@sunderwoodbio
... By: IDtaksovr. on 02 Sep 10, 12:39:15 @sunderwoodbio
Darwinism and other chance and necessity - based theories are holding back science by turning the spectacular complexity of life into a "dirty secret". The Darwinists are forced to deny / ignore / explain - away or greatly dumb down what the findings of decades of careful biological research have revealed about the unfathomable complexity of living systems, in order to divert attention from glaring limitations to their clunky, clumsy origins theory of mutation and selection
Konayasai: "silly ... By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 19:33:23 Konayasai: "silly creationists, go study I say"
...I AM! that's my point! I study this and I don't have enough faith to say that there is not an ultimate designer; you have more faith by saying that such complicated mechanisms come about and function by way of natural proccesses and time...
a clock has a clock maker afterall- it just makes more sense beyond resonable doubt (note: nothing in science is ever beyond ALL doubt, just reasonable doubt)
The peptide chain ... By: kingofqwerty. on 01 Sep 10, 19:05:59 The peptide chain looks like a turd :D
@watergaia Wow you ... By: kingofqwerty. on 01 Sep 10, 19:04:43 @watergaia Wow you sound enlightened, can I join your drum circle?
A movie explaining ... By: Salladsfingrar. on 01 Sep 10, 16:13:46 A movie explaining the coding of the DNA. Why in hell would it be proof of a god? Silly creationists, go study I say.
I saw no evidence ... By: konayasai. on 01 Sep 10, 13:53:11 I saw no evidence in this video that supports "Intelligent Design". Rather the opposite, in fact.
@sunderwoodbio yeah ... By: watergaia. on 01 Sep 10, 12:34:01 @sunderwoodbio yeah, but we humans too are "controlled" by chemical reactions in the brain, so by that kind of thinking we could be machines too. scientists don't know why things have positive and negative charges. i think it's for the same reason that humans have males and females... it's a love instinct that makes them attracted to each other.
electrons and atoms in a watch are probably instinctually moving, and making the clock move because of how it's constructed.
@sunderwoodbio ... By: watergaia. on 01 Sep 10, 12:30:13 @sunderwoodbio there's no proof that they don't live, think or have instinct. they could be a form of living organisms... well maybe not organisms since they don't have organs, but you get my point... they could be living entities.
@watergaia also to ... By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 01:24:46 @watergaia also to note: "molecular animals" is an oxy-moron, they cannot be 'animals' and have a level of organization lower than a cell. They do not live, think, or have instinct. They are simply going through a series of reactions that they are DESIGNED to do; my inquiry was to HOW EXACTLY these reactions take place or 'know' what to do and when.
@watergaia ...no, ... By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 01:18:20 @watergaia ...no, you are wrong. these proteins and protein complexes are controled by bond reactions and chemical structure, which are in turn controled by the organization of electrons in thier shells of those atoms (essentially pos + neg charges control everthing) NOT 'INSTINCT' (whatever you meant)
What I mean is that this all has design like a watch or robot (would those things be acting on 'instinct'? they have designers but can function alone for some time)
@sunderwoodbio it's ... By: watergaia. on 31 Aug 10, 23:47:07 @sunderwoodbio it's not design. it's instinct. those "machines" are actually small molecular animals that are controlled by an instinct.
@Arachnivore One ... By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 22:04:53 @Arachnivore One protein in 17000 generations. At that rate you would need period of time many times longer than the age of the universe for even the proteins that form the human to come about let alone the organisational, informational and functional considerations (not to mention that intelligent jiggery pokery is required to initaiate the process of the experiment using preexisting components).
@Arachnivore LOL. ... By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 21:51:40 @Arachnivore LOL. An experiment to verify Intelligent Design as a principal: Take one intelligent agent, tell it to design something using the available resources, observe, if the agent appears to 'design' somthing have measures in place to ensure that the 'design' has originated from the 'designer' and not by some form of magic as is normal observed in nature (BioLogos, biologist Kathryn Applegate), Observe the design to asses whether in any sense intellignece may be inferred from the design.
@Arachnivore Spin ... By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 21:41:16 @Arachnivore Spin that story baby! The actual experiments that have been carried out on this stuff reveal that:
a, Any effect observed is insufficient to account for even simple life forms as we observe them, and;
b, The jiggery pokery required to get a satisfactory result demonstrates that intelligence is a requirement.
HIV is a much better example than Flavobacterium because it mutates faster, regenerates faster and there have been an incredible number of changes observed.
@psk6565
Macro ... By: Arachnivore. on 28 Aug 10, 06:31:14 @psk6565
Macro evolution doesn't happen by chance. Variation is stochastic but selection is based on fitness in the environment not chance. That's a common misconception. Read the wikipedia article on the monte carlo method. Evolution can be thought of as a naturally occurring monte carlo search. The sampling method is random, but the function being sampled (i.e. the environment) is defined. Therefore the results are not random, they are guided by the environment.
1:15 to 1:28 ... By: sunderwoodbio. on 28 Aug 10, 01:37:16 1:15 to 1:28 WHAAAAT? HOW does it do that?! that by itself screams some larger form of design. As for the rest...self explanitory = designed each for it's part
@Arachnivore You ... By: psk6565. on 27 Aug 10, 23:58:40 @Arachnivore You simply have shown that an intelligent person can manipulate genes and DNA within an organism and it can adapt. Supposedly macro evolution happens by chance therefore it must be observed when it by chance happens. It only shows that an intelligent being with purposes, tests, experiments, etc. can manipulate a creature.
@Markus77x7
Macro ... By: Arachnivore. on 27 Aug 10, 06:40:57 @Markus77x7
Macro evolution most certainly has been observed in a laboratory setting. In 2006 Hayashi et al. completely removed the minor protein coat gene from coliphage (a virus) and replaced it with a random sequence of DNA. The infection rate of the virus increased (from near zero) by a factor of 17,000 over several generations. When they observed the resulting coliphage genome they found an entirely new protein coat gene.
You know what hasn't been verified in labs? Intelligent Design.
@anguspure
The need ... By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:27:58 @anguspure
The need for an external source of energy is fulfilled in the theory presented in the video by a geothermal vent. Currents allow complimentary strands of polymerized nucleic acid sequences to disassociate and re polymerize (effectively reproducing). External energy sources and self polymerization provide a means of reproduction, nucleic acid sequences provide a means of capturing information, and competition and selection provide the information.
Does that all make sense?
@anguspure
The ... By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:16:31 @anguspure
The anti-entropic behavior of life is only sustained by greater entropy elsewhere (e.g. the fusion of billions of tons of hydrogen in the sun or the decay of radioactive material in the center of the earth). Without a constant infusion of energy from these sources, life is impossible. fatty acids would form vesicles, organic molecules would spontaneously polymerize, but nothing interesting would result. It would be static just like the formation of ice crystals.
(yet more to come)
@anguspure
( ... By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:09:34 @anguspure
(continued)
You then assert that because the phenomenon described in the video are examples of simple self organization (like crystallization) phenomenon, the theory is "bullocks" even though it satisfies your demands for a theory to demonstrate how life could possibly arrise from simple phenomenon.
One of the defining characteristics in life is that it is apparently anti-entropic. I'll adress why this doesn't conflict with the second law of thermodynamics in my next comment.
@anguspure
When you ... By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 16:56:03 @anguspure
When you refer to tornados in a junkyard, I assume you're talking about the argument; Tornados in a Junkyard don't produce 747s.
This argument is fallacious because it is a hasty generalization. You give an example of a chaotic system that doesn't produce complex orderly structures, then conclude that no chaotic system can give rise to complex orderly structures.
You then go on to point out a counterexample to that conclusion in the phenomenon of crystallization.
(to be continued)
@anguspure
"Just ... By: IDtaksovr. on 24 Aug 10, 00:29:10 @anguspure
"Just trying to be a bit magnanimous."
Your right. We need to throw the Darwinists some crumbs from time to time.
@IDtaksovr Know ... By: anguspure. on 23 Aug 10, 22:26:51 @IDtaksovr Know what you're thinking but not really, I'm drawing a bit from Behe's book 'The Edge of Evolution' which outlines the limits of the limits of the effectivness of the Neo-Darwinism thing. It does happen but at a level even more ineffective than what I would term 'micro-evolution. Just trying to be a bit magnanimous.
@Arachnivore Had a ... By: anguspure. on 23 Aug 10, 22:16:17 @Arachnivore Had a look, a bit dissapointed, tornadoes in junkyards anyone? What is described in this vid is little more remarkable in terms of information content than the natural formation of mineral crystal structures. Clever work but a load of hairy old bollocks I'm afraid. In order for this to work there would have to be some predisposition or energy in favour of specific structures leading to more complex forms arising, without it entropy prevails.
Over the course of a year, Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell has made a powerful impact for intelligent design, reaching a wide audience with its cutting-edge science. Visit http://www.signature inthecell.com for more information.
Information is what runs the show in biology. The question is what is the source of the digital informaiton found in DNA? Stephen Meyer argues that only intelligence can produce information.
What is the key thing that needs to be explained in origin of life research?
Dr. Meyer explains the importance of biological information in origin of life research, as he discussed in his book Signature in the Cell - http://www.signature inthecell.com.
Is Intelligent Design Science? In this short video, Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell (www.signatureinthec ell.com) explains why he thinks so.
This animation shows how the digital information encoded in DNA directs protein synthesis inside the cell and provides a unique look at the evidence for intelligent design as described in Dr. Stephen C. Meyers book Signature in the Cell. For more information visit www.signatureinthece ll.com
A major new book about evolution and intelligent design, Signature in the Cell (HarperOne, June 2009), investigates how new scientific discoveries regarding the digital code in DNA are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe. For more visit www.signatureinthece ll.com
Darwin Day in America tells the disturbing story of scientific expertise run amuck, exposing how an ideological interpretation of Darwinian biology and reductionist science have been used to degrade American culture over the past century through their impact on criminal justice, welfare, business, education, and bioethics. For more visit http://www.darwinday inameria.com
Dr. Jay Richards discusses whether or not intelligent design theory can say who the designer is. Dr. Richards is a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and also Director of Media at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
This is the second of two short lectures delivered at Discovery Institute in honor of Darwin Day. In this clip Dr. Jonathan Wells discusses the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full video of the event is available at ID The Future, www.idthefuture.com.
This is a short lecture by Dr. John West on the meaning of Darwin Day. This was originally broadcast on idthefuture.com and a high-resolution video of the complete program is available there.
In Flock of Dodos, storyteller Randy Olson tries his best to discredit intelligent design, but he only ends up discrediting himself by showing how far he is willing to stretch the truth to hoax his audience. This video highlights just one of the many falsehoods in the film. For more information visit www.hoaxofdodos.com.
Natural remedies can achieve the same results (if not better) as many chemical and surgical treatments.
The ancient Chinese had many uses for the plants and herbs that grew wild, and their knowledge has made its way gradually to the Western world
in the last century.
Other cultures have also contributed to the knowledge base of natural medicines, including Native Americans who made use of herbs and plants.
You will discover natural remedies have been proven to assist for thousands of years in the prevention and cure of circulatory problems.
"When it took a little longer than expected to clot, the blood drawer asked me, "Are you taking any thinners?" It was at that moment I knew taking Bilberry had worked!"
Latest comments made on this video:
By: IDtaksovr. on 02 Sep 10, 12:39:15
@sunderwoodbio Darwinism and other chance and necessity - based theories are holding back science by turning the spectacular complexity of life into a "dirty secret". The Darwinists are forced to deny / ignore / explain - away or greatly dumb down what the findings of decades of careful biological research have revealed about the unfathomable complexity of living systems, in order to divert attention from glaring limitations to their clunky, clumsy origins theory of mutation and selection
By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 19:33:23
Konayasai: "silly creationists, go study I say" ...I AM! that's my point! I study this and I don't have enough faith to say that there is not an ultimate designer; you have more faith by saying that such complicated mechanisms come about and function by way of natural proccesses and time... a clock has a clock maker afterall- it just makes more sense beyond resonable doubt (note: nothing in science is ever beyond ALL doubt, just reasonable doubt)
By: kingofqwerty. on 01 Sep 10, 19:05:59
The peptide chain looks like a turd :D
By: kingofqwerty. on 01 Sep 10, 19:04:43
@watergaia Wow you sound enlightened, can I join your drum circle?
By: Salladsfingrar. on 01 Sep 10, 16:13:46
A movie explaining the coding of the DNA. Why in hell would it be proof of a god? Silly creationists, go study I say.
By: konayasai. on 01 Sep 10, 13:53:11
I saw no evidence in this video that supports "Intelligent Design". Rather the opposite, in fact.
By: watergaia. on 01 Sep 10, 12:34:01
@sunderwoodbio yeah, but we humans too are "controlled" by chemical reactions in the brain, so by that kind of thinking we could be machines too. scientists don't know why things have positive and negative charges. i think it's for the same reason that humans have males and females... it's a love instinct that makes them attracted to each other. electrons and atoms in a watch are probably instinctually moving, and making the clock move because of how it's constructed.
By: watergaia. on 01 Sep 10, 12:30:13
@sunderwoodbio there's no proof that they don't live, think or have instinct. they could be a form of living organisms... well maybe not organisms since they don't have organs, but you get my point... they could be living entities.
By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 01:24:46
@watergaia also to note: "molecular animals" is an oxy-moron, they cannot be 'animals' and have a level of organization lower than a cell. They do not live, think, or have instinct. They are simply going through a series of reactions that they are DESIGNED to do; my inquiry was to HOW EXACTLY these reactions take place or 'know' what to do and when.
By: sunderwoodbio. on 01 Sep 10, 01:18:20
@watergaia ...no, you are wrong. these proteins and protein complexes are controled by bond reactions and chemical structure, which are in turn controled by the organization of electrons in thier shells of those atoms (essentially pos + neg charges control everthing) NOT 'INSTINCT' (whatever you meant) What I mean is that this all has design like a watch or robot (would those things be acting on 'instinct'? they have designers but can function alone for some time)
By: watergaia. on 31 Aug 10, 23:47:07
@sunderwoodbio it's not design. it's instinct. those "machines" are actually small molecular animals that are controlled by an instinct.
By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 22:04:53
@Arachnivore One protein in 17000 generations. At that rate you would need period of time many times longer than the age of the universe for even the proteins that form the human to come about let alone the organisational, informational and functional considerations (not to mention that intelligent jiggery pokery is required to initaiate the process of the experiment using preexisting components).
By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 21:51:40
@Arachnivore LOL. An experiment to verify Intelligent Design as a principal: Take one intelligent agent, tell it to design something using the available resources, observe, if the agent appears to 'design' somthing have measures in place to ensure that the 'design' has originated from the 'designer' and not by some form of magic as is normal observed in nature (BioLogos, biologist Kathryn Applegate), Observe the design to asses whether in any sense intellignece may be inferred from the design.
By: anguspure. on 28 Aug 10, 21:41:16
@Arachnivore Spin that story baby! The actual experiments that have been carried out on this stuff reveal that: a, Any effect observed is insufficient to account for even simple life forms as we observe them, and; b, The jiggery pokery required to get a satisfactory result demonstrates that intelligence is a requirement. HIV is a much better example than Flavobacterium because it mutates faster, regenerates faster and there have been an incredible number of changes observed.
By: Arachnivore. on 28 Aug 10, 06:31:14
@psk6565 Macro evolution doesn't happen by chance. Variation is stochastic but selection is based on fitness in the environment not chance. That's a common misconception. Read the wikipedia article on the monte carlo method. Evolution can be thought of as a naturally occurring monte carlo search. The sampling method is random, but the function being sampled (i.e. the environment) is defined. Therefore the results are not random, they are guided by the environment.
By: sunderwoodbio. on 28 Aug 10, 01:37:16
1:15 to 1:28 WHAAAAT? HOW does it do that?! that by itself screams some larger form of design. As for the rest...self explanitory = designed each for it's part
By: psk6565. on 27 Aug 10, 23:58:40
@Arachnivore You simply have shown that an intelligent person can manipulate genes and DNA within an organism and it can adapt. Supposedly macro evolution happens by chance therefore it must be observed when it by chance happens. It only shows that an intelligent being with purposes, tests, experiments, etc. can manipulate a creature.
By: Arachnivore. on 27 Aug 10, 06:40:57
@Markus77x7 Macro evolution most certainly has been observed in a laboratory setting. In 2006 Hayashi et al. completely removed the minor protein coat gene from coliphage (a virus) and replaced it with a random sequence of DNA. The infection rate of the virus increased (from near zero) by a factor of 17,000 over several generations. When they observed the resulting coliphage genome they found an entirely new protein coat gene. You know what hasn't been verified in labs? Intelligent Design.
By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:27:58
@anguspure The need for an external source of energy is fulfilled in the theory presented in the video by a geothermal vent. Currents allow complimentary strands of polymerized nucleic acid sequences to disassociate and re polymerize (effectively reproducing). External energy sources and self polymerization provide a means of reproduction, nucleic acid sequences provide a means of capturing information, and competition and selection provide the information. Does that all make sense?
By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:16:31
@anguspure The anti-entropic behavior of life is only sustained by greater entropy elsewhere (e.g. the fusion of billions of tons of hydrogen in the sun or the decay of radioactive material in the center of the earth). Without a constant infusion of energy from these sources, life is impossible. fatty acids would form vesicles, organic molecules would spontaneously polymerize, but nothing interesting would result. It would be static just like the formation of ice crystals. (yet more to come)
By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 17:09:34
@anguspure (continued) You then assert that because the phenomenon described in the video are examples of simple self organization (like crystallization) phenomenon, the theory is "bullocks" even though it satisfies your demands for a theory to demonstrate how life could possibly arrise from simple phenomenon. One of the defining characteristics in life is that it is apparently anti-entropic. I'll adress why this doesn't conflict with the second law of thermodynamics in my next comment.
By: Arachnivore. on 25 Aug 10, 16:56:03
@anguspure When you refer to tornados in a junkyard, I assume you're talking about the argument; Tornados in a Junkyard don't produce 747s. This argument is fallacious because it is a hasty generalization. You give an example of a chaotic system that doesn't produce complex orderly structures, then conclude that no chaotic system can give rise to complex orderly structures. You then go on to point out a counterexample to that conclusion in the phenomenon of crystallization. (to be continued)
By: IDtaksovr. on 24 Aug 10, 00:29:10
@anguspure "Just trying to be a bit magnanimous." Your right. We need to throw the Darwinists some crumbs from time to time.
By: anguspure. on 23 Aug 10, 22:26:51
@IDtaksovr Know what you're thinking but not really, I'm drawing a bit from Behe's book 'The Edge of Evolution' which outlines the limits of the limits of the effectivness of the Neo-Darwinism thing. It does happen but at a level even more ineffective than what I would term 'micro-evolution. Just trying to be a bit magnanimous.
By: anguspure. on 23 Aug 10, 22:16:17
@Arachnivore Had a look, a bit dissapointed, tornadoes in junkyards anyone? What is described in this vid is little more remarkable in terms of information content than the natural formation of mineral crystal structures. Clever work but a load of hairy old bollocks I'm afraid. In order for this to work there would have to be some predisposition or energy in favour of specific structures leading to more complex forms arising, without it entropy prevails.