- Status
K
Kei
Guest
They made homo heidelbergenesis look a lot like Frederick Douglas imo, with the beard and the little bit of gray hair with the hairstyle.
My favorite looking one is the homo neanderthalensis because of how wild the beard is.
My favorite looking one is the homo neanderthalensis because of how wild the beard is.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your calling me names does not refute my argument. But if that’s the best you have, then I understand why you would resort to it. By the way, still waiting for an answer to my PM.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am not calling you any names. I am saying your responses to posts are like an AI obfuscatebot.
B
buffalo
Guest
Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science
THE WORLD’S BEST synthetic chemists, biochemists, and evolutionary biologists have combined forces to form a team—a dream team in two quite distinct senses of the word. Money is no object. They have at their disposal the most advanced analytical facilities, the complete scientific literature, synthetic and natural coupling agents, and all the reagents their hearts might desire. Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, and nucleic acids are stored in their laboratories in a state of 100% enantiomeric purity.
Would the dream team—please—assemble a living system?
Take your time, folks, take a few billion years.
Nothing? Well, well, well.
Let us assume that all the building blocks of life, and not just their precursors, have been made to a high degrees of purity, including homochirality where applicable—the carbohydrates, the amino acids, the nucleic acids, and the lipids. They are stored in cool caves, away from sunlight, and away from oxygen. These molecules are indifferent to environmental degradation.
And let us further assume that they are all stored in one comfortable corner of the earth, not separated by thousands of kilometers or on different planets.
And that they all exist not just in the same square kilometer, but in neighboring pools where they can conveniently and somehow selectively mix with each other as needed.
Now what? How does the dream team assemble them without enzymes?
Very well. Give the dream team polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence, cleanly assembled.
Ready now?
Apparently not.
We teach our students that when a mechanism does not support their observations, the mechanism must either be revised to support the facts or entirely discounted. They are not required to provide an alternative.
We are such stuff as dreams are made on. It has a ring among prebiotic chemists.
The Current State
THOSE WHO THINK scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.
The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.
THE WORLD’S BEST synthetic chemists, biochemists, and evolutionary biologists have combined forces to form a team—a dream team in two quite distinct senses of the word. Money is no object. They have at their disposal the most advanced analytical facilities, the complete scientific literature, synthetic and natural coupling agents, and all the reagents their hearts might desire. Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, and nucleic acids are stored in their laboratories in a state of 100% enantiomeric purity.
Would the dream team—please—assemble a living system?
Take your time, folks, take a few billion years.
Nothing? Well, well, well.
Let us assume that all the building blocks of life, and not just their precursors, have been made to a high degrees of purity, including homochirality where applicable—the carbohydrates, the amino acids, the nucleic acids, and the lipids. They are stored in cool caves, away from sunlight, and away from oxygen. These molecules are indifferent to environmental degradation.
And let us further assume that they are all stored in one comfortable corner of the earth, not separated by thousands of kilometers or on different planets.
And that they all exist not just in the same square kilometer, but in neighboring pools where they can conveniently and somehow selectively mix with each other as needed.
Now what? How does the dream team assemble them without enzymes?
Very well. Give the dream team polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence, cleanly assembled.
Ready now?
Apparently not.
We teach our students that when a mechanism does not support their observations, the mechanism must either be revised to support the facts or entirely discounted. They are not required to provide an alternative.
We are such stuff as dreams are made on. It has a ring among prebiotic chemists.
The Current State
THOSE WHO THINK scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.
The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.
B
buffalo
Guest
George Wald Nobel prize winner for medicine 1967 said-
“I do not want to believe in God so I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible spontaneous generation leading to evolution”
“I do not want to believe in God so I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible spontaneous generation leading to evolution”
A
anon65111186
Guest
[No message]
B
buffalo
Guest
To the Theistic Evolutionist - Is the illusion of design a deception of God?
G
Glark
Guest
According to evolutionary theory, this fish’s light didn’t suddenly appear, but evolved step-by-step, with each step of the evolutionary progression conferring a survival advantage. There was a point where the light didn’t work and the whole appendage was just a stub on the fish’s head. What survival advantage would just a stub confer?
G
Glark
Guest
I know for a fact that my brain is 100% composed of bacteria cells. That’s why I feel really weird for a while if I take antibiotics.
G
Glark
Guest
The probability of me becoming the world best golfer in 2018 cannot be calculated, but I am 100% certain it’s impossible. A “hard number” isn’t always required to pronounce an event impossible.
G
Glark
Guest
I respectfully disagree. I think trying to get evolution to coexist with Scripture is an absurdity.
G
Glark
Guest
There is ZERO “scientific proof” that all life on earth evolved from microbes. There is ZERO “scientific proof” that a microbe evolved into a fish, that a fish evolved into a reptile, that a reptile evolved into a mammal or that humans descended from some kind of ape.
G
Glark
Guest
I believe that the “six days” of creation described in Genesis 1 happened about 5778 years ago, but I also believe there could have been a creation (non-human) that existed before that, which was destroyed. So the history of life on earth could go back much further than 5778 years.
(btw, the number of times you’ve mentioned “5778 years” in the last few months is now up to 1,234,485.)
G
goout
Guest
These threads testify to the sad state of catechesis in Western Catholicism.
G
Glark
Guest
If one rejects belief in God and hence a Creator, then one really has no choice but to believe that life on earth evolved from microbes. Having accepted microbe-man evolution as reality, it is then easy to accept Darwinism as the mechanism by which that evolution occurs.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
An event like your becoming the world’s best golfer may be somewhat easier to gauge because the quantities involved (the time scale, the experience of other golfers) are within the range of daily experience. So our human intuition can be quite accurate. But events of the sort that would be involved in evolution are way outside our daily experience. We have no intuitive feel for how long 100,000,000 years is. We have no intuitive grasp of how many folds are possible in a protein.LeafByNiggle:
The probability of me becoming the world best golfer in 2018 cannot be calculated, but I am 100% certain it’s impossible. A “hard number” isn’t always required to pronounce an event impossible.
Here’s an example that will point out the problem. To learn to drive a car, a person can quickly develop a feel for how tight a turn one can make without skidding. Through experience one can develop an intuition on when to apply the brakes to gently come to a stop at a red light. But to learn to fly a small airplane, a person pays more attention to instruments and hard numbers, while intuitive feel and flying “by the seat of your pants” still plays a role, because the sensations involved in piloting a plane are so different from daily experience. This is even more true when learning to fly though clouds. Instruments and hard numbers replace intuition. And it is even more true (I suppose, though I don’t know from personal experience) when flying a 747. Landing speeds are critical. Now imagine trying to “feel” when to cut off propulsion on a lunar rocket mission so that you arrive at the moon with just the right amount of velocity to be able to go into orbit. That sort of intuition just does not exist. They rely 100% on calculations, or else they would go shooting past the moon or fall back toward earth.
Calculations on the probability of protein sequences and folding are more like calculating the thruster cutoff point on a trip to the moon than it is like deciding when to apply the brake when approaching a red light. Hard numbers are absolutely essential for any meaningful result.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
In other words: Believe in God or believe in magic.
- Status