Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

You are confusing creatortionista claims with reality. Anything? Anything at all?Yes: amino acids are necessary for replicating systems that can develop into life as we know it. Any system that creates amino acids then makes the development of life more likely.And No: there are other sources of amino acids, some coming in with meteors from outer space, having formed (apparently) with the formation of stars and planetary systems.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Very good wishfull thinking. "More likely" is far far and far away from development of life. Amino acids do not create anything to facilitate life processes. However, they must form proteins.The probability of Self assembly of amino acids into proteins has been shown to be less than 1 raised to the power of 42 which is astatistical impossibility.

Could you show your math?

1 ^ 42 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 = 1 = 100%less than 100%?or perhaps it's ("less than 1") ^ 42, how much less? like say .99?.99 ^ 42 = .665566 and change = 67%The secret teachings of the great Kreskin enable me to intuit that you MIGHT be trying to say something like 10 ^ -42 which really would be a low low number indeed.But you still wouldn't know what you were talking about even if you said that, now would you? You would just be quoting me out of context on top of everyone else.

I agree.The abilty of amino acids to self asemble is 1 raised to 42, or 100, or whatever.Of course, what you wrote is not what you meant. And what you meant is totally incorrect anyway.

Can you explain Carbonyl Condensation Reactions and how they happen?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In response to the claim that amino acids can not spontanitously form protiensHere is a presentation on how amino acids can align on quartz crystals to form protiens. http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/public_lectures...ppt downloadThis eliminates the fantastic odds is claimed for the formation of proteins. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL length to fix page width - The Queen

You can also download .doc papers from his websitePublications | ROBERT M. HAZENthanks

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I didn't say it was a slam dunk once amino acids had formed, just that it was a necessary step in the process, and one that can easily be demonstrated to be no problem at all in the real world. No, wishful thinking is your thinking that this small step is insufficient and that this somehow makes the generation of life impossible. What is needed to make it impossible is no way to generate amino acids: that hurdle is passed easily. We'll assume for the sake of argument that you really meant 10^{^-42} (as noted by others, although anyone making this blatant a mistake obviously has little concept of what the difference means ... imh{ysa}0).There is no such thing as a statistical impossibility -- to state this is to misunderstand\misrepresent probability.The argument for improbability is nothing more than the argument from incredulity and ignorance (see more at the {{the old improbable probability problem} thread)It is based on no real knowledge of how proteins form, math that does not represent the real probability calculations, and assumptions that are false (not least of which is the one on the size of the protein being formed is based on modern living matter proteins rather than what a minimum original protein needed to be).Let's look at the "probability problem" from a different angle using the same kind of "logic" used in the creatortionista calculations:Take any protein and cut it in half: what is the probability that it would rejoin in exactly the same way as it was before being cut?We'll label the protein {A-MN-Z} and it is cut into {A-M} and {N-Z} portions, and then we see that they can join in the following combinations: Next we'll put them in a sea of {A-M} and {N-Z} sub-proteins, say 10^{^+42} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {A-M}-{N-Z} combination would form? Much more than 0.25x10^{^+42} so it is really astronomical, and thus it MUST have happened (remember we are using the same creatortionista logic eh?)Now we take each sub=protein and do the same "thought experiment" with them Next we'll put them in a sea of {A-F} and {G-M} sub-proteins, say 10^{^+21} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {A-F}-{G-M} combination would form? Still pretty astronomical, so it MUST have happened as well. GOSH. Next we'll put them in a sea of {N-S} and {T-Z} sub-proteins, say 10^{^+21} just for fun. What is the probability that at least one {N-S}-{T-Z} combination would form? Still pretty astronomical, so it MUST have happened as well. GOSH AND GOLLY.And we can keep going, dividing and recombining until we get down to {A-B} {C-D} {E-F} {G-H} {I-J} {K-L} {M-N} {O-P} {Q-R} {S-T} {U-V} {W-X} {Y-Z} ... or in the real world until we get down to the 20 amino acids (which we now know can be formed spontaneously or provided by extra-solar generation). There is thus no need to carry the calculation back any more as this is demonstrated as a viable starting point.Now the question is, what is the probability that ONE (1) protein {A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z} formed from all that "goo"? Well we had >0.25x10^{^+42} times 2(>0.25x10^{^+21}) times 4(>0.25x10^{^+10.5}) times 8(>0.25x10^{^+5.25} ....Now observe that 0.25x10^{^+42} times 2(0.25x10^{^+21}) = 0.25x2x0.25x10^{^+42+21} = 0.125x10^{^+63} ... so it just keeps getting better -- BOY it really MUST have happened eh?I guarantee you that the math used here is no worse than the math used by creatortionistas in their probability calculations, and that it is just as reality based.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

None of you understood what I wrote. The probability of aminoacids assembling into proteins is LESS than 1 raised to the power of 42.1x10 to the power of 42. The concept is impossibility. Twisting words do not change the probability. Bottom line is amino acids cannot form peptide bonds through self assembly. "Ramoss" wrote that on quartz crystals amino acids formed proteins.This is an interesting observation. We can have aggregates of amino acids.They do nto exhibit the peoperties of aprotien. For example, we have poly glutamic acid. This exhibits the characteristics of a peptide and a protein depending on its molecular weight. This poly amino acid has specific biological properties. The poly amino acids do have peptide bonds. I am not sure if Quatz crystals will catalyse the formation of peptide bonds. Even if it does, what will be its properties?

I think they understood that. The problem is that it is an utterly useless and pointless statement. The problem that you will still be alive tomorrow is LESS than 1 raised to the power of 42.

1⁴² = 1
1x10⁴² = 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0001 ≠ 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

To the topics question. Can inteligent design be tested?
Only by our understanding of what inteligence and design is. Never in a theological Godlike sense.

so how do we go aobut testing intelligence and design, so far anyone has yet to answer this funny,everyone who is asked who the designer is says god, so it is theological and only pretending to be science by denial of not defining the core of ID, the designer
as i have pointed out to someone else here, if complexity is how ID is defined, then any answer but a god that is eternal causes an ad infinum loop

Based on my understanding of intelligence and design, evolution itself is an intelligent designer.