|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,782 Year: 1,104/6,935 Month: 385/719 Week: 27/146 Day: 8/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quality Control the Gold Standard | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
If you care to parse the posts and omit the presenirnt sections cherry picking the elements you can asset your comment into go ahead... just dont confuse it with logical rebuttal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history debated the existance of God in purely logical argument.
Were they engaging in non-science when using the methods of induction and deduction in their arguments.. were they transformed into non-scientists by their actions. The second greatest debate historically speaking free will vs predestination in the most general sense. Like wise they were often from the population of scientists. Aguemnts of htis tpye are scientific when done properly.. rewriting history and redefining terms to fit your world view is hardly logical or scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23190 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Evopeach writes: If you care to parse the posts and omit the presenirnt sections cherry picking the elements you can asset your comment into go ahead... just dont confuse it with logical rebuttal. Say what? Are we still speaking English around here? You offered a religious argument in the first half of your post (Designer with a capital "D" declared it be so), and you offered an argument from personal incredulity in the second half of your post. It isn't possible to respond to scientific arguments not made. What you need to do is provide an argument or chain of logic that justifies a comparison between human designs and genetic copying. As I said earlier, the comparison seems invalid because hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary refinement through competition and changing environments should produce much better results than anything mere humans could achieve. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 02-09-2006 08:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23190 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Evopeach writes: Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history debated the existance of God in purely logical argument. Evopeach, you seem to have lost your way. This is your thread, and the topic is seven sigma as it pertains to genetic copying. The topic is not the existence of God. Besides, you won't be successful convincing people that ID is science and not religion if you have to rely upon God as an authority. I still recommend that you follow my suggestion from my previous post. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 02-09-2006 08:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
The evolutionist insist that a seven sigma quality process can be developed by random muation of a string of sequenced molecules and supporting entities also developed by the same processes.
Thus it should be possible to demonstrate this without intervention of intelligence of any kind intervening in any way other than to start with single molecules in an uncorodinate state in a prebiotic state. A person equipped with the intelligence and training folowing a methodology arising from intelligence based activities and using tools and eqipment similarly developed are in no way demonstrative of the evolutionary scheme. Unless and until the former is demonstrated in a repeatable scientifically authentic experiment the only thing demonstrated is that ID theory ,ie, intelligence can create such a process or approach it given the acquired knowledge, capacity for cognitive thought , etc. The example of algorithms is precisely an example of ID and antithetical to the evolutionary assertion. Scientists prove my point with their every endeavor and activity. Intelligent design is the only creative process that can be demonstrated or has been to date. ID can be completely refuted by the former demonstration and experimental result. I've been waiting for that demonstration showing the most basic premise of evolution underlying all of its constructs.. waiting and waiting and waiting. This message has been edited by Evopeach, 02-09-2006 09:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6407 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
This is OFF TOPIC. Do not respond in this thread. Well, it is a matter of time. We may never know because our life span is only may be 80-90 years. May be we should wait longer. After all, everything takes millions of years!!!!!!!!! Nothing happens before this. Mt.St. Helen's eruption produced instant fossils. Is it not strange?!!!!!!!This was instant.By the way, this does not conform to the common belief that fossils took millions of years. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-09-2006 11:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6407 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
This is OFF TOPIC. Do not respond in this thread.Well, it is a matter of time. We may never know because our life span is only may be 80-90 years. May be we should wait longer. After all, everything takes millions of years!!!!!!!!! Nothing happens before this. Mt.St. Helen's eruption produced instant fossils. Is it not strange?!!!!!!!This was instant.By the way, this does not conform to the common belief that fossils took millions of years. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-09-2006 11:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
A deck of cards do not organize. Pieces of any puzzle do not self organize. This is NOT on topic here. If you think you can support that then I suggest you open a new topic and explain why you thing the above is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 5279 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
OMG!
Thanks Ned, what a Friggin stupid mistake on my part. ![]() "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 5279 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
The evolutionist insist that a seven sigma quality process can be developed by random muation of a string of sequenced molecules and supporting entities also developed by the same processes. Hmmm...seems u choose to ignore posts that refute your claims, EP. As stated previously, biological mutation rate is not at sigma 7 levels "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Actually I checked about ten googles and found the range of measurements and estimates published in peer reviewed materials to in clude my figure.
One of the more current papers by University of Texas researchers was 2.4 10**-09. Rather than quoting your one favorite source that enables you to post a cynical swipe why not do a wider review .. if you had it would have saved you embarrassment and me some time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
This would be greatly enhanced by some link to the research you are discussing, or to an abstract if the full text is not available.
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23190 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Hi Evopeach,
You're mostly just repeating your initial premise again. We already know you don't believe natural processes are sufficient for the emergence and evolution of life By the way, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but your view contains an inherent contradiction. Because only human intelligence has been observed creating complex and intricate things, you conclude that only an intelligence can create something as complex and intricate as life. You draw parallels between life and human designs. Then you conclude that because human intelligence has failed to synthesize life in the lab, that proves that life must have been designed. Your reasoning is obviously backward. If life was designed by an intelligence, and if the structures of life are really analogous to human designs, then human intelligence should be able to duplicate that feat. You must therefore reason that since human intelligence has so far failed to create life that intelligence is insufficient for the task, and that life must have been created naturally. Of course, the fallacy in all this is that the structures of life are not analogous to human designs. False assumptions yield false conclusions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6939 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
A rate of 10-9 substitutions per base pair year for humans and apes is assumed in (Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences, PNAS 1997 94:
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic (various) My number is for the single one time replication of the human genome and its 3 billion base pairs.http://prfdb.umd.edu/BSCI437/6/6.doc High mutation rates: genome replication is inaccurate Evolution requires mutation Mutations occur when nucleic acids are copied (i.e. genome replication) Baseline chemical mutation rate (keto to enol tautamarization of thymidine) = 10-4 Error rate of human DNA polymerase is approximately 10-9 (3 mutations per replication of the human genome). Error correction machinery lowers this to 10-11 Virus RNA and DNA polymerases are much more error prone RNA dependent RNA pol error rates: 10-4 - 10-5 DNA polymerases: 10-6 - 10-7 People must compare apples to apples . They may be looking at base pair errors per generation or per year or other figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1793 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah but you're just looking at substitution rates. There are many other kinds of mutation that you are apparently ignoring.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025