|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9187 total) |
| |
Dave Sears | |
Total: 918,738 Year: 5,995/9,624 Month: 83/318 Week: 1/82 Day: 1/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Can't ID be tested AT ALL? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You forgot natural selection, which is the opposite of random.
quote: Er, there's no evidence for mutation? Are you sure?
quote: What are some falsifiable predictions of ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1569 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable. Provide a better theory. One that still fits all the facts as well as evolution does.
Chemical Evolution is impossible. It has been proved time and again. False: nobody has proven that it is impossible. Rather the opposite, experiments keep getting closer, and lots of other gaps in our knowledge are getting filled in with information we didn't have 50 years ago.
If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!! I don't need to prove it, just demonstrate that it is possible. And to do that the chemical laws do not need to be rewritten. Sorry, your argument is just your incredulity against the world. Add a few more exclamation points, no difference. The world has already solved the problem once eh? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
There is no evidence for these phenomenon.
Hi, you included self organising systems in this, but, I bet you can't name one natural system which isn't self organising.I've tried and I can't come up with a single one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1631 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable. I follow the first part, but not the second. In what sense does evolution need to be "acceptable"? Do you mean to say that you won't accept evolution unless the theory is changed in such a way that you don't find the conclusions of it so troubling? Honestly I don't see the relevance, here, of what is acceptable or not. The question is - what is the accurate model?
If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!! Your plurality of exclamation points don't constitute an argument. Would you care to actually support this sweeping statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine. Such a mixture is biologically useless. Nothing can come out of it. In a mixture like this there cannot be any self organization, random choice or natural selection.Even after millions of years they remain only as mixtures and perhaps time will degrade them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1631 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine. Such a mixture is biologically useless. Oh, hardly. (Didn't you make this erroneous claim once before? I don't get the sense that you're actually reading the posts of your opponents. If you're not doing that, why are you even here?) Many bacteria use right-handed aminos in addition to the left-handed ones, so an equal mixture is hardly "biologically useless." There's no need to rewrite the laws of chemistry, as you asserted. All that is required is that you actually educate yourself about the chemistry of living things. Also? Glycine isn't handed - it doesn't have D and L forms. That's a pretty surprising mistake for someone who claims knowledge of chemistry to make. Can you explain this discrepancy? Edited by crashfrog, : Added fact about glycine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, you have already written that the classical experiment only yielded glycine. At any rate, you were then informed that the classical experiment produced much, much more than this, and furthermore, you have been informed that glycine is not chiral and so does not have D and L forms. As crashfrog points out, these are odd errors for a person knowledgeable in biochemistry to make, and it is particularly surprising to see them repeated after they were pointed out. Are you ready to admit that you actually don't know much about biochemistry? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
There you are crashfrog, I thought I'd run you back to the nipple...
Did the rest of you see the conversation elsewhere? http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll Posts 103 through 121 (maybe more) Rob Any biters in the stream?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
Followed your link, and saw a lot of you replying to yourself and going way off topic.
The rules are a little more strictly enforced in the science forums as compared to the coffee house. Watch your step.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1631 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There you are crashfrog, I thought I'd run you back to the nipple... You stopped being interesting when you started talking nonsense, so I don't think our discussion in that thread is going to continue. Plus that topic isn't of relevance to this one. Did you have a comment on the topic of this thread? Or a specific rebuttal to the points I raised in the post you just replied to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Nonesense? Why it was the 'sense' that scared you off my friend. You don't believe in sense. The irony (and a fatal contradiction) is that you try to make 'sense' of that with all kinds of brilliant maneuvering. You believe in what you do not know (by your own philosophical absurdity). Whereas some of us believe in what we do know. If we bring faith into the picture, Jesus did not come to inspire 'belief', but to give sight to the blind. Don't get me wrong, you are free to have faith in evolution. You just have to believe in things that make no sense. And since all information is only abstraction to you (as we discussed in the other thread), you are free to make it (abstraction) up as you go. I can understand where you are coming from. As you are now, so once was I... You said, "You're conflating a number of seperate concepts that really have nothing to do with each other. For instance, an "abstraction" is not the same as a "lie." Many abstractions are true. A book contains no information if no one is able to read it. Information is simply an arrangement of matter - an abstraction - that causes changes in our brains, through our senses, that we recognize as information. If that information happens to be a true statement about the world, it's not because of anything the statement contains in itself; it's because we all have rules about how to create statements that improve the odds that they'll be true. We call those rules "reason." And, no, I'm not condradicting myself. My statements are both abstractions and true." --------------------------------------------------------------------- And I replied, "A book 'cannot exist' if 'no-one' is able to read it, Because 'no-one' was able to write it. At least, not unless we create an abstraction to imagine such a place. All lie's are abstractions! Imaginations and inventions. Imposters! Stop trying to '''''prove''''' abstractions to me please, lest you defeat yourself. With the Sword of the counsellor, Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, this is a forum deticated to a controversial subject. I would like to assert that on one side of the battle, we have individuals (like yourself) who like very much to bully the opposition by declaring that their arguments are abstractions, inferring that there is no truth. Then, with the majority of popular science (watch out for anything 'pop') on your side, you claim to promote a philosophy that is in fact true, for the purpose of denying truth. It is far too obvious for you to see, that things are far simpler than you'd like them to be. What is a delight to me, is that within that simplicity, is an infinite sea of knowledge. It is knowable (hence the 'know' in both terms). It is coherent. It is testable. It is based on fact. It is not just believable to suit an agenda, but is in fact the only worldview that forces you to give up your agenda, hence it's unpopular stigma! You talk about books that don't exist, I talk about the one that existed before creation. Here is an example of 'reason', 'knowledge', 'light', 'understanding' etc (All synonomous terms): John 1:1-41 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Sorry for the sermon, but without 'reason', all of this talk is simply abstraction, Rob Rob, this is both off topic and also on the science side. If you have scientific evidence to present, fine, but sermons carry no weight over here. Edited by AdminNWR, : message off-topic Edited by Rob, : Extreme displeasure with arrogance and a lack of willingness to tolerate it. Edited by Rob, : oops... Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given. Any biters in the stream?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I have not been in this forum for a while.The racemic mixture of amino acids were formed in the classical experiment by Miller and Urey. I had cross referenced this information from a published book. How could this informationbe wrong? anyway, after your posts, I was searching for the D-Glycine. I found only 1 reference. I still need to dig into this. I believe this soup also yielded aspartic acid and alanine. No matter what it is, nothing happened with this soup. No polymer was formed.The bottom line is nothing happened beyond the formation of basic amino acids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1569 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The bottom line is nothing happened beyond the formation of basic amino acids. Funny, that is what the experiment was run to determine ... ie Nothing happened beyond the experiment was a success.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Nothing happened beyond the experiment was a success However, this experiment is being quoted as proof for creation of life from non living material.Does this success have anything to do with life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4275 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
However, this experiment is being quoted as proof for creation of life from non living material.Does this success have anything to do with life?
no its not, name one publication that said it was "proof" of anything more than amino acids are possible to createthis is a creationist credited strawman
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024