tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1474847671444745860..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and PathwaysUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14656967483937274822015-08-09T21:42:13.127-07:002015-08-09T21:42:13.127-07:00"he's notorious for making up his own non..."he's notorious for making up his own nonstandard definitions and/or buzzwords." <br /><br />Talk about ignorance. Allow me to educate you a little on the history of science: virtually ALL the advances in science were accomplished by people that had to make up their "own nonstandard definitions and/or buzzwords".<br />Duh.<br /><br />That excludes you and the great majority of Darwinian fundamentalists working in science for the past 150 years, still producing nothing but trivial results proving only micro-evolution. Macro still evades you like the plague.<br /><br />"Keeping things vague gives him lots of wiggle room, a tactic adopted by all the leading ID pushers from Dembski on down. That's why pinning down the definitions are so important."<br /><br />Nothing is more "vague" than your pet theory's ludicrous claim that all ~8 million perfectly complete & well formed, well designed life forms on earth arose by some hypothetical unknown chemical process, creating a hypothetical, unobservable, untestable single celled common ancestor billions of years ago by replication errors plus death !!<br /><br />Only a Darwinist could ever be impressed by such a pitiful excuse for a scientific theory.<br />Neo Darwinism is "crumbled, beyond repair, overturned, gone".<br />Better get used to it. Instead of propping up Darwin's corpse with sophism, pseudo-scientific nonsense and trivial results passed off as "the 8th wonder of the world" !!! <br />You guys are exactly like the 2 dolts in "Weekend at Bernies".<br /><br />How about a new movie, "Weekend at Darwin's" ?<br />https://borne.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/weekend-at-darwins3.jpg<br /><br />lol<br /><br /><br />Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31038264191150303102015-08-09T21:27:02.327-07:002015-08-09T21:27:02.327-07:00?????
Repetition is the root of all pedagogy.?????<br />Repetition is the root of all pedagogy.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80016686641097815452015-08-09T21:26:16.751-07:002015-08-09T21:26:16.751-07:00"Which you clearly do not, since you've y..."Which you clearly do not, since you've yoked the two together."<br /><br />So you think the "or" conjunction "yokes" 2 things together? <br />Find a dictionary, hurry.<br /><br />"Biosemiotics" is a pseudoscientific 'field' "<br /><br />Proof of this? Didn't think so.<br /><br />"..spout mystic drivel in the guise of serious academic research, ...It's bad philosophy and worse science."<br /><br />So you copy/pasted that from which clueless Darwinian site? Pure ignorance and bigotry from you. Even Darwinist controlled wikipedia treats biosemiotics as real science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics<br />And how about: http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/journal/12304 <br />Only incompetents would say something as dumb as you did.<br /><br />"...real scientific fields tend to do, its findings support evolutionary biology. ...the centrality of evolution to computational biology and bioinformatics."<br /><br />1) Wrong. Real science refutes Darwinian evolution. Specially the information sciences.<br /><br />2) You point me to an evolutionist and claim that she's therefore right, though she makes the same fundamental mistakes Darwinists make every day?<br />You know nothing of science in that case.<br /><br />Algorithmic information CANNOT arise without intelligence. Algorithmic information - as in DNA - can't arise by any stochastic process. It is thus equally impossible for it info to arise without intelligence. DNA was designed.<br />You can go down in history with the alchemists of old; OR you can do some competent research and start thinking for yourself rather than buying Darwinian drool - no proof necessary, no doubts allowed or get evicted by the Darwinian Inquisition.<br /><br />"..yoking together a real scientist and a pretentious pseudoscience, you show you don't actually know anything about either field."<br /><br />You still show your poor grasp of English.<br />Very few of you Darwinists can tell the difference between your right and your left when it comes to logic and rational inference.<br />All you've done here is ad hom Abel. And I bet you think you've proved something with mere diatribe.<br /><br />Pretending that Abel isn't a real scientist is just bloody stupid & exposes your bigotry. Darwinian fanatics are incapable of grasping 1/10th of what Abel is saying. He's a science innovator, whereas you Darwinists are disciples of an obsolete 19th century baloney theory penned by a Victorian racist hypocrite, who wasn't a real scientist.<br />Now THAT is hypocrisy on your part seeing that you diss Abel, a real scientist exposing the BAD thinking underlying Darwinian BS.<br /><br />No Darwinist on this thread even grasped Abel's arguments. Standard Darwinian incompetence.<br /><br />"..David Abel publishes in the journals of the pretentious pseudo-science, and has done no work in bioinformatics."<br /><br />You get your BS from Darwinian fundamentalist sites spouting the Darwin lobby lies and propaganda. You're too incompetent to check the info before embarrassing yourself by posting it here.<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Abel%20DL[auth]<br />Yes, pubmed is a "pretentious pseudo-science" site in the view of ignoramuses like you, but not to real scientists. How about Science Direct? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224<br /><br />Get informed.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12369784228484540862015-08-09T08:57:32.767-07:002015-08-09T08:57:32.767-07:00That should say "a real science", of cou...That should say "a real science", of course. But it's unlikely anyone will ever see it, so I guess it doesn't matter. However, both the ridiculous name-drop above and my own error are both worth correcting for any lurkers who might drop by, as I did.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73319818322223345392015-08-09T08:54:56.122-07:002015-08-09T08:54:56.122-07:00If you at least had even just a slight clue on bio...<i>If you at least had even just a slight clue on biosemiotics or bioinformatics....</i><br /><br />Which you clearly do not, since you've yoked the two together.<br /><br />"Biosemiotics" is a pseudoscientific 'field' where its practitioners spout mystic drivel in the guise of serious academic research, and without evincing any deep knowledge of the biological systems they discuss. It's bad philosophy and worse science.<br /><br />Bioinformatics is a serious scientific field that is about collecting and analyzing the genetic and protein sequence information that is generated by researchers, and using it to guide fruitful avenues of new research in many fields, especially with reference to private sector research in fields like biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, etc. As real scientific fields tend to do, its findings <i>support</i> evolutionary biology. If you doubt me, just watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4iX2Ifjw8c" rel="nofollow">Dr. Kimmen Sjölander explain</a> (Youtube link) the centrality of evolution to computational biology and bioinformatics.<br /><br />By yoking together a real scientist and a pretentious pseudoscience, you show you don't actually know anything about either field. (BTW, I can't help pointing out that David Abel publishes in the journals of the pretentious pseudoscience, and has done <i>no</i> work in bioinformatics.)Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55651372203716836762014-01-16T18:32:59.982-08:002014-01-16T18:32:59.982-08:00You aren't making arguments at all. You don...You aren't making arguments at all. You don't seem to have basic integrity. I won't read what you write anymore until I become aware that you have stopped your childish nonsense.Ron Van Wegenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181898839992597105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30863295727308185522014-01-16T18:27:51.106-08:002014-01-16T18:27:51.106-08:00"Quite possibly the dumbest "argument&qu..."Quite possibly the dumbest "argument" for ID I have ever seen. And believe you me, I have seen many very very dumb ones. But then, what else to expect from quite possibly the dumbest commenter on this blog?"<br /><br />Um, that's not an argument.Ron Van Wegenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181898839992597105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52173106410218794602011-07-07T11:24:29.234-07:002011-07-07T11:24:29.234-07:00So thorton, the 1st of his class - in dimwit logic...<b>So thorton, the 1st of his class - in dimwit logic - PROVES Dr.'s Abel and Trevor wrong by belittling their OOL work spot?<br /><br />where did they find this guy?<br /><br />'nuff said </b>Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66250142749260928402011-07-07T11:23:14.373-07:002011-07-07T11:23:14.373-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78650942685577837892011-07-07T08:34:00.334-07:002011-07-07T08:34:00.334-07:00Thorton
I read several papers by Abel , some are...Thorton<br /> <br />I read several papers by Abel , some are very interesting some repetitive,repetitive, repetitive :)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56248936027580050272011-07-06T18:22:39.013-07:002011-07-06T18:22:39.013-07:00Eugen said...
See my comment above, it's ...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> See my comment above, it's #5. It involves some of the terms you want to define.<br /><br /> Those are mind-boggling events to me</i><br /><br />I read you post 5 back when you made it - your posts are usually entertaining. I agree it's mind boggling. But it doesn't involve any of the terms Abel used, especially not "algorithmic/computational utility"<br /><br />I don't expect you to defend any of Abel's work, but he's notorious for making up his own nonstandard definitions and/or buzzwords. Keeping things vague gives him lots of wiggle room, a tactic adopted by all the leading ID pushers from Dembski on down. That's why pinning down the definitions are so important.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22145281498450970112011-07-06T18:10:33.145-07:002011-07-06T18:10:33.145-07:00See my comment above, it's #5. It involves som...See my comment above, it's #5. It involves some of the terms you want to define.<br /><br />Those are mind-boggling events to me. <br /><br />I'm studying ribosome now. I don't consider it biology rather robotics. I can deal with robotics(my field) but hate biology. Of biology I know only the birds and the bees :)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70983426214505145172011-07-06T17:56:43.559-07:002011-07-06T17:56:43.559-07:00Eugen said...
Tnx guys, it seems real. That&#...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> Tnx guys, it seems real. That's funny.</i><br /><br />Our pleasure. IDCers are comedy gold!<br /><br /><br /> <i>BTW feel free to refute their null hypothesis.<br /><br /> “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”</i><br /><br />Define "non trivial"<br />Define "algorithmic/computational utility"<br />Define "chance"<br />Define "necessity"<br /><br />Then show how any of those are relevant to biological life.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15460792525826507352011-07-06T16:29:00.680-07:002011-07-06T16:29:00.680-07:00Tnx guys, it seems real. That's funny.
Re. ...Tnx guys, it seems real. That's funny.<br /> <br /><br />Re. Trevors and Abel, they are from University of Guelph. When you want to study biology in Ontario you go there. Guelph is actually a nice city close to me. <br /><br />BTW feel free to refute their null hypothesis.<br /><br />“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49320531334198709232011-07-06T15:56:59.924-07:002011-07-06T15:56:59.924-07:00Sadly, it's real. IDCers love to invent big f...Sadly, it's real. IDCers love to invent big fancy sounding titles to make their exploits seem more 'sciency', but just look what's behind the curtain.<br /><br />One on the more funny ones happened a few years ago when Bill "the Fig Newton of Information Theory" Dembski wrote glowingly about his new <b>International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design</b>, headquartered at 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800, Princeton, NJ.<br /><br />Turns out the new Intelligent Design 'headquarters' was a <b>P.O. box (!)</b><br /><br />You can read about it (with pictures) <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/princeton-nj-ho.html#more" rel="nofollow">here.</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79931794417856226632011-07-06T15:56:35.718-07:002011-07-06T15:56:35.718-07:00But Thorton's pic of Patriot University is a j...But Thorton's pic of Patriot University is a joke.<br /><br />These are real:<br /><br />http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Resources/PatriotUniversity2.jpg<br /><br />http://www.durangobill.com/JGpics/PatriotUnivName.jpg<br /><br />Not really any better xD. Big enough for a gas station, far too small for a motel. At least they have wheelchair access.<br /><br />Read their own webpage:<br /><br />http://www.patriotuniversity.com/PriceOfTruth.htmGeoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68431363227427370242011-07-06T15:47:23.841-07:002011-07-06T15:47:23.841-07:00Eugen,
Yes, it is. Look for that address on Googl...Eugen,<br /><br />Yes, it is. Look for that address on Google Earth. You'll see the very same house. It's easily recognisable.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2566597767578889302011-07-06T15:26:05.782-07:002011-07-06T15:26:05.782-07:00OOL place looks like LOL place.
Is this real or a...OOL place looks like LOL place.<br /><br />Is this real or a joke?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82784407746237799962011-07-06T13:29:08.719-07:002011-07-06T13:29:08.719-07:00Another photo of the Origin-of-Life Foundation
OO...Another photo of the Origin-of-Life Foundation<br /><br /><a href="http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv318/voxrat/DSC05345.jpg" rel="nofollow">OOL Foundation</a><br /><br />Whatta ya think Gary? How does this place compare with Kent Hovind's "Patriot University" campus?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Resources/PUcampus.jpg" rel="nofollow">Patriot University</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55134717669437364272011-07-06T12:49:19.883-07:002011-07-06T12:49:19.883-07:00Gary the yappy little puppy said...
"Thr...<i>Gary the yappy little puppy said...<br /><br /> "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information<br /> David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors<br /> ---<br /> Address: 1Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA </i><br /><br />LOL! Here's a picture of the "Origin-of-Life Foundation", 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD.<br /><br /><a href="http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv318/voxrat/DSC05343.jpg?t=1278868252" rel="nofollow">OOL Foundation</a><br /><br />Looks like a world class research facility to me. Maybe they keep the printing press in the garage, the one they use to self-publish all the crap that would be laughed out of any legitimate science journal office <b>IF</b> they ever grew the bollox to submit it.<br /><br />Do you think that Ford Taurus is the company limo all ready to take the IDiots to get their Nobel Prize?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63926665788729310502011-07-06T12:14:00.874-07:002011-07-06T12:14:00.874-07:00"Three subsets of sequence complexity and the..."Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information<br />David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors<br />---<br />Address: 1Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA and<br />2Professor, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Rm 3220 Bovey Building, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada<br />---<br /><br />Prescriptive sequences are called "instructions" and "programs." They are not merely complex sequences. They are algorithmically complex sequences. They are cybernetic. Random sequences are maximally complex. But they don't do anything useful. Algorithmic instruction is invariably the key to any kind of sophisticated organization such as we observe in any cell. No method yet exists to quantify "prescriptive information" (cybernetic "instructions").<br /><br />Nucleic acid prescription of function cannot be explained by "order out of chaos" or by "order on the edge of chaos" [163]. Physical phase changes cannot write algorithms. Biopolymeric matrices of high information retention are among the most complex entities known to science. They do not and can not arise from low-informational selfordering phenomena. Instead of order from chaos, the genetic code was algorithmically optimized to deliver highly informational, aperiodic, specified complexity [164]. Specified complexity usually lies closer to the noncompressible unordered end of the complexity spectrum than to the highly ordered end (Fig. 4). Patterning usually results from the reuse of programming modules or words. But this is only secondary to choice contingency utilizing better efficiency. Order itself is not the key to prescriptive information."<br /><br />"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." F. Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics<br /><br />"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence" - Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 148.<br /><br />I would actually try to understand the above before spewing forth your usual ill reasoned drivel based on your own deep ignorance on functional information in the genome.<br /><br />Q: Where did it come from in the 1st place?<br />Darwinists A: "we don't have a clue but there is no god so evolution did it".Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54533744556122515052011-07-06T12:12:21.358-07:002011-07-06T12:12:21.358-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57475353500827699022011-07-06T12:06:33.587-07:002011-07-06T12:06:33.587-07:00troy:
Quite certainly the dumbest argument again...troy: <br /><br />Quite certainly the dumbest argument against facts I've ever seen. <br />And believe me, I have seen them all.<br /><br />"Dumbest commenter here." ? <br />Look in the mirror, you're about to be humiliated.<br /><br />Do I understand algorithmic information? <br />Duh gee. Probably better than you ever will. <br /><br />Guess you're just too damned lazy or too willfully stupid to look at my profile huh?<br /><br />Once again, <br /><b>"In physics, no empirical evidence exists, not even an anecdotal account, of Chaos, Catastrophe, maximum Complexity, order or pattern ever having produced sophisticated algorithmic function or cybernetic organization of any kind. A pulsar signal has abundant order and pattern. But it doesn’t DO anything useful. It contains no meaningful or functional message. It knows nothing of decision nodes or choice contingency. In biology, no rational or empirical justification exists for attributing linear, digital, encrypted, genetic recipes to stochastic ensembles OR to physical laws in any amount of time. Yet thousands of peer-reviewed papers exist in the literature on “self-organization.” How can denial of self-organization possibly be correct? The answer is that all of these papers are universally misdefining what is being observed. Self-ordering phenomena are being observed, not self-organization. But self-ordering phenomena do not measure up to the task of genetic programming."</b><br />...<br /><b>"Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact."<br />...<br />"Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness. Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility."</b> - from Biosemiotic Research Trends <br /><br />Information has laws.<br />Prescribed, functional or function creating information has laws that prohibit its existence without intelligence.<br /><br />Coded information implies convention.<br />Convention, especially syntactic & semantic, does not exist without intelligence.<br />There is no such thing as coded information without intelligent origins.<br />DNA is a "book of instructions".<br /><br />Instructions are never written w/o intelligence.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57828057793206179862011-07-05T07:08:48.595-07:002011-07-05T07:08:48.595-07:00Gary:
We already know there is no such thing as c...Gary:<br /><br /><i>We already know there is no such thing as coded, algorithmic information arising by natural processes. It requires intelligence by very definition. (This is not hard thorty & mapy)<br /><br />And that alone, all by itself, destroys Darwinian idiocy.</i><br /><br />Quite possibly the dumbest "argument" for ID I have ever seen. And believe you me, I have seen many very very dumb ones. But then, what else to expect from quite possibly the dumbest commenter on this blog? Gary, do you even understand what algorithmic information is?<br /><br />By the way, what ever happened to your "proof" by statistical mechanics that evolution is impossible?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40391726734054634412011-07-05T06:36:10.286-07:002011-07-05T06:36:10.286-07:00Energy balance and operational loops ( RNAPoly)
...Energy balance and operational loops ( RNAPoly)<br /><br />NTP is a building block for RNA and a tiny energy pack. Nucleotide together with one phosphate is incorporated into RNA chain while other part of the NTP molecule is used as energy for the enzyme. Energy requirement is balanced so that there is just enough energy to make proper bond and condense subunit for translocation if nucleotide chemically "fits". If there is no bond established sub units recognize it and energy is used for reverse stroke and release of "unfit" nucleotide. After release, enzyme becomes available for next NTP.<br /> <br />Cell uses RNA Polymerase for assembly of various RNA molecules, one example mRNA during transcription. Above diagram (chart) is very simplified for clarity and two loops are easily visible: normal mRNA assembly on the left and error correction loop on the right side of the chart. Diagram is based on power stroke model requiring one NTP binding site per RNAP. Another model, a more interesting one is called brownian ratchet and requires two NTP binding sites per RNAP.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.com