Is a 10bit A/D be adequate for detecting the end charge condition for NIMH & NICAD battery packs?
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------ The odds of a single modest length protein randomly forming is approx
1 in 10^260. By comparison the number atoms in the known universe has been estimated at 10^80 atoms. Figues are from the writings of Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick in 1981.8 bits would be adequate, imo.
Cheers
PeteS
Just for the record: The above statement, while true, is often misused by creationists. They have created a "straw man" argument that if life wasn't created by God, then the only alternative is that it must have formed *in one go* against ridiculous odds.
There are some major fallacies here: The first is that nothing in chemistry forms randomly. Consider the odds of billions of atoms "randomly" coming together to form a perfect cube from sea water. If you do the combinatorial math considering all the possible non-cubic alignments you get much longer odds than the above example. Yet this happens all the time, every day, all over the world, when salt crystallizes from sea water.
Another major fallacy is that they seem to think that any non-theological hypothesis about the origin of life requires everything to happen in one shot. But the world doesn't work that way, either. Once there are "building blocks" (amino acids, which are known to arise spntaneously from inert materials), then these can form into sub-assemblies and so on. Probability-wise, this is like the odds of getting a straight flush in poker on the initial deal, versus allowing a player an unlimited number of new cards and letting him keep the ones that fit each time.
But the very worst fallacy in these "odds" games is that they are (allegedly) computing the probability of a given outcome. But there are an enormous number of possible outcomes that would be equally acceptable. If not *that particular* protein, there are others that would do the same job, possibly better. (That's the whole idea of evolution in the first place.) And (the question the creationists are really concerned about) there is no particular predefined outcome that *must* look like us.
Just imagine the 20-tentacled slime creatures from Alpha Centauri saying "Gosh, what are the odds that pure random processes could form perfect creatures like *US*?!!!"
We now return you to our regularly scheduled electronics programming...
Best regards,
Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
with offset zero it probably is. -- if those 10 bits correspond to voltages between 1.10 and 1,30 volts (per cell) you'd have a resolution of about 200uV per bit. Is that enough ?
-- Bye. Jasen
It seemed like it was good enough to me, but I am not sure so I figured I would ask.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------ The odds of a single modest length protein randomly forming is approx
1 in 10^260. By comparison the number atoms in the known universe has been estimated at 10^80 atoms. Figues are from the writings of Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick in 1981.
Btw, It's closer to 1.2mv/count/cell using a 10bit A/D.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------ The odds of a single modest length protein randomly forming is approx
1 in 10^260. By comparison the number atoms in the known universe has been estimated at 10^80 atoms. Figues are from the writings of Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick in 1981.200mV / 1024 seems pretty close to 200uV to me. Bye. Jasen
Ok, A little slow, but I got it.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sir Julian Huxley - Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, President of UNESCO 25 yrs ago in a radio interview "I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin (of the species) was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit and I did some more homework and after doing so I totally convinced of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the subject.
I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of this post.
Also for the record, the full title is. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier scrutiny. Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.
More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not been a single example found of a given species evolving into a different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone. I wonder, why?An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley - Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex President of UNESCO "I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
That is quite an admission!
I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense to me.
I also refer you to "A Mathematician?s View of Evolution," (The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20 different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains of 200 or so in length.
A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
-- Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear reactions taking place in red giants. Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
Summary of Mike: We don't know every last jot and tiddle about the origin or the evolution of life on Earth. Therefore, the God of the Hebrew bible is the only alternative and, necessarily, the answer.
-- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
I like it
My take:
'Irreducible complexity' is a copout to relieve some of us of thinking through the answer because it might interfere with their beliefs. No real scientist I know of believes in 'irreducible complexity' as espoused by the ID crowd; they might well believe some things are too complex to answer *right now* because we have insufficient data.
I might also note that irreducible complexity is a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
Cheers
PeteS
Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit and I did some more homework and after doing so I am totally convinced of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the subject.
I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of this post.
Also for the record, the full title is. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier scrutiny. Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.
More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not been a single example found of a given species evolving into a different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone. I wonder, why?An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley - Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex President of UNESCO "I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
That is quite an admission!
I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense to me.
I also refer you to "A Mathematician?s View of Evolution," (The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20 different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains of 200 or so in length.
A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
-- Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear reactions taking place in red giants. Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
Rubbish. Wait until you are infected with MRSA, a creature we created by natural selection.
Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit and I did some more homework and after doing so I and many other much more qualified people are totally convinced of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few things, for the record, then I'll drop the subject.
I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of this post.
Also for the record, the full title is. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier scrutiny. Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.
More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not been a single example found of a given species evolving into a different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone. I wonder, why?An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley - Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex President of UNESCO "I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
That is quite an admission!
I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense to me.
I also refer you to "A Mathematician?s View of Evolution," (The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20 different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains of 200 or so in length.
A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
-- Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear reactions taking place in red giants. Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit and I did some more homework and after doing so I and many other much more qualified people are totally convinced of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few things, for the record, then I'll drop the subject.
I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of this post.
Also for the record, the full title is. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier scrutiny. Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.
More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the publication of The Origin of Species there has not been a single example found of a given species evolving into a different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone. I wonder, why?An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley - Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex President of UNESCO "I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
That is quite an admission!
I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense to me.
I also refer you to "A Mathematician?s View of Evolution," (The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))
Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20 different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains of 200 or so in length.
A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
-- Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear reactions taking place in red giants. Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
I didn't see Bob's comments, but I'll add my own - the text is simply wrong. So-called "arguments" against "evolution" (they are rarely concerned with evolution itself, but rather with specific process proposed as part of the body of theories having to do with the origins and development of life on Earth) always, absolutely without exception in my experience, over-simplify the situation or overlook crucial facts in order to make their case LOOK correct. Whether this is done through ignorance or simply such a burning desire to have one's case look "scientific" that facts are knowingly ignored, I cannot say.
In this particular examples, and similar ones which purport to quote "odds" against this or that particular arrangement of atoms coming together "by chance," the math always overlooks the fact that atoms DO NOT come together strictly "by chance." In other words, they treat a given collection of atoms as though they were always going to be blindly chosen utterly at random, and strung into molecules like beads on a necklace. This, of course, is simply not the case. Atoms combine according to very well-known and well-understood laws. Put a given amount of hydrogen together with a given amount of oxygen, add a little energy, and the result is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS water molecules. You don't just get a huge number of random collections of "O"s and "H"s in as many bizarre forms as you could type out. So it is with the formation of proteins, etc., so that "math" which is being presented here is completely and utterly meaningless. It serves only to delude the ignorant.
"Most people," to the extent that they think of this "debate" at all, think there's a debate simply because the creationists like to portray one as existing and have therefore tried to tell the lay public that there is one. In reality, there is absolutely no debate at all within the scientific community regarding the functioning of these basic processes. The models, theories, and observations which make up that which you wish to collectively label "evolution" are the bedrock of modern biology, and are not seriously questioned by any legitimate researcher in the field.
But has not resulted in any serious questioning of its main tenets AT ALL. To claim otherwise is simply a deceptive practice.
While technically correct, this is an example of telling only a half-truth. Darwin's degree was in theology, but he had also had two years of training in medicine at Edinburgh University, and considerable training in biology and other sciences while attending Cambridge.
Complete nonsense.
Of course, this is in part a specious (no pun intended) argument, since the very definition of "species" is artifiicial and to some degree fluid, and 150 years is hardly sufficient time for the mechanisms involved to have acted to cause speciation in the case of larger, longer-lived organisms. We would not expect in so short a time to see the equivalent of a horse becoming a cow, or some other equally absurd example. However, if by "speciation" one refers to the usually accepted criteria of morphology and lack of natural inbreeding, there are in fact numerous examples which have been observed in modern times. These include:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since t hey were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington.
There are numerous other examples cited in the literature, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the creationists. One has to wonder why this is.
You should also, in fairness, refer people to the numerous and quite thorough debunkings of these "works."
Complete nonsense. That YOU do not understand what "fit" means in this context is by no means a valid argument against the process.
I really have to question any so-called "theory" which, as we see in the case of "creationism" time and time again, relies so heavily on deception, mispresentation of the facts, selective evidence-gathering, and other intellectually dishonest practices in order to make its case.
Bob M.
I didn't see Bob's comments, but I'll add my own - the text is simply wrong. So-called "arguments" against "evolution" (they are rarely concerned with evolution itself, but rather with specific process proposed as part of the body of theories having to do with the origins and development of life on Earth) always, absolutely without exception in my experience, over-simplify the situation or overlook crucial facts in order to make their case LOOK correct. Whether this is done through ignorance or simply such a burning desire to have one's case look "scientific" that facts are knowingly ignored, I cannot say.
In this particular examples, and similar ones which purport to quote "odds" against this or that particular arrangement of atoms coming together "by chance," the math always overlooks the fact that atoms DO NOT come together strictly "by chance." In other words, they treat a given collection of atoms as though they were always going to be blindly chosen utterly at random, and strung into molecules like beads on a necklace. This, of course, is simply not the case. Atoms combine according to very well-known and well-understood laws. Put a given amount of hydrogen together with a given amount of oxygen, add a little energy, and the result is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS water molecules. You don't just get a huge number of random collections of "O"s and "H"s in as many bizarre forms as you could type out. So it is with the formation of proteins, etc., so that "math" which is being presented here is completely and utterly meaningless. It serves only to delude the ignorant.
"Most people," to the extent that they think of this "debate" at all, think there's a debate simply because the creationists like to portray one as existing and have therefore tried to tell the lay public that there is one. In reality, there is absolutely no debate at all within the scientific community regarding the functioning of these basic processes. The models, theories, and observations which make up that which you wish to collectively label "evolution" are the bedrock of modern biology, and are not seriously questioned by any legitimate researcher in the field.
But has not resulted in any serious questioning of its main tenets AT ALL. To claim otherwise is simply a deceptive practice.
While technically correct, this is an example of telling only a half-truth. Darwin's degree was in theology, but he had also had two years of training in medicine at Edinburgh University, and considerable training in biology and other sciences while attending Cambridge.
Complete nonsense.
Of course, this is in part a specious (no pun intended) argument, since the very definition of "species" is artifiicial and to some degree fluid, and 150 years is hardly sufficient time for the mechanisms involved to have acted to cause speciation in the case of larger, longer-lived organisms. We would not expect in so short a time to see the equivalent of a horse becoming a cow, or some other equally absurd example. However, if by "speciation" one refers to the usually accepted criteria of morphology and lack of natural inbreeding, there are in fact numerous examples which have been observed in modern times. These include:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since t hey were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington.
There are numerous other examples cited in the literature, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the creationists. One has to wonder why this is.
You should also, in fairness, refer people to the numerous and quite thorough debunkings of these "works."
Complete nonsense. That YOU do not understand what "fit" means in this context is by no means a valid argument against the process.
I really have to question any so-called "theory" which, as we see in the case of "creationism" time and time again, relies so heavily on deception, mispresentation of the facts, selective evidence-gathering, and other intellectually dishonest practices in order to make its case.
Bob M.
I have been watching the creationism "industry" for a long time. I think that the problem is that true believers refuse to look into any information source besides other true believers. They assume that their sources must be trustworthy because, after all, the sources are doing God's work... so they must be telling the unvarnished truth. They overlook the fact that the goal of the creationist sources is more along the lines of saving souls (and saving face) than true learning. The lies that come out of these factories are pretty amazing, considering that they all probably purport to uphold the Ten Commandments. (Or maybe "bearing false witness" is only taken in the restricted sense?)
I think the problem is one of whom to trust. The believers have been told that logic and reason are the tools of Satan, so they better not stray from the religious sources for fear of their immortal souls. I have never yet encountered a creationist who had more than the most minimal understanding of biology, so the guy in the pew has no way to validate what he hears. And the creationist arguments always appeal to the common man, without requiring any further reflection.
Most of the creationist industry seems to be "quote mining" as demonstrated in Mike's post. It always boggles my mind to think of all these drones skimming the scientific literature for a quote they can twist or misrepresent... seems that with all that effort they could actually *learn* something from what they read!
One thing that I find pretty amusing is their champions: Johnson is a lawyer... so we should trust his word on biology? (Would you trust a lawyer's words on *anything*?)
Dembski is an alleged statistician who seems to have no understanding of the bases of statistics at all.
Behe is a third-rate biochemist who recycled a 200 year-old argument (Paley's "half an eye") that has been refuted (repeatedly!) since it was frst advanced.
My favorite is Wells, a Moonie who got a doctorate in biology with the expressly-stated intention of *not* understanding the material, just so he could offer some desperately-needed credentials to the creationist industry!
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense. I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that if the underlying processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute the theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?
As for your other allegations, You would need to take that up Crick, not with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such complex molecules are also a given. This assumption is not as axiomatic as you would have one believe. Check out the article at
or for a more rigorous presentation
I hope you don't seriously believe that Crick had the sinister ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote the book.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense" If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated and be sure to take a look at this list
Here's another quote probably taken out of context. :)
Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University "There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists) because we have lost all 100 of the debates."
An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist have said. Check some of those 411,000 google hits for more info.
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God. C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a suspicion mind you.
Intesesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college then I am qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence supporting it, but ok, explain this:
L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.) "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)
and this
Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).
and this
"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and evolution, p. 253).
and this
Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.
and this
Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution. "evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."
I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas you missed the point yet again. You really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual "evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occured in the past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins.
You said that the concept of species is "artifiicial and to some degree fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution. You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your position. Not a good tactic.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people. I simply observe what such people have to say. For example what the scientists above had to say. I then base my conclusions on what makes sense to me. There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the darwinists and sometimes even suppressed by peer reviewed publications(see excerpt below). One has to wonder why this is.
You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case Google doesn't care. If you search for "irredcible complexity" you'll get hits for both sides of the non existant debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what "fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is, by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome. Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements? This is not an effective debating technique. At least I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my position in the form of references to articles and books, and in what reputable scientists are saying.
Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.
Note: Btw is used here to inject a minor point of fact.
For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the "so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".
and
and
and
and
Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells
The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in a 1996 book, Darwin?s Black Box, that some features of living things are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," as Darwin?s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.
Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe?s view in several peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe?s responses to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee?s judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science."
When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe?s essay dealt with evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."
So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it can?t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it?s not scientific because it hasn?t been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Catch-23!
Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution (2000)
Granted, the following 3 quotes aren't from qualified evolutionary scientists, but still interesting. From wikipedia
On 24 December 1968, in what was the most watched television broadcast to date, the crew of Apollo 8 surpised the world with a reading from Genesis as they orbited the moon.
William Anders:
"For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send you.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
Jim Lovell:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Frank Borman:
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you - all of you on the good Earth."
In closing.
Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school. It turned out that there are reputable scientists who agree with me. Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet wonderful. Some of those scientists attempts at publication have been supressed or they have been intimidated into silence. I also found out that evidence supporting evolution has been faked and even after discovery, is still in use use in textbooks to this day. One of lifes lessons that I have learned over the years is that it's generally not wise to trust bullies, liars, and fools. So, I write off most of what I read from these "establishment" types as propaganda and consider the rest.
I have never asked that anyone take my word for anything. I have, to the best of my ability, provided links and references supporting the position that modern evolution is simply junk science.
The bottom line is that creationism and darwinism are not theories at all, but rather dogmas. Neither of which has been and probably never will be proved. The difference is that darwinists present their beliefs as scientific fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of a generalization, but for the most part a true statement. There are of course exceptions on both sides.
Mike
Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."
As you are fond of saying, complete nonsense. I'm no scientist, but common sense dictates that if the underlying processes proposed in support of a theory are in question then the theory itself must also be in question. How else would one refute a theory if not by refuting it's proposed underlying processes?
As for your other unsubstantiated allegations, You would need to take that up with Dr Crick or Dr McLaughlin since Crick died 2004, but not with me.
Speaking of deluding the ignorant, I believe you have simply restated what I said with the added assumption that the formation of such complex molecules are also a given. This assumption is not as axiomatic as you would have one believe. Check out the article at
or for a more rigorous presentation
I hope you don't seriously believe that Dr Crick had the sinister ulterior motive "to delude the ignorant" when he wrote the book.
Uh Oh, more "complete nonsense" If anyone really believes the nonsense that there is no debate on darwinism among legitimate researchers I suggest you google "evolution debate" and check out some of the about 411,000 hits generated, but be sure to take a look at this list
Here's another quote probably taken out of context. :)
Dr Steven J Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University "There have been more than 100 debates between evolutionist and creationists. We should stop debating these people(creationists) because we have lost all 100 of the debates."
An odd thing to say in any context given the "fact" that there is no debate on darwinism.
I do not claim anything, I simply restate what qualified scientist have said. Check some of those 411,000 google hits for more info.
Uh, the point was that he gave credit for that 1st living cell to God. C'mon now, pay attention. Btw means "by the way" and is generally used to inject a minor point of fact. I have to admit that I suspect you were aware of my point, ignored it, and concentrated on a point of trivia just for an opportunity to shoot the messenger. Just a suspicion mind you.
Intesesting though, by your logic, since I studied physics in college then I would be qualified to formulate a new string theory. An obvious absurdity!
Oh dear, another declaration of "complete nonsense" with no evidence supporting it, but ok, explain this:
L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.) "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" - Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)
and this
Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).
and this
"With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic features present". Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and evolution, p. 253).
and this
Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.
and this
Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist in Great Britain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution. "evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."
I could go on, but I think these people have made the point.
Indeed a true statement, but alas you missed the point yet again. You really need to pay attention. I did not say that the actual "evolution" should have taken place in the last 150yrs. What I did say was that no proof that such an evolutionary process has occured in the past has been found in the 150 yrs since Darwin wrote the origins.
You said that the concept of species is "artifiicial and to some degree fluid" then give examples of speciation to support evolution.
You refute a concept then use that very concept to support your position. I'm not sure how that works.
I'll not pretend to be an expert on darwinism, or that I can properly analyze field research. I must leave that to qualified people. I simply observe what such people have to say and to some extent, how they say it. For example what the scientists above had to say. I then base my conclusions on what makes sense to me.
There are numerous examples of dissenting views by reputable scientists, but for some reason these are never mentioned by the darwinists. One has to wonder why this is.
Some of these scientists have even had their views suppressed by peer reviewed publications(see excerpt toward the end of this post for an example). One has to wonder why this is.
You know, to tell you the truth, personally I couldn't care less about different varieties of fish or flowers that may or may not be different species. I want to see proof that I came from anything other than God. As I have already shown, even the most staunch supporters of darwinism have lamented that such proof does not exist. Even some of the circumstantial evidence has been shown to have been faked. I refer you to Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices" toward the end of this post.
Wait a minute, I thought you said there was no debate. In any case Google doesn't care. If you search for "irredcible complexity" you'll get hits for both sides of the non existant debate.
Oops, you missed the point yet again, Go have a cup of coffee then read it again slowly. I did not say that I do not understand what "fit" means. What I understand or don't understand is irrelevant. I did say that blind natural selection cannot know what fits. Which is, by definition, absolutely true. I know what "fit" means in this context because I've played poker before and know the desired outcome. Again, I believe you understood my point, ignored it, and attempted to refute something I didn't say or even imply.
Do you realize that you tend to make harsh blanket statements with absolutely no proof presented in support of those statements? This is not an effective debating technique. I have attempted to provide evidence in support of my position in the form of references to articles and books, and to what reputable scientists are saying on the subject. You can accept or deny that evidence, but at least I presented it.
Btw, the theory is Intelligent design, not creationism.
Note: Btw is used here to inject a minor point of fact.
For a list of peer reviewed books and articles supporting the "so-called theory" of intelligent design go to the link below.
Speaking of "intellectually dishonest practices".
and
and
and
and
and
Dr Ken Poppy a 30 yr veteran science teacher, was forced to transfer to a different school because he simple mentioned in an elective class the fact that the intelligent design theory existed and that there was a book in the library if anyone was interested.
and
Consider the following excerpt from an article by Dr Jonathan Wells
The pro-Darwin bias in biology journals effectively excludes an alternative scientific theory such as intelligent design. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, pointed out in a 1996 book, Darwin?s Black Box, that some features of living things are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they function only when all of their parts are in place. Behe reasoned that such features could not have been assembled by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," as Darwin?s theory requires, since the intermediate steps would have been non-functional and thus could not have been favored by natural selection. According to Behe, irreducible complexity points to intelligent design, rather than Darwinian evolution.
Darwinian biologists have criticized Behe?s view in several peer-reviewed journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution and The Quarterly Review of Biology. Yet, peer-reviewed science journals have consistently refused to publish Behe?s responses to such criticisms. One journal editor, in refusing to publish one such response, cited a reviewer who wrote: "In this referee?s judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science."
When Behe submitted an essay to another biology journal, the editor wrote back: "As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages." Since Behe?s essay dealt with evidence for his position (the hallmark of scientific reasoning), the phrase "other than scientific grounds" simply reflects the fact that for this journal, "science" is equated with "evolution."
So the rule is this: A theory such as intelligent design, that fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it can?t be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it?s not scientific because it hasn?t been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Catch-23!
Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has published articles in several peer-reviewed science journals. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of Icons of Evolution (2000)
Granted, the following 3 quotes aren't from qualified scientists, but still interesting. From wikipedia
On 24 December 1968, in what was the most watched television broadcast to date, the crew of Apollo 8 surpised the world with a reading from Genesis as they orbited the moon.
William Anders:
"For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send you.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
Jim Lovell:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Frank Borman:
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you - all of you on the good Earth."
In closing.
Evolution just didn't seem plausible to me, so I set out to see what I could learn about it since it wasn't even taught when I was in school. It turned out that there are reputable scientists who think the same thing. Wow, I didn't know that. Isn't the internet wonderful.
Some of those scientists attempts at publication have been supressed or they have been intimidated into silence. This raised some red flags in my mind.
I also found out that evidence supporting evolution has been faked and even after discovery, was/is still in use use in textbooks. Uh oh, more red flags.
The ACLU is a staunch supporter of darwinism, maybe it's just their anti-God bias showing through. In any case, more red flags! Ok, this is my worldview showing, I admit it.
With so many red flags popping up, I have to think that there is something very very wrong here!
Life has taught me over the years that it's generally not wise to trust bullies, liars, and fools. So, I write off most of what I read from these "establishment" types as propaganda and consider the remaing body of evidence. Remember that term from the 60s, The people who coined the term are now "the establishment" and if they were to be believed then are now not to be trusted. :)
I have never asked that anyone take my word for anything. I have, to the best of my ability, provided links and references supporting the position that modern evolution is simply junk science.
The bottom line is that creationism and darwinism are not theories at all, but are dogmas. Neither of which has been and probably never will be proved. The difference is that darwinists present their beliefs as scientific fact and creationists do not. Yes, it's a bit of a generalization, but for the most part a true statement. There are of course exceptions on both sides.
Mike
Prof David Albrooke - Univ of Australia evolution is "a time hononed tennant of faith."
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.