AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Jerry Don Bauer

form_srcid: Jerry Don Bauer

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.23.67.57

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Jerry Don Bauer

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Jerry Don Bauer%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2012/11/19 11:34:01, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Well, You guys may be missing the point just a bit.

Complex Specified Information can alway create further Complex Specified Information if by nothing more than rearrangement.

People, computers, software, etc. do this every day. RNA/DNA replicates quite readily.

The kicker is that CSI cannot arise naturally without Intelligent Design somewhere in the process.

Unfortunately for the ID detractors, they have never given an example where this has happened and it is, in fact, mathematically impossible.

That, indeed, is the point...  :p

Date: 2012/11/19 12:55:26, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 19 2012,11:49)
But the only way something can be mathematically impossible is for that to be proven as a theorem in a formal mathematical system (i.e., based on axioms).

But before doing that, one has to show that the physical phenomena is actually equivalent to the formal mathematical system.

But that would require first actually defining CSI in a meaningful manner, rather than as a political slogan used only for propaganda.

Henry

Borel's law, which was a well accepted tenet of chemistry long before whoever you believe the "evil, science twisting; propagandists" that you think exist, came along, would beg to disagree with you concerning the math.

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI.....

This too is just a take off of Borel's law that all of us who major in science tend to run across at some point as an undergrad.

It's actually not that complicated to comprehend.

Date: 2012/11/19 13:39:05, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 19 2012,13:10)
But I am not one of those claiming that CSI has been defined, so I'm not the one who needs to supply a definition.

If it had a definition, you could have supplied it just now, but you didn't.

Keep in mind that it wouldn't work to define CSI simply as something that can't evolve, because that would produce a circular argument.

Perhaps I didn't define it formally for you because I was making chat in an informal conversation. But I'll be glad to:

CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.

There you go and it's that simple.

Borel calculated, chemically speaking, that in order for a chemical reaction to occur, the reactants had to have both chemical ability to react and be within close enough proximity in the universe to do so.

Should the odds of those two things occuring be greater than 1 in 10^50 against occurance, that reaction could never happen no matter how much time is given for it to occur.

Borel's UPB was 10^50 -- Dembski thought it should be higher and mused that 10^150 should be the UPB....That seems to be well accepted today in modern ID, certainly by me.

So, we can take this into bits if you wish which usually seems easier to understand in these conversations:

If the information contains over 500 bits of information and that information is specified....it ain't gonna happen in nature without a designer....*wink*

Date: 2012/11/19 13:44:51, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
"I've got about 8 mathematicians sitting within 40 feet of me"

Have you tried an exterminator? *grin*

Date: 2012/11/19 14:04:26, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,13:52)
Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Date: 2012/11/19 14:09:39, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 19 2012,14:02)
Repeat of paragraph that Jerry seems to have missed:

Keep in mind that it wouldn't work to define CSI simply as something that can't evolve, because that would produce a circular argument.

When did I define CSI as something that cannot evolve? Are you not aware of drug resistance in the mutation and hence evolution of certain organisms? Those organisms are certainly CSI.

Please understand the concept that the modern IDist holds before you attempt to debate it.

Evolution is a fact of science.

Date: 2012/11/19 14:21:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
*****Besides, recent experimental evidence shows that the formation of long chain amino acids is relatively easy.  Randomly forming a specific human (for example) protein is vastly improbable.  However, only creationists require that all proteins assemble from random amino acids.  It's a strawman argument.*****

Recent? I've known that since I was a kid. What you are referring to here (I think) is homochirality. And I'm afraid that stereochemistry is far from creationism, although you'll have to ask them as I really am not that hep on creationism.

Date: 2012/11/19 15:17:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,14:04)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,13:52)
Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.

I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

Is here: http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi.....#000000

BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.

The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."

Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"

Care to try again??

Date: 2012/11/19 16:04:01, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,15:47)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,15:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,14:04)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2012,13:52)
Now that Jerry has decided to post in this forum, he could pick up where his prior discussion of CSI was noted here.

Hello Wesley.

That was an item in 2004 between us...lol...

I'm glad to discuss it, but your original (actually co-authored) paper that begin it all is not posted, nor is my paper on Dembski's forum posted at that link......I highly doubt that anyone but you and I would even know what we were talking about.....

Your pals may not understand how to keep a website running, but I can assure you that my papers are still available. I just checked both links to my work, and they do deliver the goods.

I don't think anyone will have any difficulty seeing that you were dismissing things without understanding them in 2004, and nothing has changed for you in the interim, apparently.

Oh, I absolutely understood them. Your problem, if I recall...is that you failed to fully grasp the logic of Dembski.

I spent most of my paper pointing out "that's not what he meant." My paper: Answering: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

Is here: http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi.....#000000

BTW, to my respondants on this thread, I show how the UPB is arrived at mathematically in this paper as well.

The abstract reads: "Philosopher William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. Elsberry and Wilkins proposed that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational. They further posit in the abstract that if background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly and that Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design, neither posit substantiated in the paper. I will show this paper as not based on science or logic and blatantly erroneous, as peer reviewed herein, in its basal tenets."

Yet you did not show that: "if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational"

Care to try again??

I already responded to your misunderstandings years ago.

The ball is in your court.

Very well, if you want to continue an over 8-year-old debate, please start a new thread and I will oblige you.

I can't seem to do that or even respond to most threads in here.

Please do that and link me to it. I will post all previous papers up to this point and then respond to your last rebuttle.

It DOES seem pretty silly to me to continue this as I do not take these debates personally and have no desire to make you look bad...however, if that is what you want, link the way, my friend...

Date: 2012/11/19 16:37:34, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2012,16:03)
Interesting that the part you didn't do was in a previous comment.

Do you want to calculate or measure the CSI of an organism or teach me to do so and us compare the results?

You seem so ignorant in this subject (don't mean that as a slur just an observation as we are all ignorant in some subjects).

Why on earth would you want to calculate the CSI of an organism? Just a simple genome is lightyears over the 500 measly bits of information that make something CSI. Many proteins are as well...common sense should tell you that.

Look at the amount of information in the human genome:

Quote
The human genome contains the complete genetic information of the organism as DNA sequences stored in 23 chromosomes (22 autosomal chromosomes and one X or Y sex chromosome), structures that are organized from DNA and protein. A DNA molecule consists of two strands that form the iconic double-helix “twisted ladder”, whose backbone, which made of sugar and phosphate molecules, is connected by rungs of nitrogen-containing bases. DNA is composed of 4 different bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine ©, and Guanine (G).  These bases are always paired in such a way that Adenine connects to Thymine, and Cytosine connects to Guanine.  These pairings produce 4 different base pair possibilities: A-T, T-A, G-C, and C-G. The haploid human genome (containing only 1 copy of each chromosome) consists of roughly 3 billion of these base pairs grouped into 23 chromosomes. A human being inherits two sets of genomes (one from each parent), and thus two sets of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes, representing the diploid genome, which contains about 6×10^9 base pairs.

Comparing the genome to computer data storage
In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11).  Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair.  A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs.  In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!


http://bitesizebio.com/article....-genome

is 1.5 Gigabytes more than 500 bits? Then why would we want to go any further than this as you already have the answer before you start.

ANY organism will be over 500 bits.

Date: 2012/11/19 17:35:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2012,16:51)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,16:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2012,16:03)
Interesting that the part you didn't do was in a previous comment.

Do you want to calculate or measure the CSI of an organism or teach me to do so and us compare the results?

You seem so ignorant in this subject (don't mean that as a slur just an observation as we are all ignorant in some subjects).

Why on earth would you want to calculate the CSI of an organism? Just a simple genome is lightyears over the 500 measly bits of information that make something CSI. Many proteins are as well...common sense should tell you that.

Look at the amount of information in the human genome:

 
Quote
The human genome contains the complete genetic information of the organism as DNA sequences stored in 23 chromosomes (22 autosomal chromosomes and one X or Y sex chromosome), structures that are organized from DNA and protein. A DNA molecule consists of two strands that form the iconic double-helix “twisted ladder”, whose backbone, which made of sugar and phosphate molecules, is connected by rungs of nitrogen-containing bases. DNA is composed of 4 different bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine ©, and Guanine (G).  These bases are always paired in such a way that Adenine connects to Thymine, and Cytosine connects to Guanine.  These pairings produce 4 different base pair possibilities: A-T, T-A, G-C, and C-G. The haploid human genome (containing only 1 copy of each chromosome) consists of roughly 3 billion of these base pairs grouped into 23 chromosomes. A human being inherits two sets of genomes (one from each parent), and thus two sets of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes, representing the diploid genome, which contains about 6×10^9 base pairs.

Comparing the genome to computer data storage
In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a “byte” that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11).  Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair.  A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs.  In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!


http://bitesizebio.com/article....-genome

is 1.5 Gigabytes more than 500 bits? Then why would we want to go any further than this as you already have the answer before you start.

ANY organism will be over 500 bits.

OK.  If I am ignorant on the subject, it's because every creationist I've ever talked to has been utterly unable to explain or teach the concept.

Since any organism is over 500 bits... let's try this.

5093413647
5962916509
4066005562
8540770698
8342922442
0194220209
7331543188
7173101712
5811761471
3261216342
2525310538
4613627960
9767559584
8786679179
7022618236
5134707276
1505272783
6020313600
8013081724
2444671310
5268821392
0881048845
1181910939
0754282725
9802869949
3733118584
7969279971
8150134026
7987778049
5178595812
2668421641
8163467125
0645780953
5684243267
1401437548
9391680033
7856973231
7145812146
8632651141
7699167635
0557559516
8611985974
7805273622
9849541633
3279510329
7149754142
7096458973
6301485923
1880042518
4930165865


Is this CSI?  Yes/No  Why?

Ok, I wasn't being rude and you are not taking it that way...Good.

But are the numbers you posted CSI? No. Unless I'm missing something.....How are they even specified information at all?

Of course, I don't know what they represent but they just seem like a random listing of numbers to me at this point.

Have you read any of my or Dembski's writings using an archer to define specificity and calculating it?

It would seem germain to the subject should you want to learn that.

Date: 2012/11/20 10:02:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2012,18:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,17:35)
OK.  If I am ignorant on the subject, it's because every creationist I've ever talked to has been utterly unable to explain or teach the concept.

Since any organism is over 500 bits... let's try this.

5093413647
5962916509
4066005562
8540770698
8342922442
0194220209
7331543188
7173101712
5811761471
3261216342
2525310538
4613627960
9767559584
8786679179
7022618236
5134707276
1505272783
6020313600
8013081724
2444671310
5268821392
0881048845
1181910939
0754282725
9802869949
3733118584
7969279971
8150134026
7987778049
5178595812
2668421641
8163467125
0645780953
5684243267
1401437548
9391680033
7856973231
7145812146
8632651141
7699167635
0557559516
8611985974
7805273622
9849541633
3279510329
7149754142
7096458973
6301485923
1880042518
4930165865


Is this CSI?  Yes/No  Why?

Ok, I wasn't being rude and you are not taking it that way...Good.

But are the numbers you posted CSI? No. Unless I'm missing something.....How are they even specified information at all?

Of course, I don't know what they represent but they just seem like a random listing of numbers to me at this point.

Have you read any of my or Dembski's writings using an archer to define specificity and calculating it?

It would seem germain to the subject should you want to learn that.

Interesting.  Because if you had the correct algorithm you would find these number to be very, very specific.

In other words, you can't use CSI to tell the difference between a random series of numbers and a series of non-random numbers.

So, what's the point in CSI?  It doesn't mean anything.  It doesn't tell us anything unique or useful about the real world.  

You do realize that any amino acid chain longer than 250 AAs is, by your definition "CSI" and therefore requiring intelligence. Do you realize that AA chains of nearly that length have been developed in the lab using the random attachments that you deplore as not being capable of forming CSI.

While we're at it, can you explain the 500 bit limit?[/quote]
Let's start over with some VERY basic premises........

Here is a number: 53739901284746603....is it CSI?

NO!

It's just a number that doesn't represent anything at all...I just made it up so how is it even information? Information communicates something to the observer.

Numbers in themselves aren't information.....one would have to know what the numbers are calculating....what do they represent? Then one can begin to make sense of it all.

the number 10 doesn't really mean anything...10 what? 10 pebbles, 10 planets, 10 good looking ladies, 10 drinks I had of my favorite whiskey last night? I have to know for 10 to mean anything to me as these "number 10s" have quite different meanings as I process information about them.

So let's start with numbers representing things. I have a pile of 2 pebbles, another pile of 10 pebbles and another pile of 100 pebbles....so how big a pile of pebbles would I have to have before I can calculate CSI?

Well, it might be argued that the bigger piles are more complex because, if we are viewing a pebble as information, 100 bits of information is certainly larger than one one bit and the whole of the parts seem more complex than the sum of one unit that comprise them.

But the truth is, it doesn't matter if I accumulate a billion pebbles in a pile, even if that pile might, by sheer volume be more complex, there is no specificity involved with the pile, therefore a pile of pebbles can never be CSI.

So is a simple pebble information?

Yes. I can be walking down a path, see some pebble laying in it and record in my mind that there are pebbles present. In fact, all matter is information, energy is information because it is also matter.....Einstein taught us that E=MC^2, therefore E=M=I.

But it is specificity and the intelligence it involves that CSI hinges on.......So, let's look at specificity, how it calculates out and how intelligence comes into play with that concept.

I have an archer. I blindfold him and place him in the middle of a huge stadium and tell him to shoot an arrow into the wall. He draws an arrow and plugs it into the wall quite handily.

Am I surprised? Of course not. The wall is so large, it surrounds him, I would be surprised if he DIDN'T hit the wall.

Now I paint the wall into a checkerboard with black and white squares and tell him to hit a black square. Now his odds go down in accomplishing this.

In fact, there is a 50% chance he will and a 50% chance he won't. But he does. I'm still not surprised any more than I would be if I flipped a coin and it comes up heads.

Then I paint the checkboard into 4 colors, then 8, then 16....but wait a minute, the archer is STILL hitting the color I tell him to? The odds of him doing so are becoming so high against him doing it that I'm beginning to suspect something here.

So, on the enormous wall of that giant stadium, I draw a little one inch circle, spin the archer around a few times and tell him to try to hit the tiny circle. He nails it dead center.

OK, only an idiot whould not begin to suspect that intelligence is involved here. Maybe he can see through the blindfold, maybe someone has a walkie talkie and he has a tiny receiver in his ear......Maybe he has ESP..SOMETHING..I don't know....but the odds are so low of him hitting that circle that, if he does, intelligence HAS to be involved somewhere in there.

In fact, once those odds get to be more than 1:10^150 against him (the UPB is reached) it becomes mathematically impossible that he will accomplish the task without intelligence somewhere in there.

So, can you also see how specificity is calculated? With one color he had a 1:1 chance, with 2 a 1:2 chance, with 16 colors a 1:16 chance etc. all the way up to 1:10^150 where he would have no chance at all.

Another post will follow to clarify more.....thanks for your interest

Date: 2012/11/20 10:12:29, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
So, and I'm not sure why, but there are those on here repeatedly requesting that I calculate the CSI of an organism as if that is some big deal.

In fact, many, including myself have accomplished this many times.

Here is an excerpt from some of my writings in that area doing exactly that:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

Enjoy, my new friends.... :)

Date: 2012/11/20 10:16:49, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
I'm sorry, post before last did not post correctly and I see no way to edit it. My reply starts about 6 pararaphs into where you THINK it starts.

Date: 2012/11/20 10:24:58, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
You guys need to take a breather and read the posts...lol....everything you accuse me of NOT doing is right there in black and white...no need to link to anything, I posted it for you directly.....now, you need to directly attack the math I just threw your way...*wink*

Date: 2012/11/20 10:32:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,09:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.
Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,
  • Random garbage doesn't have any CSI
  • Meaningful language does have CSI
  • Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.
Character string A:
Code Sample
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

String B:
Code Sample
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

Hey Cubist:

It's correct...random garbage is not CSI...CSI must communicate.....

Language is not REALLY germain to CSI either unless we are somehow relating language to matter/energy....

And yes, we can distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into it's specificity....No specificity....no CSI...

The rest of that post pretty much shows a lack of understanding of the CSI concept......But you admit that up front and it's OK as I'm used to it......This will hopefully become clearer as we progress.

Date: 2012/11/20 11:07:02, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Thus far I have not received a single post that shows an understanding of the specificity in complex specified information.

If you don't grasp what the term means in its most simplistic usage, there will be way to discuss the subject intelligently.

Where is the specificity in a random number, or a random sequence of nucleotides or the random order of a deck of cards?

Almost every post I have received thus far shows no understanding of the concept to a level that can even be addressed intelligently.

Are there ANY on here who have ever actually studied the concept and rejected it out of science, math and logic rather than just poo-poo it because it makes them insecure in their religious beliefs?

I hope I haven't entered a cult hang-out here...*wink*

Date: 2012/11/20 11:26:51, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 20 2012,11:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:07)
Thus far I have not received a single post that shows an understanding of the specificity in complex specified information.

...

Almost every post I have received thus far shows no understanding of the concept to a level that can even be addressed intelligently.

That may well be the case, Jerry, but if it is, whose fault is it? If none of us "CSI Skeptics" can demonstrate a real understanding of this "specificity in complex specified information", perhaps it's because you proponents aren't doing a good job of actually defining and expressing it.

Do let us know when you have a definition that we simpletons can actually grasp. One, preferably, that adheres to the scientific method.

I just walked you through the analogy of the archer along with how specificity is calculated....how can you guys not grasp that?

In fact, it's just a take off of the same analogy the inventor of the term CSI used....

But on that, I didn't receive a single comment..LOL....

What is it you wish me to do, I've defined it precisely and showed the thread in very simplistic terms how to use it and what people do with it....It's a very simple concept using high school mathematics (or lower).

Date: 2012/11/20 11:28:57, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 20 2012,11:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:07)
Thus far I have not received a single post that shows an understanding of the specificity in complex specified information.

...

Almost every post I have received thus far shows no understanding of the concept to a level that can even be addressed intelligently.

That may well be the case, Jerry, but if it is, whose fault is it? If none of us "CSI Skeptics" can demonstrate a real understanding of this "specificity in complex specified information", perhaps it's because you proponents aren't doing a good job of actually defining and expressing it.

Do let us know when you have a definition that we simpletons can actually grasp. One, preferably, that adheres to the scientific method.

I just walked you through the analogy of the archer along with how specificity is calculated....how can you guys not grasp that?

In fact, it's just a take off of the same analogy the inventor of the term CSI used....

But on that, I didn't receive a single comment..LOL....

What is it you wish me to do, I've defined it precisely and showed the thread in very simplistic terms how to use it and what people do with it....It's a very simple concept using high school mathematics (or lower).

Date: 2012/11/20 11:55:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Are there any scientists in here other than Wesley? Thus far it seems, I'm only getting posts (with a couple exceptions, maybe) from religionists from whom I glean I'm offending by attempting to discuss thought with them.....

Never met so many religionists on what I thought was a science forum...oh well...

Date: 2012/11/20 13:03:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 20 2012,12:09)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:28)

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:07)
I just walked you through the analogy of the archer along with how specificity is calculated....how can you guys not grasp that?


The archer analogy is terrible! Why? Because it's erroneous. First, the archer analogy doesn't even offer a scenario in which intelligence is required, so it fails outright. But even as a rebuttal to evolution it's inane because it relies on the fallacy of large numbers and the failure to take "genetic memory" (heredity) into account. The fact is, successful biological compounds are remembered; the archer's successful hits are not. Bottom line, your concept thus far makes no sense because too much of it is erroneous.

 
Quote
What is it you wish me to do, I've defined it precisely and showed the thread in very simplistic terms how to use it and what people do with it....It's a very simple concept using high school mathematics (or lower).


You may think you've defined it precisely, but you are wholly mistaken on that count. Your analogies are fallacious and do not in fact reflect reality. To make matters worse, you've yet to provide any substantiation for the base claims - that you can actually calculate CSI. Thus far, I can only conclude that this "CSI" has no value to anything, never mind just science.

Well, at least you are responding with intelligence and civility........

1) The archer scenario shows the specificity of the information of arrows hitting a target. It was the FIRST analogy used, to my knowledge, to show the initiator's intentions when he proposed the concept of CSI.

Forget the complexity factor in the term....that's what you people seem hung up on...the way you are viewing complexity in the term: complex specified information is just muddling your understanding of the entire concept because it is the specificity that is calculated.

And can you get off the "rebuttle to evolution", genetic memory, biological compounds, the fact that some seem to think I'm calculating the return of Jesus or maybe that Moses wore sideburns? LOL...I never even mentioned any of that..I'm just attempting to get you guys to understand what the heck you are talking about on the basal level. Then maybe we can expand on it.

I also wonder what you are discussing in the other threads when you throw around these big words...I would wager you don't know what any of the other terms mean either.

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing out meaningless data...I gave you actual calculations...where are all those mathematicians that were crowding that guy in another post....LOL...I calculated CSI in an organism. To attempt to pretend I didn't is simply intellectual dishonesty although I will withhold judgement on the latter for another time..

Date: 2012/11/20 15:02:09, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=Robin,Nov. 20 2012,13:25][/quote]
Quote
You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.


There is NO assumptions and it readily demonstrates specificity in a manner that is easily calculated. As the archer's chances of hitting an assigned target decreases, specificity increases...that is what specificity IS.....I'm just trying to show what it is at this point as no one on here seems to know.

It DOESN'T say anything about specificity being required for anything and indeed specificity is not even present in some systems. I have never hinted otherwise.

In fact, I've yet to be presented anything by the posters in here as an example that contained specificity to consider to begin with...that's why I've reverted to some middle school level examples here...

Quote
No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.


I haven't MADE any claims....if you think I have, please link to them and I will clarify. I'm trying to get everyone on the same page as to what CSI even IS before we discuss it.  It's not calculations of Jesus coming, that you did or didn't magically morph from an ape, that Darwinsim is science or a crock or anything similar. It's just very simple statistics.

 
Quote
As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing
Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.


Well, in response to several accusations (out of ignorance, I suppose) I was challenged to show how one would go about calculating the CSI of living tissue and I simply posted some of my own writings:

"The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change."

Date: 2012/11/20 15:04:04, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 20 2012,13:41)
Quote
6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!


Ok, so...  those long stretches of repeats, those all count as individual bits, right?

What's the CSI of one gram of table salt?

You know, if you measured the chances of each particular phosphorus atom ending up in my DNA, you'd get a way bigger number, why not use that instead? Or the chances of my parents meeting?

There is NO specificity in a gram of table salts...you guys are just lost.....*grin*

Date: 2012/11/20 15:11:17, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,14:16)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:32)
       
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,09:15)
         
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.
Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,
  • Random garbage doesn't have any CSI
  • Meaningful language does have CSI
  • Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.
Character string A:
Code Sample
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

String B:
Code Sample
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

Hey Cubist:

It's correct...random garbage is not CSI...CSI must communicate.....

Language is not REALLY germain to CSI either unless we are somehow relating language to matter/energy....

Hold it.
Language is "not REALLY germain" to something that, according to you, "must communicate"? How in the name of Klono's curving carballoy claws can language NOT be "germain" to anything for which "communication" is necessary?
Do you actually read any of the verbiage you type, Jerry?

   
Quote
And yes, we can distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into it's specificity....No specificity....no CSI...

Yes, and one of those two strings is very specific indeed, being that it's an encrypted version of a particular English text. So according to this "honing into its specificity" schtick, yes, a CSI-detecting protocol should be able to distinguish between encrypted text and random garbage.
So. Since you assert that you are, indeed, able to "distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity", would you care to actually, like, you know, distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity? By, let us say, identifying which of two apparently-random strings is, in fact, not random at all, but, rather, is encrypted text?

   
Quote
The rest of that post pretty much shows a lack of understanding of the CSI concept... But you admit that up front and it's OK as I'm used to it......This will hopefully become clearer as we progress.

Since language is, apparently, "not REALLY germain" to this CSI thingie that "must communicate"… and since you didn't even pretend to use this CSI thingie to determine which of the two strings was the encrypted text… I strongly doubt that further discussion will arrive at any outcome even vaguely reminiscent of 'clearer'. Except perhaps in the sense that it will become increasingly more clear that you ain't got nothin' but bullshit…

OK stop.........Do you really think that probability statistics apply to words we use? How would one go about calculating this? There is NO specificity in a string of words.......how would the use of previous words dictate the probable origin or use of future ones?

CSI, as I have previously pointed out, deals with matter/energy and its information content....What got you off into languages?

Date: 2012/11/20 15:34:12, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=RumraketR,Nov. 20 2012,14:32][/quote]
Quote
Hello everyone, I've been a lurker here for a few years now and I just have to respond because this could be historical stuff.


Welcome...I do tend to bring em out of the back bleachers...*wink*

Quote
I want to make sure I understand you correctly here, Jerry Don Bauer, because according to what I have quoted, you seem to be saying that the quantity of information in a string of symbols is equal to the length of the string divided by the number of possible symbols at each locus? As in the information content is measured in bits and is thus proportional to the length of the sequence?


No...not quite right. While I'm comfortable discussing information theory and often do (and we may get there), I haven't really up to this point other than a brief mention of bits courtesy of Claude Shannon.

We are discussing Complex Specified Information and what makes certain information complex, or not and/or specified or not.

This has little to do with the length of anything or the amount of loci it harbors.

Quote
You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?


You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....

That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

Date: 2012/11/20 15:51:50, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 20 2012,15:43)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,13:04)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 20 2012,13:41)
 
Quote
6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!


Ok, so...  those long stretches of repeats, those all count as individual bits, right?

What's the CSI of one gram of table salt?

You know, if you measured the chances of each particular phosphorus atom ending up in my DNA, you'd get a way bigger number, why not use that instead? Or the chances of my parents meeting?

There is NO specificity in a gram of table salts...you guys are just lost.....*grin*

 
Quote
CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.


Then it should be easy for you to show that one gram of salt does not meet this criterion.

To show that, you must know the concentration of the original chemicals, ambient temperature, energy of reaction, dilution, and so on.

Clearly, not a realistic expectation.

Then you have to know the same conditions for whatever it is that you claim has CSI.

Again, clearly not a realistic expectation.

So we're back to "Wow, that sure looks complicated, must be designed."

What on earth are you talking about....LOL

A pile of salt is not CSI no matter what you do to it....

Can you explain how this has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about?

Date: 2012/11/20 16:22:49, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2012,16:02)
Jerry, let me tell you a story.

I'm doing some work right now and one of the things I had to do was compute the escape velocity for the asteroid Vesta4.  So, I got the mean radius and the approximate mass and ended up with an escape velocity of 363 and change m/s.  I thought, that's way to high, I must have made a mistake.

I figured and a looked up G and verified it.  I verified the equation I was using.  I got some other people to check my math and they agreed with me.  

We fussed on this for three days.

Then, I got a bright idea.  I looked up the escape velocity for Vesta.  Amazingly, NASA recently sent a mission there.  Turns out, the math was right... it was my thinking that was wrong.

The moral of the story is that thinking can be wrong.  So, why don't you give us the formulas so we can actually do the math.

Oh wait, you can't do that because we all know IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Again...A post that shows you are simply lost in this discussion...the formulas to what? We are not dealing with anything that uses formulas.

And WHAT doesn't exist, probablility mathematics? If you think this you might consider another vocation....

Date: 2012/11/21 13:39:14, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Thank you, Dr. Wesley.

Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.

Date: 2012/11/25 10:04:01, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.

You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] http://www.theism.net/article....le....2
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2012/11/25 10:55:40, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,10:51)
Simple discussion.

Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.

End of discussion.

Next thread.

Care to expand and explain, point by point, why this is the case?

Date: 2012/11/25 11:24:57, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

Quote
It already is taught that way.


No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

Quote
Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.


You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

Quote
Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.


Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

Quote
Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.


Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

Quote
The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.


Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

Quote
More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.


Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

Quote
Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'


No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

Quote
Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.


You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*

Date: 2012/11/25 17:12:06, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2012,12:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense.  Boring.

Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.

Date: 2012/11/26 09:19:30, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 25 2012,17:33)
Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?

Hello Kattarina:

If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

In fact, they STAY the way they initially appeared in the record until they become extinct, never evolving into anything else.

A good example might be a find of the following fossils: Species A -----> transition 1 -----> transition 2 -----> transition 3 -----> New species B.

There ARE a few examples that Darwinists point to and proclaim as transitions, yet there are NONE that are not controversial in that this could just be other similar species, etc. And they can't even seem to agree themselves that these are transitions.

This is a major flaw in Darwinistic thought that no one has yet to convincingly explain.

Date: 2012/11/26 09:27:25, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Date: 2012/11/26 09:31:38, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Date: 2012/11/26 09:33:16, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,23:26)
Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

Right....I understand that you cannot address the discussion rationally......It's OK.

Date: 2012/11/26 10:01:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 26 2012,02:39][/quote]
Quote
just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".


No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

Quote
(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?


My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

Quote
The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of  "God", eh?


No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

It's a fairytale for grownups.

Date: 2012/11/26 10:36:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,07:36)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

Okay let me give a try:

 
Quote
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.


No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

 
Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.


No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

 
Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?


That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

 
Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.


You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

 
Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.


Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

 
Quote
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?


ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

 
Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.


How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

Quote
No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.


On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*



Quote
No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!


No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.


Quote
That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.


If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.

But yes, ID requires a designer,  but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.

Quote
You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.


There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.

However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.

 
Quote
Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.


It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.

Quote
ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.


This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.

And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.

Quote
How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".


I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....

But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))

Date: 2012/11/26 10:40:41, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.

Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?

Date: 2012/11/26 11:05:39, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:15)
Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone.  They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."  

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere,  change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

Date: 2012/11/26 11:17:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

Date: 2012/11/26 11:20:52, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,10:01][/quote]
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

Date: 2012/11/26 11:28:42, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,10:30)

Quote

Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet.  Perhaps you can explain this concept to them.  Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.


No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.

Quote
Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?


You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.

Date: 2012/11/26 13:45:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

 
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html

Corrected the link

Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.

Date: 2012/11/26 14:47:56, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 25 2012,10:04]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

Date: 2012/11/26 15:26:16, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

Date: 2012/11/26 15:27:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,15:13)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,14:47]
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.

No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful

Date: 2012/11/26 15:47:30, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'

This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable.

With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.

As Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had
somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not!
Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce.

Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]

English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory; and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.

Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.

Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? There are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.

Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science....lit.png


Watch a video of the double slit experiments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....JcZi_oY


Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out.

Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.

Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light.

If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.

Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle!

Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?

Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?

If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.

Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.

These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.

With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state.

Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.

John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."


Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?


Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent (and one of my favorite) ID theorists. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics are well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.


My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above.


This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


FURTHER READING:
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, Bantam New Age Books, 1984.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2)

Date: 2012/11/26 16:19:20, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)

Quote
1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?


I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

Quote
2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?


No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

Quote
Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.


So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL

Quote
Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.


No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.  

Quote
Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.


And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

You might look up evolution of whales.

Date: 2012/11/26 16:55:38, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2012,16:03)
I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.

Date: 2012/11/27 09:57:11, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
   
Quote
I'm mean to idiots.


Yes, many posters on the Web seem hate filled for anyone in the human race that doesn't agree with them intellectually, but it's OK, I'm used to it. I'm in the full-time ministry to homeless people on the streets--in a major U.S. city.....druggies......gangbangers.........people that hate society....no big deal to me, It's sad that these people never have a sunshiny day, but I suppose it's very much a part of modern society and there's little I can do about it.

   
Quote
Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions.  Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.


I actually call it going off topic. I have yet to have ANYONE seriously address much of anything I've posted. Debate if you wish, but I don't answer what you believe to be clever riddles, off-topic challenges or silly questions not at all related to anything posted.

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

The deal is......you must not understand CSI in its basics as common sense should tell you that if ONE protein is CSI, then the billions that comprise you when considered together in the same system would be astronomical.....Please go back and read the other thread in detail.....I shouldn't HAVE to point out the obvious to you.


   
Quote
But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway.  If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do).  Does the designer have any limits?  If yes, why? How do you know?  If not, why?  How do you know?  Can the designer create anything?  How do you know?  


You completely miss the point. The subject is identification of a given designer. Why is that important when the only question we are pondering is if something is, or is not designed. Did it occur naturally or was it designed?

Your logic here is similar to taking your final in college algebra and becoming so confused that you cannot solve any problems because you cannot remember the name of the person who wrote the textbook. It's just Silly and illogical.

Also....I'm learning that you do not read the posts.....How did you MISS that long post above where I IDENTIFY the designer in detail.....

I'm not one to shy away from the details of this stuff, yet you act like I never address it and just come back with the same, tired questions again.

But......I haven't given up on you....*wink*

Date: 2012/11/27 10:01:59, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,21:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:47)
retarded snip

hey who knew this was a cut and paster, right?  well if you google

 
Quote
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'  


you can find a Jerry Don thread, preceded by Glenn Morton* calling good old Jerry Don a pantheist and not a True Christian™

i had to laugh at someone typing this out and being surrious bout it

 
Quote
June 5th 2005, 08:24 PM -snip-
I get lost in the math in there myself (unless coached). So let me see if I can cut to the chase. Do you agree that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) is science? If so, you must also agree that it takes an observer to collapse the wave function. Do you agree with his original 1920s paper which basically started quantum mechanics?


Obviously it does not, nor is that what the word "pantheism" implies. When you say things like: "This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is," it's quite obvious that you're explicitly denying that this proves a specific God-name. (As a side note, Jerry, generally speaking there is no specific "god of pantheism.")

But the observer is something is it not? If it wasn't, everything you interact with would be waves. The keyboard you are typing on right now would be waves and your hand would just go through it and hit the desk below it. How do you explain all the double slit experiments that show experimentally it takes an observer to collapse the wave function? I'm not letting you past this until you address it.


However, when you simultaneously assert that quantum particles may be aware of being observed, and assert a "Prime Observer," you are asserting functional pantheism, where all quantum particles partake of the nature of the "Prime Observer."

But I do not just aimlessly assert this. I quote scientific experiments and Tipler's mathematical physics which show an observer. Yet you just seem to want to brush all this off as if it were ME that invented this stuff. Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm just quoting some (very well known) scientists here. :wink:


Now, don't get me wrong, Jerry--I'm a Wiccan, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. I've been asserting for years that all of Creation partakes of the nature of the Creator, and frankly if science does determine that quantum particles are somehow aware of being observed, I'm gonna make the biggest "I told you so" post you've ever seen. But please do not take it as an attack if I call a spade a spade.

Well, I've just offered you experimental evidence that it does. You have yet to address any of the science I've posted. Why? Perhaps the Wiccan may find a new mantra here? You never know. :smile:


>mfw someone is a wiccan near me





* aint it

Haven't read that thread, but just for the record, I am not a Pantheist or Panentheist........

Date: 2012/11/27 10:08:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,16:31][/quote]
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Date: 2012/11/27 10:58:44, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=Lou FCD,Nov. 27 2012,09:53][/quote]
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

Date: 2012/11/27 11:08:21, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,10:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

   
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

Date: 2012/11/27 11:18:13, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,10:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)
As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote
If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.


is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with.   And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify.  Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212721

Date: 2012/11/27 11:22:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

Date: 2012/11/27 11:45:50, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:30)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,10:56)
 
Quote
This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


This is your "Detailed" description of the designer?  Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now.  You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer.  Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists.  You don't use words the same way that scientists do.  We're scientists around here.  Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus".  So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:
1) name/designation
2) type/species
3) age/lifespan
4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical
5) Where I can find or observe it
6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

LOL.....How you could have read that entire post and not understood that quantum mechanics is the designer is beyond me.

So let's get specific with you if you insist:

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

It has existed ever since there have been particles in the universe

4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical

You might want to read Feynman on QM how QM interacts with the physical world is difficult for one to understand since QM IS the world.

5) Where I can find or observe it

I would suggest experimentally. Double slit or delayed choice experiments are always fun.

6) How you know all this stuff

Stuff seeps into my mind......Kind of like a mental osmosis....:))

Date: 2012/11/27 13:06:42, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,12:09)
Mr Bauer, how about substituting your nebulous concept of QM with "natural laws" being the motor? It would make sense.

If, however, you think QM is a sentient being, making choices about what to implement how and when, then you better try again defining it.

That was rather an astute insight, IMHO.....

The key maybe to understanding the difference is to hone into an intelligence aspect of this particular mantra I'm on.

If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

Also, the math of Frank Tipler at Toulane U is just as important as he calculates an intelligence within QM using a different angle. Here we have science....that's mathematics and SCIENCE, not theology or metaphysics suggesting to us that there may be a guiding intelligence within the natural process.

So, if you think that natural processes designed homo sapiens and I think that this may be true but that when we REALLY analyse the processes, we find intelligence within that design, the entire musing demands an obvious question for all of us then to answer:

How far are we NOW off from jointly postulating that humankind is here as a result of Intelligent Design?

Date: 2012/11/27 16:00:07, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,14:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,09:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

 
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Evolution is a side effect of reproduction.

Ahhhh...OK....I'll be careful next time I reproduce.....an apeoid might pop out...lol

Date: 2012/11/27 17:00:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,16:49)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2012,09:53)

 
Quote
orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.


Wow, what cruel and primitive teachers you must have to treat you like that. :)))

So, if the definition of evolution is NOT: the change in the gene pool of a population over time.......then what is it?

From the University or Oregon:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js........09.html

Which is not what you posted.

The fact that you don't see the difference is all the evidence needed that you haven't got a clue.

I've only posted that EXACT same definition about 15 times now. Please read the posts. I assumed you were......

Date: 2012/11/28 11:15:09, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Gee...an intelligent post in here? Rare. I'll jump on it:

 
Quote
In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   
Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.


Thanks for catching that......You're absolutely right and my meaning  wasn't clear at all..If I could edit my post I would delete that one line and go to the next...My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system. Good job...LOL

This is a system consisting of coins, however, it could be virtually ANY system, a system of proteins that comprise living tissue such as a cell, flagellum, genome or an entire organism......the mathematical methodology would not change. however, of course, the numbers of possible components would. For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.


 
Quote
I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?


Of course not. Your logic is faulty here (or maybe you're playing mind games with me (which is OK because I do this all the time.....) but another purpose for my lengthy diatribe leading up to final 100 coin flip is to show that regardless of how many coins were previously flipped, the odds of any ONE coin coming up heads or tails is always 50/50.

People often become confused by systems......that is very important in understanding ID (and also thermodynamics if we later go there).

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.



       
Quote
If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…


I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We have added intelligence into the system. A Conscious Observer selects the desired outcome of each coin throw in order to construct (create) an ultimate  system that it desires to exist.

Welcome to Intelligent Design....*wink*

 
Quote
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.


That's not correct.....don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician and I named a few others including Borel. If you are going to claim otherwise, I need names.

After looking, I no longer have the Brewster/Morris reference on this computer.....Just disregard that and go with Borel/Dembski...That should cause you no grief.

 
Quote
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.


This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.


       
Quote

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…


I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?

If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......italium

And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

I also don't recall you "calling" me on anything in debate where I actually conceded a point to you...do I know you from somewhere else?

Date: 2012/11/28 14:29:12, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

Date: 2012/11/28 16:38:26, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 28 2012,15:23][/quote]
Quote

This is wrong.


OK...LOL....This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

 
Quote

Expand our minds beyond what science knows to be correct?  Wouldn't that be... well... wrong?


It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

 
Quote
It's SELECTION.  When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.  

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development.  What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population?  The answer is zero.


OK....and....what does this have to do with probability mathematics. Isn't there another fetus somewhere that may not abort and a detrimental mutation becomes fixed into the population? What is your point with this?


Quote

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy.  This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker.  Ten thousand people come to play poker.  But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card.  After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table.  For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated.  But the players get to stay.  Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking.  One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card.  The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card.  Now, another card is dealt.  The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers.  This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out.  This time, every other player selects from three cards.  Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck.  [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards.  About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand.  Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player.  The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost.  The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home.  Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said.  However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community.  You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair.  One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes.  Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three.  It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes).  But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been.  Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5.  He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair.  Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.  

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible.  It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless.  Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless.  It's the wrong question.


I couldn't disagree more that this has anything to do with natural selection or what I have discussed which is rather sad because it looks like you put a lot of work into it. :)

OF COURSE...the winning hands will eventually win the poker tournament?????

Are you trying to calculate the probabilities of someone winning? Perhaps you could list the points I'm missing....I'm trying here..lol

Is there some paramount point therein that I simply missed?

Date: 2012/11/28 16:44:06, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,15:26)
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?

No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Date: 2012/11/28 16:48:38, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.

 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     
Quote

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw

Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.

Date: 2012/11/28 17:14:13, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,16:54)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.

Date: 2012/11/29 09:06:34, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote

I thought you studied this stuff.


Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

Quote
So, now that's out of the way...


No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

Quote
back to amino acids.  Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff.  The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal.  This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff.  If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.


Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*

Date: 2012/11/29 09:31:52, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=raguel,Nov. 28 2012,18:41][/quote]
 
Quote
Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.


They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse.....ntiomer

The rest is simply irrelevant. If you think it is relevant then hone in on your argument with some references and I'll look at it.

and remember that a racemic solution is ALWAYS in equilibrium.

   
Quote
..... as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).


You have refered twice now to the addition of a catalyst. A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture? (also some references, please)

Also, if someone added this catalyst to the racemic mixture, isn't this intelligent design?  :)

Date: 2012/11/29 12:18:53, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote
OK.  Let me say this very  plainly because you have no idea what's going on.


Well alrighty then.. :)

 
Quote
1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality.  The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted.  Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong.  Done.  Read the evidence.  I know you won't, because you really don't care.


OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

 
Quote
You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.


You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

 
Quote
Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.


What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

Quote
BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge.  Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?


Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

 
Quote
As far as the "calculation" of CSI.  You aren't calculating anything of the kind.  You are only calculating the probability of random events happening.  That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%.  Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).


WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

 
Quote
Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences.  They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?


For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs.....  ;)

Date: 2012/11/29 15:30:37, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Thank you for the well thought out posts.

     
Quote
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?


Getting to know you a bit in a few posts I'm not really surprised you honed right in on this (and I THINK I know you from somewhere in the past but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet..lol).

HERE is the 60 dollar question and one that deserves much thought. In fact, if there is a weakness in the entire concept of origins probability mathematics, CSIs, UPBs and the whole ball of wax it is right here. Because if this--what seems like a logical point--cannot be answered with logic, then a logical person will have to throw it all out the window and I will be the first in line to do exactly that.

Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

     
Quote
True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.

The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).


Yes, I'm familiar with this formula....the math is good. Just remember that I WAS talking about a single flip (in series, of course) of 100 coins. But I'll let you play with this......

The glaring problem is that p=0..... :)

(1 - p)^N, 1-0=1 and therefore 1^N= 1 and we are right back where we started..lol

     
Quote
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it.


It is simply probability mathematics (or can be information theory considering Shannon entropy and the like if we care to go that direction) and it's a biggie (just one of them, but a biggie) in Intelligent Design thought. And I'm sorry because this is what I thought you were debating......  

     
Quote
The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.


Yes, you were. Just remember it doesn't really have to happen in a single stroke. It can be one event and yet take several strokes to complete. As example, if my event is to flip a 100 coins unit, then it will take 100 'strokes' to get there.

So, what does that mean to anyone in the origins debate? CSI is used to calculate the probability of living tissue, say...DNA, a flagellum--an organism...etc. having formed randomly...by chance.....or was it necessarily designed by intelligence. Many times that calculation will tell us that there is NO chance it could have formed randomly. There must be another answer to explain its existence.

If we look at an organism, no one on either side claims that it formed all at once; but over time and utilizing several, sometimes millions of strokes.

     
Quote

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.


The problem is that you never really demonstrate anything. You come up with math etc.--whatever--as you did above to 'demonstrate' something, it's shown to be false usually as quickly as I did above, and you science deniers then run off whooping and hollering forever... proclaming with the ferver of a Pentecostal preacher that 'so and so' has been refuted when the only place that this happened was somewhere deep within the abysses of an illogical mind.

     
Quote
how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?


I don't have an abiogenesis scenario.....abiogenesis is spontaneous generation...you know, the fairy tale for grown ups that physicist Francesco Redi experimentally showed to be a crock in the 1600s? --Rotting hay birthing mice??--living critters poofing out of hot vents in the ocean?--Windows 7 magically morphing out of a dead rock?--

I have embraced Intelligent Design.

     
Quote
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?


Take 10 deep breaths.....that sometimes helps....You asked me to give you the reference to those statisticians.....I replied that I do not have that reference anymore at least not on this computer, therefore I withdrew the posit....but I simply reminded you that Dembski HIMSELF is a mathematician...You WERE looking to go into the argument from authority falacy, were you not?

     
Quote
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud.


You admit that you do not even know what CSI is......therefore you cannot be that knowlegeable of Dembski's work...but you have heard that he violates your religious beliefs with his writings, therefore he is a fraud...Right?

     
Quote
feel free to continue screwing up!


Thank you.. :) And you may feel free to continue to put out irrational math and faulty logic.


     
Quote
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.


LOL...You are a little ray of logical sunshine. It doesn't dawn on you that SOME card is going to come up? If you deal another card SOME card has to come up? There are no odds there by ANY stretch of the imagination. If you deal a card, one is going to come up.

So a King came up...big deal a Jack could have and you would have figured the same odds for that....or a 6, or an Ace...or whatever.......There is a 100% chance that a card is going to come up when you deal one...

Therefore your entire analogy goes out the window.

     
Quote
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?


Of course it's one particular sequence.....you either have a sequence or you don't. So what are the odds of having a sequence if I throw a deck of cards against the wall? 100%....

There are no probabilities here in the least.....Now, if you want to sit down, write out a sequence of cards, then begin to throw the deck until that sequence comes up, you climb into the aura of probabilities...in fact, you could throw for a million years and it would never happen......


       
Quote
Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!;) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting
 

I need not lay out a model for abiogenesis to conclude that the event is impossible using the very math that you agree with. The details are self evident to anyone with common sense.

LOL...It's really silly to even ponder laying out a model for something that did NOT happen.

How you failed to see that I have already (and mathematically so) given the details of such an absurd spontaneous generation event occurring is beyond me, but here it is again:

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

     
Quote
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?


No particular reason other than it obviously seems easier to work with than an elephant.


         
Quote
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.


I'm really just trying to understand you. LOL...why is ANYTHING you just wrote in that paragraph germain to the conversation.....Maybe you like to type....I dunno... :)

Date: 2012/11/29 16:25:40, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=raguel,Nov. 29 2012,15:21][/quote]
Quote
So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.  :D


No, I don't claim to be a scientist in any capacity if you care to look at qualifications. I consider a scientist to be at the masters level or above and I have only studied science at the undergrad level. I am in fact, in a ministry to societally mal-treated poor people as my vocation.

But you seem present rather to assess me than the argument......

I understand that there would be around 20 or so different amino acids in the mixture. and the mixture is racemic.....not ALL mirror images of one another. I think you are being perhaps intentionally obtuse???

Quote
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.


Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

       
Quote


Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Here's an example from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._note-3


Man...are you ever overcomplicating this :)
I really don't care when or how or why the enantiomers formed, or the "reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers."

I thought you stated that one could add a catalyst that would bring a racemized solution into one of homochirality. No? That's what I thought your reply would entail.

All that matters in the gedankin is dextrorotatory ("+" forms) and levorotatory ("-" forms) -- One enantiomer can form proteins that can support life and the other cannot.

That's all that one need consider in order to employ the analogy.

Date: 2012/11/29 17:07:53, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 29 2012,12:53][/quote]
Quote
Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.  

Feel free to ignore them.  But they show that your claim is wrong.  Note that it's not one paper, but many.  


I'll ignore them until you bring some kind of argument using them as references. You're surely not new to debate. It is not my job to go out and research papers to support YOUR argument.

Put an argument in your own words, then quote and link the papers. That's how it works.


Quote
If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science.  Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.


No, lol...it is you debating against established science...particularly, chemical equilibrium in a racemic solution. That is so elementary that were I discussing this with a scientist, it would be a given.

Quote
Let me ask this very plainly.  

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?


Yes it is. Please note that I did NOT say designed by WHAT. it could be designed by a computer, DNA replication, mathematicians, but it was designed by SOMETHING.

Quote
Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?


I have no idea..I don't even remember what white noise is..lol.

Date: 2012/11/29 17:09:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,11:32)
Quote
They ARE mirror images.......



Quote
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).

Let me guess....this post is Zen?  :p

Date: 2012/11/29 17:14:23, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 29 2012,17:05)
jerry, you're nothing but an arrogant, IDiotic, snake-oil salesman.

:)  :p  :D    I'm sorry, I have friends reading in and emailing me snickers...just wanted a bump on this one......

Date: 2012/11/30 13:07:49, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
I'll get to it......*wink* Duty calls for now........

Date: 2012/12/02 09:23:54, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 29 2012,21:40][/quote]
Quote

Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF


At cursory glance I would have to say that I don't really understand it, perhaps because I haven't studied the terms in details.

As example HOW is the behavior of matter a starting point (what behavior are we discussing..QM???..rocks behave fine as rocks just sitting there doing nothing). How does this turn into molecular intelligence? Sounds a little vague or arbitrary???? Just MHO but I certainly encourage thought and exploration into this kind of philosophy and I try to keep an open mind.

The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Instead what we see is obvious saltation....the almost (relatively speaking, of course) sudden appearance of all kinds of new organisms with no evolutionary history leading up to this appearance and this is noted by several events in the record.

This bothers them. It bothered Darwin, it bothered Eldridge and Gould (a silly punk eek hypothesis to explain saltation was the result),  but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??

Of course not because this is not science, it is a secular humanistic religion and you can show these people all the evidence you care to that would support an intelligent designer and they will laugh it off and redicule you because it violates their religious beliefs.

So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?

We will never know because we were not there. But we don't need to hypothesize life morphing from hot ocean vents, birds spewing out dinoaurs or whales magically poofing out legs and crawling out on land to star in an Arnold Swartzenegger movie like the residents in here do every day to get a "theory" of evolution. The public will never buy it (as surveys already show most do not) and it will eventually go away to join the realms of phrenology, water witching and a flat earth.

So, let's cut to the chase of simplicity....What is so hard to envision about a designer creating tissue? There you have the simplicity. We do it every day somewhere in a lab...Ocaam's Razor says run with it>>>>>

Quote
Personally, I do not see the “Creator” being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to “create” life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist.  An always was, and always will be, sort of thing.


If quantum mechanics is the Creator, then it is not human and there could be no IQ test to measure that intelligence from a human perspective.

But it isn't true that life begins knowing nothing at all. Relating this to humans, DNA provides intelligence. A newborn baby knows little, but it is preprogrammed to cry for water and suckle a breast. Birds do not have to train to migrate where they need to be. Seeds receive no instructions to begin laying down roots......

Quote
One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting “ID is not science” and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge.


But we have to be careful about banterring this "theory" concept around or we will be as bad as the Darwinists are on this.

The scientific method dictates that we begin at the hypothesis level. That hypothesis is then subjected to empirical experimentation, if the hypothesis holds up and other scientists can reproduce those experiments, it goes to the theory level.

What experimental evidence do we have that man morphed from an ape-like critter, that whales crawled out of the oceans to form land mammals.....that birds, indeed gave rise to dinosaurs? NONE.

And there is no way any of this could ever be falsified, therefore, there is no such thing in reality as a "theory of evolution" except in the minds of some.

The truth is, there is also NO general theory of ID that has been through the scientific method to show itself a theory...certainly not one that sums up the overall concept.

Quote
The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.


Religion...for religion's sake....sucks. I keep it simple....

1) Can I find anything in science that suggests there is something else of intelligence out there? Yes, I can.
2) Can I find a spiritual side of me? Yup, there is something inside of me that is non-mind.
3) Can I find a higher power? Absolutely.....Anyone can....that higher power may be a higher you.....or a majestic megaverse where QM controls all--or something else.

It then can all then come together and we can attempt to ascertain the qualities of that 'other' dimension of life we all interact with.....

Lighting candles, counting beads, holy water and prayer cloths are constructs of man. And Genesis is exactly what it is....history written by man who understood little about  the universe around him from a scientific perspective....

Some seem to think that Moses should have begun with a quantum singularity in the blackhole of another universe, described the big bang with it's inflationary theory and ended with Boltzmann's math on particle thermodynamics....it's laughable........

Quote
But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!


Thanks...but I would disagree with this: "Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined."

It can be determined through physics experiments that energy will act as a wave or a particle (wave or solid) depending upon whether there is, or is not an intelligent observer in the system.

Yet, we experience both in the real world....We need waves to come from energy when we turn on a light switch and we need our laptop to be a solid when we pick it up to use it.....

What intelligent observer is CAUSING this? What intelligent observer is causing the reality around us to be, indeed, real?

Find this, and you will have found God.

Date: 2012/12/02 09:44:26, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

Date: 2012/12/02 10:36:56, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,09:27)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2012,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,21:32)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

I have to revise this slightly.

Is a protein that has a CSI of 1/(2.2E66) designed or not?

Come on Jerry, I'm serious.  This is important.

1) You waffle between the 10^50 and 10^150 value.
2) You say it is not designed.

Those are really the only two choices.  Well, you'll probably choose not to answer, which I totally understand.

Hi Jerry.  Can you answer?

I'm not positive why you haven't read (or maybe you don't comprehend, which is OK) what I have stated already on this.........Borel's UPB was the starting point, but the accepted UPB in ID is now Dembski's which is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.....that works out to 500 bits of information....

Just convert your math accordingly...is it over 500 bits? It is designed......

Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS.

Ah, the old goal post shift.

We spent 4 pages arguing about the calculation of probability, now it's become bits of information.

OK, so how do you determine the bits of information in a protein? This is an interesting question, because not the following.

If you use amino acids.  There's 20 amino acids that are commonly used in proteins.  Therefore you need a minimum of 5 bits per amino acid.  So a protein that is 100 amino acids long is designed.  Unfortunately, this is manifestly untrue as scientists have put amino acids in a chamber and gotten proteins longer than 100 amino acids... just in the way you say is impossible.

However, that's beside the point.  No, the point is that if you consider the DNA in which the amino acid came from, you need 2 bits for each nucleotide.  So, you can have 250 nucleotides, which, when divided by 3 gives us a maximum protein length of 83 amino acids.

So which is it?  Is the maximum length of a non-designed protein 83 amino acids or 100 amino acids (hint, it's neither).

As a last comment, I love the way you waffle on the last bit.

"Is it UNDER 500 bits? Design cannot be determined.......IOW, it may or may not be designed, but I don't have the information to determine that it IS."

So, you have no idea what the designer does or does not do either.

It's a good thing that no modern proteins are randomly assembled isn't it?

I'm going to start ignoring your posts unfortunately, because you simply are NOT willing to read....or you do not understand what I post....I'm not sure which.

I have ALWAYS stated that 10^150 or 500 bits is the UPB......they are mathematically the SAME THING...if you don't understand this simple math, then you are way above your level of education in this discussion and I don't mean that as a cut to you personally. It's just a fact.

If you think you are detecting waffling, then I fear I must point out that you are probably just lost.

Now, I addressed CSI in detail......we have now moved on....care to join us?

Date: 2012/12/02 11:01:37, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 02 2012,10:53][/quote]
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

Date: 2012/12/02 12:50:58, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,11:26)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,11:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,10:53)

   
Quote
I'll just remind you that a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long.  

I'm just asking a question.  Which is it?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein?


Gee...really? I had NO IDEA that "a protein that is 83 AA long is not equal to a protein that is 100 AA long."  :0 :)

And I guess I use the instructions unless I'm eating the protein.......New proteins do come with an owner's manual like a new vacume cleaner does, don't they??

Why can't you just answer the question...

what method do you use?  Do you use the actual protein or the instructions for the protein in the DNA?

eta:
But you are right about one thing.  We've already established that the entire concept of CSI as promoted by you and other IDists is fundamentally flawed (in no fewer than three ways), so right now, I'm just seeing how far you will go to avoid answering a question.

If you don't even understand what method I'm using, how do you know it's wrong....lol....:)

Date: 2012/12/02 13:30:37, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18)

It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL

Look:

Quote
1) false dichotomy (designed or random)


This is a question? How would I ever answer it....it doesn't even contain a verb and a noun...lol

Quote
2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity


Nor is this a sentence or a question....If it's you accusing ME of assuming this, then you are simply ignorant of the laws of chemistry (chemical equilibrium)and I do not have the time to educate you.


Quote
3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution.


And here's another nonsequetur......NO ONE is assuming that all modern proteins develope from random collections of amino acids. If this were true, there would be no 'modern' (whatever that is) proteins.....lol

Now you have gotten enough attention on this thread...go ahead and post away until you are blue in the face....

Date: 2012/12/02 13:54:47, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=raguel,Dec. 02 2012,13:29][/quote]

I have already shown my work....why must I keep reposting and reposting this stuff.....I KNOW I did that one at least 3 times now....lol. You seem another one that simply wants to pretend I did not.

 
Quote


ME: But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

YOUR RESPONSE: LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:


You ignored my reply to you, then seem to want to go on to something else.....You are NOT going to expand on that point because you KNOW it is irrelevant to the conversation? OK, then that point of debate goes to me and we can talk about the weather or something.

 
Quote
But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance.  (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chanceAny thoughts on this yet?

Remember to show your work


Yes I did show how I came up with that equation...do you not understand it?

Try again:

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.


Now...if you want to debate it, let's do so......but take it line by line and please keep to the subject......No more obfuscation...thank you

Date: 2012/12/02 14:09:55, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42)
Quote
Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors?

And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived.

Henry

It's a valid question.......

Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution.

Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen:

Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring.

If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers.

Date: 2012/12/02 14:15:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:13)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18)

It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL

Typical creationist gambit noted: When cornered say
"Your question makes no sense therefore I'm going to ignore it."

Can you explain the questions? Please do. Then I will answer them

Date: 2012/12/02 14:23:53, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,14:18)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,13:18)

It's IMPOSSIBLE to answer your questions because they are illogical and make no sense to anyone reading this...LOL

Look:

 
Quote
1) false dichotomy (designed or random)


This is a question? How would I ever answer it....it doesn't even contain a verb and a noun...lol

 
Quote
2) assuming even distribution of amino acids, chiral molecules, and binding affinity


Nor is this a sentence or a question....If it's you accusing ME of assuming this, then you are simply ignorant of the laws of chemistry (chemical equilibrium)and I do not have the time to educate you.


 
Quote
3) assuming that all modern proteins are developed from random collections of amino acids, instead of being build from a template that has undergone 3.5 billion years of evolution.


And here's another nonsequetur......NO ONE is assuming that all modern proteins develope from random collections of amino acids. If this were true, there would be no 'modern' (whatever that is) proteins.....lol

Now you have gotten enough attention on this thread...go ahead and post away until you are blue in the face....

Nice try, but these are not the questions.  These are the flaws with the concept of CSI.  I'm sorry you can't understand... in the United States of America, where I'm from, we use this symbol "?" to indicate a statement is a question to be answered.

Now, here is the question, just so there is no ambiguity:

Do you determine CSI by counting the amino acids in the protein only or do you use the DNA sequence that results in the protein?

The above statement is the question.  It is the question that you have been avoiding for several posts now.  I'm really curious as to how far you will go to avoid answering that question.  It should be a simple response to an ID expert such as yourself.  All you have to say is "amino acids" or "DNA".  I guess you could say "both" or "either", in which case further questions come from me.  The most likely being "How do you know when to use DNA or amino acids?" You could also answer "neither" in which case, the discussion of the last few weeks has been a complete waste of time.  Well... it is anyway, but we're here for the lulz.

Let me ask another question of the various readers... is the above question (the one with the "?" symbol) an understandable question?

OK, this is the fifth time....IT IS RIGHT HERE.....If you will just read this, it shows you EXACTLY how to calculate amino acids forming a polypeptide from a racemic solution....

Now if you don't understand this, I cannot help it as it is high school level chem and math.....I'm not trying to put you down, it just IS high school chem and math...:)

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

Date: 2012/12/02 14:30:08, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 02 2012,14:22)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09)
Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No one claims that new species "emerge" from extant (presently in existence) ones.  No one claims that an ape-like creature gave birth to a human. No one.  Who are you arguing with?

Oh, so new species emerge from dead ones? Please expound...this sounds interesting....

And you don't claim that homo sapiens emerged from an ape-like critter? How do you feel we got here as a population?

Date: 2012/12/02 14:45:46, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:43)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2012,11:20)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:08)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 27 2012,10:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:08)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,16:31)

     
Quote
Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.


OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

Because you aren't listening...

speciation does not equal evolution.

Sigh, let's try again.

When I was born, the human race evolved.  This occurred because (among other things), the number of B blood type alleles increased by one and the number of A blood type alleles increased by one in the entire human population.  

The frequency of the A allele and the B allele changed in the population.

That's evolution.  

When I die, the frequency of alleles will change again (minus 1 A and minus 1 B).  When my child was born, the frequency of B alleles and the frequency of O alleles changed as well.  That is what evolution is in the strictest sense.

O is the most common blood type allele.  But let's say that you have a small population of people, who, for whatever reason, leave the Earth to setup a new population of humans.  Now, because of the difficulty of spaceflight, from now until some future time, we have two SEPARATE populations of humans.  But the colony population was a little weird.  For whatever reason, that population has no type "O" blood alleles.  Call it random chance, call it bias against "O" blood types, whatever.

This is called the founder effect.  The type "O" allele doesn't exist in the new population of humans.

Now, on the Earth, "O" becomes more and more common.  Over time, the A and B blood types disappear entirely.  Statistically unlikely, but I'm trying to teach you things here.  So, we have a population of humans with only type O blood and another population without type O alleles.

Now, let's say that there is some difficulty in mating between O people and A or B people.  Something similar to the RH factor (which can be treated medically now, but caused a lot of infant (and others) deaths before SCIENCE figured it out).

So, we have these two populations that, because of biochemical incompatibility, cannot interbreed anymore.  NOW, we have another species of human.  

Evolution does not determine that new species arise.  Evolution is not dependent on new species arising.  However, new species is an artifact of changes in the allele frequency in the population, especially when you get two populations of the same species that (for whatever reason) have breeding issues.

What I just described is allopatric speciation.  There are other forms of speciation.

Mr Bauer,
this is to refresh your memory re "speciation". Feel free to ask if you don't understand.

Geeezzee.....You're not reading the posts either.....those are NOT the 3 questions he is dogging me to answer...lol

Just read the last 2 pages and maybe you can come up to snuff with the conversation...

Date: 2012/12/02 14:57:19, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2012,14:53)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:23)
OK, this is the fifth time....IT IS RIGHT HERE.....If you will just read this, it shows you EXACTLY how to calculate amino acids forming a polypeptide from a racemic solution....


Excellent.  Of course, you realize that this is completely IRRELEVANT to my question.  I know this, you have expanded on this at length.

Since NO proteins are formed in this way, then this entire exercise is useless.

So, I take by this, that you ignore DNA.  Perhaps, you should get with the other ID proponents and correct them.  Some of them have it wrong.  You might also get with them and come up with one coherent notion before presenting it to the world.  But that would require forethought.

Quote

Now if you don't understand this, I cannot help it as it is high school level chem and math.....I'm not trying to put you down, it just IS high school chem and math...:)


Do you honestly think that high school level math and biology will somehow destroy the current notions on how life developed and develops on this planet?  If so, then why are thousands of scientists with decades of training missing this?  Or is that the conspiracy?

Quote

[b]Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.


Irrelevant to the question I asked.  

Quote

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

Irrelevant to the question I asked... and dealt with in all those papers that specifically address the homochirality "problem" which you ignored.
Quote

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

Again, are you saying that all amino acids have an equal probability of reacting with other amino acids to form said chain?

I further see that you (and all IDists) ignore every other part of the assembly notions that have been developed and actually tested.  For example, RNA catalysts.
Quote

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

Still irrelevant to the question.  Unless you are ONLY saying that CSI is useful when dealing with origins.

Is that the case?  I'm very curious, because I have some papers that you will have to run away from if that's the case.

I'd also like to know what the first function protein was that CSI could be applied to.
Quote

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Irrelevant to the question I asked and again, we have the fundamental problems previously discussed that you haven't dealt with.
Quote

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

Good thing that no modern proteins are formed this way isn't it?
Quote

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

Good thing no modern proteins are formed this way then right?
Quote

These were designed.

Except all the ones that were built from a DNA sequence that encoded a sequence of codons that were translated into a amino acid sequence by ribosomes.  You know, that pesky DNA stuff that has the genetic code for every extant (there's that word again) protein in living things in the entire world.

That DNA stuff that's been around, and slowly being changed by mutation, sexual reproduction, and several other methods.  That DNA stuff that's passed down from parent to offspring and has been for nearly 3 billion years.  

Dang good thing no proteins are randomly assembled.  It'd be nearly impossible to have kids.
Quote

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Except that no offspring is EVER constructed from random amino acids in Darwin's warm, shallow pond.  

You know, all that pesky sex and DNA and stuff.
Quote

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.</b>

And the rest of us wonder exactly what you think you're calculating.

So, by this, I'm assuming that you are totally ignoring DNA in the calculation of CSI.

Why didn't you just say "protein"?  

So, you've just admitted that fundamentals of biology (7th grade stuff here) like DNA and reproduction are totally ignored by CSI.

Interesting, but thanks, I'll go report this on my blog.  I'm sure it will make for fascinating reading.

YOU DON'T KNOW that amino acids forming a polypeptide is a protein rather than DNA? Look....you are just hopelessly lost..........

That's also why your questions aren't making any sense..OK, I get it... :)

Date: 2012/12/02 14:59:09, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,14:57)
By the way, who is this "Earnst Myars" you keep referring to, claiming to have read his works?

This should be good.

HAha.......I don't believe this one.....If I were moving into this forum, I'd put this one on my sig..  :p

Date: 2012/12/02 15:48:33, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

If you don't understand what I post..stop and ask me...One guy is trying to argue DNA sequencing with me when I wrote about amino acids forming polypeptides and I don't think YOU are sure WHAT you're arguing.

Quote
So let's just start all over Jerrry:


Good....Let's.... ;)

Quote

Enantiomers, got it in one. :)


Good...enantiomers...you got it...now everyone else STOP and look that up...LOL.....we are talking about amino acids NOT alligators...Not DNA.......

 
Quote
What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both?? Concentrate.........I only showed the stark odds against a single homochiral protein forming of the type that comprise life. Logic should then lead you to conclude what proteins WOULD form from that solution: heterochiral proteins [b]NOT capable of supporting life.[/quote]

And I shouldn't have to show why to a logical person.....if there is a container containg 500 black balls and 500 white ones mixed randomly in the jar, you reach in and grab a few handfuls, you are going to get 'ABOUT' a 50/50 mix of white and black balls.

Something is wierd if you keep drawing out handfuls of only black balls..and if someone claims to me that I SHOULD be drawing out only black balls (as those that support abiogenesis do), I'm going to show them math, just as I did you, and help them conclude that won't be the case.

And the chirality of the formed protein could not be MORE irrelevant. Concentrate on amino acids forming a polypeptide...we don't care about the polypeptide after the event.

Also, I've already explained to you what a catalyst is and that it only speeds chemical reactions. You agreed to this, yet you are back now to claiming that a certain catalyst will change the probability mathematics of what amino acids form polypeptides from a racemic mixture? If you are going to continue this, let's see some science with referrences, please. But you will not cough up any, because there isn't any.

Quote
One can only assume you disagree with what I've put forward, but so far you've claimed ignorance as to how anything I've said is relevant. I stand by my original hypothesis.  :)


No, I'm not claiming ignorance to the relevancy of what you have put forward....It's starkly evident to any unbiased reader that what you have put forward thus far could not BE ANYMORE IRRELEVANT. Again...please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.

And thanks fer yer support ;)

Date: 2012/12/02 15:54:22, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....st_Mayr

Date: 2012/12/02 16:04:44, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:56)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:54)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 02 2012,15:16)
"Earnst Myars?" .... <crickets>

Well reverse a couple letters in his name...I can't spell.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......st_Mayr

You made this mistake twice, so it was not a typo. You quoted him without ever having read him. And you owe me an apology.

The only apology I might owe you would be possibly not helping you through 7th grade science where this stuff is taught....

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Species

A little googling will bring you the EXACT wording I used...I used to teach it and have it in my memory.....

Mayr also defined it in other ways when considering certain other criteria...But this was his primary definition for a sexual species...

But let me guess...you are going to troll me now because of a misspelled name?

But of course you are... :)

Date: 2012/12/02 16:46:18, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)

Date: 2012/12/02 17:15:59, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,16:41)

jerry said:

"Now, I addressed CSI in detail......"

Quote
Well then, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on CSI, will you tell me, in detail, how much CSI there is in a wild banana? Will you tell me, in detail, who or what specified the complex information in a wild banana? And will you tell me, in detail, what the complex information is in a wild banana?


I'm sorry, I don't know how much CSI is in a wild banana...in fact, I don't think I even know any wild bananas...I used to date a Wild Irish Rose.....lol

But what specified the information in a wild banana? A banana seed did, or a seedling....This happened when DNA recombined......

Quote
While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?


It's complex of it is over 500 bits of information...if it is also specified, it then becomes CSI (and all DNA, by it's very nature is specified information).

So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want.

But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so.

Date: 2012/12/02 17:25:52, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,17:09)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
 
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

   
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

 
Quote
 
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


 
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

 
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:    
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


Then say this about another line I wrote: "ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this":

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


The second line you quote STILL does not say that two protein chains are built or or being calculated......Those two lines don't have a danged thing to do with one another....

You just seem to be lost, my friend..... :)

Date: 2012/12/03 10:55:58, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 02 2012,17:59][/quote]
Quote

QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger


Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I --

When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL

Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz.

That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles.

Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum?  LOL)

It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.

But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'

That's just one example of what I'k talking about.

Quote

I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence


I THINK would agree with this.....  

Quote

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.


Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...?

Quote

I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.


You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?

It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol

Quote


True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.   Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.


How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either).

If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.


Quote


In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.


DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.


Quote

Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc


I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.


I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute... :)

The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.

I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:

"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.html

If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??

Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...

We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us... :)
Quote


Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.


Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.

If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.

Quote
I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..


But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us.. :)

Quote
What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.


Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it.

Date: 2012/12/03 11:11:03, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)
Quote
Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

Date: 2012/12/03 11:21:57, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=Henry J,Dec. 02 2012,22:30][/quote]
Quote

What saltations? Is there evidence somewhere that some species appeared without being a close relative of a nearby prior species? Keep in mind that low population species might not give us the courtesy of leaving fossils of themselves. Also species in areas that aren't conducive to fossilization are also apt to lack that sort of courtesy.


What saltations? YES there is evidence that some species appeared without an evolutionary history leading up to them....They ALL did......Never heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

 
Quote
That's what competent scientists do all the time. If a theory doesn't work, they don't use it. If a theory isn't useful, they don't cling to a theory because they like it, or reject one due to dislike; likes and dislikes are not part of the criteria. (Where would global warming be if people had to like its conclusions for it to be acknowledged?) But the theory of evolution has been in use in research for over a century and a half, and there's no sign of a decline in usage of it.


I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

They have had 150 years to accomplish this experimental testing, yes, but none has been done in a laboratory.

And I'll agree that that if evidence comes along to overturn a theory, most scientists would begin to question a scientific concept.

But saltation has been a fact of evidence against gradualistic evolution from the git-go....Why aren't evolutionary biologists out there questioning their internalized  precepts????????? They just blindly plod on and attempt to explain it away.

Date: 2012/12/03 11:25:41, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 03 2012,08:17)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,13:45)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

   
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html

Corrected the link

Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.

Jerry have you chocked on this or are you still chewing, you've been chewing for a week....

I'm sorry I haven't had time to read it. But if there is an argument you wish to bring on that paper, please go ahead....I'll be happy to address it and read up as I go.

Date: 2012/12/03 11:45:46, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 03 2012,09:10)

Quote

Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!


Evolution doesn't say that all...Darwinism does...evolution is only a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

But can you see why some view this 'species morphing from that one'; and 'this other one spewing out of this one'; as "poofs"? At the least there seems magic involved...there is certainly nothing in science that would foster this notion.

It all sounds like something out of Aesop's Fables to an independant observer. That's why no one buys it it but a select few of the very gullible and those pushing a religious agenda.

Quote

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!


It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)

Quote

This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?


First, science doesn't prove anything, it foments theories which will stand until they are falsified or another, better theoiry comes along to replace it.

And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?

Quote

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults?


So this is the old which came first, the T-Rex or the egg conundrum?..... :p

Quote
Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).


This isn't clear...What "last" poofing event...you mean in Darwinism?

Date: 2012/12/03 14:10:44, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:50)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:45)
 
Quote
Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!


It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us... :)

This could be interesting, Jerry.  You're the first creationist to claim to have details of the species-manufacturing process.  

If there was no poofing involved, how was it done?  A factory?

Really? Maybe on here, but most surely not in many circles. But let's discourse on this for a bit since you asked.

Let's start at the bottom rung so to speak...How do chemicals come into existence?

I learned much from chemical engineer, Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, on this subject and often borrow heavily from his work and his teachings:

http://www.nd.edu/~ed........ns.html

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

And so I introduce quantum entaglement at this point. What is it?

Read a bit then let me give it to you in a nutshell:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/article....ent.htm

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....

Date: 2012/12/03 14:24:37, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

Date: 2012/12/03 14:27:59, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

Date: 2012/12/03 15:48:48, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,15:45)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,13:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
 
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

My understanding is that matter particles formed from energy after the energy got cool enough for that to happen. I don't think they would have all formed at the same time. For more details than that, you'll have to ask a physicist.

Really no need to ask a physicist on this one because energy and particles are exactly the same thing. Remember we are at the quantum level.

Date: 2012/12/04 08:53:57, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.

Date: 2012/12/04 09:03:28, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol

[/quote]
Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*

Date: 2012/12/04 09:05:52, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

And let me guess...you consider referrences from journaled papers and University science departments as the argument from authority... :)

Date: 2012/12/04 09:09:23, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

I did NOT say that the big bang happened in a second and then was over......you're trying to type through my keyboard......

Date: 2012/12/04 09:16:28, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:05)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)
 
Quote
Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?

Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

Date: 2012/12/04 09:36:55, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:43)

Quote
So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed?  QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?


This is the last post I will answer where you attack a particular religion.......And it's getting redundant anyhow because you simply aren't understanding the responses...remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.

Quote
How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?


Please read the posts.....I have already shown the math that led up to the UPB....

Quote
Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?


What a silly question...lol

Date: 2012/12/04 10:20:00, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)

Quote

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?


LOL..... :) :p :)

WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....

Quote
You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.


I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.

Quote
500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?


I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.

Quote
And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.


Just read a biology textbook....

And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.

I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......

Date: 2012/12/04 10:35:35, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....

Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?

I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?

Date: 2012/12/04 11:01:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,10:45)

Quote

Jerry, you compared speciation to lawn mower design in regards to poofing into existence.


Actually, I compared design itelf--origins--to the assembly of a lawn mower from component parts.

Quote
So, since species don't poof into existence but rather come off an assembly line, when did the last thing come off of the assembly line?  What was it?


I don't 'suppose' stuff like that. We would have to look at the evidence to see if conclusions could be drawn. Wouldn't the fossil record lead us to believe that man was, at least, one of the more recent appearances in the record? I guess there could be later specimens...haven't really researched it....

Quote
Do you propose any way to determine the answers to these questions?  If not, whatever it is you're proposing is worthless.


How so? If life were (or were not) designed, how would these questions affect anything?

Date: 2012/12/04 11:16:37, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,10:46)
Quote
If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

You have GOT to be kidding.

Evolution involves accumulation of generally small changes, that start with one offspring and then spread through the population.

Speciation begins when two subsets of a species start accumulating different changes, rather than sharing the same ones. It ends when any sharing of genetic changes is rare enough to be insignificant. The time period between those events can sometimes be short, but it can also be long.

I've never claimed anything any DIFFERENTLY.......You guys are so brainwashed that you simply cannot see the logical trees for the illogical forest.......

Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes? Then a population CANNOT speciate if individuals within it do not.....Are you not aware that a population is just a group of individuals by its very definition? :)

Or perhaps you are saying no--You just seem confused.

But whether yes or no, I would still be quite logical to view any ONE of the individuals that speciated for the purpose of certain research.

Heck...you would throw the entire field of Darwinism off course if you stated we cannot draw any conclusions by viewing a particular individual in the fossil record. We CAN'T do that, you can only find fossils of entire populations to study.........

How silly would that be, but it seems what you are positing.....

Date: 2012/12/04 11:22:33, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

Date: 2012/12/04 12:47:23, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

Date: 2012/12/04 15:13:00, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,12:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.

A concept of something doesn't refute ANYTHING in argument...only another argument does...

Now, if I can get you to BRING an argument in something....ANYTHING....maybe we can heat up this thread with some good point, counterpoint, it will probably go viral, you and I will be famous and Wesley will make a LOT of MONEY...Do you see how everybody's happy here.....  :p

Date: 2012/12/04 15:55:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

Date: 2012/12/04 16:06:39, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,16:01)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,08:55)
It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?)

No you didn't. Show some respect and while you're at it do a modicum of research - it isn't difficult.

I can assure you that I have no disrespect for a scientist as nobel as Earnst Mayrs.......

Date: 2012/12/04 16:10:41, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:04)
Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....

No......But it isn't true considering our pretend population...If it were true it could NOT be a new species and therefore nothing speciated to begin with....How can you not see this?

Can you not also see how non-scientific, illogical and arbitrary this all is? You guys just make it up as you go, it seems.

Date: 2012/12/04 16:37:49, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,16:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

So to  you Jerry, Lions and Tigers are the same species.  Right?

Because they can mate.  They can have offspring and those offspring are fertile.

You are wrong.  Ligers are fertile.


Quote
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

10^ Guggisberg, C. A. W. "Wild Cats of the World." (1975).
11^ Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.


Further

Quote
At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/?ta??ta???n/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.


So where's your species now?

I swear, the more I get to know you, the more I come to think that you are on here to INTENTIONALLY mislead and dupe the readers.

Ligars CANNOT have viable, fertile offpring with one another to propagate a species because MALE ligars do not have sperm.

But you already knew that, didn't you ... :O

"Male ligers do not produce viable sperm, but females can be fertile"

http://courses.washington.edu/gs453....c24.pdf

Of course, female ligars can be bred back, but certainly not in ANY MANNER that would propagate a new species with the male ligars.

Date: 2012/12/04 16:48:34, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

Date: 2012/12/05 09:14:24, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,23:53)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

No, Jerry.  This is your argument.  This is what you are claiming has happened.  Could you point out an instance where a father and a daughter cannot breed?  It would really help your case if you could.

My post was not rhetorical.  It was an explanation of your argument.  You are claiming that individuals speciate.  This is the logical conclusion of that statement.

No, because I'm not aware of any daughters that are not still homo sapiens... :)

And if you have taken from my posts this: in order for a population to speciate, then the individuals within it must speciate because the individuals COMPRISE the population, then.....BINGO.....

Date: 2012/12/05 09:23:31, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 05 2012,01:21)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

 
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*[/quote]
Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

Sorry, I don't have that math...people asked me for a model, there you have one...that's all it is.

And, please attempt to stay away from fallacy in your arguments...I have never stated that I believe babies are "poofed" into existence like you Darwinists claim entire species are........people are created by genes from their parents...were they designed? Absolutely....By what? By DNA.......

Stangely enough, holding an envelope to my head like the mighty Carnac, I predict you will disagree that they were designed by an intelligent designer....i.e. DNA replication....

Nor do I point to single fossils and claim they were "POOFED" into existence...LOL....how you can confuse me with a Darwinist, I'll never know...

Date: 2012/12/05 11:53:02, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 05 2012,10:05][/quote]
Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

Quote

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

Quote
Which is it Jerry?


I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way..  :)

Quote
That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.


Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought?  We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly.
And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

Quote
Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.


Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

Quote
A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.


Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

Date: 2012/12/05 13:46:39, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=blipey,Dec. 05 2012,10:41][/quote]
Quote
Jerry, you have stated that individuals speciate.  This means that you believe there are instances when a daughter cannot interbreed with her direct ancestors (st least according to your definition of speciate).  Otherwise, what do you mean by individuals speciate?


Once again.....individuals are just the sub-units that comprise a population....People: you are so mixed up on this that HERE is one reason people laugh at you and reject the whole ball of wax.

You PhDs participating in this thread need to grasp it so you will stop teaching illogical clap trap in your class rooms and calling it science:

Populations CANNOT speciate unless the individuals within it ALSO speciate. The population is made up of those individuals.....You can't EVEN HAVE a population without individuals as a group to constitute the population.

Darwinist: Look, I have a group of nickles.

Guy with common sense: Oh really, I don't see any nickles at all.

Darwinist: Oh. I don't have any individual nickles, just an entire group of them....

The whole world scratches their heads trying to figure out why insanity doesn't apply here... :)

So, common sense ought to tell you that if a population changes, so must the individuals within it because that's what a population IS.

Quote
Really, address the color question. Is there a reason you keep ignoring it?


Of course I'm ignoring it because it is not analogous to speciation to any extent.

You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one. It's another attempt to twist logic........

Date: 2012/12/05 13:57:43, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
[quote=The whole truth,Dec. 05 2012,02:30][/quote]
Quote
You're the one calling "the Creator" "God". You're the one calling "that manipulator" "God". You're the one calling QM/particles "God". You're the one attributing "simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers" to creation by "God".


It's clearly QM, I'm referring to......I can call my coffee table God if I want to....you don't have to call it that. Watch your intellectual honesty here....others are....

Quote
since the species Homo sapiens is allegedly the "ultimate product", does that mean, to you, that evolution and/or creation* ended (everywhere and with everything) at the birth, or creation*, of the very first human*?


No.

Quote
*I'm not saying that there was creation, or a very first human, but I'm pretty sure that you think there was.


LOL....really. You don't think there was a first organism called homo sapiens.......Did the common ancester magically poof out triplets?

Date: 2012/12/05 14:10:40, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 05 2012,07:04)

I haven't answered them up until now because they are really dumb questions and the readers will see that......

Was there 500 bits of information before a human was there to calculate those bits? Here's another one...if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

And I'm not mad at all. You just need to learn some respect for your fellow man and not deride something sacred to them like their religion.....Doesn't matter if it's Krishna, Bhudda or Allah....people have the right to believe as they wish without harrassment in a free society.

Quote
You and I apparently hold different definitions of the word "specified". Specified is the past tense of specify. To specify something requires a specifier.


Then perhaps you need to come up to speed and at least learn how that term is used in ID before you attempt to debate it.

And since I see you go there again again below with the term 'sky daddy' in your post, our conversation is over.
Thanks for your posts

Date: 2012/12/05 14:23:16, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (George @ Dec. 05 2012,02:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,19:07)
i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms?  What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species.  Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

Date: 2012/12/05 15:18:47, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,14:30)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,12:23)
 
Quote (George @ Dec. 05 2012,02:45)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,19:07)
i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms?  What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species.  Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:
 
Quote
You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

Date: 2012/12/05 15:24:33, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (damitall @ Dec. 05 2012,13:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,11:53)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 05 2012,10:05)

Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

 
Quote

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

 
Quote
Which is it Jerry?


I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way..  :)

 
Quote
That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.


Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought?  We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly.
And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

 
Quote
Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.


Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

 
Quote
A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.


Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

When the wind designs a sand-dune, is it then doing it intentionally?

Or have you redefined the word "design" to include unintentional events?

Because if you have, you've just destroyed the whole Intelligent design "movement"

No, I haven't redefined the term design......It is quite proper to think in terms of intelligent design as opposed to natural design.

And when the wind designs a sand dune, is it doing it intentionally? Of course not.

Date: 2012/12/05 15:46:00, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,15:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,13:18)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,14:30)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,12:23)
   
Quote (George @ Dec. 05 2012,02:45)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,19:07)
i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms?  What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species.  Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

They negatively affect this musing, Jerry:
   
Quote
You're attempting to use a scenario where there is no clear boundary of change to represent a situation where there most certainly is one.

Where are the clear boundaries of change in a hybrid swarm?

Very well...

Now why don't you bring an argument to that effect?

1) Explain what a hybred storm is to the readers.

2) explain how whatever it is in that concept that you believe influenced common descent from protist to mammal, did so.

3) Finally, does this nullify my argment? How?

Sheeze, It's like pulling chicken teeth to get a rational argument out of you people.

1)  Look it up.  Well, look up "hybrid swarm".  I've no idea what a "hybred storm" is.  The Wikipedia description is quite succinct, and even someone as lazy as yourself should be able to get through it.

2) Oy, Jerry!  Where are you going with those goalposts?

3) Hybrid swarms (and ring species) nullify your argument that there are rigid distinctions between species.  They falsify your claim that speciation must involve an organism having offspring which are of a different species.

As I mentioned earlier, you can support your claim by identifying the clear boundaries within the herring gull ring species.  Or in any of the others.  I'm not bothered.

HAHA...ya gotta love it.....and a purple dinosaur living in my underwear drawer defeats ALL of your arguments....don't believe me? Just google it! :)

Date: 2012/12/05 16:08:05, Link
Author: Jerry Don Bauer
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,15:49)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 05 2012,13:32)
Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why.  Should be simple.  I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

However, give it your lone neuron's best shot at answering my little questions and maybe I'll post something nicer about you.

p.s.  I ain't holdin' mah breath, you miserable little peckerwood.  Ya, know whut ah mean, Vern?  L.O.L.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe.  But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery.  Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery.  Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right??  :D  :O  :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other,  wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!

 

 

 

=====