All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

You don't really expect him to explain anything do you ? Copy-pasta is his schtick. he couldn't even discuss in detail Jack Szostack's series.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 06:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

You don't really expect him to explain anything do you ? Copy-pasta is his schtick. he couldn't even discuss in detail Jack Szostack's series.

[Image: haZ5js4.jpg]

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-09-2015, 07:45 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
[Image: expensive-shoe-brands-picture-5.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 06:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

You don't really expect him to explain anything do you ? Copy-pasta is his schtick. he couldn't even discuss in detail Jack Szostack's series.

He can't even explain what he has pasted. I noticed that before when he said that he wasn't the person to bring up the laws of thermodynamics and it was his own link that first brought up the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
20-09-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 06:32 AM)Godexists Wrote:  In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

Another creationist misquote:

The relevant section of the article, as quoted on the above site, is:

"Thus went the verbal jostling, with the mood swinging perceptibly in favor of recognizing stasis as being a real phenomenon. Gabriel Dover, a geneticist from Cambridge University, England, felt atrongly enough to call species stasis 'The single most important feature of macroevolution.' In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: 'We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'"

So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala

I'll quote this in big red letters so you don't miss it:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala


I think you owe Francisco J. Ayala an apology, because you did exactly what he said in his letter not to do, you misquoted him!

Do you have any idea how you have already shot your credibility to hell? Do you have any idea what a bizarre god you've constructed and cast in the role of Mystical Molecule Mover?

The god you constructed is an invisible molecule mover that doesn't show up until some ill-defined barrier in your imagination is crossed- a barrier that you cannot demonstrate.
A barrier that you can only assert exists somewhere in the microscopic world, your god is microscopic, your god is invisible, your god is imperfect.

I know that you are too dishonest to acknowledge the huge theological difficulty that your invisible Mystical Molecule Mover creates. Your god purposely causes cancer, purposely causes genetic defects.

You shouldn't really want this god to be real, because he's an enormous fuck-up. It's constantly making mistakes on the micro and macro level. From cancer to vestigal organs, to every disease and virus, your god creates them all.

Maybe you can understand why there would be quite a few of your fellow believers that would reject your Mystical Tinkerer God, The Mystical Molecule Mover that can't get it right. The Mystical Molecule Mover that generates suffering, the Mystical Molecule Mover that hides at the microscopic level, the Mystical Molecule Mover that's less powerful and less competent than genetic scientists that correct His mistakes.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheInquisition's post
20-09-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 08:06 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Another creationist misquote

Lies from the creationist camp? Say it isn't so.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
20-09-2015, 08:26 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
I wish I could give TheInquisition more positive rep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
20-09-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Laugh out load

ostrich behavior much ?? Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Laugh out load

ostrich behavior much ?? Hobo

Wait..... you've been shown (Again!) to be misquoting. There's no actual reply to a question repeatedly put to your self....... and you come hack with some lame, inane comment?

Too much trouble, would not keep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Peebothuhul's post
21-09-2015, 12:24 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Apparently Godexists values quote-mining above scientific facts. That is the mark of a moribund faith that is running scared and running down like the spring of a wind-up clock, terrified of losing the bogus promise of eternal life it was foolish enough to believe.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: