Lester10
|
 |   |  Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
The simplest free living form of life has 482 genes each one has an average of 400 amino acids in precise sequences and all left handed. |
|
Galileo
You mean nucleic acids don't you? Or are talking about that the genes code for proteins 400 amino acids long? |
|
Apologies, my mistake. I mean that the 482 genes code for proteins and enzymes and the average length of those proteins and enzymes is 400 amino acids long -all in precise sequence and all left handed.
| How do you know this, where are you getting this information from? Is that all biological polymers? |
|
Yes that's all biological polymers. You can work it out from equilibrium concentrations from thermodynamic equations and enthalpy values.
Apart from that, all biological polymers require information for their precise sequences- so it's not just a matter of putting random amino acids together.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 10:58 AM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Apoapsis
All indications are that when a planet forms, it rains biomolecules, and earthlike planets are not very unique. |
|
No I don't think all indications point to anything of the kind - neither do I believe for a moment that earthlike planets are a dime a dozen. I think you deceive yourself for your naturalist purposes.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 11:20 AM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Gaunt
I mean give me a break lester, are you actually so encased in your paranoid delusion that you believe that 'basic science tells us biological polymers cannot form', a fact apparently missed by hundreds of millions of scientists and specialists worldwide forming the overwhelming majority of the planets scientific community in every relevant discipline? |
|
I don't think they missed that fact, I think you did.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 11:23 AM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 11:20 AM on July 30, 2010 :
No I don't think all indications point to anything of the kind - neither do I believe for a moment that earthlike planets are a dime a dozen.
|
|
Are you willing to be convinced by data?
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 11:34 AM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Apoapsis
Are you willing to be convinced by data? |
|
I'm always willing to check the data. It's the evolutionary interpetations that I generally find hard to swallow.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 12:51 PM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 12:51 PM on July 30, 2010 :
Apoapsis
Are you willing to be convinced by data? |
|
I'm always willing to check the data. It's the evolutionary interpetations that I generally find hard to swallow.
|
|
NASA Researchers Make First Discovery of Life's Building Block in Comet
Bill Steigerwald
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
August 17, 2009
NASA scientists have discovered glycine, a fundamental building block of life, in samples of comet Wild 2 returned by NASA's Stardust spacecraft.
"Glycine is an amino acid used by living organisms to make proteins, and this is the first time an amino acid has been found in a comet," said Dr. Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Our discovery supports the theory that some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts." NASA Researchers Make First Discovery of Life's Building Block in Comet
Table 1. Soluble Organic Compounds in the Murchison Meteorite9
ClassofCompoundsppmna
aliphatichydrocarbons >35 140
aromatichydrocarbons 15−28 87
polarhydrocarbons <120 10c
carboxylicacids >300 48c
aminoacids 60 75c
iminoacids47 ndb 10
hydroxyacids 15 7
dicarboxylicacids >30 17c
dicarboximides >50 2
pyridinecarboxylicacids >7 7
sulfonicacids 67 4
phosphonicacids 2 4
N-heterocycles 7 31
amines 13 20c
amides ndb 27
polyols 30 19
The Chemistry of Life's Origin: A Carbonaceous Meteorite Perspective
In 2001 Hollis and collaborators conducted a second experiment using a multiple radio telescope system, called an interferometer, which permits spatial imaging of molecular emission. The interferometer experiment showed that, unlike most other large interstellar molecules, glycolaldehyde is not confined to the hot core of the gaseous interstellar cloud. In fact, during the second experiment the team found glycolaldehyde in an area where temperatures were only 8 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero (which translates to minus 445 degrees Farenheit!) All molecular motion stops at absolute zero. Moreover, they found evidence that these molecules are very widespread.
Hollis and collaborators again probed the same interstellar cloud in 2002 and discovered the sugar alcohol of glycolaldehyde known as ethylene glycol, the primary ingredient of automobile antifreeze. The importance of finding two sugar-related molecular species together indicates that the synthesis of more complex sugars is likely occurring in interstellar clouds. Hollis and his team further discovered in 2003 that the source containing these interstellar sugar-related molecules is centered on a star-forming region that contains enough mass to make approximately 2,600 new stars as massive as our Sun.
Such large molecules are first produced on surfaces of dust grains when an interstellar cloud of gas and dust experiences a shock wave. This can easily happen during the collapse phase of star formation when material collides. The dust grains are typically about a micrometer in size and are coated with a variety of ices that contain simple molecules. The resulting shock of the colliding material provides the energy required to produce glycolaldehyde from simpler molecular species that reside on the grains. In turn, the ethylene glycol is produced from the glycolaldehyde when two hydrogen atoms successively react with a glycolaldehyde molecule. The shock also serves to free molecules from the dust grains, distributing glycolaldehyde and ethylene glycol into the gas on a widespread spatial scale. After the shock wave passes, the glycolaldehyde and ethylene glycol that have been released into the gas phase rapidly cools, forming the so-called post-shock gas.
Space Sugar's a Sweet Find
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 2:11 PM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 11:23 AM on July 30, 2010 :
I don't think they missed that fact, I think you did.
|
|
Another squirming non-answer. How incredibly unsurprising.
No Lester, the world's scientific community is well aware of the facts, so is the vast majority of the world's lay community and the majority of the world's clrical community including the lst two popes. They are all WELL aware of the incredible amounts of evidence for evolution, and they are well aware of the absurdist crap you are spewing, psudo-science cut-and-pasted of YEC websites that you do not even understand enough to defend.
Please dont TRY and pretend otherwise.
They are aware of the real facts, as am I. Only you and a few of your ilk in trailer parks across the south stand alone screaming your silly claims, even when (as has just been done to you AGAIN) they are proven factually false.
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 2:15 PM on July 30, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Orion
- there are most likely many, many countless number of earth-size planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone. Multiply that by billions and billions of other galaxies. You get a very large number. The inital data release from the Kepler mission indicate this very fact. |
|
And I’ll bet there’s not a shred of ‘life’ on any of them. You are relying on your naturalist philosophy if you imagine that where there are organic molecules there will naturally be life.
We also have naturally occurring organic molecules on this planet but no naturally occurring biopolymers except where there are instructions in genetic material. Those instructions use the naturally occurring chemicals on this planet and arrange them into life in a way that sure appears to be intelligently programmed.
You’re not going to get naturally occurring genetic programmes even if you find all the ingredients. If you get all the ingredients to make a cake together in one place, will the cake make itself just by virtue of the ingredients being found in one place at one time?
No. It’s against the laws of thermodynamics and your own common sense can help you here. Its quite clear to me that evolutionists have forsaken common sense in their quest for natural origins of life against all evidence to the contrary.
What evolutionists do is not science, it is religious philosophy and it is an embarrassment to real science.
Orion
The handwriting is on the wall. |
|
Not the handwriting you imagine.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 02:33 AM on July 31, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Thermodynamics
Heat and Money
Life in the Hot Lane
This should help - especially the last one.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 10:56 AM on July 31, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 10:56 AM on July 31, 2010 :
Life in the Hot Lane
This should help - especially the last one.
|
|
Already demonstrated wrong by your own admission of the presence of complex molecules in space. Their understanding of thermodynamics is laughable.
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 12:00 PM on July 31, 2010 | IP
|
|
Fencer27
|
|  | Report Post
|
Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I'm sorry, I still don't get it.
The first site is a basic overview of thermodynamics, I didn't see anything specifically related to evolution or abiogenesis. Only the stupid snowflake thing which no one on this forum has brought up, and it is not how professional biologists (or any scientist that I know of) understands thermodynamics.
The second link is all about snowflakes (yay)! The site is somewhat correct in its explanation, but it does fail to mention that snowflakes are small pockets of decreased entropy. Yes, entropy always increases in a closed system, and snowflakes increase the overall entropy of the environment. However, snowflakes themselves are very ordered structures, and thus areas of decreased entropy in a small spaces. I still don't understand what this has to do with evolution or abiogenesis, no one is saying the second law is wrong (which is what the site claims of evo mentality).
The third link is kind of weird. It says that "molecules will not assemble themselves". I can only assume they are talking about some form of dehydration reaction, which does require an intake of energy, yet the overall reaction is exergonic - much like fusion reactions from the proton-proton chain in stars. It requires some heat to get the reaction started, but due to natural processes that energy will be used in endergonic reactions to form small pockets of decreased entropy to release more heat than taken in. This is where the real snowflake analogy comes in - as snowflakes are naturally made, yet are pockets of decreased entropy that increase the overall entropy of the universe. We see the very things that the site says can't happen in nature through snowflakes!
Also, the site says that the "slightest bit of external energy breaks DNA molecules into simpler molecules". If by the "slightest bit of external energy", they mean near boiling temperatures, I'll agree. But somehow I don't think they mean it that way.
In addition. If they are correct that "Abiogenesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it requires heat to organize itself into localized chemical energy. Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn’t naturally flow from cold places to hot places." Then both snowflakes and life violate the second law, as both move heat against it's concentrated gradient. Or perhaps the site is flawed in it's understanding of thermodynamics.
Lester, I really don't want to read more links. If you see a flaw in abiogenesis or evolution via the second law please post it in your own words. I understand the basics of thermodynamics (if there's something I don't understand in your explanation I'll figure it out or ask), just explain how it invalidates evolution or abiogenesis.
-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12) |
| |
Posts: 419 | Posted: 12:50 PM on July 31, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Fencer27 at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2010 :
I'm sorry, I still don't get it.
The first site is a basic overview of thermodynamics, I didn't see anything specifically related to evolution or abiogenesis. Only the stupid snowflake thing which no one on this forum has brought up, and it is not how professional biologists (or any scientist that I know of) understands thermodynamics.
The second link is all about snowflakes (yay)! The site is somewhat correct in its explanation, but it does fail to mention that snowflakes are small pockets of decreased entropy. Yes, entropy always increases in a closed system, and snowflakes increase the overall entropy of the environment. |
|
I've brought up the "stupid'" snowflake argument repeatedly.
It's a perfect example of creationist thinking. Complex structures cannot be formed without "intelligent" input, but it is not required to create snowflakes.
Total hypocrisy with no excuses.
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 01:48 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Fencer
Yes, entropy always increases in a closed system, and snowflakes increase the overall entropy of the environment. However, snowflakes themselves are very ordered structures, and thus areas of decreased entropy in a small spaces. |
|
Here’s where you are wrong. According to thermodynamic law, entropy increases
overall when snowflakes form as heat is released into the surrounding atmosphere so heat is still flowing from hot to cold in accordance with the second law. Same with mineral crystals. The minerals may be more ordered but heat was released when they formed and flowed from hot to cold. If heat was absorbed in order to increase the order of the minerals or the snowflakes, it wouldn’t have happened because it would have been contrary to thermodynamic law..
| Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn’t naturally flow from cold places to hot places." Then both snowflakes and life violate the second law, as both move heat against it's concentrated gradient. |
|
Here’s where you’re not reading properly.
Snowflakes don’t violate the law because heat is released as snowflakes form.Overall entropy increases.
Abiogenesis does violate the second law because heat flows in the opposite direction from cold to hot and overall entropy must decrease.
| Also, the site says that the "slightest bit of external energy breaks DNA molecules into simpler molecules". |
|
Look back at the Urey-Miller experiment as an example. Energy was supplied (a spark), amino acids formed, but the products had to be removed as fast as they formed as the next spark would most likely break them down again.
Fencer
Or perhaps the site is flawed in it's understanding of thermodynamics. |
|
Engineers use thermodynamic principles in their designs all the time so perhaps the flawed understanding is with the evolutionary biologist who doesn’t have to put his theory into practice and can speculate to his heart’s content.
Fencer
If you see a flaw in abiogenesis or evolution via the second law please post it in your own words. |
|
I hope this helps.
| Fencer I understand the basics of thermodynamics |
|
I’m not so sure you do. Reread that section on snowflakes.
Fencer
just explain how it invalidates evolution or abiogenesis. |
|
Complex molecules don’t form naturally according to the laws of nature. If they are formed by local input of energy, they will easily fall apart. They won’t be sticking around to form proteins, carbohydrates etc naturally and in sufficient quantities in order to organize them into a cell. Only intelligent and directed energy input (a factory or a plant as they mention in article 3) can organize anything against the laws of thermodynamics.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 03:19 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 03:19 AM on August 1, 2010 :
Fencer
Yes, entropy always increases in a closed system, and snowflakes increase the overall entropy of the environment. However, snowflakes themselves are very ordered structures, and thus areas of decreased entropy in a small spaces. |
|
Here’s where you are wrong. According to thermodynamic law, entropy increases
overall when snowflakes form as heat is released into the surrounding atmosphere so heat is still flowing from hot to cold in accordance with the second law. Same with mineral crystals. The minerals may be more ordered but heat was released when they formed and flowed from hot to cold. If heat was absorbed in order to increase the order of the minerals or the snowflakes, it wouldn’t have happened because it would have been contrary to thermodynamic law..
| Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn’t naturally flow from cold places to hot places." Then both snowflakes and life violate the second law, as both move heat against it's concentrated gradient. |
|
Here’s where you’re not reading properly.
Snowflakes don’t violate the law because heat is released as snowflakes form.Overall entropy increases.
Abiogenesis does violate the second law because heat flows in the opposite direction from cold to hot and overall entropy must decrease.
|
|
???
Lester, have you ever had a course in thermodynamics? When I took it, we used Statistical Physics by Mandl (First Edition).
What text did you use?
-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No
|
| |
Posts: 1348 | Posted: 12:27 PM on August 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Fencer27
|
| | Report Post
|
Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 03:19 AM on August 1, 2010 :
Here’s where you are wrong. According to thermodynamic law, entropy increases
overall when snowflakes form as heat is released into the surrounding atmosphere so heat is still flowing from hot to cold in accordance with the second law. |
|
I believe I also said something very similar. No one is saying the overall entropy doesn't increase when snowflakes form. However, snowflakes themselves are tiny pockets of decreased entropy.
| If heat was absorbed in order to increase the order of the minerals or the snowflakes, it wouldn’t have happened because it would have been contrary to thermodynamic law. |
|
Not really. The Earth isn't a closed system, as we continually get a ton of heat from the Sun. Snowflakes are prime example of how natural processes form pockets of decreased entropy while increasing the overall entropy of the universe.
Here’s where you’re not reading properly.
Snowflakes don’t violate the law because heat is released as snowflakes form.Overall entropy increases. |
|
No one is saying otherwise except your site that claims such of evolutionary thinking - which is blatantly false. I've never met a scientist who thinks snowflake formation violates any law of thermodynamics. They either made that claim up to debunk it (thus a strawman), or they got it from some layman evo that doesn't understand thermodynamics (which I would still consider a strawman as such thinking is not the norm, nor part of any scientific thought as far as I know).
| Abiogenesis does violate the second law because heat flows in the opposite direction from cold to hot and overall entropy must decrease. |
|
The overall entropy will increase while creating tiny pockets (the pre-cells) of decreased entropy. It is like snowflake formation. If there weren't these pockets of decreased entropy life couldn't exist. So either God is violating the laws of thermodynamics on a massive scale, or someones understanding of them is a little off.
| Look back at the Urey-Miller experiment as an example. Energy was supplied (a spark), amino acids formed, but the products had to be removed as fast as they formed as the next spark would most likely break them down again. |
|
I honestly don't know much about that experiment. From what I understand they tried to simulate early Earth conditions, but their data was off from what we know today. Also, that experiment kind of put the nail in the coffin of vitalism, something that I see in a lot of creationists in one form or another.
| Engineers use thermodynamic principles in their designs all the time so perhaps the flawed understanding is with the evolutionary biologist who doesn’t have to put his theory into practice and can speculate to his heart’s content. |
|
I'm sure his understanding of thermodynamics is all well and good inside engineering - but if this is really how he thinks, he needs to learn how thermodynamics works in biological systems. For example, the production of ATP moves energy against the concentration gradient to make energy that the organism can then use. If you go solely on what he has said in the links you would think ATP synthesis violates thermodynamics. So either thermodynamics has serious flaws in it, or his understanding is lacking.
| Complex molecules don’t form naturally according to the laws of nature. If they are formed by local input of energy, they will easily fall apart. They won’t be sticking around to form proteins, carbohydrates etc naturally and in sufficient quantities in order to organize them into a cell. |
|
What if the cell membrane was made first? After all, it is really easy to make one, just drop some phospholipids in water and they'll naturally form a micelles and lipid bi-layers that can trap other molecules and provide micro-environments hospitable to many complex molecules and pathways. Aren't membranes wonderful.
| Only intelligent and directed energy input (a factory or a plant as they mention in article 3) can organize anything against the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
Wait, are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken? I'm confused, I thought that the argument against abiogenesis was that they can't be broken and that abiogenesis does brake them. Now you're saying that intelligence can break them?
-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12) |
| |
Posts: 419 | Posted: 3:13 PM on August 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
wisp
|
|   | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 08:20 AM on July 29, 2010 :Gaunt
I am not ASSUMING a continum with no limits, I am using the well evidenced fact that the continumdoes NOT have the made-up, undefined and unevidenced limits you pretend. |
|
Ok well put your money where your mouth is then. I refer to E.Coli and fruit fly experiments as evidence for limits in variation and you give me what…..???? |
|
Limits in variation...
I'm still waiting for you to explain how that contradicts the ToE.
Of course there are limits in variation! Who the Hell says there are no limits?
Sometimes you say "limits" and you mean "among creatures" (like walls that divide them). Then no, there are no limits. The fact that you (or any other creationist in the world) can't show them to us is quite telling.
Gaunt
And I do remember the experiments with fruit flies, like the ones I cited to you at length proving that speciation is possible with experimental evolution, remember? |
|
The ‘speciation’ you refer to is not an example of macroevolution since species lose genetic information through natural selection, they gain nothing. |
|
You don't get to define our words according to your needs.
Macroevolution is change above the species level. That's it. It says nothing about your mythical information. It says nothing about "gain". You're lying through your cowardly teeth.
| You had fruit flies in the beginning and less adaptive fruit flies in the end. |
|
Less adaptive? How do you measure that? Care to support that claim?
| Devolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and that is what we observe in all of these experiments. |
|
You have yet to show how Evolution contradicts it.
| In order for a reptile to become a bird or a mammal you require new genes. That has never been demonstrated, only assumed by the philosophy of naturalism which says up front that everything must be explained via natural laws. |
|
Oh... So you don't need new genes to produce all the variety of humans from Adam and Eve?
You sure?
| You are clearly a very religious boy Gaunt –but impractical. Your faith is making you blind and stupid. |
|
Yeah, Gaunt! In fact, in fact, YOU believe in Jesus! Not Lester! Ha!
I love the way we've made them ridicule faith and religion. 
You keep threatening Gaunt. We’re all waiting. |
|
Sorry if you feel lonely, Lester, but there's no "we're all".
Most (if not every one) of us have shown you evidence, and you've played dumb.
Gaunt
How about bacteria evolving resistances to incredibly toxic antibiotics? |
|
They are only resistant due to the presence of genes already in existance (including via plasmid transfer). |
|
Sorry, Les... That would only work (to an ignorant degree) as an argument against abiogenesis, not against Evolution.
Natural selection culls those bacteria which can't survive the antibiotic and the naturally resistant ones become a dominant population. Thus no new genetic material is created via mutation or by any other means.
That's NOT evolution of the kind you subscribe to. |
|
Er... Yes. Yes it is. Whoever said Natural Selection selects for the supernaturally resistant ones?
Why is it that you pretend to know about what we accept and subscribe to, if you never even understood it?
Why is it that you keep trying to redefine our words? Like "macroevolution", or "entropy", or even "information"?
Think about it.
Gaunt
This is so plain, so unavoidable a truth, that the majority of the world's clergy, including the last two popes, have openly admitted that evolution is a scientific fact: |
|
Consensus is not a measure of truth. You need evidence. What the pope might believe does not interest me. What interests me is the evidence. |
|
Your signature (and lots and lots and lots and lots of your posts) seem to imply otherwise.
-------
Lester| (...) since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology. |
|
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether. |
|
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)? |
|
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com |
| |
Posts: 2546 | Posted: 5:35 PM on August 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
Abiogenesis does violate the second law because heat flows in the opposite direction from cold to hot and overall entropy must decrease. |
|
Fencer
The overall entropy will increase while creating tiny pockets (the pre-cells) of decreased entropy. It is like snowflake formation. If there weren't these pockets of decreased entropy life couldn't exist. So either God is violating the laws of thermodynamics on a massive scale, or someones understanding of them is a little off. |
|
The point is that you need intelligence to make factories or plants to decrease entropy locally. Like a truck manufacturer builds a plant that makes trucks. Intelligence arranges the parts and thus utlilizes and organizes energy to do something that wouldn’t happen naturally due to the laws of thermodynamics.
Overall entropy must increase but directed energy input causes the entropy to decrease locally.
Since you mention God violating the laws of thermodynamics, if there is a God, he does what we do in life, in factories, in businesses, he uses his intelligence to make nanomachinary that makes ATP and organizes chemicals into life as it cannot happen naturally.
Our genetic program is intelligently designed to utilize energy using nanomachinary built by the program. Without intelligent organization, there would be no life arising naturally, just as there would be no trucks or cars if we left it to the laws of nature to put them together.
There has to be a intelligently organized, purposeful plan in order for us to exist at all.
| I'm sure his understanding of thermodynamics is all well and good inside engineering - but if this is really how he thinks, he needs to learn how thermodynamics works in biological systems. |
|
The principle is exactly the same. It doesn’t work one way for engineering and another way for biology.
| For example, the production of ATP moves energy against the concentration gradient to make energy that the organism can then use. If you go solely on what he has said in the links you would think ATP synthesis violates thermodynamics. |
|
ATP manufacture could not happen outside of a plan to create nanomachinary that utilizes the laws of nature to capture energy intelligently and convert it gradually for use inside a living organism. That’s the point, ATP synthesis is not possible naturally, yet it’s happening all of the time. So are factories building cars 24/7. It doesn’t just happen except by design.
Fencer
What if the cell membrane was made first? After all, it is really easy to make one, just drop some phospholipids in water and they'll naturally form a micelles and lipid bi-layers that can trap other molecules and provide micro-environments hospitable to many complex molecules and pathways. Aren't membranes wonderful. |
|
Nice story but it looks intelligently designed not because it is actually ‘apparent design’ but because it has to be intelligently designed or it wouldn’t be happening.
Lester
Only intelligent and directed energy input (a factory or a plant as they mention in article 3) can organize anything against the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
Fencer
Wait, are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken? I'm confused, I thought that the argument against abiogenesis was that they can't be broken and that abiogenesis does brake them. Now you're saying that intelligence can break them? |
|
If you direct energy purposefully and intelligently, you are not breaking the laws of thermodynamics, you are utilizing an input of energy. Heat still flows from hot to cold but it is being utilized according to a plan.
Wind blows naturally and that energy can be utilized by an intelligent plan or it can be wasted.
Water flows and it can just flow naturally or it’s energy can be used by an intelligent machine to generate electricity which is then used to do work. Without an intelligent plan to utilize available energy, none of that would happen naturally.
The intelligent organization of a living organism works exactly the same.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 02:21 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I'm sorry Lester, I posted this a couple days ago, but you fled like a coward from it, as always. It bears repeating:
from Lester10 at 02:19 AM on July 30, 2010
The simplest free living form of life has 482 genes each one has an average of 400 amino acids in precise sequences and all left handed.
|
|
The simplest snowflake came from a drop of water containing 10 to the 18 water molecules (Thats 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 for those who have not yet taken high-sccool maths), yet simply by the removal of heat from this totally chaotic and unorganised drop, you get incredibly complicated unique fractal patterns, impossible to predict yet always with the same clear organization, structue, and bearing copious amounts of information.
So clearly, Snowflakes are impossible. Or at least, thats what Lester asserts.
| The complex molecules you are talking about are exceptionally simple compared to what you need and so far from life that my comparison of alphabet soup to Shakespeare undoubtably still holds. |
|
Firstly, this is not even an argument, I hope you realise that. You keep presenting it as an argument, but there is no actual 'argument' behind it.
All you are saying is that the basic forms of life are more complicated than the amino acids that preceed them several steps downt he ladder.
yes, true. And the amino acids are more complicated than the organic chemicals that preceed them, which are more complicated than the inorganic chemicals that predeed them. Yet these random complication happen in nature (despite the rabid insistance of creationists that they could not, before they were proven wrong of course)
Yes we get it, the antecedant is more complicated than the precedant. So what? Thats not an argument Lester.
A tree is VASTLY more complicated than a seed.
A snowflake is VASTLY more comlicated than a drop of water. On the same order of magnitude as you are discussing, yet they happen in nature. In the open system we are discussing.
(Despite your insistance it was a closed system, a fact that, when proven wrong, you fled from like a coward, as usual)
I suspect the problem is that, as so often with you, you are not educated enough to actually make an argument out of the spurious claim you cut-and-pasted off a creationist webpage. (a webpage which uses the exact same silly shakespeare to alphabet soul metaphor as you, how odd)
| Ordinary undirected chemistry moves in the wrong direction and biological polymers tend to naturally break apart not form. As fast as they form they will break apart, no chance of life getting together under those circumstances. |
|
Yes, so you pretend. Of course, that is all you are doing, pretending. pretending that the cut-and-paste job from a creationist website holds and scientific merit. Pretending that you actually understand the science behind this.
I mean give me a break lester, are you actually so encased in your paranoid delusion that you believe that 'basic science tells us biological polymers cannot form', a fact apparently missed by hundreds of millions of scientists and specialists worldwide forming the overwhelming majority of the planets scientific community in every relevant discipline?
Thats like saying powered flight is impossible, and that the rest of the world (including engineers, pilots, airports, etc) just have it wrong because of a big conspiracy. It is not just foolish, it is downright lunacy.
And thats IGNORING the fact that people keep posting specific cases proving that you are flat out wrong.
FACT: snowflakes, (as one of a HUNDRED examples of this) increase geometrically in complexity from water to crystal, by a staggering order of magnitude. They do so naturally, and like evolution, do not take place in a closed system (as I defined for you proving you wrong, and you fled like a coward). So either evolution is possible, or snowflakes are impossible. Which is it lester?
(Edited by Gaunt 8/2/2010 at 05:06 AM).
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 04:27 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Gaunt
yet simply by the removal of heat from this totally chaotic and unorganised drop, you get incredibly complicated unique fractal patterns, |
|
You answered your own question there Gaunt. If heat flows from hot to cold, the laws of thermodynamics are being obeyed.
That's why we know it is a natural process.
If heat were going in the opposite direction, that would be against the law.
Please fix your post 
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 05:04 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 11:04 PM on August 1, 2010 :
You answered your own question there Gaunt. If heat flows from hot to cold, the laws of thermodynamics are being obeyed.
That's why we know it is a natural process. |
|
You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you. I mean, this answer could only have been made up on the spur of the moment, by someone too uneducated to know better, but too lazy to even look up their facts.
The DIRECTION of the travel of heat is irrelevant as this is not a closed system, a fact you have repeatedly claimed, been PROVEN factually wrong, but been too cowardly to aknowledge (as always).
If you had even bothered to educate yourself for a moment, you would have learned that the vast majority of natural crystallisation processes occur through the addition of heat. Gemstones, geodes, all forms of incredibly complex natural crystals, all formed through nature from VASTLY less ordered and complex antecedants, all through the ADDITION of heat. Even though you JUST said "If heat were going in the opposite direction, that would be against the law. Wow, you must feel silly at the moment.
If you had bothered to read ANYTHING before typing that tripe, you might not look so foolish right now, though to be fair, you must be used to it.
So we have incredibly complicated, incredibly ordered information bearing systems, arising naturally from disorder and chaos, entirely in obeiance of the laws of thermodynamics, which you understand so poorly: exactly the kind of thing you keep trying to say is impossible.
So it seems you have been proven wrong twice over: information can arise naturally (both in snowflakes and other crystaline structures) from chaos, AND that unimaginably complicated structures arising from chaos naturally DOES happen in nature, and is entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
Now of course, you are far too much of a coward to admit you are wrong Lester, just as you fled like a shameful coward from every other time you have been proven factually wrong. In fact, faced with your own public humiliation, you usually employ one of two tactics:
Flee like a coward and pretend this destruction of your lies never happened and keep repeating the same lie in the future, OR
Flee like a coard and quietly drop the claim, without any aknowledgement that you are doing so because your staggering ignorance of high-school science was exposed.
Which squirming cowardly tactic will you employ this time Lester?
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 05:20 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Gaunt
you would have learned that the vast majority of natural crystallisation processes occur through the addition of heat. |
|
Mineral crystals form for the same reason snow crystals form. Heat is released as minerals in solution form solid crystals, equalizing the temperature all around, increasing entropy and obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
Entropy of the crystal and the environment around the crystal increases in accordance with natural law.
Gaunt
So we have incredibly complicated, incredibly ordered information bearing systems, arising naturally from disorder and chaos |
|
No we don't.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 06:12 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lets just ignore your ignorance regarding crystallisation for a moment.
There is a very simple, absolute fact here lester, a fact that has been pointed out to you, proven to you, and yet you keep repeating, like so many of your lies.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system. Period. Read the law, its in the text.
Now you try and squirm around this by saying the 'universe' is a closed system, which is so bafflingly stupid it defies comprehension. So rather than point out your stunning illogic, I simply quoted a grade 9 physics textbook to you, defining the different types of systems, and proving you wrong. You, of course, fled like a coward and didnt aknowledge your error.
And now you will probably try and deny that proof ever happened, another of your standard lies, so I shall repost it, jsut to cut you off.
Isolated systems are completely isolated in every way from their environment. They do not exchange heat, work or matter with their environment. An example of an isolated system would be a completely insulated rigid container, such as a completely insulated gas cylinder.
Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment. Whether a system exchanges heat, work or both is usually thought of as a property of its boundary.
Open systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) and matter with their environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable. The ocean would be an example of an open system.
Do you get it Lester? You are factually wrong, again. Ignoring proof you are a liar doesnt make you any less a liar. So please stop pretending you have even a grade 9 level understanding of thermodynamics, because you do not. There is nothing in evolution which in any way violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Gaunt
So we have incredibly complicated, incredibly ordered information bearing systems, arising naturally from disorder and chaos |
|
No we don't.
|
|
And so lester continues his neverending war with reality.
yes, we do. Snowflakes, deep earth crystals, ARE information bearing substances that come out of sinpler substances.
(Ergo your silly unevidenced lie about 'information must come from intelligence' is patently false)
AND, we have incredibly complicated structures forming naturally out of total chaos, shakespere to borrow your stolen metaphor, out of alphabet soup. So again you are factually wrong.
Dont you get tired of humiliating yourself in public lester?
(Edited by Gaunt 8/3/2010 at 04:05 AM).
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 08:20 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Hey Look, Lester fled like a coward without answering! I'm astonished!
Isnt it amusing how he likes to post squirming one-liners claiming 'no science in your post', but when science is presented, science proving his claims factually wrong, suddenly he reverts to his natural ingraned cowardice and just runs away, hoping nobody notices.
I would be worried about your 'immortal soul' if I were you Lester, after all, God hates a coward (aquinas)
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 04:07 AM on August 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
That's right, dirt without a creator - as far from life as alphabet soup is from the Works of Shakespeare.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 10:49 AM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 10:58 AM on July 30, 2010 :
Lester
The simplest free living form of life has 482 genes each one has an average of 400 amino acids in precise sequences and all left handed. |
|
Galileo
You mean nucleic acids don't you? Or are talking about that the genes code for proteins 400 amino acids long? |
|
Apologies, my mistake. I mean that the 482 genes code for proteins and enzymes |
|
You do realize, do you not, that enzymes ARE proteins?
and the average length of those proteins and enzymes is 400 amino acids long -all in precise sequence and all left handed.
|
|
Which is the precise sequence for cytochrome c?
And why are you so amazed that they are are all of one type (left handed)?
| How do you know this, where are you getting this information from? Is that all biological polymers? |
|
Yes that's all biological polymers. You can work it out from equilibrium concentrations from thermodynamic equations and enthalpy values.
|
|
Sounds cool - SHOW US HOW YOU WORKED IT ALL OUT. Show us your equations and the enthalpy values you employed. Also show us how enthalpy values and thermodynamics is relevant to the fact that all amino acids used by us are of the left-handed type.
Apart from that, all biological polymers require information for their precise sequences- so it's not just a matter of putting random amino acids together.
|
|
Assertions piled on assertions.
I'm shocked.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 11:52 AM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
And these should help also:
YEC engineer yammers on genetics, makes ass of himself
YEC engineer yammers on about human-chimp differences, makes ass of himself
YEC engineer talks 'information', makes ass of himself
YEC engineer talks gene duplication, makes ass of himself
One wonders why anyone would take such an obvious egomaniacal Dunning-Krugerite seriously.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 12:00 PM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 06:12 AM on August 2, 2010 :
Gaunt
you would have learned that the vast majority of natural crystallisation processes occur through the addition of heat. |
|
Mineral crystals form for the same reason snow crystals form. |
|
There is a REASON for crystal formation?
Heat is released as minerals in solution form solid crystals, equalizing the temperature all around, increasing entropy and obeying the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
So, thermodynamics is about heat. So, how does the polymerization of nucleotides violate any of that?
Entropy of the crystal and the environment around the crystal increases in accordance with natural law.
|
|
Um, actually, the entropy of the crystal DECREASES. Or do you really think that a crystal is less uniform that a solution?
Duh...
I suggest you try to learn what these concepts really mean prior to cribbing disinformation from R. David Pogge or whomever your YEC hero of the day is.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 12:07 PM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 10:49 AM on August 4, 2010 :
That's right, dirt without a creator - as far from life as alphabet soup is from the Works of Shakespeare.
|
|
Right - so where is the evidence for this creator? ACTUAL evidence, that is?
And while you are at it, where is the evidence that it is a necessity for there to be a bone to bone connection between weight-bearing limbs and the axial skeletons of terrestrial locomoting tetrapods as David Menton, YEC, declares?
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 12:13 PM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
wisp
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
LesterGaunt
you would have learned that the vast majority of natural crystallisation processes occur through the addition of heat. |
|
Mineral crystals form for the same reason snow crystals form. Heat is released as minerals in solution form solid crystals, equalizing the temperature all around, increasing entropy and obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
Entropy of the crystal and the environment around the crystal increases in accordance with natural law. |
|
The entropy of the crystal decreases, but yeah, the overall entropy will always increase.
We know, Lester.
Gaunt
yet simply by the removal of heat from this totally chaotic and unorganised drop, you get incredibly complicated unique fractal patterns, |
|
You answered your own question there Gaunt. If heat flows from hot to cold, the laws of thermodynamics are being obeyed.
That's why we know it is a natural process. |
|
Lester, we know the laws of thermodynamics are being obeyed. They always are.
Here's what you really need to do: Demonstrate that Evolution violates them.
If heat were going in the opposite direction, that would be against the law.
Please fix your post |
|
You think heat can't penetrate something to crystallize it? Because there seems to be one easy way: heat it.
The flow of heat can go in the opposite direction if cold and hot switch places.
GalileoLester
The simplest free living form of life has 482 genes each one has an average of 400 amino acids in precise sequences and all left handed. |
|
You mean nucleic acids don't you? Or are talking about that the genes code for proteins 400 amino acids long? |
|
Apologies, my mistake. I mean that the 482 genes code for proteins and enzymes |
|
Woah! Proteins AND ENZYMES!!!!
TWO FOR THE PRIZE OF ONE!!
Wait... Er... I think they might actually... 
Yes, they are one!
Wiki: Enzymes are proteins that catalyze (i.e., increase the rates of) chemical reactions.
Human glyoxalase I.
Oh, but we know how you despise those evos in charge of Wikipedia, desperately trying to make you look like an ignorant fool...
-------
Lester| (...) since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology. |
|
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether. |
|
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)? |
|
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com |
| |
Posts: 2546 | Posted: 10:01 PM on August 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Derwood
One wonders why anyone would take such an obvious egomaniacal Dunning-Krugerite seriously. |
|
Perhaps because he uses evidential support for what he asserts and thus makes far more practical sense than you do.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 02:01 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 8:01 PM on August 4, 2010 :
Perhaps because he uses evidential support for what he asserts and thus makes far more practical sense than you do.
|
|
Maybe you should take a page out of his book instead of using lies and cvowardice as your ownly two tactics.
After all, I'm still waiting for you to be a man and admit your claims about the laws of thermodynamics were fuindamentally factually wrong, as proven above. As always, when proof is presented that you are lying, you just flee like a coward... I forgot you dont have it in you to admit error, even when that error is flat out proven in black and white in front of you.
So honestly Lester, why are you trolling for attention like this? You can't actually believe the lies you are spinning, nobody is that obtuse a debator to think they can get away with making things up and fleeing like a coward when they are proven wrong. Your only possible motive here could be attention seeking... are you truly that lonely?
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 02:31 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Derwood
Right - so where is the evidence for this creator? ACTUAL evidence, that is? |
|
Where is your evidence that demonstrates that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals and went on to produce, via mutation and natural selection, all the living forms on earth today?
Either life was created or it arose naturally.
Design requires a designer. You deny that only because you are running from the designer. What are you up to Derwood?
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 02:39 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 8:39 PM on August 4, 2010 :
Derwood
Right - so where is the evidence for this creator? ACTUAL evidence, that is? |
|
Where is your evidence that demonstrates that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals and went on to produce, via mutation and natural selection, all the living forms on earth today? |
|
So is hiding from a question (the same question you ALWAYS flee like a coward from) with a question your idea of evidence or an argument?
Why are you incapable of acting like an adult and actually ansering simple, basic questions, or evidencing your wild claims? How do you justify to yourself acting in such a manner?
Oh and by the way, as has already been explained to you and demonstrated to you time and time again, there is VAST evidence of evolution, which is why is is universally easily verifyable accepted by the planetary scientific community, as well as the majority of the religious community, a fact you keep trying to hide from.
Answer me this Lester (though we both know you will notm, and will flee like a coward).
If the 'EVIDENCE' is entirely on the side of creationism as you keep asserting but wont justify, then why are there NO secular creationists?
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 02:54 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
| gauntOh and by the way, as has already been explained to you and demonstrated to you time and time again, there is VAST evidence of evolution, which is why is is universally easily verifyable accepted by the planetary scientific community, as well as the majority of the religious community, a fact you keep trying to hide from. |
|
Oh, the consensus opinion again. Normal fields of science rely far more on evidence.
You have never come near to demonstrating such a thing - most evolutionists are deceived, you are just a straight up liar.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 07:35 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 01:35 AM on August 5, 2010 :
You have never come near to demonstrating such a thing - most evolutionists are deceived, you are just a straight up liar.
|
|
Ah the clever 'I know you are but what am I' argument, eh lester? yes, thats about on par with your intellectual performance to date.
Sad reality time, you have been caught, and I mean caught and proven without question, in so many lies it is hilarious. You squirm and you hide and you distract and you whine, but thats all you do. On the other hand, you have never denmonstrated untruth in ANYTHING I have said an you know it... and how could you have? To do that you would actually have to engage and try and defend your points, instead of fleeing like the terrified little coward you are.
| Oh, the consensus opinion again. Normal fields of science rely far more on evidence. |
|
You mewling little child, the consensus of scientific opinion is based on evidence, and you have never presented a SHRED of evidence to support your delusional 'massive worldwide conspiracy theory' argument. And furthermore, when the consensus comes from BOTH sides of the debate, such as the majority of clergy, the vatican and the Pope all AGREEING that Evolution is a fact, then YOU are the one who needs to explain why even the CLERGY dont accept your unevidenced, delusional claims.
Oh, but you wont do that will you? Only an adult would have the stones to actually defend their claims or stand behind their words, you are just a little coward, hoping nobody sees through your dishonesty and squirming avoidance tactics, and too foolish to see everyone already has.
You are a joke here lester, stop trolling for attention, because thats all you are doing.
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 08:06 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 02:01 AM on August 5, 2010 :
Derwood
One wonders why anyone would take such an obvious egomaniacal Dunning-Krugerite seriously. |
|
Perhaps because he uses evidential support for what he asserts and thus makes far more practical sense than you do.
|
|
Actually, Pogge distorts the evidence, as was demonstrated at the links I provided (none of which you read, I am sure).
And of course he makes more sense to you - he is as ignorant of the material as you are, and draws conclusions that jive with your brainwashing.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 11:26 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 02:39 AM on August 5, 2010 :
Derwood
Right - so where is the evidence for this creator? ACTUAL evidence, that is? |
|
Where is your evidence that demonstrates that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals and went on to produce, via mutation and natural selection, all the living forms on earth today? |
|
Where is your evidence that the ToE entails abiogenesis?
YOU are the one that claims YOUR version of events is TRUE. We only claim that our version is plausible. The evidnece for this plausibility has been presented to you many times - a sampling includes the fact that organic compounds have been found in space (you've claimed that such compounds REQUIRE intelligence to be made); that bio-organic compounds have been made in wildly different conditions here on earth (in ice, near hydrothermal vents, under super high pressures and temperatrues, etc. See the work of Robert Hazen for example.
It is the alphabet, not Shakespeare as you are so fond of claimijhng, but at least we have the letters.
What do you have for your TROOOO claims?
Either life was created or it arose naturally.
Design requires a designer. You deny that only because you are running from the designer. What are you up to Derwood?
|
|
Running from the designer?
Well, I admit that I would not want to be under the control of a wicked thug that requires burnt foreskins as offerings, and commands the rape of children, and the slaughter of pregnant women. That much is true.
Of course, I am a grown up, and I do not believe that any such made up deity exists.
I am running form stupidity, mind control, and nonsense. You embrace it.
So, you figger' out that the entropy decreases in a crystal yet?
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 11:32 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Hi Doc,
You must have missed this one:
Quote from Lester10 at 10:58 AM on July 30, 2010 :
Lester
The simplest free living form of life has 482 genes each one has an average of 400 amino acids in precise sequences and all left handed. |
|
Galileo
You mean nucleic acids don't you? Or are talking about that the genes code for proteins 400 amino acids long? |
|
Apologies, my mistake. I mean that the 482 genes code for proteins and enzymes |
|
You do realize, do you not, that enzymes ARE proteins?
and the average length of those proteins and enzymes is 400 amino acids long -all in precise sequence and all left handed.
|
|
Which is the precise sequence for cytochrome c?
And why are you so amazed that they are are all of one type (left handed)?
| How do you know this, where are you getting this information from? Is that all biological polymers? |
|
Yes that's all biological polymers. You can work it out from equilibrium concentrations from thermodynamic equations and enthalpy values.
|
|
Sounds cool - SHOW US HOW YOU WORKED IT ALL OUT. Show us your equations and the enthalpy values you employed. Also show us how enthalpy values and thermodynamics is relevant to the fact that all amino acids used by us are of the left-handed type.
Apart from that, all biological polymers require information for their precise sequences- so it's not just a matter of putting random amino acids together.
|
|
Assertions piled on assertions.
I'm shocked.
You can tell an awful lot about a person's intellectual abilities by what they choose to ignore.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1346 | Posted: 11:34 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Gaunt
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 05:29 AM on August 5, 2010 :
I take it this is the massive conspiracy you dreamed up because I certainly didn't.
Lying again huh Gaunt -how strange
|
|
You most certainly DID you adolescent liar, and I will HAPPILY quote your own words back at you proving it. You claimed evolutionists were 'keeping down' the imaginary creationist scientists you claimed, and that there were probably many more scientists who believed in YEC but were afraid to speak up. These are your claims you lying little child are you honestly denying them?
I have never lied lester, and you know it. Your whining little 'i know you are but what am I' defence (even as you AGAIN flee like an impotent coward from the issues under debate) is just typical of you.
There is one proven liar here Lester, and everyone (including you, I suspect) know it is you. Your sobbing little deflections do nothing to help you.
Why ARE you such a shameful coward Lester? Were you brought up to be like that, or did God make you that way?
-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).
Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
|
| |
Posts: 190 | Posted: 11:40 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 05:29 AM on August 5, 2010 :
I take it this is the massive conspiracy you dreamed up because I certainly didn't.
Lying again huh Gaunt - how strange :rolleyes |
|
Gaunt
You most certainly DID you adolescent liar, and I will HAPPILY quote your own words back at you proving it. You claimed evolutionists were 'keeping down' the imaginary creationist scientists you claimed, and that there were probably many more scientists who believed in YEC but were afraid to speak up. |
|
That's not a conspiracy Gaunt, but it is suppression of dissent or lack of freedom of enquiry that's going on.
Evolutionists think they're fighting for science but it's actually their religion they're fighting for.
-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” |
| |
Posts: 1304 | Posted: 10:00 AM on August 6, 2010 | IP
|
|
wisp
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
LesterGaunt
the consensus of scientific opinion is based on evidence, and you have never presented a SHRED of evidence to support your delusional 'massive worldwide conspiracy theory' argument. |
|
I take it this is the massive conspiracy you dreamed up because I certainly didn't.
Lying again huh Gaunt - how strange |
|
Yes, you did. And you know Gaunt is not lying, which means you're lying right now.
Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 19, 2010 in the thread Porkchop's doubts about whales:
You have made up your mind and you don’t care about any of the evidence to the contrary. You do doubtless need your salary cheque, and it doesn’t help to be a dissenter. |
|
Does this not imply an interest to partake in a global conspiracy?
I should be able to find something more clear...
Quote from Lester10 at 09:53 AM on April 30, 2010 in the thread Creation? Why not?:
Fossil discoveries in China?
Lots of problems with anything made in China. They appear to be flightless birds but there are also signs that the fossils have been tampered with so there's more to the story than meets the eye. |
|
Hum... That's not a worldwide conspiracy, but a local scam...
LesterGaunt
You most certainly DID you adolescent liar, and I will HAPPILY quote your own words back at you proving it. You claimed evolutionists were 'keeping down' the imaginary creationist scientists you claimed, and that there were probably many more scientists who believed in YEC but were afraid to speak up. |
|
That's not a conspiracy Gaunt, but it is suppression of dissent or lack of freedom of enquiry that's going on.
Evolutionists think they're fighting for science but it's actually their religion they're fighting for. |
|
Actually...
Actually i think you're right, Lester. I've checked dozens of posts, and you don't seem to have EVER implied that there's a conspiracy (except but mildly, because of some individual interests in paychecks, or faith).
Each time we (i include myself) have accused you of being a conspiracy theorist, i read the statement that made us say it, and you did not actually say that.
My apologies, Lester. All the times i've accused you of that... I'm sorry. I take them back.
I was SO sure you were a conspiracy theorist...
Gaunt, perhaps you should try to find some quote from Lester that clearly indicates that he postulates a worldwide conspiracy? Because i could not.
-------
Lester| (...) since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology. |
|
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether. |
|
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)? |
|
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com |
| |
Posts: 2546 | Posted: 1:29 PM on August 6, 2010 | IP
|
|
|
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
|
|
|
Creationism vs Evolution Debates
