that pattern.

Common design tends to leave a different pattern, which we do not see.
It is possible that a designer designed all life as it is, but if so,
then it is as certain as certainty gets that that designer went out of
his way to make it look like the species evolved from a common ancestor.

You claim design. Design means the designer wants us to believe
evolution. I can go with that.

[Steady Eddie]

Pray, what pattern would you expect to see from a designer?

Because there are MANY scientists who see life as the obvious work of an intelligent designer.

I think it is you, the Darwinists, who have gone out of your way to make it look like all life evolved
from a common ancestor.

[RSNorman]

Actually it is the original creator of the universe who has gone far
out of his way to make the universe and everything in it look so
incredibly much like it began some 14 billion years ago and has since
developed purely according to the laws of physics, so that life on
earth would look like it all evolved from a common ancestor over
several billion years, and that humans look and behave and function so
completely similar to other apes even to the DNA sequence. No doubt
all that was done purely to deceive us atheists into holding false
beliefs.

[Steady Eddie]

No, other things have been done to deceive you atheists into holding false beliefs.
A great rhetorical edifice has been set up for atheists to worship before, from the science
specials you see on TV to the contents of introductory Biology texts.

[Rolf]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:edf39d63-d19e-4d11...@googlegroups.com...

You are wrong but you'll never realize that you are. You see, there isn't
any

"great rhetorical edifice has been set up for atheists to worship".

I learned longe before I had no religious worreies to woory about so I just
studied the evidence on it's own terms.
The next thing I did was to study religions and religious texts with an open
mind and soon learned what they were about, and for the most part they are
not about the absurd, fundamentlist beliefs that the church have fooled the
followers into believing. You see, ther was a bitter and bloody struggel
between the fundamentalists and the original Christians and the corrupted
version sold by the corrupt fundamentalists won the war against true
religion. Thanks to the hypocrite bastard true heathen Constantine and his
sidekick Eusebius, we are stuck with a corrupted religion where the
mysteries taught by the true Christians have been lost on the way.

But with the enlightenment we since have been through, we no longer have the
same use for religion as in older times.

But fundies are braindead; they have lost their soul to a fake religion
promising an afterlife in some absurd 'heaven'. Just tell me where that
heaven is. You should know, you are a believer, aren't you?

[Öö Tiib]

I don't watch TV, it is too lot of various propaganda indeed.

If you mean science with that "great rhetorical edifice" taught in
schools then that is just backwards and leads nowhere.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/22/15 5:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 August 2015 14:13:50 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/19/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you believe that common properties that are not
>>> relevant adaptively, indicate common
>>> ancestry?
>>> Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?
>>
>> Common ancestry leaves a pattern, and we see just that pattern.
>>
>> Common design tends to leave a different pattern, which we do not see.
>> It is possible that a designer designed all life as it is, but if so,
>> then it is as certain as certainty gets that that designer went out of
>> his way to make it look like the species evolved from a common ancestor.
>>
>> You claim design. Design means the designer wants us to believe
>> evolution. I can go with that.
>>

> Pray, what pattern would you expect to see from a designer?

Reuse of subdesigns NOT fitting a nested hierarchy; simplicity;
separable manufacturing process.

> Because there are MANY scientists who see life as the obvious
> work of an intelligent designer.

For small values of "many", which further drops greatly when you
consider those with training in design.

> I think it is you, the Darwinists, who have gone out of your
> way to make it look like all life evolved
> from a common ancestor.

I'm flattered you might think so, but I really cannot control what all
life looks like.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/22/15 9:21 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 August 2015 20:18:43 UTC-6, RSNorman wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> I think it is you, the Darwinists, who have gone out of
>>> your way to make it look like all life evolved
>>> from a common ancestor.
>>
>> Actually it is the original creator of the universe who has gone far
>> out of his way to make the universe and everything in it look so
>> incredibly much like it began some 14 billion years ago and has since
>> developed purely according to the laws of physics, so that life on
>> earth would look like it all evolved from a common ancestor over
>> several billion years, and that humans look and behave and function so
>> completely similar to other apes even to the DNA sequence. No doubt
>> all that was done purely to deceive us atheists into holding false
>> beliefs.
>
> No, other things have been done to deceive you atheists into
> holding false beliefs.

If by "false beliefs" you refer to atheism, then in my case, it was
reading the Bible and going to church every week.

> A great rhetorical edifice has been set up for atheists
> to worship before, from the science
> specials you see on TV to the contents of introductory Biology texts.

The greatest rhetorical edifice that has EVER been set up for recruiting
atheists is the Republican Party. And have you looked at their science
policies?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

I've never seen anyone encouraged to do this.

[Greg Guarino]

On 8/22/2015 8:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 August 2015 14:13:50 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/19/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you believe that common properties that are not
>>> relevant adaptively, indicate common
>>> ancestry?
>>> Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?
>>
>> Common ancestry leaves a pattern, and we see just that pattern.
>>
>> Common design tends to leave a different pattern, which we do not see.
>> It is possible that a designer designed all life as it is, but if so,
>> then it is as certain as certainty gets that that designer went out of
>> his way to make it look like the species evolved from a common ancestor.
>>
>> You claim design. Design means the designer wants us to believe
>> evolution. I can go with that.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
>> found it." - Vaclav Havel
>
> Pray, what pattern would you expect to see from a designer?

I would expect to see the logical use of parts that we see from
designers we know. To wit: when a function is desired, add in a
structure to perform that function. Where it is not, leave it out.

What we see in biology is very much unlike that simple logic. Every
"part" we see appears unmistakeably to be a reshaping of another part
that can be found in another creature. The ear bones of mammals develop
from the same embryonic structures that become jaw bones in fish. I
submit that no human designer would try to fashion Chevy headlights from
the torpedo tubes of submarines.

And that does not seem to be a human quirk; we see the logic of it. And
that logic applies even more strongly to a very powerful and
super-intelligent creator. Humans who can't get metal from anywhere else
may indeed refashion old junk into tools, but that's not a "design"
issue; it's manufacturing necessity based on limited abilities and
resources. Why would a being without human limitations consistently
limit himself to tweaking the "available parts" of other creatures for
new functions, and further, be meticulous in his sourcing of those
"available parts" so as not to violate the "illusion" of a "lineage"?

Similarly, I would expect that where a function is not necessary, the
structures (and genetics) needed to accomplish the function would simply
be left out. No human designer would design a catalytic converter into
an all-electric vehicle, yet we find the detritus of unused parts in our
DNA.

In addition, were our human designers to insert unused catalytic
converters into their electric cars - for "old times sake" - I submit
that they would not tweak those designs so as to exactly mimic a line of
descent among different vehicles. Yet that is exactly what we see in
biology.

> Because there are MANY scientists who see life as the obvious work of an intelligent designer.

Are there "many" biologists who dispute common descent? Can you provide
a source?

>
> I think it is you, the Darwinists, who have gone out of your way to make it look like all life evolved
> from a common ancestor.
>

That might be more convincing if you had displayed any knowledge at all
of the specifics involved.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Steady Eddie]

That's because you've accepted the encouragement to do it.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

How would that make it difficult to see the "encouragement to
worship"?

As an atheist, I don't worship anyone or anything.

[Steady Eddie]

So you believe.
And therein lies your blindness.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

What sorts of worship behavior have you seen on my part?

[Steady Eddie]

Oh yes, the propaganda was firmly established in schools decades ago.
Note the introduction of university "speech codes" such as the one in Ball State University in Indiana.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmc8I5Ke_U

[Öö Tiib]

I understand that Theory of Evolution is not scientific theory for you and
Intelligent Design is scientific theory for you. Science does not work
like political vote system. Theory of Evolution is scientific theory that
works in practice and has lot of evidence but Intelligent Design is
hypothesis with zero evidence besides "appearances" that are insufficient
for evidence.

[Steady Eddie]

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

[piggybacking; missed the original]

>On Sunday, 23 August 2015 10:08:42 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:

>> ... I

>> submit that no human designer would try to fashion Chevy headlights from
>> the torpedo tubes of submarines.

I dunno; torpedo tubes could be easily "evolved" into rocket
launcher tubes, which might come in handy when the latest
idiot cuts you off... ;-)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

Counter what you find here.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xpM1b9Km0Uc/evMfuVrJDwAJ

What does this statement mean and how did they sell it to you so that
you misinterpreted it so badly. This statement has nothing to do with
common descent because at least two of the IDiots that signed it admit
that common descent is a fact of nature.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

"biological evolution" and "common descent" are not the same thing as Darwinian evolution.

[Vincent Maycock]

You can't use raw numbers to get a sense of "how many" scientists
agreed with the Dissent from Darwinism statement.

There are more than 700 scientists (or almost-scientists, as the
Discovery Institute scraped the bottom of the barrel for more
"scientists" to sign its petition) that are supporters of the Dissent
from Darwinism statement.

But considering that there are around a million or so scientists in
the world, that means that

only about .07% of scientists are interested in "Dissenting from
Darwinism."

If you must have raw numbers, however, there's always this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism#cite_ref-2

where more than 7,000 scientists signed a counterpetition, and
accumulated this number of signers in a matter of days, whereas the
Dissent from Darwinism took half a decade to accumulate 10% of that
number of petitioners.

[RonO]

So how did you misinterpret the bogus IDiot propaganda statement in
order to try to use it as a list that might include biologists that
dispute common descent? How many biologists are on the list? Behe and
Denton signed the statement. They can be considered to be biologists of
a sort and they accept common descent as a fact of nature

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Common Descent is not the same thing as Darwinian Evolution.
And by the way, where does Denton support universal common descent?

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> > Because there are MANY scientists who see life as the obvious work of an intelligent designer.
>>
>> Are there "many" biologists who dispute common descent? Can you provide
>> a source?
>
>A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

<http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve>


It just shows to go ya, sometimes it depends on one's personal
definition of "many".
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Greg Guarino]

On 9/6/2015 12:52 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
> http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

I asked for biologists (very few on that list) who reject common descent
(not mentioned in the statement). Someone did a follow-up question to
all of the biologists on that list that he could find. Most accept
common descent.

Care to try again?

(Not to mention all the other stuff you skipped)

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:msirm7$4ff$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/6/2015 12:52 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
>> http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
>
> I asked for biologists (very few on that list) who reject common descent
> (not mentioned in the statement). Someone did a follow-up question to
> all of the biologists on that list that he could find. Most accept
> common descent.
>
> Care to try again?
>

Depends on what you mean by "reject" and "common descent".

Does Carl Woese count?

"The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent"
https://books.google.com/books?id=HfkCgJsVmwgC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=The+time+has+come+for+biology+to+go+beyond+the+Doctrine+of+Common+Descent&source=bl&ots=Jg2AKgeOtM&sig=UFjLh3lf3McSpc8EStbHYXFyFxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAmoVChMIzaDqiO_jxwIVCJeICh0XIgNV#v=onepage&q=The%20time%20has%20come%20for%20biology%20to%20go%20beyond%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Common%20Descent&f=false

[RonO]

Then why did you put it up as an example?

QUOTE:

> Are there "many" biologists who dispute common descent? Can you provide
> a source?

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

END QUOTE:

Your source was not a good one by your one admission so why did you put
it up? If you are honest with yourself you likely just got caught
accepting the lies that you want to be told. The statement that you
linked to is a bogus lie isn't it? It doesn't mean what the IDiots want
it to mean.

As for Denton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Here is a relevant quote from his second book:

http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012/04/michael-denton-is-now-evolutionist.html

QUOTE:
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here
is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of
the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on
the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in
the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals,
atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
END QUOTE:

Somehow Denton uses his intelligent designer to fix the problems that he
sees with the scientific view of evolution. As far as I know he hasn't
made any claims as to how his designer does the fixes.

Ron Okimoto

[Greg Guarino]

From what I read there, he does not "count". The theory, as I
understand it, is that all life on earth has diverged from a pool of
early forms. What I read there looks a lot like I had always imagined
it. In any case I very much doubt that when Eddie opposes "Common
Descent" that the description you present was what he had in mind.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/6/15 3:40 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 6 September 2015 16:32:56 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/6/2015 3:51 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 6 September 2015 13:57:57 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2015 11:52 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 23 August 2015 10:08:42 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/22/2015 8:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 20 August 2015 14:13:50 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that common properties that are not
>>>>>>>>> relevant adaptively, indicate common
>>>>>>>>> ancestry?
>>>>>>>>> Could they not as reasonably indicate common design?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common ancestry leaves a pattern, and we see just that pattern.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common design tends to leave a different pattern, which we do not see.
>>>>>>>> It is possible that a designer designed all life as it is, but if so,
>>>>>>>> then it is as certain as certainty gets that that designer went out of
>>>>>>>> his way to make it look like the species evolved from a common ancestor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claim design. Design means the designer wants us to believe
>>>>>>>> evolution. I can go with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I think it is you, the Darwinists, who have gone out of your way to make it look like all life evolved
>>>>>>> from a common ancestor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might be more convincing if you had displayed any knowledge at all
>>>>>> of the specifics involved.
>>>>>>
>>>

>>> "biological evolution" and "common descent" are not the same thing as Darwinian evolution.
>>>
>>
>> So how did you misinterpret the bogus IDiot propaganda statement in
>> order to try to use it as a list that might include biologists that
>> dispute common descent? How many biologists are on the list? Behe and
>> Denton signed the statement. They can be considered to be biologists of
>> a sort and they accept common descent as a fact of nature
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Common Descent is not the same thing as Darwinian Evolution.

Yeah, I get that. "Darwinian Evolution" does not mean anything; it is
just an empty label which certain manipulative people use to provide
their gullible tribe members with an enemy to fight against and thus
rally and unite them in a cause. It does not matter that the cause is
meaningless because only appearances are necessary to attract people's
support and gain power for the leaders.

"Darwinian Evolution" is discredited, false, blasphemous, and, of
course, nonexistent. Evolution pretty much as Darwin describe it,
however, is happening all around you, and it has been doing that for
billions of years, oblivious to the foolish ravings of a tiny number of
people.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh, so you disagree with Richard Dawkins.

[Steady Eddie]

I didn't say common descent. I said Darwinian evolution.

[RonO]

You are admitting that you misrepresented what the statement meant?

The poster asked for a source of biologists that dispute common descent.
He didn't ask about what this statement is about.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 10 July 2015 16:55:58 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> There have been two recent papers that have elucidated some interesting
> things about protein translation. Translation is the process where the
> messenger RNA (mRNA) is decoded and the protein is made based on the
> coding of the RNA. The mRNA is usually created using a DNA sequence
> template. So a given gene can be transcribed into mRNA and this mRNA
> can be translated into a specific protein.
>
> Translation is a complex process that requires intermediaries called
> transfer RNAs (tRNA) that allow the ribosomes to read the mRNA and make
> strings of amino acids. Each tRNA has an anticodon that is used to
> decode the triplet code. The anticodon for methionine is 5' CAU and
> matches the 5' AUG codon of the mRNA.
>
> UAC
> |||
> AUG
>
> The methionine tRNA has to be "charged" with a methionine amino acid.
> The enzyme that matches up the methionine with the correct tRNA is
> called an aminoacyl-tRNA synthase. Unless the synthase does it job
> properly the methionine does not get matched up with the proper codon to
> make the correct protein sequence.
>
> Other posters have put up the papers on what we have just learned about
> the evolution of the translation process. We now have evidence that the
> first synthases identified amino acids by size. Differentiation by
> polarity came later. This means that initially the process was not as
> precise as it is now and more than one amino acid could be charged to a
> tRNA. Beats me how this system made the functional peptides, but this
> early in the evolution of life on earth my guess is that there was a
> more limited subset of amino acids available to these early organisms,
> so they didn't have much to choose from for making peptides.
>
> The second paper provides evidence that life got lucky at this initial
> stage of evolution of the translation system. It turns out that two
> major classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthases could have been encoded by the
> same double strand of DNA, but on opposite strands. In current
> lifeforms they are separate genes, but initially when things were not so
> precise they could have been encoded by the same piece of DNA.
>
> S M L A R R S S P S M L A R R
> UGA GUA CTC ACG CGC UGC CGA UGA CUU UGA GUA CUC GCG CGC UGC
> ACU CAU GAG UGC GCG ACG GCU ACU GAA ACU CAU GAG CGC GCG ACG
> T H E C A T A T E T H E R A T
>
> So on one mRNA strand you get THE CAT ATE THE RAT, but on the other
> strand you can get RRA LMS PSS RRA LMS among other things.
>
> So getting two functional peptides from one sequence is pretty
> remarkable. Further evolution would have been constrained (it is
> difficult to change one protein without changing the other when they are
> coded by the same sequence) so gene duplication happened and the two
> proteins could evolve independently and improve their size
> differentiation to include a wider specificity of amino acid types. In
> fact, it looks like gene duplication happened multiple times and we
> ended up with the full set of synthases that we have today.
>
> Identification by size:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/JdDom5hnXNQ/PgNPNp23JR4J
>
> Two for one:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/srrtRVlJ3U8/8W4g1VN9x5QJ
>
> Obviously science has a long way to go to understand the evolution of
> the translation system, but we now have a better idea of how this system
> evolved. It has been acknowledged for a long time that the genetic code
> evolved. There had to be something that came before, then the genetic
> code and the translation process evolved. Somewhere in that time period
> DNA started to be used as the genetic material.
>
> The translation process is a very complex and highly regulated system at
> this time, but it looks like at the beginning it could not even
> differentiate amino acids very well, and that it got lucky in that two
> synthases that had different amino acid specificities happened to come
> from the same piece of DNA. This is the type of lucky accident that
> IDiots like Behe should want to identify in the evolution of the
> flagellum because they are less likely to occur than the usual
> evolutionary steps we observe.
>
> This means that we can identify when some of these unlikely events
> occur, but what does that mean? What happened obviously happened.
> There isn't much anyone can do about it once it does happen. That is
> why Behe claimed that the number and arrangement of such improbable
> events mattered. Somehow he needs to figure out that a string of really
> improbable events occurred and they are so improbable that it makes his
> alternative appealing. Behe has never been able to do that, and my
> guess is that he can't do it with this example either.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Behe's done it.
It's done, Ron.

[RonO]

Why lie to yourself to this extent at this late date? Demonstrate that
Behe ever did what you claim. Why can't you do that? You can assert
that he has done it, but what happens if you try to demonstrate that he
actually accomplished any such thing?

IF Behe's junk had ever amounted to anything, why are his peers running
the bait and switch instead of putting up his wonderful science? Why
isn't IC mentioned as even existing in the switch scam that you get from
the guys that sold you the IC claptrap?

Go for it. Demonstrate that Behe accomplished anything except fooling a
bunch of IDiots that wanted to be lied to. It would be even better if
you used Behe's own standard of what he considers to be scientifically
valid in terms of demonstrating that the immune system evolved. Why
were all the studies not good enough for Behe? Why is his junk good
enough for him? He obviously has two different standards, but you might
want to just use the usual scientific standards and see what IC ever
amounted to. Why doesn't IC measure up?

One clue. Put up the testable IC hypothesis and try to demonstrate that
it was ever tested and confirmed. Why are untestable hypoetheses good
enough? Making untestable claims is not demonstrating anything.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

He is incapable to. What he understands fits to his world view. Behe did
good work by his agenda. Some sort of atheist conspiracy that has
gained control over science and juridical institutions orchestrated official
rejection of Behe's work.

>
> IF Behe's junk had ever amounted to anything, why are his peers running
> the bait and switch instead of putting up his wonderful science? Why
> isn't IC mentioned as even existing in the switch scam that you get from
> the guys that sold you the IC claptrap?

They can not. Behe's work is now officially considered groundless
"pseudoscience". By Eddie's agenda there are numerous scholars who
support it in their mind. They can not do it officially in public however. They
can be accused of supporting "pseudoscience" and therefore being
"unprofessional" and therefore "not worth" their (often state-funded)
positions. That even if their work has directly nothing to do with origins
of life. Similarly like they can not support whatever is now officially
considered "racism", "homophobia", "male bigotry" or the like in public.

>
> Go for it. Demonstrate that Behe accomplished anything except fooling a
> bunch of IDiots that wanted to be lied to. It would be even better if
> you used Behe's own standard of what he considers to be scientifically
> valid in terms of demonstrating that the immune system evolved. Why
> were all the studies not good enough for Behe? Why is his junk good
> enough for him? He obviously has two different standards, but you might
> want to just use the usual scientific standards and see what IC ever
> amounted to. Why doesn't IC measure up?

Steady Eddie is not claiming being capable of doing or evaluating scientific
works in depth.

>
> One clue. Put up the testable IC hypothesis and try to demonstrate that
> it was ever tested and confirmed. Why are untestable hypoetheses good
> enough? Making untestable claims is not demonstrating anything.

Steady Eddie? He is not scientist. He is Jehovah's Witness who is interested
in discussions about origins. Every person has some distrust towards
institutions where they do not participate and more trust towards the
organizations where they participate. For him design is "apparent" so
what they mumble about not testable? Every kid see that test has
passed. :D

[Steady Eddie]

Okay, so defeat Behe's arguments by official edict.
That's called running away with your ears plunged saying:
"Lalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 10 September 2015 02:52:46 UTC-6, 嘱 Tiib wrote:

Again, I am NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

[RonO]

On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

What an IDiot. What does projection like this do you? Who are the ones
in denial of reality. It is just a fact that Behe's junk never amounted
to anything. Behe never got off first base. He never produced a
working definition of IC that he could verify actually existed in
nature. Without that what possible conclusions could he make? He can't
even demonstrate to anyone that his IC even exists.

When did he produce his definition of well matched so that we could
determine how much of it the flagellum had? He claimed to his critics
that his IC required the parts to be well matched, but he never
presented any means to determine how well matched they needed to be. A
tree branch falling between two rocks produces an IC type machine by
chance with the parts well matched enough for that, but Behe required
something more. He hasn't produced a single unselected step that he
claims was required of evolving the flagellum let alone the number that
he claims that he needs in some specific order that makes the flagellum
his type of IC.

Instead of doing your lalalalalala stupidity why not try to demonstrate
that IC ever amounted to anything. Go for it. You will have to do it
yourself because Behe never even tried, or hasn't told anyone about the
results of his attempt.

This is Behe's response to his critics. Try to find where Behe ever
defines well matched so that it can be measured and where he has
determined any of the unselected steps he claims is required of his IC
systems.

http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf

There is a very good reason why the bait and switch went down in 2002.
IC never amounted to anything and there was no ID science to teach. No
ID science exists today. Have you looked at the IDiot introduction to
their ID science and tried to figure out what that science is?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

Translation:
Lalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear Behe's arguments

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/23/15 8:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

> On Thursday, 10 September 2015 02:52:46 UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 14:12:52 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> IF Behe's junk had ever amounted to anything, why are his peers running
>>> the bait and switch instead of putting up his wonderful science? Why
>>> isn't IC mentioned as even existing in the switch scam that you get from
>>> the guys that sold you the IC claptrap?
>>
>> They can not. Behe's work is now officially considered groundless
>> "pseudoscience". By Eddie's agenda there are numerous scholars who
>> support it in their mind. They can not do it officially in public however. They
>> can be accused of supporting "pseudoscience" and therefore being
>> "unprofessional" and therefore "not worth" their (often state-funded)
>> positions. That even if their work has directly nothing to do with origins
>> of life. Similarly like they can not support whatever is now officially
>> considered "racism", "homophobia", "male bigotry" or the like in public.
>
> Okay, so defeat Behe's arguments by official edict.
> That's called running away with your ears plunged saying:
> "Lalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

Good grief. Behe never made more than one basic anti-evolutionary
claim, it is trivially refuted by the observation that it relies on
false assumptions about what biomolecular changes are possible or even
common. Behe may or may not still be contributing to biology somehow,
but in the evolution/creationism/ID debate, he is history, and nothing more.

[RonO]

On 9/23/2015 7:16 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

How stupid have you gotten since coming back after running away?

Why not read what Behe wrote and convince yourself?

Why do your lalalalala act and run instead of deal with reality?

Why are you still an IDiot if you won't even read the junk that they
produce to determine what IDiocy is?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

Show me where Behe was ever ASKED to define or determine these things.
These are simply nuisance statements.

[RonO]

On 9/24/2015 1:44 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

This is stupid, Eddie. Just try to think rationally for a few seconds
if that is at all possible for you at this time in your denial phase.
You can read what Behe wrote in response to his critics. He essentially
admits that multiple interacting parts are not sufficient to identify
his type of IC system, so he puts up a couple things that his IC system
is expected to have. He emphasizes that the interacting parts have to
be "well matched." He even claims that this was in his original
definition of IC. He also claims that the number and specific
arrangement of unselected steps would identify his type of IC system.
In court in Dover it came out that Behe had never defined these things
in any meaningful way that could be used to identify any system as being
IC. If you read the judges decision he refers to the quantative factors
of IC that Behe needed as being falsified, but what he meant was that
Behe had never gotten off first base with the stupid claims and they
were worthless.

No one should have had to tell Behe that he had to define his own
stupidity. It is just a fact that if he wanted anyone to be able to
verify that a system was his type of IC that they would have to know
what well matched was and that they would have to be able to count up
and order the unselected steps. How would you verify Behe's type of IC
if you could not determine how well matched any two parts are? Really,
just think for a couple seconds. When Behe made those claims he made IC
totally untestable. Until Behe can define his terms and identify the
unselected steps, what he claimed to his critics means that IC is dead.

Untestable assertions are worthless. The whole point of science is to
try to figure out ways to verify things so that you have some means of
determining if what you think is actually part of nature.

Why can't you go to the Discovery Institute and find a single example of
ID science that is part of what we figured out about nature. One IDiot
scientific discovery that verifies an IDiot assertion. There is no list
because all they have are failures and untestable claims.

Why did the bait and switch go down just one year after Behe responded
to his critics if that response demonstrated anything worth supporting
about IDiocy?

The ID perps did not run the bait and switch on the science side. They
ran the bait and switch on creationist rubes like you. No one has ever
gotten the promised ID science from the ID perps. You have to know that
is a fact by now, so what is your problem?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:32:01 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 1:44 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

Any idiot who doesn't know what "well-matched" means doesn't deserve to understand Behe.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Any idiot who doesn't know what "well-matched" means doesn't deserve to understand Behe.

The question here is what *Behe* means by "well-matched" as he applies
that phrase to his concept of IC. Only Behe can answer that, not any
other idiot.

[RonO]

On 9/26/2015 11:53 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:32:01 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/24/2015 1:44 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

How can anyone lie to themselves to this degree? That is the question
that you should be asking yourself. It turns out that not a single
IDiot has ever been able to demonstrate that they know what
"well-matched" means to Behe including Behe. Just try to find someone
that knows. You obviously do not have a clue, so try to find anyone
that can demonstrate that they know what Behe means. If you think that
Behe knows what "well-matched" means try to find where he demonstrates
that, that is the case. It isn't in his response to his critics, and he
has never put it forward in any of his other publications, so try to
find it if you can and report back.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:51:55 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/26/2015 11:53 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:32:01 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 9/24/2015 1:44 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

And I rest my case.

[Steady Eddie]

Are you serious?
You make my point.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:11:54 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Any idiot who doesn't know what "well-matched" means doesn't deserve to understand Behe.
>>
>>
>> The question here is what *Behe* means by "well-matched" as he applies
>> that phrase to his concept of IC. Only Behe can answer that, not any
>> other idiot.
>

>Are you serious?
>You make my point.

I realize that you're in stupid insult mode, perhaps due to a chemical
imbalance, but you might have enough working brain cells left to
comprehend what you read if you just try harder.

First, you don't have a coherent point. "well-matched" doesn't have a
fixed meaning.

Second, Behe's application of "well-matched" is distinctive and so
requires clarification as he applies it.

Third, if you really thought the meaning of "well-matched" was
obvious, you would have stated it explicitly. That you don't suggests
you have no idea what it means and so you're just trolling again.

[RonO]

On 9/26/2015 11:16 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:51:55 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/26/2015 11:53 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:32:01 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/2015 1:44 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 16:57:04 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:

Eddie, you are a poster child for IDiocy and why it is called IDiocy.
Just go back up through your posts and determine for yourself how you
screwed up by the numbers. The only IDiots left are ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest and you are all three. Instead of lying
to yourself why don't you do something simple like verify that Behe ever
defined "well-matched" so that he or anyone else could use it for what
Behe wants to use it for. This is usually a scientific paper where Behe
uses the metric and tells how someone else can use the metric with
things like physical measurements or quantitative equations. Other
researchers have to be able to use Behe's definition to repeat his
analysis, but that is not possible at this time. Just think about what
Evoguide admitted about IDiocy. He was spot on wasn't he? IDiocy like
IC and CSI never got off the ground. They remain worthless concepts and
no actual science was ever done. The ID perps purposely kept their
stupidity to untestable hypotheses. There are some things that they can
test like your sun and moon creation order or try to determine how long
a day creation day was, but they never tried to do any of the science
that they could have done. They never really tried to test anything,
all they did was make baseless claims.

If you try to use the worthless ID science for anything what will
happen? Just try to claim that you have the ID science to teach in the
public schools and get your local school board to try to teach it. What
will happen? What has happened in every such case for over a decade?
The ID perps will come in and run the bait and switch. You will never
get the ID science to teach because it does not exist. All that you
will get is a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID nor junk
like IC ever existed. It is just a plain and simple fact that no one
that has needed the ID science has ever gotten the ID science.

Lying to yourself about reality is stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

LOL
Evolutionists don't understand what "well-matched" means.
Therefore, Behe's argument is moot.