Congrats ES!
I really love you hair. And just so I sound more like a typical guy, I really think that car was awesome. Best to ya.
Midget-Sasquatch
JoinedPosts by Midget-Sasquatch
-
63
WEDDING PHOTOS
by Es in.
had a fantastic time, couldnt have asked for better weather...forecast said it was going to rain it was hot and sunny right up until we went inside for the reception then a brief shower or too so that was fantastic.. ceremony was over before i knew it, went without a hitch.. reception and photos both great fun.. pretty buggered now hehehehe.. the next few photos are of us in the morning unfort as yet i have none of the ceremony but will pass them on if anyone wants to see.
enjoy sorry they are so big.
-
-
-
221
Was Jesus the first creation.
by ajie inas i mentioned in my last post that im studying the book what the bible really teaches,anyway im now on the bit about who is jesus,now it uses the scripture col1:15 does this prove he was created where it says hes the firstborn.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Gumby
For Joey to be even more flexible with the texts than the Borg blows my mind. I need something to chill me out. Whats the difference between indica and sativa?
-
221
Was Jesus the first creation.
by ajie inas i mentioned in my last post that im studying the book what the bible really teaches,anyway im now on the bit about who is jesus,now it uses the scripture col1:15 does this prove he was created where it says hes the firstborn.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Joseph
This is the beginning John is now focused on, mankind in all its complexity. Paul does basically the same thing in Col. 1:16. He is not discussing the universe or anything else not even the animals that have life. You cannot now run to Genesis or Isaiah or anywhere else in an attempt to move John’s introduction in time and/or function as you do in this thread.
Like you basically said, its not always staying true to a text, if we jump to what other texts (from different time periods and milieus) say. So lets stick to what Colossians says at 1:16: all created things includes those in the heavens and on earth, the visible and invisible. Even the WTS teaches that Jesus created angels. To give heavens and invisible other meanings is to distort the text.
-
96
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus inmillions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Rex
Intelligent design is a scientific theory, which attempts to explain observed facts and makes predictions, while evolution is a naturalist philosophy that is unsupported by facts yet is sustanined by a greater amount of faith than creationism is!
Fact: Deadly bacterial pathogens can develop resistance to antibiotics
Fact: Deadly viral pathogens can evade host immune systems by changing surface glycoproteins or other parts of the capsule's surface
What is the likely mechanism(s) for how these changes occur according to Intelligent Design Theory?Wouldn't these observations indicate (under an ID paradigm) that the organisms were intentionally made to ensure the deaths of people? A culling mechanism. What prediction can then be made about the disposition of this Intelligent Designer to humans when said Intelligence targets indiscriminately?
-
221
Was Jesus the first creation.
by ajie inas i mentioned in my last post that im studying the book what the bible really teaches,anyway im now on the bit about who is jesus,now it uses the scripture col1:15 does this prove he was created where it says hes the firstborn.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Wouldn't the idea of the Memra be a good fit for how Jesus is described in those verses from Colossians?
-
96
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus inmillions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
I agree with Abaddon that the journal you cited hooberus had some thought provoking points.
But overall I didn't find it a persuasive argument for intelligent design. Here's a few of my thoughts on some of the "evidence" they gave against an evolutionary explanation for those new enzymes:
1) It says that transposable elements enhance adaptation of the bacterium, and they seemingly are "designed" to do so. I'm pretty sure that where these transposable elements insert themselves is random (bringing along with themselves copies of other genetic info). So they do aid mutations, but just how "intelligently" is another matter. Also how does a mechanism that promotes adaptation argue against evolution?
2) That all the new enzymes are only on the plasmid and not on the bacterial chromosome isn't that strong an argument for deliberate design. The homology between the genes strongly point to their have arisen as du plications. Duplications usually arise when the strand of DNA is being copied/replicated. So if one came to be on the plasmid, you'd expected the duplicates to stay on the plasmids and not to appear on another DNA strand (i.e. the chromosome) that is copied separately.
3)
Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
Yes, it would be very unlikely from a frame shift mutation. But it doesn't totally nullify other random processes. To wit: the enzyme of EII' is a very close homologue of EII but is much less effective. Changing just 2 amino acids will bring its enzymatic activity right up to the levels of EII. That can be done with 2 point mutations.
4) B acteria which previoulsy didn't metabolize the nylon oligomers was put through artificial selection in the lab and in a matter of days there were colonies that could. It was supposedly too short a time for random evolutionary processes to account for it. Again, how does that argue against evolution? Also k eep in mind that when bacteria are put into starvation mode, mutation rates are found to increase. Whatever the mechanism behind that, the mutations themselves are random. ie. Couple that with the very short generation times of the bacteria and those days could easily encompass many generations for a sped up evolution to work on.
-
96
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus inmillions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
My point regarding observation was not intended primarily to exclude the possibility of complex design coming about by unintelligent means, but rather to emphasize that if a dogmatic claim is made (as often is) that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" that such a dogmatic claim really should be backed up by numerous strong observed examples.
And to that I say: Of course. Its rational to want some hard evidence to back up a claim. In fact, I'm very inclined to your general stance. I'd like to see something with my own eyes too. But for things that have happened prior to my being there, I have to resort to making plausible connections with observable details in the present.
There is a good amount of persuasive evidence and examples of macroevolution having taken place if you give the process the appropriate span of time. You didn't address those points. What do you think about, not only one but 2 new enzymes having evolved to degrade a man-made chemical? I know its not a complex system (the time frame you asked for precludes it), but its definitely an example of a novel feature having arisen without a deliberate designer. The building blocks for macro-evolution.
-
96
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus inmillions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
hooberus
Naturalists have an a priori bias according to you. Its fairly clear that you want to limit the span of time for observations so as to eliminate evidence that counters your own a priori belief in an intelligent designer. Nearly from the beginning of this thread, Leolai essentially made this same point. Do you recall a previous post of hers that used the example of investigating a crime? Just because the detectives weren't there to physically witness the event as it happened, doesn't negate the validity of any connected evidence that they find afterwards. But you've chosen to ignore this point. (As well as her point that an intelligence could have yielded complex systems so much more quickly than what has been deduced.) You've chosen to keep to a timeframe that only shows microevolutionary processes.
-
96
What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?
by hooberus inmillions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.
) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.
however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
hooberus
Consider the man-made chemical PCP. There are some soil bacteria that can degrade it and use the resulting products as a carbon source. So what right? Well what would you say to the confirmation of a soil bacterium that uses PCP as its sole source of carbon, and (here's the relevant point) has evolved, a new enyme to degrade said PCPs? But maybe the evolution of new enzymes and their incorporation into the cell's metabolic pathways isn't complex enough for you? Check it out anyway.
Flavobacterium sp. KI72 metabolizes 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer, a by-product of nylon manufacture, through two newly evolved enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer hydrolase (EI) and 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase (EII). These enzymes are active towards man-made compounds, the cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of 6-aminohexanoic acid respectively, but not towards any of the natural amide bonds tested. The structural genes of EI (nylA) and EII (nylB) are encoded on pOAD2, one of three plasmids harboured in Flavobacterium sp. KI72. This plasmid contains two kinds of repeated sequence (RS-I and RS-II); one of the two RS-II sequences, RS-IIA, contains the nylB gene, while the other, RS-IIB, contains a homologous nylB' gene. From comparisons of the nucleotide sequences and gene products of the nylB and nylB' genes, we now conclude that EII enzyme is newly evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitutions on the same plasmidNature. 1983 Nov 10-16;306(5939):203-6.
Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers.
-
16
Once scientists DO create life, how will it affect you?
by AlmostAtheist init's inevitable that someday someone will manage to bring all the right chemicals together, heat them just right, shake them just so, and it will result in the creation of life.
it's going to happen.
(or at least for the sake of argument, let us say that it will happen.).
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
They'll focus on how just the right chemicals and conditions were brought together and setup in that experiment, and how all that forethougt supports Intelligent Design theory. And right after giving that rebuttal they'll jubilantly say "neener neener neener"