Poll: Evolution and the other side

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
[There is nothing in that link that shows that Bacteria are made up of D-type Amino Acids.
Fine. Here's a study on V. Cholera [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5947/1552.abstract] that kinda proves my point.
V. Cholera is deadly because it causes Cholera which just reasserts my point that D-type Amino Acids are toxic. When V. Cholera enters the body, it infects the cell with it's D-type and that causes negative reactions in the body.
If it's so toxic and antithetical to life, why is the cholera alive?

Just answer that question. Why is the cholera alive?

Just stop. The cholera is a living organism using D-type amino acids. You asked for a link to such an organism, I provided one, your point is disproven.

Go back to using argument forms that boil down to tautologies such as 'In a universe where evolution does not happen, evolution does not happen.'

I have satisfied your test, in finding a life form that is based on D-type amino acids. You asked for it, it is done. Your point is debunked and arguing about whether or not cholera is bad for humans doesn't actually advance your original point that life cannot exist with D-type amino acids. It can, it does, go eat some spearmint gum if you need EVEN MORE proof.

You are proven wrong. There IS no further discussion on the point of the chirality of amino acids, because your thesis on it is absolutely incorrect, and it's not relevant to abiogenesis anyways. Stop mentioning it, it is not a valid argument.
Oh dang! You got me mixed up. Please read here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~molbio/Courses/301/DL_AA.pdf

Bottom of the page, note where it says that all Amino Acids used in protein synthesis are L and are part of the 20 required Amino Acids. I allowed myself to get mixed up into non-DNA related topics. So let me reiterate. D-type Amino Acids prevent protein synthesis. In Dr Miller's experiment only 13 of the required 20 types were made and part of those were always D-type preventing protein synthesis. That was written in Dr Miller's own report.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
monfang said:
Oh dang! You got me mixed up. Please read here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~molbio/Courses/301/DL_AA.pdf

Bottom of the page, note where it says that all Amino Acids used in protein synthesis are L and are part of the 20 required Amino Acids. I allowed myself to get mixed up into non-DNA related topics. So let me reiterate. D-type Amino Acids prevent protein synthesis. In Dr Miller's experiment only 13 of the required 20 types were made and part of those were always D-type preventing protein synthesis. That was written in Dr Miller's own report.
Note how the line immediately following that statement noted that D amino acids are found in bacterial cell walls and in peptide antibiotics, rather contrary to the point you're trying to make.
 

randomrob

New member
Aug 5, 2009
592
0
0
Thaliur said:
randomrob said:
There's scientific evidence for creation? Really? I was under the impression there was just a pile of ad hoc explaining away of tangible evidence using theology, conformation bias and wank. Let me ask you a question in turn, has any creationist, ever actually understood the theory of evolution by natural selection? If you can provide a link of such a thing, I will eat my own shoes.
Yes, there is such evidence. Here's a great explanation of it, even in comic form:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2330

Basically, this is all there is...

To bad though, that shoe-eating video might have made millions of pageviews on youtube.
I think you've linked the wrong comic, it was something about data points that misrepresented the idea of verification. You meant to link one misrepresenting evolution.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Asita said:
monfang said:
Oh dang! You got me mixed up. Please read here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~molbio/Courses/301/DL_AA.pdf

Bottom of the page, note where it says that all Amino Acids used in protein synthesis are L and are part of the 20 required Amino Acids. I allowed myself to get mixed up into non-DNA related topics. So let me reiterate. D-type Amino Acids prevent protein synthesis. In Dr Miller's experiment only 13 of the required 20 types were made and part of those were always D-type preventing protein synthesis. That was written in Dr Miller's own report.
Note how the line immediately following that statement noted that D amino acids are found in bacterial cell walls and in peptide antibiotics, rather contrary to the point you're trying to make.
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
randomrob said:
Thaliur said:
randomrob said:
There's scientific evidence for creation? Really? I was under the impression there was just a pile of ad hoc explaining away of tangible evidence using theology, conformation bias and wank. Let me ask you a question in turn, has any creationist, ever actually understood the theory of evolution by natural selection? If you can provide a link of such a thing, I will eat my own shoes.
Yes, there is such evidence. Here's a great explanation of it, even in comic form:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2330

Basically, this is all there is...

To bad though, that shoe-eating video might have made millions of pageviews on youtube.
I think you've linked the wrong comic, it was something about data points that misrepresented the idea of verification. You meant to link one misrepresenting evolution.
True, it wasn't exactly on topic, but their "reasoning" follows the same principle.

Also, as I learned from monfang, if something is written down, it is true, unless he says it isn't. Because of this, we know that Griffins actually existed in ancient Greece, and Klingons or giants don't and never did exist.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.
Thus supporting evolution, as evolution does not support spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation would be more of an indication of some sort of creatative endevor.

In other words, if you disprove spontaneous generation, you contraindicate creationism.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.
Which has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis does not suggest the first life forms used DNA.

Read that again. Now, next time you type 'DNA doesn't blah blah blah' reread that. Reread it again. Anything you're about to say about DNA, RNA, or whatsit, has FUCK ALL to do with abiogenesis. Nothing. Zero. Abiogensis already knows that crap. It doesn't try to go against it, because it tries to deal with as simple things. Things already proven to have existed.

Amino acids exist in space, for gossake. On earth, where there's water and carbon, there's gonna be a lot more of them. Cause, yeah, earth's got a lot of oxygen, a lot of hydrogen, and a LOT of carbon.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.
Math that 'disproves' something that has already been proven (E=MC^2) is not actually math disproving anything.

Except in this case, the math is called 'Godol's Law' and it actually does prove that an intellegence cannot exist that contains the sum of all computation, for there will always be something outside of its computational abilities. It presumes an omniscience, then goes on to prove the existance of knowledge outside that omniscience, thus disproving omniscience through contradiction.

As a corrolary, it goes on to prove that an intellegence cannot directly create an intellegence equal to itself. This is why modern cybernetics is not interested in designing fully functioning AIs (impossible) but rather designing learning algorithms that emerge into AIs (which is possible).
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.
Thus supporting evolution, as evolution does not support spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation would be more of an indication of some sort of creatative endevor.

In other words, if you disprove spontaneous generation, you contraindicate creationism.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.
Null

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.
Math that 'disproves' something that has already been proven (E=MC^2) is not actually math disproving anything.

Except in this case, the math is called 'Godol's Law' and it actually does prove that an intellegence cannot exist that contains the sum of all computation, for there will always be something outside of its computational abilities. It presumes an omniscience, then goes on to prove the existance of knowledge outside that omniscience, thus disproving omniscience through contradiction.

As a corrolary, it goes on to prove that an intellegence cannot directly create an intellegence equal to itself. This is why modern cybernetics is not interested in designing fully functioning AIs (impossible) but rather designing learning algorithms that emerge into AIs (which is possible).
First, allow me to be clear. Spontaneous uncontrolled generation.

And I've never heard of Kurt Godel's Law nor can I find anything that relates it to God. Can you give me a few links that shows where you received your facts?
 

Amphoteric

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,276
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.
What? This guy already disproved spontaneous generation 200 years ago. You are a bit behind on the times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Amphoteric said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.
What? This guy already disproved spontaneous generation 200 years ago. You are a bit behind on the times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
Very true sir. Very true. That Experiment proved that only life creates life. There needs to be a seed before a tree can be grown. But that is nether here or there, I have been open to changing the subject away from Abiogenesis to return to Evolution but that is proving difficult.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
First, allow me to be clear. Spontaneous uncontrolled generation.
Time to be fucking blunt here.

Stop trying to beat that dead horse. Neither evolution NOR abiogenesis put forth spontaneous generation as a viable theory. You keep saying that it's invalid as if stating such is meaningful to your point.

It is not.

And you would know this if you'd gone and done your homework and saw the video.

Which you haven't.

Again.

And I've never heard of Kurt Godel's Law nor can I find anything that relates it to God. Can you give me a few links that shows where you received your facts?
Direct from wikipedia:

"Stephen Cole Kleene (1943) presented a proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorem using basic results of computability theory. One such result shows that the halting problem is unsolvable: there is no computer program that can correctly determine, given a program P as input, whether P eventually halts when run with some given input. Kleene showed that the existence of a complete effective theory of arithmetic with certain consistency properties would force the halting problem to be decidable, a contradiction. This method of proof has also been presented by Shoenfield (1967, p. 132); Charlesworth (1980); and Hopcroft and Ullman (1979).
Franzén (2005, p. 73) explains how Matiyasevich's solution to Hilbert's 10th problem can be used to obtain a proof to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. Matiyasevich proved that there is no algorithm that, given a multivariate polynomial p(x1, x2,...,xk) with integer coefficients, determines whether there is an integer solution to the equation p = 0. Because polynomials with integer coefficients, and integers themselves, are directly expressible in the language of arithmetic, if a multivariate integer polynomial equation p = 0 does have a solution in the integers then any sufficiently strong theory of arithmetic T will prove this. Moreover, if the theory T is ω-consistent, then it will never prove that some polynomial equation has a solution when in fact there is no solution in the integers. Thus, if T were complete and ω-consistent, it would be possible to algorithmically determine whether a polynomial equation has a solution by merely enumerating proofs of T until either "p has a solution" or "p has no solution" is found, in contradiction to Matiyasevich's theorem.
Smorynski (1977, p. 842) shows how the existence of recursively inseparable sets can be used to prove the first incompleteness theorem. This proof is often extended to show that systems such as Peano arithmetic are essentially undecidable (see Kleene 1967, p. 274).
Chaitin's incompleteness theorem gives a different method of producing independent sentences, based on Kolmogorov complexity. Like the proof presented by Kleene that was mentioned above, Chaitin's theorem only applies to theories with the additional property that all their axioms are true in the standard model of the natural numbers. Gödel's incompleteness theorem is distinguished by its applicability to consistent theories that nonetheless include statements that are false in the standard model; these theories are known as ω-inconsistent."


Translation: Any computational system has many self-referential questions it cannot compute. An infinite computational system (read: omniscient intellegence) is just as blind to self-referential questions as a finite one. Thusly, omniscience cannot exist, as it has at least one knowledge it cannot fully know: itself. By logical extension, any question relating to outside objects relating to itself are also as indeterminate, thusly, it cannot fully know knowledges outside itself.

Therefore, it is not omniscient.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
monfang said:
Very true sir. Very true. That Experiment proved that only life creates life. There needs to be a seed before a tree can be grown. But that is nether here or there, I have been open to changing the subject away from Abiogenesis to return to Evolution but that is proving difficult.
No it didn't, and no you haven't.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
First, allow me to be clear. Spontaneous uncontrolled generation.
Null

And I've never heard of Kurt Godel's Law nor can I find anything that relates it to God. Can you give me a few links that shows where you received your facts?
Direct from wikipedia:

"Stephen Cole Kleene (1943) presented a proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorem using basic results of computability theory. One such result shows that the halting problem is unsolvable: there is no computer program that can correctly determine, given a program P as input, whether P eventually halts when run with some given input. Kleene showed that the existence of a complete effective theory of arithmetic with certain consistency properties would force the halting problem to be decidable, a contradiction. This method of proof has also been presented by Shoenfield (1967, p. 132); Charlesworth (1980); and Hopcroft and Ullman (1979).
Franzén (2005, p. 73) explains how Matiyasevich's solution to Hilbert's 10th problem can be used to obtain a proof to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. Matiyasevich proved that there is no algorithm that, given a multivariate polynomial p(x1, x2,...,xk) with integer coefficients, determines whether there is an integer solution to the equation p = 0. Because polynomials with integer coefficients, and integers themselves, are directly expressible in the language of arithmetic, if a multivariate integer polynomial equation p = 0 does have a solution in the integers then any sufficiently strong theory of arithmetic T will prove this. Moreover, if the theory T is ω-consistent, then it will never prove that some polynomial equation has a solution when in fact there is no solution in the integers. Thus, if T were complete and ω-consistent, it would be possible to algorithmically determine whether a polynomial equation has a solution by merely enumerating proofs of T until either "p has a solution" or "p has no solution" is found, in contradiction to Matiyasevich's theorem.
Smorynski (1977, p. 842) shows how the existence of recursively inseparable sets can be used to prove the first incompleteness theorem. This proof is often extended to show that systems such as Peano arithmetic are essentially undecidable (see Kleene 1967, p. 274).
Chaitin's incompleteness theorem gives a different method of producing independent sentences, based on Kolmogorov complexity. Like the proof presented by Kleene that was mentioned above, Chaitin's theorem only applies to theories with the additional property that all their axioms are true in the standard model of the natural numbers. Gödel's incompleteness theorem is distinguished by its applicability to consistent theories that nonetheless include statements that are false in the standard model; these theories are known as ω-inconsistent."


Translation: Any computational system has many self-referential questions it cannot compute. An infinite computational system (read: omniscient intellegence) is just as blind to self-referential questions as a finite one. Thusly, omniscience cannot exist, as it has at least one knowledge it cannot fully know: itself. By logical extension, any question relating to outside objects relating to itself are also as indeterminate, thusly, it cannot fully know knowledges outside itself.

Therefore, it is not omniscient.
I'm having a hard time believing that you understand all that gibberish. Once again, I state I can not find any like Kleene making the connection you are. What I can find however is a forum topic concerning Philosophy 201. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1872-Cantor-and-the-Omniscience-of-God

This will be my final response on this because we are WAY off topic. This is about evolution, not math. If you want to challenge God with math. Go to a religious forum and challenge them.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Don't be hypocritical. Either attacking the tenets of the opposing camp is allowable or it is not. You've been attacking your opposing camp's tenets for pages now. Suddenly evolution is not allowed to scientifically examine creationism's tenets?!

You came to debate. Your assertations and attacks on evolution are shown to either be irrelevant, misinformed, or incorrect.

Your side has had its say. Now you can spend a few pages watching YOUR side get attacked with rebuttals and counterarguments.

Or, are you not interested in a fair discussion, and only interested in propagandizing?

Again, this is a thread about creationism and whether its evidence has been considered. So, yes, attacking creationism IS fair game.
 

YamadaJisho

New member
Sep 22, 2009
65
0
0
So basically, the answer to your question, OP, is that no, virtually no atheists have actually seriously looked at the other side.