Spearthrower wrote:I never once said 'you need to know intent to infer design' - I said that 'design necessarily infers intent' - you purposefully obfuscated that because the line of reasoning buried your pathetic attempts at shoring up the medieval masturbatory fantasy now known as "ID".

You said that I can't infer design without intent. Don't make me go and quote you again.

Царь Славян wrote:

Interesting that Tsar assumes that anyone here is an atheist. Isn't that a completely random guess on his part ?

Saying that no atheist here deserves my respect is not the same as assuming that everyone here is an atheist.

Well, well, well, well, well. Lookee who's back. Whaddya know, Tsar's back with another serving of juvenile logic failure.

Let's recap, shall we ?

Tsar was asked to show the basic respect of quoting the poster's name,

To which Tsar replied:

Царь Славян wrote: Not a single atheist here deserves my respect.

Umm-hmm. But how does he know that the poster he's disrespecting at the moment is an atheist who does not "deserve his respect" ? Hmm.

Of course he doesn't know that. There's no mark of the devil visible on atheists' posts here. Tsar must just ASSUME that.

QED. Tsar's sniveling excuse for why he won't/can't use the same decent manners with everyone here is a total logic failure.

Rumraket wrote:Just felt like dropping in because I remembered this article on pandas thumb:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01 ... .html#more

It specifically addresses the paper Axe cites(which funnily enough, is his own) in his bio-complexity.org paper.

Summary

To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.

Oh well...

Axes paper is fine. What your article claims is that Axe didn't use the natural, but a modified protein. Yeah I know, and this very protein that has a smaller search space has been shown to be intractable by a random process. So imagine now, how a full protein would be tractable. Obviously even less. So your article makes an ironical mistake.

Anyway, here I found an article by a creation scientist. He does not do any work of his own, but cites others that did this same work as Axe did. He is quoted in this paper as well. It shows that Axes numbers are actually in the middle. Not to hign, not to low. Just righ.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_ ... _90-99.pdf



According to axes estimates there in about 5 billion years there would be an effective population size of 10^10 bacteria that would produce about about 5 * 10^23 mutations. This are the probabilistic estimates that life would have at it's disposal to find something usefull.

Bacterial species are most conducive to
this because of their large effective population sizes.3 So let us
assume, generously, that an ancient bacterial species sustained an
effective population size of 1010 individuals [26] while passing
through 104 generations per year. After five billion years, such
a species would produce a total of 5 × 1023 (=5 × 109 104 1010)
cells that happen (by chance) to avoid the small-scale extinction
events that kill most cells irrespective of fitness. These 5 × 1023
‘lucky survivors’ are the cells available for spontaneous mutations
to accomplish whatever will be accomplished in the species.
This number, then, sets the maximum probabilistic resources that
can be expended on a single adaptive step.

According to me these numbers are inflated. A more rational position would be to take 3.6 billion years,s ince that's the most commonly dated appearance of first life. Furthermore, we should take the mutation rate to be a 10^8 mutations level. Effective population can stay the same.

So we would get the following model: 3.6 * (10^10 * 10^4 * 10^8) = 3.6 * 10^22

Which is clearly not enough to get to even the smallest of estimated protein folds like Chorismate mutase which is on the order of 1 : 10^44. So darwinian evolution fails.

tsar, how do you tell whats designed by "insert your deity/alien here" and what isnt,
also, if you make a universe, surely everything is designed isnt it?

I knew it wouldnt last long. I tried to be nice, but the first post I got in response used bad language again. So here we go again...

Whaddya know, Tsar's back with another serving of juvenile logic failure.

My logic is juvenile? You wanna know what's juvenile? The animals Darwin had sex with while on Galapagos.

QED. Tsar's sniveling excuse for why he won't/can't use the same decent manners with everyone here is a total logic failure.

My sniveling excuse? You wanna know what's sniveling? Darwin's beard after drinking horse cum and having his beard plasterd all over. That's what's sniveling.

blindfaith wrote:tsar, how do you tell whats designed by "insert your deity/alien here" and what isnt,

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

also, if you make a universe, surely everything is designed isnt it?

It isn't.

Tsar... really, you must at least TRY to understand that we really don't care what you say or think about Darwin.
Evolution is a religion in the same way absense of praying is an act of religious worship.
Charles Darwin is not holy or reveered beyond critique, and quite frankly, if he did indeed run around and let horses fuck him in the ass, it still wouldn't mean his theory was wrong.

I also can't help noticing your obsession over penises, anal sex and inter-species male ejactulations. It's okay to be fascinated by that stuff you know, don't fee guilty about it... but it doesn't belong in this part of the forums.

Царь Славян wrote:

Because Physics is obviously not your strong point. What you've written about the Copenhagen Interpretation, double-slit experiment, uncertainty principle, people collapsing wave-functions etc. qualifies as "not even wrong". It's basically incoherent (and dare I say ignorant) nonsense.

Not even wrong? Explain why. I'm listening.

You could start by explaining how the following sentence:

My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.

makes any sense, even in the context of the Ukrainian guy's speculative "aether" model. I would also ask you what gives you confidence in this "aether" model ahead of hundreds of other speculative models, but we can do that later.

Царь Славян wrote:More of a polite repeat...

Well, I think that since you admittedly don't like it here, then you have the following options:

1. Do not come back and don't post.
2. Ask for your account to be deactivated
3. Act like a total troll so that the moderator team bans you.

Or I could stay. Do you mind by any chance?

Of course you can stay, as long as you behave in accordance with the FUA. I think Darkchilde is just concerned for your mental/emotional wellbeing - since you clearly don't like it here and you've stated

In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human garbage that I ever came across.

it would probably be healthier for you to stay away and avoid raising all those anger issues in yourself.

But suit yourself.

Me, I'm happy you stay. The sheer comedy value,- WTF did he just say - of your posts brightens my day.

This is a forum about skepticism, reason, and science. No wonder then, that the majority of the people are atheists, since logic and reason usually lead people to become atheists.

No it does not. Logic and reason can lead you to anything.

Noone treated you badly.

On the contrarry. Everyone did.

I have read most if not all the responses to you, and most people have been trying to educate you about science.

No, they have not, because they are clearly no capeable of doing so.

Read my responses to you. Did I attack you personally or trolled you? Did GenesForLife or Spearthrower or Rumracket or someone else and gotten away with it?

Yes, every single one of you did. Calling names people that work for DI is bad language. All of you used it.

Since when does calling Dumbski names work the same as calling YOU names ? You're not Bill Dumbski, are you ? You are Bill Dumbski ? Oh, god, then I'm so sorry for you.

Do you really not see the difference between calling IDiot Dumbski a lying asshole - which he has been proven to be - and calling YOU a lying asshole ?

So, admit that you didn't tell the truth when you claimed, in answer to the question about who attack personally or troll you

Yes, every single one of you did.

Царь Славян wrote:
To the rest of you:

Now that we have no reason to pretend that we like each other, I will come clean so that we can either continue this discussion politely or not at all. In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human garbage that I ever came across. I don't like you one bit and I don't care what happens to any of you. If it was up to me, I would not care if all your relatives got cancer. And as a matter of fact, that would be just fine as far as I'm concerned.

Fresh back from a suspension, Tsar can't resist getting that disgusting poke in. He has to have known that post would get reported to the mods, and it has indeed been reported.

Way to prove you are better than "human garbage", Tsar, by writing garbage like that. Such a great example of rational behavior. I wonder if your religious friends are proud of the example you set.

Царь Славян wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Just felt like dropping in because I remembered this article on pandas thumb:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01 ... .html#more

It specifically addresses the paper Axe cites(which funnily enough, is his own) in his bio-complexity.org paper.

Summary

To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.

Oh well...

Axes paper is fine. What your article claims is that Axe didn't use the natural, but a modified protein. Yeah I know, and this very protein that has a smaller search space has been shown to be intractable by a random process. So imagine now, how a full protein would be tractable. Obviously even less. So your article makes an ironical mistake.

Anyway, here I found an article by a creation scientist. He does not do any work of his own, but cites others that did this same work as Axe did. He is quoted in this paper as well. It shows that Axes numbers are actually in the middle. Not to hign, not to low. Just righ.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_ ... _90-99.pdf



According to axes estimates there in about 5 billion years there would be an effective population size of 10^10 bacteria that would produce about about 5 * 10^23 mutations. This are the probabilistic estimates that life would have at it's disposal to find something usefull.

Bacterial species are most conducive to
this because of their large effective population sizes.3 So let us
assume, generously, that an ancient bacterial species sustained an
effective population size of 1010 individuals [26] while passing
through 104 generations per year. After five billion years, such
a species would produce a total of 5 × 1023 (=5 × 109 104 1010)
cells that happen (by chance) to avoid the small-scale extinction
events that kill most cells irrespective of fitness. These 5 × 1023
‘lucky survivors’ are the cells available for spontaneous mutations
to accomplish whatever will be accomplished in the species.
This number, then, sets the maximum probabilistic resources that
can be expended on a single adaptive step.

According to me these numbers are inflated. A more rational position would be to take 3.6 billion years,s ince that's the most commonly dated appearance of first life. Furthermore, we should take the mutation rate to be a 10^8 mutations level. Effective population can stay the same.

So we would get the following model: 3.6 * (10^10 * 10^4 * 10^8) = 3.6 * 10^22

Which is clearly not enough to get to even the smallest of estimated protein folds like Chorismate mutase which is on the order of 1 : 10^44. So darwinian evolution fails.

ROFL. You link a paper from creation.com, a "creation scientist". HAHAaaa. I wonder how much peer review it went through... I guess he reviewed it himself.

By the way, I see you are back to ignoring the fact that proteins are reducible to functional folds that very often show high tolerance to mutations that sustain the overall patterns of polarity and charge. And that evolution is postulated to have been shuffling, duplicating and mutating these folds around pretty much since their ultimate origin.

And you once again reduce evolution to a blind search by x numbers of random point mutations trying to find a specific fold or sequence.

Царь Славян wrote:

No, maybe they can fly without wings.

I get it. Too many superhero comic-books.

I'm simply posing a philosophical question.

Boyo boy. You've come to the wrong place with your so-called philosphical question as to whether humans can fly without wings.

Even for the Debunk It forum, that's a bucket of hogwash. Hysterical to think you can claim (with a straight face, I suppose, if we could see your face) that you're "simply posing a philosophical question".

GIve up, Tsar. It's OK to admit, just once, that you misspoke yourself. Just once. C'mon, it won't kill you, It will probably make you feel better.

Царь Славян wrote:B
To the rest of you:

Now that we have no reason to pretend that we like each other, I will come clean so that we can either continue this discussion politely or not at all. In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human

Царь Славян wrote:And I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

garbage that I ever came across. I don't like you one bit and I don't care what happens to any of you. If it was up to me, I would not care if all your relatives got cancer. And as a matter of fact, that would be just fine as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm sure the feeling is mutual. So now that we know that we do not care for each other, the discussion can continue any way you want it to. It's up to you. My following posts will be perfectly polite. If I even for a second sense that I'm not getting back that same politeness, you will be hearing stories of Darwin and his pets for as long as it will be needed. It's your choice.

Oh my, what a nice guy you are.

Царь Славян wrote:
And I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

No it isn't. I sure detest arrogant liars for doctrine, such as you, but I do not wish you any harm. Certainly not your relatives, eiter. I am above that. I won't lower myself to your rotten standards. If I am garbage, you better not look into a mirror.

Царь Славян wrote:So now that we know that we do not care for each other, the discussion can continue any way you want it to. It's up to you. My following posts will be perfectly polite. If I even for a second sense that I'm not getting back that same politeness, you will be hearing stories of Darwin and his pets for as long as it will be needed. It's your choice.

How dare you demand politness after that crazy rant of yours? How fucking dare you. Especially after you have never shown a bit of politness at all, with all that lying and quotemining etc. going on with you over countless of pages of this thread.

You are a perfect example of what religion does to people.

hotshoe wrote:

Царь Славян wrote:

I'm simply posing a philosophical question.

Boyo boy. You've come to the wrong place with your so-called philosphical question as to whether humans can fly without wings.

Even for the Debunk It forum, that's a bucket of hogwash. Hysterical to think you can claim (with a straight face, I suppose, if we could see your face) that you're "simply posing a philosophical question".

GIve up, Tsar. It's OK to admit, just once, that you misspoke yourself. Just once. C'mon, it won't kill you, It will probably make you feel better.

I almost want to bet money he wont admit to anything. Consider for how long he has been trying to obfuscate his colossal failure with respect to GTP.
No, admitting anything to the evil, filthy, garbage darwinists is apparently the worst of all possible sins that it is possible to commit, next to having a horse ejaculate on your beard. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahhaaa ...

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I never once said 'you need to know intent to infer design' - I said that 'design necessarily infers intent' - you purposefully obfuscated that because the line of reasoning buried your pathetic attempts at shoring up the medieval masturbatory fantasy now known as "ID".

You said that I can't infer design without intent. Don't make me go and quote you again.

Do you understand the difference between being able to infer intent and actually knowing what that intent is? It's a very important distinction in the context of the exchange between Spearthrower and yourself here.

Rumraket wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Boyo boy. You've come to the wrong place with your so-called philosphical question as to whether humans can fly without wings.

Even for the Debunk It forum, that's a bucket of hogwash. Hysterical to think you can claim (with a straight face, I suppose, if we could see your face) that you're "simply posing a philosophical question".

GIve up, Tsar. It's OK to admit, just once, that you misspoke yourself. Just once. C'mon, it won't kill you, It will probably make you feel better.

I almost want to bet money he wont admit to anything. Consider for how long he has been trying to obfuscate his colossal failure with respect to GTP.
No, admitting anything to the evil, filthy, garbage darwinists is apparently the worst of all possible sins that it is possible to commit, next to having a horse ejaculate on your beard. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahhaaa ...

I see what you did there.

Царь Славян wrote:That is all concerning you.

To the rest of you:

Now that we have no reason to pretend that we like each other, I will come clean so that we can either continue this discussion politely or not at all. In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human garbage that I ever came across. I don't like you one bit and I don't care what happens to any of you. If it was up to me, I would not care if all your relatives got cancer. And as a matter of fact, that would be just fine as far as I'm concerned.

Well, that's nice of you. It must be hard going through life being so passionately hateful of everyone that disagrees with you.

Your behaviour is testament to your belief system.

Царь Славян wrote:And I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Your feelings are quite wrong. I would not wish such disgusting things on my worst enemy, were I to have one, which I don't. I consider all humans equal, regardless of their beliefs.

Honestly, I don't feel anything for you one way or another. You're just a guy (maybe a girl, who knows?) on the internet who is wrong on a particular subject. That's it, for me, no great crushing desire to see you brought low by having you watch your family die horrible deaths.

I am, however, forced to wonder at the kind of mentality you need to arrive at such disdain for your fellow humans. I assume it must be something to do with your belief system, your preferred divine Sky Fairy and its nasty little ideology has clearly got in the way of your natural human impulse to not wish unto others what you would not want on yourself. Breaking the basic empathy with your own species should really give you an inkling as to the vileness of your doctrine.

Царь Славян wrote:So now that we know that we do not care for each other, the discussion can continue any way you want it to. It's up to you. My following posts will be perfectly polite. If I even for a second sense that I'm not getting back that same politeness, you will be hearing stories of Darwin and his pets for as long as it will be needed. It's your choice.

Your threats are entirely meaningless. Your fabricated puerile attention seeking rants about a guy dead a hundred years merely exposes you as having a nasty inability to express yourself without indulging in vicious fantasy. I personally couldn't care less what pathetic slurs you make against dead people, it only makes you look foolish and petty.

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I never once said 'you need to know intent to infer design' - I said that 'design necessarily infers intent' - you purposefully obfuscated that because the line of reasoning buried your pathetic attempts at shoring up the medieval masturbatory fantasy now known as "ID".

You said that I can't infer design without intent. Don't make me go and quote you again.

Yep, that's right - for there to be design, you are explicitly stating that you see intent.

You don't really know what you're arguing, do you?


Edit: spelling

Царь Славян wrote:

Read my responses to you. Did I attack you personally or trolled you? Did GenesForLife or Spearthrower or Rumracket or someone else and gotten away with it?

Yes, every single one of you did. Calling names people that work for DI is bad language. All of you used it.

This is an outright lie and is against the forum rules as well as being contrary to all conventional honour and morality.

I never once attacked you personally.

Further, your response was a bait and switch.

Had I have attacked or even called people at the Discovery Institute 'utter fucking retards', which I most certainly didn't, that would not have been a personal attack on you.

Did I use 'bad language'? Yes, possibly depending on what you consider to be bad language. Did I use it AT you? No.

Please don't make false accusations like this impugning mine and others characters when it is you who had a meltdown and went on a personal abuse spree.

Царь Славян wrote:

The job of the NCSE is to keep science in school. Evolutionary theory is scientific, therefore the NSCE is right to want to keep it in schools.

No. Science is about falsifying theories. You are not supposed to keep a theory in school forever.

And he SHOOTS. He SCORES. Another OWN GOAL !

Are you doing this on purpose ? Are you just playing around, trying to make your statements as stupid as possible to see who will notice ?

Despite the efforts of fanatic Christian and Muslim anti-evolutionists for more than a century, they have not found one single piece of physical evidence to falsify the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution belongs in schools for as long as it is the best-available explanation accounting for all the evidence. Until it's falsified, that is. By evidence.

Evidence. Got any ? No, I thought not.

Feel free to take another shot at the goal when you come back with some evidence, Tsar.