Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Your retardation shows. Bye lunatic, go bark to someone else's door !
Your posts are a permanent testament to your raving tribal bulshit.
As for philosophy you don't have nor the intuition nor the intelectual competence to even risk an opinion on the simplest of subiects. You are a cliché on wheels stating either the obvious or indulging in childish fights about cultural coinage. Keep your piggy mud fights among the likes of you cowboy. You are a zero with intelectual pretentions to credible thinker and poster that can only fool simpletons and impressionable people. You keep throwing the English card in a world where the price for a global language is rapid change. You are a dead dinossaur posting to dinossaurs like you, utterly pathetic. Go feed them with your bull I am done putting up with you clown ! If you had a clue about the degree of disability your sick mind is going through you would get depressed really fast, but obviously you are incapable of auto analisis. Now do me a favour n get lost little man, shove it up your rectum back from where it came from.

Wasn't my idea. A thread goes wherever it wants. I just follow wherever it goes as long as it makes a little sense. This one's going down hill though...

My mother was born in Czestochowa just before the war and my father was born nearby. They both told me about this painting and the barbarians who slashed her face during an attack. Small world.

It appears that I grossly underestimated the unlikelihood of a DNA string capable of supporting evolving life and reproduction in a single cell.

Craig Venter's lab just published what they believe is the absolute simplest viable genome. The result was 473 GENES. The previous simplest one I knew of was around 1500.

The silly mistake I made was thinking that the number referred to base pairs of DNA rather than genes. Even using the base pair assumption, the odds are very slim that it could occur by accident, something like 1 chance in 2.3 x 10^450 - which is almost but not completely impossible.

But since a single gene contains between 27,000 and 2,000,000 base pairs of DNA, that moves the probability out to the point of 1 chance in infinity.

The other interesting point is that fully 1/3 of the genes are a complete mystery as to their function but if any one of them is missing, the cell dies. Venter correctly surmises that there is 1 or more levels of encoding in the genome that we do not understand at all. These multi levels of encoding add yet another hurdle for random chance to account for the natural occurence of life. Encoding protocols are just not something that chance can account for since it requires some forethought for recognizing that it would be required to accomplish the discription of the life form using the amount of data bits available for the code.

An analogy if you are familiar with data compression techniques:

It would be very unlikely for random chance to string together the binary bits that when converted to sound would play a recognizable song. Now try to imagine how much more unlikely that a random process could string those bits together AND also come up with an complicated algorithm like MP3 such that when the bit string is processed using the complex algorithm that it produces a song following the rules of harmony required by music as we know it.

If you can believe that happened by chance, you have more faith than any religious zealot I've ever encountered.

if it gives you peace. Math can be used to underpin any Worldview.
Remember Venter has been working on this project since like 1998. (18 years). How many 18 years in a billion and how many sites in an archea ?.

Its not "analogous" to anything but biological systems

I'm just following the research and drawing logical conclusions.

But why do you think math and analogy cannot be applied to biology?
That would be like saying the same thing about the behavior of electrons, atoms or chemicals.

Are you implying there is some magic in life that does not follow the established rules of math and chemical reactions?

Such simple-minded arguments from complexity must necessarily assume that life took off full-blown with DNA, and that there is no other means for the reproduction of organic molecules. It was demonstrated more than 45 years ago that organic molecules will form and replicate in clay tubes of smectite clays, especially montmorillonite. It has since been demonstrated that glycerin spheres will form on the surface of such clays, and therefore, within the same clay tubes. As FM points out, the math favors subsequent development. With generation of new molecules every 20 minutes, that's 72 generations in a day and more than 26,000 in a year. Over millions of years, that's billions upon billions of such generations.

Arguments based on alleged complexity truly are classic arguments from ignorance. "If we don't know it happened, it must not'have happened.

What is fascinating to me is the number of ancestors before me, and where they traveled over the centuries before their arrival in Japan. In our family history, I can only go back four generations.

I could follow your line of thought and show you how the math doesn't work but I've done that several times before. You'd just call it ignorance, repeat the special clay hypothesis once again and move on.

But as FM said, math can be used to support most any world view. Whatever gives you comfort.

That you don't understand the math is just more evidence of your argument from ignorance. For you to "follow [my] line of reasoning" you'd first have to understand it, which would require losing your religious delusions, which prevent you from seeing any agency but your magic sky daddy.

Don't talk to me you snide son of a bitch. You had the fall to compare me to the murderous jihadis of the middle east on the basis or an allegation that i somehow proselytize to the religiously deluded, which is a lie. What a low-life scum bag you are.

Back in fine form I see.
But if you don't want me to talk to you there is a simple solution.

BTW, you lost me on that charge of comparing you to a jihadi.

That's because you're not very f*cking bright. As is said, don't talk tome. I wasn't talking to you, so don't talk to me. Creep. Clown.

youseem to be squarely in the face of the fact that venters group accomplished what they did. Its not a great big deal but its a start. Hes interested in ptenting gens so Im sure he will futz with these and other sequences.
You relince on the expansion series to support your "mathematical improbability" hypothesis fails to recognize that the chemistry for various kinds of somatic cells, cell walls, and information are NOT UNIQUE in the galaxy.

Chemistry (the building blocks) no, not unique. But the finished cell, Yes, so far we (earth) ARE UNIQUE in the galaxy.

We can continue that discussion when we find proof that that is no longer true.

so you accept the building blocks evidence. Now you must remember from your HS chemistry that these chemicals have antural affinity to bond (both covalntly , and weakly.)
Things like isoprenes can form surface reaction polymers and badaboom= CELL WALLS of the ISUA Formation archea

so you think that your dubious "mathturbation" can compete with honest to goodness hard biochemical data?

well, very well, And you say youre not a Fundamentalist Christian?

We've been down this road before. Here is my answer once again:

Yes, all those things you cited are true. All the ingredients for DNA are plausible in nature and they can even link up under conditions found in nature. But that happens in RANDOM order. What science has NOT shown is the plausibility of those chains linking up in any of the necessary order to form even the simplest self replicating organism (or molecule) able to pass along traits for evolution to act on.

I went on to show the mathematical improbability of that happening but won't bore everyone here by repeating that argument again.

Let's examine your argument and look for the problems.

1. You assume that genes must be in only one particular order for life to exist.
2. You claim the simplest viable genome is 473.
3. You claim a single gene is between 27,000 and 2,0000 base pairs.
4. You assume that every gene that produces a protein must have the exact same order.

1. There is no requirement that genes be in a specific order for them to produce a protein. They can produce that protein no matter where they are in the DNA strand. That puts your argument off by about 473!
2. The simplest living genome is actually 182 gene producing genes long. That puts your math off by what? 2.3 x10 ^300?
3. You claim a single gene contains 27,000 to 2,000,000 base pairs. In fact the genome that has 182 genes has less than 1,000 base pairs per gene. That puts it a lot less than infinity.
4. It has been shown that there are several variation of proteins that act the same. Some of them have as many as 60 variations that don't seem to make a difference in function. That means there are 60 variations that will produce essentially the same protein which means a gene doesn't have to be only one specific order to produce a specific protein.

So we are left with the conclusion that you are doing creationist math. You make assumptions that are false and then use your false assumptions to create an impression that isn't supported by actual math based on the real facts.


You even get Venter's work wrong in your numbers.

That would be 531,000 base pairs in 473 genes.


I somehow don't believe you made so many errors in your math by chance. You seem to have purposely ignored facts to create your numbers.

Obviously youve not learned a thing. Bonding and linkages occur between these various biotic chemicals in a PREFERRED manner .

Bullshit. Molecular Bio is a discipline through whichwe can stroll . and learn about about all these preferred linkages, and polymer making.

The hardest thing (In my mind) was the formation oof purines and pyrimidines from which the entire classes of RNA and DNA chemicals arose.
(Purines and pyrimidines along with a growing list of nucleotides seem to occur in various star cluster spectra. Could those be "nurseries"?)