tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3067147631404684402..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39316468316260398022016-06-26T15:28:51.590-07:002016-06-26T15:28:51.590-07:00well its better u religi9us do stick to what u all...well its better u religi9us do stick to what u all do best ... like molesting little kids ... for abiogenesis on pre-biotic earth is cracked , thanks to the max planck institute in 2013 .....and we engineered ouselves nucleobases in 2010 to speedup ""time"" for a test of the last reaction of abiogenesis ...the moment life happens after the long chain of reactions called abiogenesis....and managed to have life emerging without our guidance...we just let the nucleobases fight it out among themselves and life emerged ... and it was an even more complex life as ur skyfuhrer made ...for we r just out of 4 nucleotides ... xna is 6 nucleotide based .... it evolves prospers and has promising medical applications as well ..<br /><br /><br />end of god ... for the gazillionth time ..... har har har har har Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40108768564710238462016-05-18T10:05:56.946-07:002016-05-18T10:05:56.946-07:00In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eat...In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In 1952 Stanley Miller succeeded in producing a few amino acids from inorganic chemicals. More than 60 years later, nobody has managed to create any form of life given the most elaborate laboratories imaginable. All they can do is blah-blah on and on over why abiogenesis is, according to them, possible. An RNA world, parallel combinations, many viable outcomes, etc., etc. This is all just speculation and so much hot air. If life can arise by chance, surely somebody should be able to do it in a laboratory. It stands to reason that well trained chemists in well equipped labs should be more capable than blind chance. Maybe blind chance is not such a good bet.Chris Malanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14609866256624260350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51452584625649717752016-03-28T17:22:45.068-07:002016-03-28T17:22:45.068-07:00Bill Cole
In the prior post you named chemistry a...<i>Bill Cole<br /><br />In the prior post you named chemistry as the evolutionary mechanism for forming the flagellar motor . Again, very imaginative.</i><br /><br />Darn Bill, you nailed us scientists again. Here's the real way the <a href="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1634/26103526935_e2eddd25b0_o.jpg" rel="nofollow">flagellum was created</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8733139951069183082016-03-28T17:03:42.433-07:002016-03-28T17:03:42.433-07:00GR
"You can see evidence for it in any freshm...GR<br />"You can see evidence for it in any freshman level biology book or even with a simple Google search."<br />Really? I can find experimental evidence of nuclear proteins being formed by RMNS.<br />An even better just so story. What a wonderful imagination you have:-) In the prior post you named chemistry as the evolutionary mechanism for forming the flagellar motor . Again, very imaginative.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70428576101928838182016-03-28T15:06:50.240-07:002016-03-28T15:06:50.240-07:00Bill Cole
"Through the same mechanisms. Evol...<i>Bill Cole<br /><br />"Through the same mechanisms. Evolution works by modifying existing structures."<br /><br />A very solid just so story.</i><br /><br />You can see evidence for it in any freshman level biology book or even with a simple Google search. But as a Creationist I understand you aren't interested in educating yourself.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18198027907995341112016-03-28T14:47:51.008-07:002016-03-28T14:47:51.008-07:00GR
"Through the same mechanisms. Evolution wo...GR<br />"Through the same mechanisms. Evolution works by modifying existing structures."<br /><br />A very solid just so story. Travel to the end of the universe and back. No problem evolution can do it :-)Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89599827125974009402016-03-28T10:25:40.625-07:002016-03-28T10:25:40.625-07:00Then how would a entirely new typer of protein evo...<i>Then how would a entirely new typer of protein evolve? </i><br /><br />Through the same mechanisms. Evolution works by modifying existing structures.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46679548062995008052016-03-28T10:08:56.276-07:002016-03-28T10:08:56.276-07:00ghost
"Why do you continue to repeat this dis...ghost<br />"Why do you continue to repeat this dishonest claim? You've had it explained to you many times evolution doesn't have to search through the entire search space of all possible genetic combinations."<br /><br />Then how would a entirely new typer of protein evolve? Ie a nuclear protein that has to fit together with shape and charge with a dozen other transcriptional proteins? What is your proposed mechanism of how this happens?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79365650576034840892016-03-28T09:54:30.851-07:002016-03-28T09:54:30.851-07:00Bill Cole
I have yet to hear a good explanation ...<i>Bill Cole<br /><br /> I have yet to hear a good explanation how you can find function mutating through sequences, the largest mathematical spaces in the universe</i><br /><br />Why do you continue to repeat this dishonest claim? You've had it explained to you many times evolution <b>doesn't have to</b> search through the entire search space of all possible genetic combinations. It merely searches the space immediately next to an already existing functional configuration. Selection / drift then keeps the modifications that work the same or better in the current environment. That process has been ongoing since the first biotic self replicators formed over 3.5 billion years ago, slowly building up the forms we see today.<br /><br />Please stop repeating your tired old creationist canard.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77067847344325516252016-03-28T08:36:25.901-07:002016-03-28T08:36:25.901-07:00Scott
"Biill, you said we had "no idea&q...Scott<br />"Biill, you said we had "no idea" how sequences form beyond human beings. Again that's false. I provided such an idea that is widely accepted in the field of biology because it has withstood over 150 years of criticism."<br />I think this point is melting down under criticism at this point based on discussions I have had and observed on this blog and others. I have yet to hear a good explanation how you can find function mutating through sequences, the largest mathematical spaces in the universe. If you are willing to try to debate this subject with evidence I will keep an open mind.<br /><br />"For example, to be useful in the lab, organisms needs to exhibit high-fidelity replication. But that's not necessarily a requirement in the past."<br /><br />Why would the past be any different? The theory requires simple to complex to make sense. The only evidence that is surfacing is that minimum life is complex so the origin event is quite a mystery.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4411193733746568372016-03-28T06:57:41.217-07:002016-03-28T06:57:41.217-07:00To give a very specific example of Cornelius misre...To give a very specific example of Cornelius misrepresentation, implicit in Venter's minimally viable organism is the need to exhibit high-fidelity replication. This is because, unless an organism can make a high-fidelity copy of itself, in addition to consuming a petroleum spill or synthesizing a drug, we would have to make them one at a time and replace them when they wore out. Nor could we test a specific set of genes for minimum viability because you'd end up with something else. <br /><br />Again..<br /><br />"Rather, the [earliest] history of [evolutionary theory] was a lengthly, highly inaccurate, non-purposeful period of construction that eventually produced those instructions out of elementary things where none existed. Those elementary things are simple chemicals, such as short strands of RNA, that can perform only low-fidelity replication and therefore do not exhibit the appearance of design."<br /><br />Venter's minimally viable organism doesn't fit that description. As such it's unclear how "Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed Evolution."<br />Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13187383960006084592016-03-28T06:13:07.916-07:002016-03-28T06:13:07.916-07:00Biill, you said we had "no idea" how seq...Biill, you said we had "no idea" how sequences form beyond human beings. Again that's false. I provided such an idea that is widely accepted in the field of biology because it has withstood over 150 years of criticism. <br /><br />Now, what you seem to be asking for is positive proof that sequences appeared in the distant past in a different environment with different competing factors and which cannot be reproduced because not all life is recorded in the fossil record. Unless we had a time machine, no number of empirical tests could ever satisfy that demand. <br /><br />Simple organisms that are not viable today could be viable in the past due to the lack of competition from more complex and better adapted life. No one thinks the minimum organism we can build out of existing parts today is equivalent to be most primotive replicator in the past. That is because this minimal organism is capable of high-fidelity replication, which is not thought to be a feature of the most primotive replicators.<br /> <br />For example, to be useful in the lab, organisms needs to exhibit high-fidelity replication. But that's not necessarily a requirement in the past. The earliest history of evolutionary theory consisted of a protracted period of non-purposeful, low-fidelity replication, which would or net us from build organisms that can produce new drugs, eat chemical spills or even test genetic variations. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8268270652389634632016-03-27T20:48:51.992-07:002016-03-27T20:48:51.992-07:00So, first, you're referinng to something that ...So, first, you're referinng to something that wasn't mentioned at all on this post? <br /><br />Second, if God being good has virtually no consequences for what he would or would not do, then what does it mean to say God is good? How can we criticize the claims of others? <br /><br />Do I need to believe that Superman exists to criticize a claim that someone who was injured by lead projectiles while in the process of stoping a bank robbery was Superman? No, I don't. I'm merely taking the claims of others seriously for the purpose of criticism. Since Supeman is supposedly impervious to normal projectiles, the claim contradicts itself. No personal belief is required. <br /><br />What you seem to be implying is that God cannot be explained. Therefore, no consequences can deduced to give meaning to the statement "shaping history for the benefit of human beings". <br /><br />Otherwise, what prevents us from doing just exactly that? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55255069893948555192016-03-27T20:32:45.061-07:002016-03-27T20:32:45.061-07:00Mapou: "There is another great scientific hoa...Mapou: "<i>There is another great scientific hoax out there..."</i><br /><br />Let me guess. Relativity?<br /><br />It amazes me that a man who can't string two sentences together without being abuses is smarter than two of the top scientis of the last century and a half. Who should I believe?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73855958985356760572016-03-27T20:02:30.491-07:002016-03-27T20:02:30.491-07:00ScottBill: "The genome is a sequence and we h...ScottBill: "The genome is a sequence and we have no idea how specific sequences are formed in nature except by humans."<br /><br />That's simply false,<br /><br />You claim this is false but you don't show why.<br /><br />That's simply false, Bill. Neo-Darinsims is the idea that biological complexity emerges from variation and selection. <br /><br />Can you cite an example of a complex functional sequence forming from the process you describe?<br /><br />If not then you claim that my statement is false turns out to be false:-)Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40580658741600475512016-03-27T18:05:41.903-07:002016-03-27T18:05:41.903-07:00Cornelius: "Perhaps you don't know what &...Cornelius: "Perhaps you don't know what "spontaneous" means. It does not mean rapid."<br /><br />Unless you can point to a theory of evolution that posits the first primitive replicators formed in deep interstellar space, where it is completely cold and dark (as opposed to a young earth or another planet like it) can you see why I might ask for clarification?<br /><br />Cornelius: "Recall that a chemical reaction evolves to a lower energy state (lower Gibbs energy, which accounts for entropy as well as bonding energies) *spontaneously*. It may take a century, but it will move to the lower Gibbs energy spontaneously (on its own, without external energy / forces applied)."<br /><br />Yet, what's missing here is what you mean by "on it's own, without external / forces applied" in the context of evolution. Again, can you see why I've asked for clarification by via a contrasting example? To repeat...<br /><br />I wrote: "Why don't you start out by explaining what would be a non-spontaneous appearance of an species, then point out how evolution doesn't fit that explanation? Please be specific."<br /><br />It doesn't matter what label we put on it. Nor does it need to be exhaustive. We merely need a clarification on what you mean by "spontaneous" that is sufficient to make progress on the issue at hand. You do want to actually make progress, right?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9214765283780124632016-03-27T17:56:42.611-07:002016-03-27T17:56:42.611-07:00Scott:
"If you're referring to my commen...Scott:<br /><br />"If you're referring to my comment, I'm wondering if you actually read it."<br /><br />No, I was referring to a great many comments, made by many atheists over the years, making metaphysical claims. Here is an example from the LA Times:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/sermon-from-pz-myers.html<br /><br />Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65189287958131041202016-03-27T16:59:11.785-07:002016-03-27T16:59:11.785-07:00Cornelius: "It would be difficult to find an ...Cornelius: "It would be difficult to find an idea that has been contradicted more by the science. And yet it is proclaimed to be a fact. I wouldn't call that "falsifiable.""<br /><br />Of course, the idea you're referring to is the history of life on earth, rather than evolution, the universal theory. You do realize they are not the same thing, right? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70157273084514221492016-03-27T16:56:51.689-07:002016-03-27T16:56:51.689-07:00Cornelius: "As for today's atheists, yes,...Cornelius: "As for today's atheists, yes, I think you are right, their atheism provides no basis for their metaphysical claims about what a creator would do."<br /><br />If you're referring to my comment, I'm wondering if you actually read it. My point was, since ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, it's unclear why such a designer would design what we observe, as opposed to something dramatically different that what it could have designed. As such, it adds nothing to the explanation. That's not a metaphysical claim about what a designer would do. That's pointing out that ID adds nothing to the explanation. <br /><br />Of course, ID's designer has no defined limitations so one can insert their preferred supernatural designer. However, pointing out God could have chosen otherwise isn't any more of a claim of what a creator would do, either.<br /><br />On the other hand, the claim that a creator created what we observe is to claim that it *would* choose to create things in the order of least complex to most complex, which is entirely unnecessary, since it could have created them in the order of most complex to least complex or even all at once. Again, pointing that out is not a claim about what a creator would do, but would be capable of doing, should we attempt to take the claims of others about a creator seriously as an explanation for what we observe. You want to be taken seriously, right? Or is it just all dogma?<br /><br />It's ironic that being more open and less dogmatic about what a creator could have done is misrepresented here as being "metaphysical claims about what a creator would do." Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16128050951014748782016-03-27T16:30:05.994-07:002016-03-27T16:30:05.994-07:00"Second guessing a God they do not claim to k..."Second guessing a God they do not claim to know and expressly claim to disbelieve?"<br /><br />Well said, however, many evolutionists *do* believe in that god. Remember, evolution comes from theists, not atheists. As for today's atheists, yes, I think you are right, their atheism provides no basis for their metaphysical claims about what a creator would do. As Alfred North Whitehead observed, the problem lies not in what people seek to defend, but in what they take for granted, and see no need to defend.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36290868188391101272016-03-27T16:27:14.908-07:002016-03-27T16:27:14.908-07:00There is another great scientific hoax out there b...There is another great scientific hoax out there but I must agree that Darwinism takes the cake.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79879561016298728352016-03-27T16:03:58.027-07:002016-03-27T16:03:58.027-07:00Second guessing a God they do not claim to know an...Second guessing a God they do not claim to know and expressly claim to disbelieve? Doesn't make much sense to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69693582032311392552016-03-27T15:52:28.269-07:002016-03-27T15:52:28.269-07:00Cv5:
Evolutionist say that they have falsified cr...Cv5:<br /><br />Evolutionist say that they have falsified creationism by claiming that God would never do things a certain way. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8351181928343260542016-03-27T15:44:38.692-07:002016-03-27T15:44:38.692-07:00The problem with evolutionist poofing is the long ...The problem with evolutionist poofing is the long long odds. And yet....here we are. Accounting for the web of life and biosphere in total and compounding probabilities....fuggetaboutit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7188638179951650282016-03-27T15:40:08.667-07:002016-03-27T15:40:08.667-07:00Creation is not falsifiable, or testable. We do no...Creation is not falsifiable, or testable. We do not and will never have a toolbox by which to structure any experiment. Creation is NOT scientific and makes no claim to be. Creation is simply beyond the scrutiny of the created. On the other hand evolution is falsifiable, and easily dispatched. Strangely, spontaneous generation from dirt must have been an exceedingly rare event, because it has never been seen to occur since. How strange.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com