Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Superstition.

Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?

"Molecular machines"?

You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.

They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.

Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]



So hollie there are no molecular machines ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.

The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?

 

[Hollie]

Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?

"Molecular machines"?

You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.

They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.

Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ff4FQ39CE&feature=related]The machine of DNA in real time - YouTube[/ame]

So hollie there are no molecular machines ?

So fundie, you need to insist on silly slogans that are meaningless?

 

[Hollie]

The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?

What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.

You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Molecular machines"?

You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.

They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.

Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ff4FQ39CE&feature=related]The machine of DNA in real time - YouTube[/ame]

So hollie there are no molecular machines ?

So fundie, you need to insist on silly slogans that are meaningless?

Molecular machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?

What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.

You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.

You are very ignorant to science hollie.


Fixation (population genetics)


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


In population genetics, fixation is the change in a gene pool from a situation where there exists at least two variants of a particular gene (allele) to a situation where only one of the alleles remains. The term can refer to a gene in general or particular nucleotide position in the DNA chain (locus).

In the process of substitution, a previously non-existent allele arises by mutation and undergoes fixation by spreading through the population by random genetic drift and/or positive selection. Once the frequency of the allele is at 100%, i.e. being the only gene variant present in any member, it is said to be "fixed" in the population.

Similarly, genetic differences between taxa are said to have been fixed in each species.

[edit] Probability of fixation

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force).

For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate , the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is . Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is . Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.

[edit] References
Gillespie, J.H. (1994) The Causes of Molecular Evolution. Oxford University Press Inc., USA.
Hartl, D.L. and Clark, A.G. (2006) Principles of Population Genetics (4th edition). Sinauer Associates Inc., USA.
Kimura, M. (1962) On the Probability of Fixation of Mutant Genes in a Population. Genetics 47: 713–719. PubMed Central






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?

What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.

You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.

You are very ignorant to science hollie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)

Have you considered your comments in relation to your cutting and pasting from wiki.

I do understand that so many of the charlatans representing creationist ministries have long ago been exposed as frauds so I can understand that you must scour wiki for your creationist anti-science agenda.

 

[LOki]

What you determine happened by chance and luck ...

... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Superstition.

Molecular machines are superstition ?

Believing in an invisible creator of molecular machines is superstition.

Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ?

Believing in an invisible creator of biological Defense mechanisms is superstition.

Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ?

Believing in an invisible creator of biological transcription mechanisms is superstition.

these designs do not have a purpose ?

What designs are you talking about? You have submitted identifiable processes that serve functions, but you fail to identify any design.

If you are tempted to respond with some automobile, or circuit board, or house analogy again, I will again make the point you failed to rebut when you last tried that strategy:

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."​

I will also remind you that an attempt to quote-mine Francis Crick will prove to be a failure for you again:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

Ultimately Youwerecreated, your denial that your "Designer" is nothing but superstition, is just a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

 

[LOki]

I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.

I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.

This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.

True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.

I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.

Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.

But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.

The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.

Loki your attempt is really wrong. If what you say is true why is that we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations ?

What are you talking about? If--for the purposes of your point--you accept the evolutionary premises of mutation that conclude a mutation is destructive, intellectual honesty obliges you to the same evolutionary premises of mutation that conclude a mutation is beneficial.

When you accept your obligation to intellectual honesty, you cannot say that "we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations."

Loki you need to consider not just the one problem but all 9 to understand why these conditions present a major hurdle to mutation fixation.

I HAVE considered all nine. I'm just not going to perform the unnecessary exercise of demonstrating the OBVIOUS fractal wrongness of the remaining 8, just to have you assert your dopey superstition motivated denials.

 

[LOki]

Loki ask yourself why these defense mechnisms are in place to repair copying errors ?

Ok. Consider it asked. The answer, by natural selection, is that the presence of genetic repair mechanisms enhances the fitness of organisms that possess them. While it is patently evident that repair mechanisms serve a function, there is no reason to insist that such mechanisms are in place to serve somebody's purpose.

please explain why more copying errors known as mutations get into the population then beneficial mutations getting into the population ?

This is your claim. I don't have to explain your claims.

we have 6,000 genetic disorders and counting but your side can only point to a few beneficial mutations...

This is not true. You only accept the notion of mutation if it results in a disorder, otherwise you reject the notion that any phenotype that enhances fitness can be the result of mutation.

... but once you dig a little deeper these benficial mutations are not all that beneficial because affect proper function.

This is nothing but a denial of the relationship phenotype has with genotype.

 

[Hollie]

Superstition.

Molecular machines are superstition ?

Believing in an invisible creator of molecular machines is superstition.

Believing in an invisible creator of biological Defense mechanisms is superstition.

Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ?

Believing in an invisible creator of biological transcription mechanisms is superstition.

these designs do not have a purpose ?

What designs are you talking about? You have submitted identifiable processes that serve functions, but you fail to identify any design.

If you are tempted to respond with some automobile, or circuit board, or house analogy again, I will again make the point you failed to rebut when you last tried that strategy:

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."​

I will also remind you that an attempt to quote-mine Francis Crick will prove to be a failure for you again:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

Ultimately Youwerecreated, your denial that your "Designer" is nothing but superstition, is just a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

Kudos, Loki. Good catch. Way, way back even before this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5631185-post5749.html

I took the fundie to task for posting altered "quotes" by Crick and others. It was a dishonest and sleazy tactic that the fundie still uses even though he has been exposed as a fraud and a liar.

 

[UltimateReality]

HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!

Well, this is complete bullshit.

The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.

And they don't.

Pathological projection.

Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.

Just alot of made-up nonsense.

Oh good!

This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.

Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.

Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.

As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.

Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.

 

[UltimateReality]

There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, false claims, lies and....uplifting of the human condition.

Nope, I am speaking the truth in love. Please do share. What facts above that I wrote about you aren't true? You really can't call someone a liar without substantiating your claim.

A simple yes or no will do:

Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged Touch?

Are you on disability?

Are you obese?

Were your parents fundamentalist Christians?

Have you ever been to college?

I wouldn't let your lack of education be a barrier to ignorance. Many fundie Christians are able to wander through life with nothing more a bible to thump people with and an abiding will to collect welfare.

Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut? No.

Are you on disability because the gods are punishing? No. I have never received government assistance.

Are you obese because the gods are punishing you? No, I am very fit. At 46 I still do weight training 3 times a week with the addition of 25 to 30 minutes of cardio. I try to eat healthy but typically blow it about once a week when we go out to dinner.


Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies? Yes, my parents were Southern Baptists. No, they didn't follow Islam. They were quite legalistic although my dad would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need. My mother volunteered for our church her whole life and led the nursing home ministries for quite a few years before succumbing to Alzheimers.

See Hollie, that wasn't so hard was it?

 

[UltimateReality]

I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.

Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!

Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.

I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.

How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.

 

[UltimateReality]

I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.

I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.

This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.

So I think I understand what you are saying. Natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance an organisms ability to survive and reproduce. So basically you are saying our evidence for this is the fact that any mutations that survived must have been the ones that contributed to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce or they wouldn't have survived and reproduced.

 

[UltimateReality]

I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.

Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!

Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins.

What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?

What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?

You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.

Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?

The wiki quotes demonstrated your strawman claim, like all of your fallacious fallacy accusations, was a lie. Just go back and read it. That is where I demonstrated it. I really can't believe you are this stupid. But I will accept your bait to demonstrate it again.

Remember, in the context of the conversation, we were talking about hominids:

Correction:

"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations.

Wiki: "In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations."

"the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils." [This is consistent with the fossil evidence of Neanderthal and HS.]

"Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow."

Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years.

Wiki: "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.

Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."

Fixed.

Wiki: "Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments."

And thus, rather than admit his lie, Loki chooses not to admit his BLATANT intellectual dishonesty.

Lest we forget the topic that started this whole discussion: And so it is the case in the "just so" stories of Darwinism, we are asked to believe that none of the claims made for the Hominids we were discussing above, never happened to E'coli, which has remain largely unchanged for 2 billion years.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.

Oh good!

You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.

Mental midget.

 

[UltimateReality]

What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?

You think the cell was designed incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.

Greatest Minds being the operative word there.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.

The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!

 

[Hollie]

Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.

Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.

As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.

Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.

There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.