Star formation: good-freagin'-grief!

[rogue06]

*************************************************

Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

You give new meaning to the phrase, "Dumber than a sack of rocks."

Carry on, Jim.

Jorge

Ah, the sort of detailed, point-by-point rebuttal that we've come to expect from Jorge.

[wattsr1]

Ah, the sort of detailed, point-by-point rebuttal that we've come to expect from Jorge.

I saw that Rogueeee. You just persecuted Jorge.

Tsk.



Regards, Roland

[oxmixmudd]

*************************************************

Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

You give new meaning to the phrase, "Dumber than a sack of rocks."

Carry on, Jim.

Jorge

At least I am not the prototype for the original meaning ...





Jim

[rogue06]

At least I am not the prototype for the original meaning ...





Jim

[David M]

*************************************************************************************

Lessee ... where did Tiggy Faid (hard to tell those two apart, you know) address any
of the main points? Golly gee wiz, it looks like he didn't address anything -- just a quick
'pit stop' to hurl crap and then he's off into the sunset while patting himself on the back.

Oh well ... were you expecting anything else?

Jorge

You want us to adress your expressions of personal ignorance Jorge?

The answer to your questions is...do some research into the fields of astrophysics and stellar evolution.

[Faid]

*************************************************

Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

You give new meaning to the phrase, "Dumber than a sack of rocks."

Carry on, Jim.

Jorge

"Lessee ... where did CTD jorge (hard to tell those two apart, you know) address any
of the main points? Golly gee wiz, it looks like he didn't address anything -- just a quick
'pit stop' to hurl crap and then he's off into the sunset while patting himself on the back.

Oh well ... were you expecting anything else"?





(Enter jorge saying something like "gee can't you be original"? )

[Jorge]

Here's the latest, hot off the oven:
Jorge

***************************************************************************

wow ... WOW ... WOW !!!


The following definitely merits a new thread but I don't have the time :

1. Heidi Ledford, “The code within the code,” Nature 465, 16-17 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/465016a.
2. J. Ramón Tejedor and Juan Valcárcel, “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code,” Nature 465, 44-46 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/465045a.
3. Yoseph Barash, John A. Calarco, Weijun Gao, Qun Pan, Xinchen Wang, Ofer Shai, Benjamin J. Blencowe and Brendan J. Frey, “Deciphering the splicing code,” Nature 465, 53-59 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09000.



This news is especially significant to me in light of what I've been working
on with John Sanford and Werner Gitt.

Here is what one person had to say about the implications of above :

"Darwinists are in for rough going ahead. The discoverers tried mutating the Splicing Code and got cancers and mistakes. How are you going to navigate a fitness landscape now, when it is a minefield of catastrophes waiting to happen when one starts mucking with all these intertwined codes? We know there is some built-in robustness and tolerance, but the picture emerging is a highly-complex, engineered, optimized informatics system – not a random arrangement of parts that can be endlessly tinkered with. The whole idea of code is an intelligent design concept. A. E. Wilder-Smith used to emphasize this. A code implies a convention between two parties. Convention – coming together – is an agreement in advance. It implies planning and purpose. The symbol SOS, he would say, we use by convention as a sign of distress. SOS does not look like distress. It does not smell like distress. It does not feel like distress. Nobody would know it means distress unless they understand the convention. In the same way, the codon for alanine, GCC, does not look, smell or feel like alanine. It would have nothing to do with alanine unless there were a pre-planned convention between two coding systems – the protein code and the DNA code – that “GCC shall mean alanine.” To convey that convention, a family of translators, the aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases, are employed to translate one code into the other.

That should have nailed the case for design in the 1950s, and many creationists preached it effectively. But the evolutionists are like fast-talking salesmen. They wove their just-so stories about Tinker Bell zapping the code and creating new species by mutation and selection and convinced many that miracles can still happen. OK, well now it’s 2010 and we have the Epigenetic Code and the Splicing Code, two codes much more complex and dynamic than the simple DNA code. We have codes within codes, codes above and below codes – a hierarchy of codes. They can’t just stick their finger in the pistol this time and bluff their way out of it with smooth talking now, not with cannons to the left of them and cannons to the right of them, a whole arsenal aimed at their vital parts. This is a game changer. The informatics age has grown around them and they are has-beens, like pike-thrusting Greeks facing modern tanks and helicopters."

Poor Evos ... as you read this they're like chickens without heads, bouncing
off of each other and walls, picking themselves up and then resume the same.

Jorge

[Faid]

He's a cover of the article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465016a.html

Quiz: try to figure out what part of that article justifies that "one person's" rant, as jorge quoted it.

The winner gets a special, custom-made set of crayons, specifically designed for drawing in sandboxes.

[USIncognito]

Say, that emission from that strange star seems like a transmission.

Ooops, it's just a Pulsar.

{sticking with the Astrophysics motif of the OP}

[FreezBee]

Poor Evos ... as you read this they're like chickens without heads, bouncing
off of each other and walls, picking themselves up and then resume the same.

I don't know what kind of mushrooms they serve at your favorite restaurant, but maybe you should consider cutting down on them and eat fish oil instead. It's supposed to be beneficial for normal brain functions.

- FreezBee

[Tiggy]

"Darwinists are in for rough going ahead. (snip the rest of the blithering)

Thanks Jorge. We'll add this to the huge pile of failed YEC / IDiot prophesies

"The imminent demise of Evolution!"

"Evolution on its deathbed!"

"Darwinism on its last leg!"

"Waterloo for Evolution!"




Science has been collecting 'em for over 150 years now. Amazingly enough, ToE hasn't skipped a beat but instead has grown exponentially in its knowledge and explanatory power in that time.

- T

[Jorge]

Thanks Jorge. We'll add this to the huge pile of failed YEC / IDiot prophesies

"The imminent demise of Evolution!"

"Evolution on its deathbed!"

"Darwinism on its last leg!"

"Waterloo for Evolution!"




Science has been collecting 'em for over 150 years now. Amazingly enough, ToE hasn't skipped a beat but instead has grown exponentially in its knowledge and explanatory power in that time.

- T

***************************************************************************

I see that in spite of repeated requests by many, you're still around.
I had hoped that you would've retired into oblivion by now. Oh well ...

The reason why Evolution is still around, and will remain that way,
is the same reason why we still have practitioners of voodoo,
astrology and believers in pagan gods --- it's because people like
you refuse to go away. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ...

Jorge

[wattsr1]

***************************************************************************

wow ... WOW ... WOW !!!


The following definitely merits a new thread but I don't have the time :

1. Heidi Ledford, “The code within the code,” Nature 465, 16-17 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/465016a.
2. J. Ramón Tejedor and Juan Valcárcel, “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code,” Nature 465, 44-46 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/465045a.
3. Yoseph Barash, John A. Calarco, Weijun Gao, Qun Pan, Xinchen Wang, Ofer Shai, Benjamin J. Blencowe and Brendan J. Frey, “Deciphering the splicing code,” Nature 465, 53-59 (06 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09000.



This news is especially significant to me in light of what I've been working
on with John Sanford and Werner Gitt.

Here is what one person had to say about the implications of above :

"Darwinists are in for rough going ahead. The discoverers tried mutating the Splicing Code and got cancers and mistakes. How are you going to navigate a fitness landscape now, when it is a minefield of catastrophes waiting to happen when one starts mucking with all these intertwined codes? We know there is some built-in robustness and tolerance, but the picture emerging is a highly-complex, engineered, optimized informatics system – not a random arrangement of parts that can be endlessly tinkered with. The whole idea of code is an intelligent design concept. A. E. Wilder-Smith used to emphasize this. A code implies a convention between two parties. Convention – coming together – is an agreement in advance. It implies planning and purpose. The symbol SOS, he would say, we use by convention as a sign of distress. SOS does not look like distress. It does not smell like distress. It does not feel like distress. Nobody would know it means distress unless they understand the convention. In the same way, the codon for alanine, GCC, does not look, smell or feel like alanine. It would have nothing to do with alanine unless there were a pre-planned convention between two coding systems – the protein code and the DNA code – that “GCC shall mean alanine.” To convey that convention, a family of translators, the aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases, are employed to translate one code into the other.

That should have nailed the case for design in the 1950s, and many creationists preached it effectively. But the evolutionists are like fast-talking salesmen. They wove their just-so stories about Tinker Bell zapping the code and creating new species by mutation and selection and convinced many that miracles can still happen. OK, well now it’s 2010 and we have the Epigenetic Code and the Splicing Code, two codes much more complex and dynamic than the simple DNA code. We have codes within codes, codes above and below codes – a hierarchy of codes. They can’t just stick their finger in the pistol this time and bluff their way out of it with smooth talking now, not with cannons to the left of them and cannons to the right of them, a whole arsenal aimed at their vital parts. This is a game changer. The informatics age has grown around them and they are has-beens, like pike-thrusting Greeks facing modern tanks and helicopters."

Poor Evos ... as you read this they're like chickens without heads, bouncing
off of each other and walls, picking themselves up and then resume the same.

Jorge

Here you are Jorge, from your quote:-

""Darwinists are in for rough going ahead. The discoverers tried mutating the Splicing Code and got cancers and mistakes. How are you going to navigate a fitness landscape now, when it is a minefield of catastrophes waiting to happen when one starts mucking with all these intertwined codes? "


For several years scientists have been finding out how to navigate fitness landscapes (in these cases by pure darwinian mechanisms).

Here are some examples, given a few years back:-

(1) Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet, Sander J. Tans, “Evolutionary Potential of a Duplicated Repressor-Operator Pair: Simulating Pathways Using Mutation Data”, PLoS Computational Biology 2(5) May 2006, pages 467-475

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/...l.pcbi.0020058

The above link is the whole article - on line. Therefore you can read it.

Some more examples. An essay I wrote:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...light=plugging

and its references in the literature. All about navigating fitness landscapes:-

1)Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet & Sander J. Tans, “Empirical Fitness landscapes reveal accessible evolutionary paths”, Nature 445 25-January-2007, 383-386.

(2) Daniel M. Weinreich, Richard A. Watson, and Lin Chao, “Perspective: Sign Epsistasis and Genetic Constraint on Evolutionary Trajectories”, Evolution 59(6), June 2005, 1165 – 1174. See also link in text.

(3) Daniel M. Weinreich, Nigel F. Delaney, Mark A. DePristo, Daniel L. Hartl, “Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins”, Science 312, 7-April-2006, pages 111 – 114. (Interestingly, this particular copy of Science is from the same week that Nature reported on the intermediate fossil named Tiktaalik.)

(4) Jesse D. Bloom, Sy T. Labthavikul. Christopher R. Otey, and Frances H. Arnold, “Protein Stability promotes evolvability”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(15), 11-April-2006, 5869-5874.

(5) Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton, “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”, Science 312 7-April-2006, 97 – 101.

(6) Thornton JW. “Evolution of vertebrate steroid receptors from an ancestral estrogen receptor by ligand exploitation and serial genome expansions”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA [b]98[b] (10), 5671-5676, 2001.



And of course we do know that lots of mutations do not necessarily lead to catastrophe:-

(1) Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski, “Historical Contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli”, PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 10-June-2008

(2) Barry G. Hall “Chromosomal Mutation for Citrate Utilization by Escheerichia coli K-12”, Journal of Bacteriology 151(1):269-273, July 1982



Even organisations such as AiG accept that speciation (presumably) via mutation, does occur. In fact I think they accept mutation and natural selection (providing it does not go too far):-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...h2-species.asp

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...assifying-life

Let me quote some text from the above links (bolding is mine):-

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others?

While new species have been observed to arise, it is always within the limits of the created kinds.

In fact on that second quote, there is a figure well into the article, showing how they view speciation - as giving us not one tree, but a series of trees in an orchid. Go and find the diagram and you will see what I mean.

I'll leave it to you to see if you can dig up quotes where folk at AiG accept natural selection (of mutations). I think I have seen plenty.


So as usual, you have some explaining to do, because even creationists accept what we do. It's just that they place limits on it. Therefore how can you possibly be jumping up and down about the impossibility of fitness landscapes given that:-

1) They have been shown to be workable in several instances,

2) Lenski's experiments show they work in practice and

3) Scientists at AiG seem to accept them implicitly at least?



Because you have some explaining to do, it means that you won't.




Regards, Roland

[Faid]

***************************************************************************

I see that in spite of repeated requests by many, you're still around.
I had hoped that you would've retired into oblivion by now. Oh well ...

The reason why Evolution is still around, and will remain that way,
is the same reason why we still have practitioners of voodoo,
astrology and believers in pagan gods --- it's because people like
you refuse to go away. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ...

Jorge

Weeeeeell... It's not that much that "people like us" refuse to go away, jorge. It's that people like you have been reduced to pathetic, feeble caricatures of their former selves, and are unable to hinder knowledge and scientific advancements like before (by "tarring n' feathering", or "throwing in jail", or even "burning at the stake").

In other words: You guys are a joke, and you will remain a joke until you become the vague memory of one.

As Mags would say, 'hope that helps'.

[ericmurphy]

[/FONT]Poor Evos ... as you read this they're like chickens without heads, bouncing
off of each other and walls, picking themselves up and then resume the same.

Jorge
[/COLOR]

RNA is complicated. Therefore goddidit. QED.

Sure, Jorge.

Note: broken tags left in on purpose. Why is it creationists can figure out how to use font tags and color tags, but not quote tags?