It's called tolerance and a tolerance that has now seen out 42 years....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not much left q-reeus? obviously! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's actually fun seeing someone who I was instrumental in dragging out of the closet, gradually reveal his agenda....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it's not. It's observed physical fact - pores can be made in bacterial cell walls with simpler and cruder versions of the kinds of molecules employed by their flagella. That is false. (Afaik no one claims that self-replicating assemblages necessarily came first, and enveloping lipid bilayers afterwards - it may be possible, but it's not the way to bet). It doesn't exist. It's an invention of some people who don't understand either Darwinian or Lamarckian evolutionary theory, and screw up whenever they try to apply it. Like this: You don't have a cell yet. Why would your hypothetical preexisting "self replicating assemblage" (a radical notion) need a "response" from any of the lipid bilayers in its environment? Your continual use of misleading terms such as "blind chance way" and "evolutionist" also seems to indicate a gap in your comprehension, an impression solidly reinforced by your inability to paraphrase a single one of the theories of evolution extant. You have now made close to a dozen false claims about physical fact, and included several major errors in your presentation of theories you have not even successfully named. You have not dealt with this - are you still unaware of your errors?
Don't kid yourself. No closet. No agenda. Just being free to challenge an unworkable belief system you trust with a religious fervor.
For all your talking down, nothing of substance is offered back. What exactly then is the 'correct evolutionary synthesis' re pathway to first cell? As a know-it-all you surely know.
Wrong question. There is no single "correct evolutionary polymerization synthesis pathway. Polymerization (chemical reaction) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Schematic diagram of the emulsion-polymerization method. Monomer molecules and free-radical initiators are added to a water-based emulsion bath along with soaplike materials known as surfactants, or surface-acting agents. The surfactant molecules, composed of a hydrophilic (water-attracting) and hydrophobic (water-repelling) end, form a stabilizing emulsion before polymerization by coating the monomer droplets. Other surfactant molecules clump together into smaller aggregates called micelles, which also absorb monomer molecules. Polymerization occurs when initiators migrate into the micelles, inducing the monomer molecules to form large molecules that make up the latex particle. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Origins of life: Chemical evolution in a tiny Gulf Stream The probability that there are many pathways for cell polymerization. Epistemic structural realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science) Synergetics[52] Hermann Haken has pointed out that different physical systems can be treated in a similar way. He gives as examples of self-organization several types of lasers, instabilities in fluid dynamics, including convection, and chemical and biochemical oscillations. In his preface he mentions the origin of life, but only in general terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Don't let this fool you: https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk/bio_sim/articles/metabolic_pathways.png When the earth has performed "2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" chemical experiments during it's 4.5 b lifetime, the above polymerization schema is not necessarily prohibitive. (that number = 2,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 chemical reactions) Different polymerization sequences are not just horizontal, but also exponentially vertical in practice. On Earth alone, trillions of chemical interactions are being performed every second of every day. Each just a little different from another. And many are built on or added to previously formed stable polymers. That is the nature of evolutionary processes on a global scale, let alone on a universal scale. Numbers and probabilities become unimportant. Moreover the use of the term "unguided" is incorrect. Mathematics guide all evolutionary chemical processes that contain "relational values".
Richard Lenski This article is about Richard Lenski, the evolutionary biologist. For the Lutheran commentator (his ancestor), see Richard C. H. Lenski. Scientific career Fields Evolutionary biology Experimental evolution Institutions Michigan State University University of California, Irvine Websitemyxo.css.msu.edu telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com Experimental approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not kidding myself at all old friend. Your old front you used fairly well....[you know, the "I am a scientist" one, and approach everything scientifically] until I exposed it for what it was [or wasn't] worth. Whatever form your own mythical Spaghetti monster may take, ask him next time to accompany you into a "children's ward" at your local Hospital...then tell me that your silly myth exists. The facts are that both your heroes, Tour and Behe, have been roundly criticised for their beliefs, stated as fact, and the misunderstandings within. Tour, your original hero, should stick to his "trade" and stop trying to tell the experts where they are supposedly wrong. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Dr-James-Tour-say-that-science-refutes-evolution-1 Patrick Foley: Population biologist with a PhD in Evolutionary Genetics Updated June 12, 2018 "Dr. Tour is a very well-trained and experienced chemist. He has doubts about evolution (and also about intelligent design!), but none about the Bible. He is not a geneticist, an ecologist, a biologist, or most importantly, an evolutionary biologist. These are the people who study evolution carefully and may have some idea what they are talking about when they are talking about evolution. If I started making pronouncements about the chemistry of nanotechnology, I hope everyone would be appropriately skeptical. Tour’s basic scientific criticism of evolutionary biology is that Tour does not understand the mechanisms, at the chemical level, by which big macroevolutionary changes have occurred, say in body plan. Of course evolutionary biologists have spent a lot of thought on such things, and I would encourage anyone who share’s Tour’s doubts to actually read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject. One important point here is that body plan evolution can be approached from several levels, including the chemical. Tracing the fossil record is one. Comparative anatomy is another. Developmental genetics is another. And all of these approaches undergo continuing research. Evolutionary scientists are committed to solving these problems by research. Is Tour? In the passage below, he explicitly states that he has a theological commitment that prevents him from an open-minded investigation into evolution. From Tour’s website: “Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.” “As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So sayeth this exponent of the literal nonsense of the bible!
Feel free to keep endlessly recycling such shitty underhanded arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. That list again I posted way back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology It sometimes happens proponents of a new theory bare the ugly truths about existing and unworkable ones: https://talk.origins.narkive.com/fK...rewrites-the-story-of-how-life-on-earth-began Too bad their own new hopeful is also shot to pieces. Go on believing what you are wedded to. I'll go on believing what imo makes real sense.
And a bit of the follow up from the above he seems to be in two minds AND unsure but it doesn't matter because his Salvation is blah blah blah - but here is a kicker - thanks be to God for his indescribable gift - Seems so sure he is going to get this gift he is giving thanks in advance Not sure, myself, if there is a mental condition which describes his thought processes If there is such a condition I'm betting it uses 2 full alphabets to form its name Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You really fail to recognise your own hypocrisy, as I said earlier...same situation applies to many God botherers. Makes sense??Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!You mean some all powerful, omnipotent spaghetti monster from the fifth dimension? I'll stick to science thanks q-reeus. Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory for how life arose...life from non life via chemistry.
Is that the reason you never discuss the contents of my posts, and keep changing the subject? You keep posting error and ignorance, and when corrected you attack other people's tone of voice. Seems a waste Why not discuss issues instead - learn something. You have an interest in Darwinian evolutionary theory - great, time to learn about it. Evolutionary synthesis? More new and odd language from the cornered creationist. As I and others have stated and asserted and repeated many times: nobody knows the actual sequence of events - not where, not when, not what, and most definitely not who. That's one of the items of substance you have been provided. There are hundreds of possible pathways and timings just among the factors we can see, and we will probably be hundreds of years narrowing the field - if we even can, much more than we have. It happened three billion years ago, after all - hard to get solid info, and the mature field is less than 75 years old (if we date the possibilities of research to the discovery of the role of DNA). Meanwhile, that's a demand you make of others which you don't make of your own claims; are you sure your own presumptions can meet it? What's the supposedly correct ID established pathway to the "first cell" and similar ID concepts? (in Darwinian theory there is no "first cell" - it would be a matter of definition, and various first cellular examples would presumably serve various analytical needs).
You think way too much of yourself. I don't waste too much time replying in detail as you have a reputation from other subforums of asserting BS as 'fact' and using the 'you are stupid' tactic whenever challenged as to your 'facts'. Like some others here you are too opinionated and vain to ever concede. The cycle never ends if one allows it. Not me. Life's too short to waste much time on your argument-as-hobby type. I have yet to come across any remotely workable hypothesis for unguided addition of a proto-cell wall other than as an accidental engulfing event by a somehow extant lipid enclosure. My earlier criticisms stand - it would lead to nowhere useful for reasons already given. You should read the second article linked to in #452. Things are getting quietly desperate in knowledgeable OOL circles. What's that you say; "you are stupid!" Sigh.
Interesting debate this. Q-reeus asks for the "correct" sequence of "abiogenesis" or even later "evolution", else the theory is too vague for a scientific defense or even "intelligent" discussion. But Q-reeus himself posits an "irreducible complexity" (i.e. a miracle) as proof of a defensible theory, but does not feel the need to provide the correct miraculous sequence used by the Intelligent Designer, without necessity for explaining an a priori state of non-irreducible complexity prior to the creation of "irreducible complexity". How convenient is that? "You have to show the exact path for your theory, but I don't even have to show any path for my theory. I have a Book named "Of Pandas and People" that teaches children about the magic of miracles and the Intelligent Designer which performs those miracles." That's like a pre-school "show and tell" where YOU must "show", but I don't need to show but only "tell". Are you "kidding me" ?
Well I'm still operational elsewhere, where there are even more reputable experts, so let's discuss your problems, denials and mythical beliefs there. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In essence, the over-riding issue with IDers and other assorted God botherers, is actually fear. Fear that an insensitive, indifferent, non-sympathetic universe, exists, and evolves and dies, just as life does...exist, evolve [reproduce] and dies. The finality of that death scares people. We fight to survive, but death is inevitable. Why does that finality scare people? It's simply the end of existence, kaput, that's it...no more conciousness, no mythical spiritual soul, just nothing.
Hmm....therefore your beloved missus clings to her flying spaghetti monster god out of a terrible fear of death. But that's ok provided she never ever shares her comforting faith with strangers. Goes to the dark side and becomes a god-botherer. You assume too much in accusing all ID advocates as being motivated primarily by fear of death, rather than a studied logical conviction that unguided abiogenesis is simply an unworkable fantasy.
