tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4904009908800602065..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Rare Codons Near the Beginning of a Gene Control Protein Expression LevelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64194121984130891582013-10-03T19:30:39.657-07:002013-10-03T19:30:39.657-07:00I hearily concur BA 77!I hearily concur BA 77!bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35661250839398366122013-10-03T18:18:08.997-07:002013-10-03T18:18:08.997-07:00Ritchie:
Null hypothesis testing is notoriously s...Ritchie:<br /><br />Null hypothesis testing is notoriously slippery. Go here for a funny introduction:<br /><br />http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis<br /><br />The Penny paper is the height of junk science which I was commenting on. A creationist could achieve the same level of certainty as Penny did (and get the exact same probability). I'm not saying the creationist would be any more correct than the Penny paper, just that the method proves essentially nothing. It is a joke. You need to understand this In order to understand the exchange between oleg and me, not to mention not quote mining it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5844768906322775952013-10-03T17:55:59.794-07:002013-10-03T17:55:59.794-07:00CH -
I'm confused. You seem to be rattled, b...CH - <br /><br />I'm confused. You seem to be rattled, but you really DID claim you had tested Creationism. Here are you words:<br /><br />OLEG: "Propose a testable alternative, Cornelius, and Penny and coworkers will test it against the evolutionary model. Until then, your protestations ring hollow."<br /><br />CORNELIUS: "1. I've already done that. I tested creation and it came out unquestionably true."<br /><br />Now why are you getting annoyed with Thorton for pressing you on this? He isn't quote-mining you - you said it there in black and white. Did you mis-speak? Did you mean something completely different by those words? If so, I really don't see how that is Thorton's error.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9516526419979243422013-10-03T14:29:35.755-07:002013-10-03T14:29:35.755-07:00Thorton:
CH: Sorry but you don't get off that...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>CH: Sorry but you don't get off that easy. No slinking away this time. You get one more chance: What exactly was that probability and my explanation to oleg that you quote mined out, and please explain this "paper" you have contrived.<br /><br />Thorton: The probability of you blustering and not producing the paper you claimed where you "tested creation and it came out unquestionably true" is 1.0. That would be the paper which when I asked you to produce it before you replied "I guess you couldn't understand the paper even if you did read it.".</i><br /><br />I gave you three chances to undo your quote mine and you just couldn’t bring yourself to do it. That would undermine this latest false accusation.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm sure it's embarrassing for you to get caught in such an egregious lie. But maybe you should have thought of that before you told it.</i><br /><br />And yet another false accusation. You have quote mined, erected strawmen, and made false attacks here literally for years. You fire for effect, ignore corrections, and just keep spewing your lies in all directions. Darwin’s God definitely gets a P for patience on this one. The times that I have corrected your false accusations not only go unacknowledged, you just come right back the next time with the same lie. Personal conduct matters my friend, it really does. Just because you’re hidden behind a computer screen somewhere doesn’t mean it doesn’t. I wish you well friend.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79644917362192758082013-10-03T13:12:16.067-07:002013-10-03T13:12:16.067-07:00The probability of you blustering and not producin...The probability of you blustering and not producing the paper you claimed where you ""tested creation and it came out unquestionably true" is 1.0.<br /><br />That would be the paper which when I asked you to produce it before you replied "I guess you couldn't understand <b>the paper</b> even if you did read it.".<br /><br />I'm sure it's embarrassing for you to get caught in such an egregious lie. But maybe you should have thought of that before you told it.<br /><br />"<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76617230339548185622013-10-03T12:56:20.395-07:002013-10-03T12:56:20.395-07:00oleg, I appricate the example but I think it is ex...oleg, I appricate the example but I think it is extremely poor at making your point.<br /><br />This is because by it's very nature a password it useless without the whole thing. If I had a password (that was hashed as ALL passwords should be, and that is crucial) even if you had guess all but 1 character you would be no closer to finding it.<br /><br />This is because you would have no way of knowing you had got that close.<br /><br />Like a gene for a protein, even one 90% similar may be of no use at all. So to make out like getting 50% of it is any use at all is bonkers.<br /><br />Making it worse, in the case of mutation driven changes, is the fact that you have no mechanism for stopping changes to your exising "bits" so even if you got to 50% of the bits required there is no guarantee at all the subsequent changes won't ruin your progress.<br /><br />If you think about it, it will almost cirtainly guarntee that you never EVER make the goal.. the closer you get the more that can go wrong.bwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11160739852699855117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62282140826237557962013-10-03T11:37:00.673-07:002013-10-03T11:37:00.673-07:00For the umpteenth time, probability isn't vali...For the umpteenth time, probability isn't valid in determining if a theory is true or probability true. This is because you would need to know all of the possible outcomes<br /><br />For example..<br /><br />CH: What is needed is some remarkable way to construct and/or follow extremely narrow pathways in the hyper dimensional search space, to arrive at real proteins. <br /><br />Exactly, how do you know that "real" proteins (that currently exist) were intentional outcomes, and therefore the only possible outcomes? Please be specific.<br /><br />IOW, probability is only valid for making decisions *inside* an existing theory, which is exactly the context of the paper you keep referencing. <br /><br />Specifically, the paper doesn't suggest that the kind of life we observe today was specifically chosen and therefore the only possible outcomes. Some other kind of carbon based life could have evolved with different proteins, etc. <br /><br />At which point your objections based on probability is simply more hand waving. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51003861037557426482013-10-03T11:32:30.562-07:002013-10-03T11:32:30.562-07:00Thorton:
Dozens of blustering posts by CH but sti...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Dozens of blustering posts by CH but still no paper.</i><br /><br />Sorry but you don't get off that easy. No slinking away this time. You get one more chance: What exactly was that probability and my explanation to oleg that you quote mined out, and please explain this "paper" you have contrived.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38122206569316648712013-10-03T06:34:12.425-07:002013-10-03T06:34:12.425-07:00(takes a quick peek in)
Dozens of blustering post...(takes a quick peek in)<br /><br />Dozens of blustering posts by CH but <b>still no paper.</b><br /><br />What a surprise.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1070889796694138932013-10-03T03:29:24.994-07:002013-10-03T03:29:24.994-07:00Not sure what the big song and dance is about.
On...Not sure what the big song and dance is about.<br /><br />On the point about amlyoid-prone segments, more insight can be found here:<br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100407/full/464828a.html<br /><br />A few "quote mines" for the more lazy among us:<br /><br />"It seems that most proteins have evolved to fold in a way that effectively conceals their amyloid-prone segments" ..because..<br />From over 12,000 proteins (with known 3d structures) examined, they found that 95% of the predicted amyloid-prone segments within them are buried within the structures of their host proteins, and that those that are exposed are too twisted and inflexible to zip up with partner segments.<br /><br />It's almost like DNA knows something.<br /><br />"If you had a machine that could generate protein sequences randomly, you would only rarely get one that can remain stable in the globular, soluble state," <br /><br />Rarely indeed, but life is full of suprises!<br />bwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11160739852699855117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54813614523787181972013-10-03T03:17:38.212-07:002013-10-03T03:17:38.212-07:00Excellent post Dr. Hunter.! Thanks for your hard w...Excellent post Dr. Hunter.! Thanks for your hard work. Just to let you know that some of your readers do genuinely appreciate your efforts. bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52825786771632546802013-10-03T01:23:00.699-07:002013-10-03T01:23:00.699-07:00Which means that you are more than half way toward...<i>Which means that you are more than half way towards figuring out the password.</i><br /><br />Two problems. First, "half way" doesn't help. This isn't "half way" on the first try. Or the millionth try. These are extremely conservative estimates of the best you can do. 10^43 is orders of magnitude way too high, and 10^70 conservatively low for most real proteins.<br /><br />Second problem, we're not dealing with information here. We're dealing with required evolutionary experiments. Logarithms don't help.<br /><br />What is needed is some remarkable way to construct and/or follow extremely narrow pathways in the hyper dimensional search space, to arrive at real proteins. Until then we have the curse of dimensionality. Even by the evolutionist’s own ridiculously optimistic numbers the probability of a single, rather simple, protein evolving is 1 in 10^27. That’s with a time window that is way too long, number of attempts that is way too high, protein that is incredibly simple and, oh by the way, the preexistence of proteins! So the real probability is far worse than 1 in 10^27. But even that number, by any scientific standard, is impossible. The science is telling us that evolution is false. And, oh by the way, that’s just one protein.<br /><br />Perhaps that will change and some clever way to find proteins may well be possible. It just isn't what science is telling us right now. Furthermore, if it was found to be possible, then it certainly seems that it would be an astonishing property of matter and natural law that truly would require a multiverse to explain.<br /><br />So at this point it is what it is. We know what science is telling us. We need to honestly acknowledge the science. Future findings may always reveal something different, but that may or may not happen. You can either acknowledge the facts of science, or live in denial.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76034993839914785382013-10-03T00:49:45.503-07:002013-10-03T00:49:45.503-07:00Amazing, the quote mining continues. To which we c...Amazing, the quote mining continues. To which we can now add denial. It is like that Monte Python skit where you pay for an argument.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38581474143629047732013-10-02T22:26:51.801-07:002013-10-02T22:26:51.801-07:00CH: "It is important to understand how tiny 1...CH: "It is important to understand how tiny 10^43 is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not about half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. In fact 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70."<br /><br />It's like Hunter has never heard that information is the logarithm of the number of states. (He has of course, he merely pretends to.) <br /><br />Let me make it simple. If a password contains 70 bits, that would be 2^70 combinations. If you have found the first 43 bits, you only need to get 27 more. Which means that you are more than half way towards figuring out the password. <br /><br />2^43 is a tiny sliver of 2^70, but that is irrelevant. 43 bits is more than half the information in 70 bits.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22198173069146189592013-10-02T21:45:32.841-07:002013-10-02T21:45:32.841-07:00Darn CH, I was really hoping you'd link to tha...Darn CH, I was really hoping you'd link to that paper you claimed to have written which you "tested creation and it came out unquestionably true." I was all ready to put it right next to your famous talk on <a href="http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/01/26/cornelius-g-hunter-thylacines-wolves-and-images/" rel="nofollow">thylacines and wolves</a> in the Creationist Hall of Fame.<br /><br />But sadly your bluff was called and you folded like wet tissue. There is no such paper.<br /><br />What a bitter disappointment it must be for your fanboys, knowing now that you were just making it up again.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33323690654032681282013-10-02T21:37:25.444-07:002013-10-02T21:37:25.444-07:00What are the lurkers to think?
Um, probably that ...<i>What are the lurkers to think?</i><br /><br />Um, probably that all of your many, many accusations of lying and quote mining are, in fact, coming from within.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8850208135852362742013-10-02T21:31:26.941-07:002013-10-02T21:31:26.941-07:00That's what we expected. Once a quote miner, a...That's what we expected. Once a quote miner, always a quote miner. But when evolutionists make fools of themselves, they never actually realize it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53033846720022211042013-10-02T21:29:36.800-07:002013-10-02T21:29:36.800-07:00You forgot to link to your supposed paper where yo...You forgot to link to your supposed paper where you "tested creation and found it unquestionably true."<br /><br />What are the lurkers to think?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76432974216055685512013-10-02T21:26:49.678-07:002013-10-02T21:26:49.678-07:00Let's try that again just in case you missed i...Let's try that again just in case you missed it Trollton. What exactly was that probability and my explanation to oleg that you quote mined out? As usual, we won't hold our breath.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69654476897139103462013-10-02T21:21:18.203-07:002013-10-02T21:21:18.203-07:00Cornelius Hunter
I guess you couldn't unders...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br /> I guess you couldn't understand the paper even if you did read it.</i><br /><br />We'll never know since you don't have such a paper.<br /><br />Why don't you link to it for the lurkers for them to read? Show them that you're not just a paid political shill for a right-wing religious organization who pissed away his chances at a real science career? <br /><br />Show us that creation science CH.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17660672207826640942013-10-02T21:20:46.858-07:002013-10-02T21:20:46.858-07:00So tell me Trollton, what probability did I come u...So tell me Trollton, what probability did I come up with?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32737952202191380282013-10-02T21:04:48.618-07:002013-10-02T21:04:48.618-07:00Hughes:
That's a very interesting interpretat...Hughes:<br /><br /><i>That's a very interesting interpretation of scripture, Louis. Which verses in particular led you that that conclusion?</i><br /><br />I was being gentle. Choose one:<br /><br />1. Get a foot buried up your asteroid orifice.<br />2. Get barbecued to a crisp by fire from heaven.<br /><br />Which would you rather have? LOL.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19608093246893543222013-10-02T21:03:59.347-07:002013-10-02T21:03:59.347-07:00LOL!
Oh, there you again. Quote mining also, but ...<i>LOL!</i><br /><br />Oh, there you again. Quote mining also, but that's standard.<br /><br />Nothing like a troll who thinks he's onto something, but has no clue about the science. I guess you couldn't understand the paper even if you did read it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15931975025838546512013-10-02T20:59:39.741-07:002013-10-02T20:59:39.741-07:00Watching CH flounder and flop to avoid providing h...Watching CH flounder and flop to avoid providing his sources is a scream! Almost as funny as listening to him bellyache about Judge Jones and <i>Inherit The Wind</i> <br /><br />Better than any comedy show on TV!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86449167976193249712013-10-02T20:58:43.345-07:002013-10-02T20:58:43.345-07:00Rich:
I'd like to look at the primary materia...Rich:<br /><br /><i>I'd like to look at the primary materials and the arguments they advance before forming an opinion. I see nothing wrong with this.</i><br /><br />Terrific, you can see my response to SonuvaDawg.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com