The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2015, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 09:16 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 07:09 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yeah, sure. Because I'm an honest person. But I began my life as a Creationist, and have spent the past 22 years learning the lies that Creationists try to employ to get people to convert (or to not deconvert).

As a beginner, NO true believer will EVER leave Christ, since who truly exerienced Gods love and care, will not want to miss it.

Quote:People who employ such tactics are the lowest scum on the planet.


Ah yah ? Is it bad to teach others to love each other, and to love God ?

No. And it has nothing to do with being dishonest in your tactics.

I was indeed a Christian, until I spotted some of the lies my preacher was telling us about what we know in science (specifically, in the realm of astrophysics, in that case), and began to honestly question what I had been taught about my faith. It didn't take long for the whole case to fall apart. You should try this whole honesty thing.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:As for "my life in the same manner as now", not much would change. I already treat people as I'd want to be treated.

That shows you have little understanding what it is all about to be a christian. For a starter : Its much more than just treat people as you want to be treated.

Btw. you would not want me to treat you, as you treat me. With all the name calling and false acusations. There is a big guld between how you treat me, and how i treat you.

No kidding, there's more to it? Shocker! I understand Christianity just fine; I was just summing up for brevity's sake.

If you can even potentially name something I don't know about Christianity, I'd be shocked. I have read the Bible all the way through in two translations, and done the "Precept Upon Precept" course for parts of a third. I have taken History of the Bible courses in college, and I was a devout Southern Baptist until the age of 17. I have continued to learn about it since that time.

I have not called you names. (Edit to add correction: I called you "jerk off" in the previous post... you earned it.) I have called you a liar. You willfully post lies here about what science says and what scientists have written/said (see the above "quote-mining" bit). That makes you a liar. I even acknowledged that you may not be aware of the level of dishonesty you are exhibiting. Nothing I have accused you of has been false; I have treated you exactly as I would wish to be treated. If I lie or post false information, I expect to be challenged and corrected with proof. If I quote-mine a Bible verse or religious scholar, especially, I should be corrected.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:Really, all that would change would be giving 10% of my income to clergy and spending time praying instead of reading.

So is that what you are afraid of ? Well, i give the part that belongs to God of my income to orphans, widows, and poor bible school students in india, and poor nepalese missionaries that go and preach the gospel in the himalayas, and i can tell you, its the best money that i spend of my income. There is no money that pays off to see widows with a smile in their face, because they have a bowl of rice to eat. And children that can brush their teeths because of my contribution to buy teeth brushes. And bible students that are thankful because they can learn his precious word and later serve the lord as missionaries. Thats precious to them, and its precious to me, and precious to the Lord that motivates me to do these things, and is gloryfied because of that. At least the bible teaches me not to think only about me and my own and my families well being only. If all would do as i do, the earth would be a better place for humanity.

Don't get me started on the effects missionaries often have in those countries. You wouldn't like what I have to say.

And how dare you! Charity work is not unique to Christians. Atheists may not have as many avenues/mechanisms easily available to them for helping others, since the church organizations do that with structure that we don't posess (we're often called a "herd of cats"), but every atheist organization I have belonged to did charity work. I myself have been active for decades with HIV/AIDS support organizations, and my old Humanist group, SOMA, had numerous events they did on behalf of charities (including working with churches who did similar work), including the Douglas County AIDS Project.


(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:I cannot imagine anything you could say to me that I would consider "undeniable proof of design in nature" or "the God of the Bible" as the "author of the universe". I have seen and refuted every argument you have sent in here

No, you have not. You have dodged conveniently all posts of mine, that provided you with hard evidence of creation. Obviously. You have shown more than once, that your problem is not the evidence. Its your WILL. You do NOT WANT God in your life, and try to find excuses for your unbelief. You know the reasons for your atitude. Probably that is because you do not want anyone above you that you have to submit your will to. I don't know. Atheists have thousands of reasons to reject God. They only have no scientific reasons, because the evidence we find in nature points ALL to a creator. And that is pretty obvious. Thumbsup

Nothing you post has any such evidence. I read the ones I don't immediately recognize from old Creationist claims that have already been long-ago refuted, and I still have seen nothing that's even remotely worthy of comment.

I made a decision long-ago not to continue to engage in discussions with "machine-gunners", who sling their drivel like a spray of bullets, since to disprove Bullet #1 takes a great deal of time and effort, and the Creationists I have debated have only shown that they are willing to ignore the fact that I answered their BS, proved it was BS, and just move on to Bullet #2, #3... etc.

You can assert that you have evidence all you like. Maybe you even think you do. If that is the case, I feel sorry for you in your delusions about what constitutes scientific methodology, what science actually knows, and how it actually works.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:, so far, years ago. Much of it is so-long-ago disproved that I can't believe it's still on the web, let alone that you're still copy-and-pasting it.

Thats one of your lame excuses. The only thing is, i copy paste from my personal virtual library, and the arguments are mine. They are based on mainstream science.

No, they are not. They. Are. Not.

Your "personal library" is a plethora of Creationist nonsense that is child's play (but a lot of effort) to disprove, using actual science, or else it is "well we don't know this one thing" while ignoring what we do know about the overall mechanism, or it is straight-out LIES and quote-mining to try to make science into a strawman version of itself that you can tear down.

As stated in the previous post, I have good reasons and experience that tells me I'd be an idiot to engage with you on that shit. Let one of the youngsters in here do what I did, and disprove your stuff as a means of learning more about what science actually does say, as I did when I was in college studying biochem, and used Creationist arguments to help me study and learn the actual claims of science. Nothing like hunting down misinformation to learn what the real information is!

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:It genuinely pisses me off to have spent so much time learning how evolution/biochemistry works

First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works. And secondly, you should be pissed off that mainstream scientific paper does not permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. They are LIEing to you.

No, they're not. Indeed, one of the main things in a college biology degree is learning how to distinguish if what you're being told is true or if it needs to be challenged, since that's one of the main goals of science: challenging all that is held to be true (since some of it may not be, and needs to be updated). For you to say that "mainstream" scientific papers make a false claim means that you have the mechanism to show that they are false. GREAT!!

So go publish your paper about how they're false in a peer-reviewed journal, in a way that shows better methodology and clearer results, and collect your Nobel Prize in chemistry!

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  I'll give you a example. For example, you will find in scientific papers generally that the endosymbiosis theory is true. Except, that is is not. There are many line of reasons, why, and i see it all over. That is a massive fraud, but its held as true, because it fits the general view of evolution.

Nice. So that is STRIKING evidence. Nice. Homology is one of the main tenets that proponents of evolution use to sustain their neodarwinian fantasy of common descent.....

Now look that massive idiocy. Rather than admit that the evidence falsifies the endosymbiont theory, because there are no homologs in all protein complexes, they come up with a just so story, namely that the translocon could have been a " invention " of the endosymbiont. What they conveniently dismiss and do not inform is, that TIC and TOC translocon cellwall gates are extremely complex by their own, and even more to be synthesized, and massive precise genetic information is required to make them, and to instruct the cell how to build them. Not a easy task that mindless processes could " invent ".

Now , that is a perfect example of pseudo science. They just make things up with wishy washy just so guesswork arguments, and they pass this information in that manner because most readers are nonthinking idiots which buy and swallow anything that comes from Nature magazine......it must be true because it comes from " serious " peer reviewed " papers, LOL.......

Fact is, there are many line of reasons why the endosymbiosis theory is bogus, the above is just of one of it. These import channels are of extreme specificity and complexity, and work in a highly sophisticated communication system together with the transit peptides that have a signal upon which they can pass the gate or not. That communication system cannot arise by natural means alone as it depends on a prestablished signal convention. All communication systems we know of come from a mind.

I snipped out your arguments, in part because you clearly don't understand the Beta-barrel argument and I just don't have the energy to explain to you all the other ways we do know about endosymbionts, or find out what parts of that article (assuming it's a real one, and not one of the fake journals you psyched me out with, before, when I violated my own rule and actually engaged you a few weeks ago) you clipped out to make your strawman argument, this time. I'm just not going to do it. As I said above, I'll let one of the youngsters, who doesn't yet realize that Creationists are inherently-dishonest people, handle it. Meanwhile I'll just laugh at you as you drone on about scientific "conspiracies" and watch you claim that the Christians who are actual scientists (including my fiancee, who works in a genetics lab) are just going along to help atheists "discredit God".

Give me a fucking break, dude. Can you really not see how crazy that is?

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Please spare me with your ignorance that there is no evidence for a creator !!.

Quote:I'm sick to death of dealing with regurgitated bullshit, from answering a question

Then don't..... Why are you spending time to justify what you do not believe anyway?? Makes no sense to me.

I answer you, even on this level, because people like you infuriate me, and I won't see people think that because I'm not answering you at all, it's because I cannot answer you or something. It's in fact because I've dealt with your type of troll before, both in real life and online, for the past twenty years, and I'm sick to death of the way you operate. I won't stand for 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
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-08-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 08:45 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  As a beginner, NO true believer will EVER leave Christ, since who truly exerienced Gods love and care, will not want to miss it.



Ah yah ? Is it bad to teach others to love each other, and to love God ?

No. And it has nothing to do with being dishonest in your tactics.

I was indeed a Christian, until I spotted some of the lies my preacher was telling us about what we know in science (specifically, in the realm of astrophysics, in that case), and began to honestly question what I had been taught about my faith. It didn't take long for the whole case to fall apart. You should try this whole honesty thing.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  That shows you have little understanding what it is all about to be a christian. For a starter : Its much more than just treat people as you want to be treated.

Btw. you would not want me to treat you, as you treat me. With all the name calling and false acusations. There is a big guld between how you treat me, and how i treat you.

No kidding, there's more to it? Shocker! I understand Christianity just fine; I was just summing up for brevity's sake.

If you can even potentially name something I don't know about Christianity, I'd be shocked. I have read the Bible all the way through in two translations, and done the "Precept Upon Precept" course for parts of a third. I have taken History of the Bible courses in college, and I was a devout Southern Baptist until the age of 17. I have continued to learn about it since that time.

I have not called you names. (Edit to add correction: I called you "jerk off" in the previous post... you earned it.) I have called you a liar. You willfully post lies here about what science says and what scientists have written/said (see the above "quote-mining" bit). That makes you a liar. I even acknowledged that you may not be aware of the level of dishonesty you are exhibiting. Nothing I have accused you of has been false; I have treated you exactly as I would wish to be treated. If I lie or post false information, I expect to be challenged and corrected with proof. If I quote-mine a Bible verse or religious scholar, especially, I should be corrected.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  So is that what you are afraid of ? Well, i give the part that belongs to God of my income to orphans, widows, and poor bible school students in india, and poor nepalese missionaries that go and preach the gospel in the himalayas, and i can tell you, its the best money that i spend of my income. There is no money that pays off to see widows with a smile in their face, because they have a bowl of rice to eat. And children that can brush their teeths because of my contribution to buy teeth brushes. And bible students that are thankful because they can learn his precious word and later serve the lord as missionaries. Thats precious to them, and its precious to me, and precious to the Lord that motivates me to do these things, and is gloryfied because of that. At least the bible teaches me not to think only about me and my own and my families well being only. If all would do as i do, the earth would be a better place for humanity.

Don't get me started on the effects missionaries often have in those countries. You wouldn't like what I have to say.

And how dare you! Charity work is not unique to Christians. Atheists may not have as many avenues/mechanisms easily available to them for helping others, since the church organizations do that with structure that we don't posess (we're often called a "herd of cats"), but every atheist organization I have belonged to did charity work. I myself have been active for decades with HIV/AIDS support organizations, and my old Humanist group, SOMA, had numerous events they did on behalf of charities (including working with churches who did similar work), including the Douglas County AIDS Project.


(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  No, you have not. You have dodged conveniently all posts of mine, that provided you with hard evidence of creation. Obviously. You have shown more than once, that your problem is not the evidence. Its your WILL. You do NOT WANT God in your life, and try to find excuses for your unbelief. You know the reasons for your atitude. Probably that is because you do not want anyone above you that you have to submit your will to. I don't know. Atheists have thousands of reasons to reject God. They only have no scientific reasons, because the evidence we find in nature points ALL to a creator. And that is pretty obvious. Thumbsup

Nothing you post has any such evidence. I read the ones I don't immediately recognize from old Creationist claims that have already been long-ago refuted, and I still have seen nothing that's even remotely worthy of comment.

I made a decision long-ago not to continue to engage in discussions with "machine-gunners", who sling their drivel like a spray of bullets, since to disprove Bullet #1 takes a great deal of time and effort, and the Creationists I have debated have only shown that they are willing to ignore the fact that I answered their BS, proved it was BS, and just move on to Bullet #2, #3... etc.

You can assert that you have evidence all you like. Maybe you even think you do. If that is the case, I feel sorry for you in your delusions about what constitutes scientific methodology, what science actually knows, and how it actually works.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Thats one of your lame excuses. The only thing is, i copy paste from my personal virtual library, and the arguments are mine. They are based on mainstream science.

No, they are not. They. Are. Not.

Your "personal library" is a plethora of Creationist nonsense that is child's play (but a lot of effort) to disprove, using actual science, or else it is "well we don't know this one thing" while ignoring what we do know about the overall mechanism, or it is straight-out LIES and quote-mining to try to make science into a strawman version of itself that you can tear down.

As stated in the previous post, I have good reasons and experience that tells me I'd be an idiot to engage with you on that shit. Let one of the youngsters in here do what I did, and disprove your stuff as a means of learning more about what science actually does say, as I did when I was in college studying biochem, and used Creationist arguments to help me study and learn the actual claims of science. Nothing like hunting down misinformation to learn what the real information is!

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works. And secondly, you should be pissed off that mainstream scientific paper does not permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. They are LIEing to you.

No, they're not. Indeed, one of the main things in a college biology degree is learning how to distinguish if what you're being told is true or if it needs to be challenged, since that's one of the main goals of science: challenging all that is held to be true (since some of it may not be, and needs to be updated). For you to say that "mainstream" scientific papers make a false claim means that you have the mechanism to show that they are false. GREAT!!

So go publish your paper about how they're false in a peer-reviewed journal, in a way that shows better methodology and clearer results, and collect your Nobel Prize in chemistry!

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  I'll give you a example. For example, you will find in scientific papers generally that the endosymbiosis theory is true. Except, that is is not. There are many line of reasons, why, and i see it all over. That is a massive fraud, but its held as true, because it fits the general view of evolution.

Nice. So that is STRIKING evidence. Nice. Homology is one of the main tenets that proponents of evolution use to sustain their neodarwinian fantasy of common descent.....

Now look that massive idiocy. Rather than admit that the evidence falsifies the endosymbiont theory, because there are no homologs in all protein complexes, they come up with a just so story, namely that the translocon could have been a " invention " of the endosymbiont. What they conveniently dismiss and do not inform is, that TIC and TOC translocon cellwall gates are extremely complex by their own, and even more to be synthesized, and massive precise genetic information is required to make them, and to instruct the cell how to build them. Not a easy task that mindless processes could " invent ".

Now , that is a perfect example of pseudo science. They just make things up with wishy washy just so guesswork arguments, and they pass this information in that manner because most readers are nonthinking idiots which buy and swallow anything that comes from Nature magazine......it must be true because it comes from " serious " peer reviewed " papers, LOL.......

Fact is, there are many line of reasons why the endosymbiosis theory is bogus, the above is just of one of it. These import channels are of extreme specificity and complexity, and work in a highly sophisticated communication system together with the transit peptides that have a signal upon which they can pass the gate or not. That communication system cannot arise by natural means alone as it depends on a prestablished signal convention. All communication systems we know of come from a mind.

I snipped out your arguments, in part because you clearly don't understand the Beta-barrel argument and I just don't have the energy to explain to you all the other ways we do know about endosymbionts, or find out what parts of that article (assuming it's a real one, and not one of the fake journals you psyched me out with, before, when I violated my own rule and actually engaged you a few weeks ago) you clipped out to make your strawman argument, this time. I'm just not going to do it. As I said above, I'll let one of the youngsters, who doesn't yet realize that Creationists are inherently-dishonest people, handle it. Meanwhile I'll just laugh at you as you drone on about scientific "conspiracies" and watch you claim that the Christians who are actual scientists (including my fiancee, who works in a genetics lab) are just going along to help atheists "discredit God".

Give me a fucking break, dude. Can you really not see how crazy that is?

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Please spare me with your ignorance that there is no evidence for a creator !!.


Then don't..... Why are you spending time to justify what you do not believe anyway?? Makes no sense to me.

I answer you, even on this level, because people like you infuriate me, and I won't see people think that because I'm not answering you at all, it's because I cannot answer you or something. It's in fact because I've dealt with your type of troll before, both in real life and online, for the past twenty years, and I'm sick to death of the way you operate. I won't stand for it.

Please do NOT engage me anymore, and please do NOT answer to my posts anymore. The oportunity window for you is closed , at least from my part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 09:39 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 08:45 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No. And it has nothing to do with being dishonest in your tactics.

I was indeed a Christian, until I spotted some of the lies my preacher was telling us about what we know in science (specifically, in the realm of astrophysics, in that case), and began to honestly question what I had been taught about my faith. It didn't take long for the whole case to fall apart. You should try this whole honesty thing.


No kidding, there's more to it? Shocker! I understand Christianity just fine; I was just summing up for brevity's sake.

If you can even potentially name something I don't know about Christianity, I'd be shocked. I have read the Bible all the way through in two translations, and done the "Precept Upon Precept" course for parts of a third. I have taken History of the Bible courses in college, and I was a devout Southern Baptist until the age of 17. I have continued to learn about it since that time.

I have not called you names. (Edit to add correction: I called you "jerk off" in the previous post... you earned it.) I have called you a liar. You willfully post lies here about what science says and what scientists have written/said (see the above "quote-mining" bit). That makes you a liar. I even acknowledged that you may not be aware of the level of dishonesty you are exhibiting. Nothing I have accused you of has been false; I have treated you exactly as I would wish to be treated. If I lie or post false information, I expect to be challenged and corrected with proof. If I quote-mine a Bible verse or religious scholar, especially, I should be corrected.


Don't get me started on the effects missionaries often have in those countries. You wouldn't like what I have to say.

And how dare you! Charity work is not unique to Christians. Atheists may not have as many avenues/mechanisms easily available to them for helping others, since the church organizations do that with structure that we don't posess (we're often called a "herd of cats"), but every atheist organization I have belonged to did charity work. I myself have been active for decades with HIV/AIDS support organizations, and my old Humanist group, SOMA, had numerous events they did on behalf of charities (including working with churches who did similar work), including the Douglas County AIDS Project.



Nothing you post has any such evidence. I read the ones I don't immediately recognize from old Creationist claims that have already been long-ago refuted, and I still have seen nothing that's even remotely worthy of comment.

I made a decision long-ago not to continue to engage in discussions with "machine-gunners", who sling their drivel like a spray of bullets, since to disprove Bullet #1 takes a great deal of time and effort, and the Creationists I have debated have only shown that they are willing to ignore the fact that I answered their BS, proved it was BS, and just move on to Bullet #2, #3... etc.

You can assert that you have evidence all you like. Maybe you even think you do. If that is the case, I feel sorry for you in your delusions about what constitutes scientific methodology, what science actually knows, and how it actually works.


No, they are not. They. Are. Not.

Your "personal library" is a plethora of Creationist nonsense that is child's play (but a lot of effort) to disprove, using actual science, or else it is "well we don't know this one thing" while ignoring what we do know about the overall mechanism, or it is straight-out LIES and quote-mining to try to make science into a strawman version of itself that you can tear down.

As stated in the previous post, I have good reasons and experience that tells me I'd be an idiot to engage with you on that shit. Let one of the youngsters in here do what I did, and disprove your stuff as a means of learning more about what science actually does say, as I did when I was in college studying biochem, and used Creationist arguments to help me study and learn the actual claims of science. Nothing like hunting down misinformation to learn what the real information is!


No, they're not. Indeed, one of the main things in a college biology degree is learning how to distinguish if what you're being told is true or if it needs to be challenged, since that's one of the main goals of science: challenging all that is held to be true (since some of it may not be, and needs to be updated). For you to say that "mainstream" scientific papers make a false claim means that you have the mechanism to show that they are false. GREAT!!

So go publish your paper about how they're false in a peer-reviewed journal, in a way that shows better methodology and clearer results, and collect your Nobel Prize in chemistry!


I snipped out your arguments, in part because you clearly don't understand the Beta-barrel argument and I just don't have the energy to explain to you all the other ways we do know about endosymbionts, or find out what parts of that article (assuming it's a real one, and not one of the fake journals you psyched me out with, before, when I violated my own rule and actually engaged you a few weeks ago) you clipped out to make your strawman argument, this time. I'm just not going to do it. As I said above, I'll let one of the youngsters, who doesn't yet realize that Creationists are inherently-dishonest people, handle it. Meanwhile I'll just laugh at you as you drone on about scientific "conspiracies" and watch you claim that the Christians who are actual scientists (including my fiancee, who works in a genetics lab) are just going along to help atheists "discredit God".

Give me a fucking break, dude. Can you really not see how crazy that is?


I answer you, even on this level, because people like you infuriate me, and I won't see people think that because I'm not answering you at all, it's because I cannot answer you or something. It's in fact because I've dealt with your type of troll before, both in real life and online, for the past twenty years, and I'm sick to death of the way you operate. I won't stand for it.

Please do NOT engage me anymore, and please do NOT answer to my posts anymore. The oportunity window for you is closed , at least from my part.

Oh wow. The "opportunity" for you to engage with a fool is closed.
LMFAO

Laugh out load ... Laugh out load

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2015, 09:57 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 10:04 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Fools I can understand and sympathize with... but a dishonest person who quote-mines actual scientists is no loss at all.

Oh, the horror! I've been cut off!!

Weeping

Edit to Add: I've always been more than a little curious how they keep their cognitive dissonance going, when making the claim that evolution is a conspiracy of atheist scientists, with the fact that a sizable percent of evolutionary biologists (and many other types of scientist) are Christians.

One in Three, according to Christian Post's survey:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey...god-39753/

A nice Letter From a Christian Biologist:
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_lette...logist.htm

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
17-08-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 09:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Edit to Add: I've always been more than a little curious how they keep their cognitive dissonance going, when making the claim that evolution is a conspiracy of atheist scientists, with the fact that a sizable percent of evolutionary biologists (and many other types of scientist) are Christians.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey...god-39753/

Not true Scotsmen Christians...

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
17-08-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
[Image: th?id=JN.0Zd4ViZtEGT%2fDztpRq%2fqoA&...;amp;h=300]

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-08-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 09:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 09:39 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Please do NOT engage me anymore, and please do NOT answer to my posts anymore. The oportunity window for you is closed , at least from my part.

Oh wow. The "opportunity" for you to engage with a fool is closed.
LMFAO

Laugh out load ... Laugh out load

Congratulations Rocket, you were first to make the dishonest troll run screaming in tears for being called out. That deserves a rep point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
17-08-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  No, you have not. You have dodged conveniently all posts of mine, that provided you with hard evidence of creation.

What is your response to any of these posts?

I have personally furnished you with easily-understandable rebuttals for each of your claims, ranging from the lack of requirement for intelligence in information theory to the evolution of the circulatory system.

Ignoring this does not make it go away.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Thats one of your lame excuses. The only thing is, i copy paste from my personal virtual library, and the arguments are mine. They are based on mainstream science.

No. No, they aren't.

(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Now look that massive idiocy. Rather than admit that the evidence falsifies the endosymbiont theory, because there are no homologs in all protein complexes, they come up with a just so story, namely that the translocon could have been a " invention " of the endosymbiont. What they conveniently dismiss and do not inform is, that TIC and TOC translocon cellwall gates are extremely complex by their own, and even more to be synthesized, and massive precise genetic information is required to make them, and to instruct the cell how to build them. Not a easy task that mindless processes could " invent ".

You assert this. You have no evidence other than your personal incredulity. Attempting to base an argument on this is fallacious, particularly when evidence has already been supplied of evolution resulting in similarly complex systems.

As a further point of how fallacious this line of reasoning is, all that this objection would prove if it did have any merit was that this particular point of a tangentially related theory needed further research. In no way would this be evidence against the symbiogenesis theory, let alone evolution as a whole.

(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  There is nothing more joyful than to praise the lord

Someone here has a boring sex life.

And, since quoting this demonstrates that I am not on ignore, we now know that you are actively avoiding the act of responding to the evidence I provide you in favor of attempting to derail the thread.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Micro evolution and speciation is a fact. Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, wings, eyes, lungs, gills, sexual gender, transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the arise of photosynthesis and nitrogenase in cyanobacteria; something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?

Well, we'll start with the obvious: ring speciation, a straightforward example of a species continuously undergoing evolutionary changes until later instances are unable to breed with the originals. Since this directly contradicts the creationist idea of evolution being entirely restricted to working within breeding-capable "kinds", it's a handy little practical demonstration of a core creationist concept being utter tripe.

We have also observed speciation occurring in both the laboratory and in the wild. In the 1950s, Variation and Evolution in Plants was published, containing research accounts of new plant species forming from established ones. The new species had double the chromosome count of its parents due to mutation, and was reproductively viable - a new "kind", if you will.

In terms of simpler organisms, there are plenty of instances of observed speciation in insects. One of the more obvious ones is the Hawthorn fruit fly, which is currently undergoing speciation to adapt to new host plants. Bacteria have gained the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases, unicellular organisms have gained the ability to use man-made synthetic chemical compounds as their primary food sources, and so on.

We have also observed speciation in mice, among other species. And, of course, there's the entire fossil record and all of its instances of transitional species, including the crocoduck.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation.

Oh, good. So you admit that evolution happens, then.

Because that's all evolution is. There is no difference between this and "macro-evolution" save time.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University

Who?

Funny. I can't find any mention of her anywhere, let alone any actual research that she's done.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure.

You know, it's funny. Miklos is, in fact, an evolutionary biologist, so it would be odd for him to say something like this. The only source that I can find for it is a book by one "Spencer Scoular" - who is not a biologist, or even a scientist, but a business consultant - which does not cite the claim.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change.

Well, great. It's a good thing that we are no longer using Darwin's theory. "Neo-Darwinism" was a starting point. The field has moved on.

(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Quite. This is one way in which we have moved on from Darwin's understanding of evolution. Epigenetics is, in fact, one of the core principles of modern evolutionary biology, since it explains why two relatively similar genetic codes - say, those of humans and chimpanzees - can produce such strikingly different organisms.

(17-08-2015 06:14 AM)Godexists Wrote:  EVEN PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:

“Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010

<snip>

You will note that nowhere in your quotes does anyone state that evolution does not happen or that they do not understand how it works. The disagreements are in the fine detail of what mechanisms are most dominant and what the time scales involved are.

The quote above is the only one really worth addressing, because it highlights how little you actually understand of what you are trying to talk about. The lack of a general theory is true, in the same way that we do not have a general theory of planetary formation. This doesn't mean that we don't understand it; we have plenty of data and evidence available, and the nebular hypothesis is looking quite strong. But we still don't have a general theory.

Because a general theory, in science, is something like the theory of relativity: a unified, comprehensive look at all mechanisms and the way they interconnect, with mathematical formulas and the like laid out for easy use. Not having a general theory doesn't mean that we don't understand something. It just means that there are details which need to be worked out.

In the case of the theory of evolution, these details involve the precise effects of each mechanism in play, how quickly it happens depending on environmental and other variables, and so on. They do not involve any sort of thing that says "it might not actually be happening".

Do some research before posting this drivel.

"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
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-08-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Heh, he blocked me so I can't see his posts. I can't even see him when he's quoted in other posts.

Nice.

"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
17-08-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 10:31 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Heh, he blocked me so I can't see his posts. I can't even see him when he's quoted in other posts.

Nice.

Awesome job, Rocket Surgeon, you demonstrated his quote-mining dishonesty for all to see. You won't miss anything but more of the same god of the gaps nonsense.

I don't understand the forum rules enough, but a copy-paster hawking their own website should be banned.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: