Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 03:22 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 01:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  At least you're finally reading the serious science/scientists. That's a start.

No, they're telling the truth. That's one of the big challenges in that field right now.

What's the issue?

Do you think not being sure yet how DNA could have taken over from RNA as the coded means GODDIDIT?

More importantly, you can't read past the first two sentences? Here is the rest of that paragraph (part you quoted included) :

"Ribonucleotide reduction is the only pathway for de novo synthesis of deoxyribonucleotides in extant organisms. This chemically demanding reaction, which proceeds via a carbon-centered free radical, is catalyzed by ribonucleotide reductase (RNR). The mechanism has been deemed unlikely to be catalyzed by a ribozyme, creating an enigma regarding how the building blocks for DNA were synthesized at the transition from RNA- to DNA-encoded genomes. While it is entirely possible that a different pathway was later replaced with the modern mechanism, here we explore the evolutionary and biochemical limits for an origin of the mechanism in the RNA + protein world and suggest a model for a prototypical ribonucleotide reductase (protoRNR). From the protoRNR evolved the ancestor to modern RNRs, the urRNR, which diversified into the modern three classes. Since the initial radical generation differs between the three modern classes, it is difficult to establish how it was generated in the urRNR. Here we suggest a model that is similar to the B12-dependent mechanism in modern class II RNRs."

In other words, they're stating the problem/question, before proceeding immediately to pose a probable solution, which they invite other scientists to peer-review by testing and analysis.

and you can't distinguish real evidence from just so made up speculation, can't you ?? Since naturalism is their only choice, of course they need to make up some scenario that has in the end " nature made it " , LOL.... thats one more example of the classical pseudo scientific claims of mainstream papers.

[Image: today_10.jpg]

Now you're just spamming. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 08:02 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 07:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  "We therefore propose the following model"

As said. We Propose a model equals to : we have no clue of how given enzyme could have evolved, therefor let us sell snake oil for the fool non thinking Dunning Krugers as absolute truth, since they will swallow everything blindly, the holy cow of evolution cannot be questioned ... Laugh out load

For every phenomena , that cannot be explained through evolution, the excuse is : ! we don't know yet ". If you replace evolution with intelligent design, however, everything makes perfectly sense.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1584-ou...in-science

[Image: creati10.png]

But you're misrepresenting what they're saying. It's not just "we don't know yet so we're gonna make up some snake oil." I think you're either being deliberately obstinate about this, or simply fail to understand. I hope it's the latter.

In science, we write papers in just that way:
1. Here is an issue we have not yet solved, and here are why it is an issue.
2. We did some research into it, and have proposed the following model/models based upon our experimental results.
3. Others should look at this and tell us if this is what they find, or if there is another way to confirm these data.
4. If enough of you do so, perhaps we can call this one (relatively, as much as anything ever is in science, since it's always open to review later, if new info or methods come along) confirmed.

You're saying that the entire mechanism of science is wrong. You're pointing to the very thing that keeps it honest and saying "There! There is the problem!"

It's very hard to deal with this attitude, using the basic definition of science as an attack ON science, which is why we get so frustrated with you when you do it.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-07-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 08:02 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 07:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  "We therefore propose the following model"

As said. We Propose a model equals to : we have no clue of how given enzyme could have evolved, therefor let us sell snake oil for the fool non thinking Dunning Krugers as absolute truth, since they will swallow everything blindly, the holy cow of evolution cannot be questioned ... Laugh out load

For every phenomena , that cannot be explained through evolution, the excuse is : ! we don't know yet ". If you replace evolution with intelligent design, however, everything makes perfectly sense.

Outstanding problems in science

From a recent debate i had :

Me: science cannot explain most things through evolution. Always, when science comes to a dead end of the road, it just says : we dont know yet, we have to search further. That is, because supernatural causes are not permitted as explanation. And guess what ?? When it comes to almos ALL relevant questions of origins, that will be the last answer of main stream scientific papers. I am collecting these answers btw. The list is far from complete. It does not even scratch the surface. But it provides good examples. If you replace each of these answers, rather than with we don't know, with its designed, it fits perfectly the bill.

Carrie Griego Not yet. That's why they're hypotheses. Hypotheses come first. At least we don't make crap up. We research and figure it out rather than saying goddidit.

Me: Carrie Griego We research and figure it out rather than saying goddidit.//thats the problem. God is NEVER permitted to get into the picture. He is excluded right from the beginning, and in the end, rather than admit that design is the best explanation, the design hypothesis is ignored, and replaced with " we don't know yet ". Nice evolution of the gaps..... btw.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1584-ou...in-science

[Image: creati10.png]

Thanks for admitting your own ignorance and warped logic. Even in your made up debate, you still got your ass kicked. It's too funny.Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
That drawing of the guy worshiping the Darwinfish is one of the ones that make me want to punch the lights out of Creationists when they tell me that shit in real life (which thankfully has not been in a few years). The idea that any scientist would bow to an idea, any idea, instead of rigorously attacking any gaps he notices, is so disrespectful and ignorant, it is to my mind the exact equivalent to the old racist caricatures of what the Klansmen thought were defining characteristics of blacks and Jews, but which had no bearing on reality.

Essentially, that image of a scientist worshiping the alter of Darwinfish is the Creationist version of Sambo.

[Image: main-550x497.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 08:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  2. We did some research into it, and have proposed the following model/models based upon our experimental results.

so what experiments did they do to come up with their proto RNR enzyme story ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:02 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 08:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You're saying that the entire mechanism of science is wrong.

The mechanism might be ok. What is wrong, is that methodological naturalism is not restricted to operational science, but is also applied in regard of questions of origins. That is, let us wear blinkers, its too dangerous to permit a creator as a possible explanation.
Why is it better to say : we will permit only naturalistic explanations, rather than : let us lead the evidence wherever it is ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:02 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 08:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You're saying that the entire mechanism of science is wrong.

The mechanism might be ok. What is wrong, is that methodological naturalism is not restricted to operational science, but also in regard of questions of origins.
Why is it better to say : we will permit only naturalistic explanations, rather than : let us lead the evidence wherever it is ?

Because there is no way to test it.
You really don't know how science works, do you.

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
21-07-2015, 10:05 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:00 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 08:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  2. We did some research into it, and have proposed the following model/models based upon our experimental results.

so what experiments did they do to come up with their proto RNR enzyme story ?
You spelt results wrong you disingenuous shit. Way to present your personal bias front and center in your question. I'm just so sure you are actually interested in the results and in no way have already decided to hand wave them away if they don't agree with your confirmation bias. Just so so sure.Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 08:24 PM)xieulong Wrote:  you still got your ass kicked. It's too funny.Laugh out load

Ahm, nah. As soon as someone can provide a better explanation of the evidence we observe in nature based on naturalism, i will consider to have been butt kicked. Not before. Fortunately, that has NEVER happened, and hardly will. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because there is no way to test it.

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_can%27t_be_replicated
How can macro evolution be repeated? It cannot be repeated, i.e., the theory is not replicable. According to evolutionists, the processes are so slow that we cannot observe the major tenets of the theory, i.e. massive genetic and morphological change and increase in genetic information happening today, because they are either so slow (gradualism) or too fast to show up in the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium). Since the major tenets of the hypothesis cannot be observed, they are not scientific. And such a grand theory cannot be replicated, adding veracity to the claim that evolution is primarily unscientific.

We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: