hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  30

  Are Witnesses advised not to get into discussion’s about evolution with HH?

  by Diogenesister in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just before the last memorial, i finally had a witness call with an invite ( i say finally because i haven’t seen anyone in the d 2 d preaching work for going on 5 years!)..

  i wasn’t particularly prepared ( it being early and me still in my nightie!

  ) but i managed to collect myself and said i didn’t think i wanted to go since i discovered the scandal around the un.....and i outlined the facts.. jw: oh no i don’t think so, where on earth did you read that?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Question Stephanie:

  Did the complexity of your post require a designer?
• 
  30

  Are Witnesses advised not to get into discussion’s about evolution with HH?

  by Diogenesister in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just before the last memorial, i finally had a witness call with an invite ( i say finally because i haven’t seen anyone in the d 2 d preaching work for going on 5 years!)..

  i wasn’t particularly prepared ( it being early and me still in my nightie!

  ) but i managed to collect myself and said i didn’t think i wanted to go since i discovered the scandal around the un.....and i outlined the facts.. jw: oh no i don’t think so, where on earth did you read that?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Stephanie wrote:

  I remember going door to door and talking with an atheist. I was alone that day so I was free to speak a bit more sincerely and let the guy at the door express himself.

  I don’t remember much about this conversation, nearly 20 years ago now. However, there was one simple message he conveyed that always stayed with me: You cannot use the following argument: “see how complex something is, surely it must have a designer” and not apply it to God himself. Surely God would be more complex than anything he created. So any escape clause you have for God not needing a creator of his own, you can apply the same thing to everything else.

  I remember I purposefully decided to ignore this argument, but it kept coming back every now and then, until I could no longer ignore it 15 years later. That along with many other things brought me to the reality of our world.
• 
  95

  Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.

  answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .

  1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Cofty wrote:

  • By your own admission you have never read a single science book in your entire life. Your never-ending posts on the subject betray a woeful depth of ignorance and a total lack of genuine curiosity.

    Once again another condescending (and false) comment about someone that questions your claims.

    
    
• 
  95

  Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.

  answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .

  1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Cofty wrote:

  I see you have still to read your first science book Hooby (or any book that doesn't come with a set of crayons)

  Cofty you make dogmatic assertions about Evolution, then when questioned one of your tactics is to respond with condescending statements about those who question you.

  If evolution is such a fact why the need for such foul debate tactics?
• 
  95

  Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.

  answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .

  1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From page 3.

  Cofty wrote:

  We have to be careful to commit 100% to methodological naturalism. In other words there is not a single detail in all of life's long history that cannot be explained without resorting to the supernatural. No arguments about complexity are permitted.

  Can you elaborate on why “No arguments about complexity are permitted.” ?

  And who decided this.
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that: “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied: “No it wasn’t.”

  He simply asserted that I was wrong on this without providing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim.

  So Cofty do you have anything to back up your statement? You demand references from others, so where is yours?

  Undocumented dogmatic assertions are one of Coftys common tactics here. Often he simply asserts whatever he wants, and we are all supposed to just believe it.
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that: “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied: “No it wasn’t.”

  He simply asserted that I was wrong on this without providing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim.

  So Cofty do you have anything to back up your statement? You demand references from others, so where is yours?
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  If you have a source that provides a separate calculation for the “sequences that result in the optimum version”,

  “Please provide a specific reference and quotation with context”
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  The talkorigins article uses the phrase “possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences.”, in an article on “functional” redundancy.

  ”functional” being the key word in both.

  “functional” does not necessarily refer to just ‘optimal’, but would also include any others that would ‘work’.

  Thus, even the sourced talkorigins article shows that Yockey was referring to “functional” not ‘optimal’ for the calculated figure.

  On the previous page Cofty wrote:

  ”The number of sequences that will produce something 'good enough' is orders of magnitude greater than the - astonishingly massive - number of sequences that result in the optimum version.”

  I haven’t seen any separate calculations for “optimum versions”.

  
  
• 
  291

  Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.

  there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.

  there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied:

  No it wasn't. You can't even understand the creationist arguments AGAINST the science. How on earth are you going to understand the hard stuff?

  Please provide a specific reference and quotation with context

  On the bottom of page 16 of this thread and on the top of page 17 it was pointed out by another evolutionist here, and Cofty, that talkorigins was a source used. (Or that it was a source used by a source used).

  The talkorigins article on “protein functional redundancy” cites Yockey’s 1992

  “Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe.”

  Note the words “possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences”