Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 12:25 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
So now he's created a new thread which needs us to repeat the same arguments as we did in the previous thread in the hope that this time we won't be bothered getting him to the point where he starts posting stupid cartoons and asking us not to reply to his posts.

I shall just copy and paste my replies into this thread I think otherwise it will look like we can't answer this OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
18-08-2015, 12:34 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 12:25 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  So now he's created a new thread which needs us to repeat the same arguments as we did in the previous thread in the hope that this time we won't be bothered getting him to the point where he starts posting stupid cartoons and asking us not to reply to his posts.

I shall just copy and paste my replies into this thread I think otherwise it will look like we can't answer this OP.

Why bother putting in any more effort than the fucktard of an OP?

If copypasta is good enough for him, just copypasta him right back.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:43 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 12:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If copypasta is good enough for him, just copypasta him right back.

Speaking of...

(17-08-2015 10:26 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What is your response to any of these posts?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-08-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
I put this on his other copy/paste thread, I'll put it here too, his creationist site is a shit sandwich of young-Earth creationism, conspiracy theories and creationist hoaxes.


Dinos with humans


[Image: ye3c_d10.jpg]

Easily debunked here: Tripping over a trilobite

Quote:
The "footprint" in question was collected by a man named Meister several years ago, and it was immediately jumped on by Melvin Cook, who is not a paleontologist, as evidence of human-trilobite cohabitation.

I have seen the specimen in question and it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi.
To reiterate, the trilobite is genuine, the footprint is not.


So he posts all of this ID nonsense on here, but maybe he should be posting his real belief in Young-Earth creationism, world-wide floods and humans living at the same time as trilobites.

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
18-08-2015, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 05:32 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(17-08-2015 11:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh, and if one of the biology students here isn't around...

Well I am, but I study ethology, not the cellular biology of plants.

I can say, however, that anybody who uses RuBisCO as their evidence for a designer must forfeit their right to use the descriptor 'intelligent' in relation to the proposed designer. RubisCO is such an inefficient enzyme, and does its job so poorly that it could not have been designed by a great intellect.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
18-08-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Maybe his copy/pasta pseudo-science could be restricted to one thread, because it is just the same ignorant argument repeated.

I get a whiff of spam from this thread. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-08-2015, 07:07 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 05:28 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 11:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh, and if one of the biology students here isn't around...

Well I am, but I study ethology, not the cellular biology of plants.

I can say, however, that anybody who uses RuBisCO as their evidence for a designer must forfeit their right to use the descriptor 'intelligent' in relation to the proposed designer. RubisCO is such an inefficient enzyme, and does its job so poorly that it could not have been designed by a great intellect.

I have noticed that occasionally, the Creationists who make up their big databases of "it sounds Science-y" to fool their gullible audiences will miss a passage from the actual, original science article where it explains that, in doing the research to figure out why this particular version of the enzyme (or other protein function) evolved, the researchers will produce several "suspects" for what the precursors were, and actually reject them as possible candidates because what we artificially produce in the labs is often more-efficient than the version that nature struck upon and continued to use because it was "good enough". You have to know how to read between the lines of what the original (actual) science-writer was saying to glean this data, which is why the Creationist plagiarists miss it.

Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" was catchy, but an inaccurate way to desribe how Natural Selection works. It's actually "death or diminishing for the unfit or less-fit". Natural Selection has little in the way of positive influence except indirectly, through the action of a negative one working on a population-- in the case of a new enzyme emerging that allows members of a species of (in this case, bacteria) to do something better than their fellows, the negative influence is that the new versions out-compete their brethren (death for the less-fit). The positive influence is that their better-capable fellows are then able to continue reproducing and out-pressuring the less-capable bacteria for the space/resources available.

When they're the best game in town, and the enzyme works, the efficiency of the enzyme is irrelevant so long as it works and nothing else crops up randomly to compete with it. In other words, nature looks random, when you get right down to it, and if it's "intelligently" designed, then the Designer isn't very good at his job, because he appears to have just let random mutation and natural selection do everything haphazardly.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(17-08-2015 09:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 09:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  The genome needs the right information in order to get the right materials, the right shape and quantity of each subunit co-factors and metal clusters,how to position them at the right active site, and how to mount these parts in the right order . That seems to me only being explained in a compelling manner by the wise planning of a super intelligent engineer, which knew how to invent and build this highly sophisticated and complex machine and make it fully functional right from scratch. A step wise unguided emergence seems to be extremely unlikely.This mechanism seems to be the result of a intelligence, which set it all up through power, will and information.

Your entire argument is nothing but the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

You fail.

Argument from incredulity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ulity#2738

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.


When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(17-08-2015 10:34 PM)DLJ Wrote:  The good part is that scientific advances are forcing the incredulous to up their game with their arguments from incredulity.

This in turn forces the real scientists to up their game in dis-incredulising.

Ironically, this is the memetic version of the genetic 'arms race'.

In other words, the ignorant are helping to shape the questions and the quality of knowledge-delivery.

Yes

Indeed. The proponents of evolution are the ignorants.....Laugh out load

That totally destroys the Evolution Theory: How should and could natural non guided natural mechanisms forsee the necessity of chaperones in order to get a specific goal, that is the right precise 3 dimensional folding resulting in functional proteins to make living organisms ? Non living matter has no natural " drive " or purpose or goal to become living. The make of proteins to create life however is a multistep process of many parallel acting complex metabolic pathways and production-line like processes to make proteins and other life essential products like nucleotides, amino acids, lipids , carbohydrates etc. The right folding of proteins is just one of several other essential processes in order to get a functional protein. But a functional protein by its own has no function, unless correctly embedded through the right assembly sequence and order at the right functional place."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:48 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(17-08-2015 11:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  He doesn't understand a word of what he's parroting.

Critizism about the opponents knowledge

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...tacks#3759

Critizising the oponents knowledge and education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like : You need basic understanding in science, you don't understand evolution, take a science class, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject,  you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule  with contempt is not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the oponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their oponents knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on  a specific topic.   Fact is, even IF their oponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their  views become more credible or correct. Thats a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themself about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn , provide a better explanation based on their views.

[Image: no_und10.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: