[Thinks Design]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

hello ThinkDesign

i like your nickname. Nice to meet u. I am a expert in intelligent design, and have a virtual library, that goes from cosmology, origin of life, theory of evolution, to intelligent design, and molecular biology.

Can I ask about you view on so called natural selection? It may be plausible to a point but it hasn't been proven to be a driving force that can create new complex organisms or creatures. Tests and studies done indicate a fittest loss and deterioration overall over time so there is no real benefit in the long run. It is not just about natural selection but also beneficial mutations and they are very rare. Most mutations are neutral and there may be many that are harmful. Studies may indicate more slightly deleterious mutations that they thought. Certainly to so that all the amazing complexity and variety came from something that is mostly harmful/neutral and a copying mistake of something that was already good is yet to be proved and hard to believe.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22283604007624

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

ThinksDeign

[Basilissa]

Re: Hello from brazil, greetings in the name of Christ

Mary

since you are so keen that the bible must be interpreted literally. Mind to answer my question ? Do you use a towel on your head when you go to church ? Or a hut ?

Dear, this is what a hut looks like:


I took this picture at 4000 m.a.s.l. in South America.

I don't think that this is something that Sister Mary would like to or even could wear on her head.

The word you were looking for is a "hat."

[Angelo]

Re: Hello from brazil, greetings in the name of Christ

Friend, I would appreciate it if you would stop with your PMs requesting perverted liaisons. I do not perform the 'cybersex' as you said.
I only sleep with my wife, Mrs. Hutchins (once every ten months to enable her to carry a child for God) and with the Love of Jesus every night.
I am not surprised you know the Devil so intimately. But buddies, I imagine.

James

i dare you , please post the p.m. i supposedly sent to you, in order for anyone to see.
As your <<<potty mouth>>> prove, you are <<<potty mouth>>>, you are a <<<potty mouth>>> and learned from you father. Convert, before its too late. God loves you.
But only without your aweful beard. And you should let grow some hair , otherwise you risk skin cancer.

[Thinks Design]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

hi ThinkDesign

i am certainly not unversed in regard of the evidence that points to our powerful creator as the best explanation for our existence. Specially when i look into molecular biology, i see DESIGN...

have you ever studied DNA replication, and the proteins and enzymes required to make it go ?

A bit, but only what I have learnt from the internet. What makes me laugh is how evolutionists used to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA. This was to highlight that design was mostly simple and therefore can be explained through a chance and random process that comes mostly from an error in the copying of what is already working to make better and more complex life. But now scientists are finding a lot more function in the so called junk DNA and many evolutionists have resisted the evidence along the way. This is the same more many aspects of life and slowly but surely we are beginning to see the great complexity yet orchestrated design in things from even simple organisms to the finely tuned universe that is designed for life.

Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. Its the capacity that its given that is in dispute. Creatures have the ability to adapt and change to conditions they encounter in their environments. But those changes come mostly if not completely from a genetic ability that is already there. This is where the so called junk DNA may come in. Maybe there is a lot more capacity for creatures to draw on their existing genetics to change and switch on and off genes or recombine their existing genetics to bring about those changes. But those creature primarily remain as they are but have a great capacity for variation. They dont turn into other creatures and all living things didn't come from a common ancestor.

In fact evidence shows that there were many lines for where all creatures come from and that the genetic capacity was there from a very early point in the scheme of things. Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.

ThinksDesign

[Angelo]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

Can I ask about you view on so called natural selection? It may be plausible to a point but it hasn't been proven to be a driving force that can create new complex organisms or creatures. Tests and studies done indicate a fittest loss and deterioration overall over time so there is no real benefit in the long run. It is not just about natural selection but also beneficial mutations and they are very rare. Most mutations are neutral and there may be many that are harmful. Studies may indicate more slightly deleterious mutations that they thought. Certainly to so that all the amazing complexity and variety came from something that is mostly harmful/neutral and a copying mistake of something that was already good is yet to be proved and hard to believe.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22283604007624

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

ThinksDeign

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources.

For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept. Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires.

When discussing whether or not mutations can create new information, evolutionists routinely bring up an overly-simplistic view of mutation and then claim to have solved the problem while waving their hand over the real issue: the antagonism between ultra-complexity and random mutation.

If a four-dimensional genome is hard enough to grasp, there is also a huge amount of ‘meta-information’ in the genome. This is information about the information! This is the information that tells the cell how to maintain the information, how to fix it if it breaks, how to copy it, how to interpret what is there, how to use it, when to use it, and how to pass it on to the next generation. This is all coded in that linear string of letters and life could not exist without it. In fact, life was designed from a top-down perspective, apparently with the meta-information coming first.

protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme -- the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen -- would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes,6exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth's history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the "edge" of what Darwinian evolution can do.

[Basilissa]

Re: Hello from brazil, greetings in the name of Christ

And you should let grow some hair , otherwise you risk skin cancer.

Do you know what God does to those who mock bold people?

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

[FreeFromBrains]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

A bit, but only what I have learnt from the internet. What makes me laugh is how evolutionists used to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA. This was to highlight that design was mostly simple and therefore can be explained through a chance and random process that comes mostly from an error in the copying of what is already working to make better and more complex life. But now scientists are finding a lot more function in the so called junk DNA and many evolutionists have resisted the evidence along the way. This is the same more many aspects of life and slowly but surely we are beginning to see the great complexity yet orchestrated design in things from even simple organisms to the finely tuned universe that is designed for life.

Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. Its the capacity that its given that is in dispute. Creatures have the ability to adapt and change to conditions they encounter in their environments. But those changes come mostly if not completely from a genetic ability that is already there. This is where the so called junk DNA may come in. Maybe there is a lot more capacity for creatures to draw on their existing genetics to change and switch on and off genes or recombine their existing genetics to bring about those changes. But those creature primarily remain as they are but have a great capacity for variation. They dont turn into other creatures and all living things didn't come from a common ancestor.

In fact evidence shows that there were many lines for where all creatures come from and that the genetic capacity was there from a very early point in the scheme of things. Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.

ThinksDesign

What utter drivel.

I can't wait for our new 'expert' on intelligent design to wade in.

Jumbo jet from a junk yard in a hurricane in 3,2,1....

[James Hutchins]

Re: Hello from brazil, greetings in the name of Christ

James

i dare you , please post the p.m. i supposedly sent to you, in order for anyone to see.
As your lie prove, you are the son of the devil, you are a liar and learned from you father. Convert, before its too late. God loves you.
But only without your aweful beard. And you should let grow some hair , otherwise you risk skin cancer.

As much as it makes my stomach turn, here it is:

James,
I want you to know I have lips like those of a burro. While my ability to spaek is not purfeck I can express much love for a man. You are pure maness is what a a ladypersan liek I needs.
Make I your pet.
Aweys,
Angelo

Let me get this straight (in a completely heretorsexual way) You want me to both shave AND grow hair?
God took the hair from the top of my head so he could more easily shine upon me.

[Angelo]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

A bit, but only what I have learnt from the internet. What makes me laugh is how evolutionists used to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA. This was to highlight that design was mostly simple and therefore can be explained through a chance and random process that comes mostly from an error in the copying of what is already working to make better and more complex life. But now scientists are finding a lot more function in the so called junk DNA and many evolutionists have resisted the evidence along the way. This is the same more many aspects of life and slowly but surely we are beginning to see the great complexity yet orchestrated design in things from even simple organisms to the finely tuned universe that is designed for life.

Agreed.

Signature of the cell, page 320

Cell and genome biologists have also discovered that these supposedly “useless” nonprotein-coding regions of the genome: (1) regulate DNA replication,27 (2) regulate transcription,28 (3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material,29 (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes,30 (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix),31 (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing,32 (7) modulate translation,33 ( 8 ) regulate embryological development,34 (9) repair DNA,35 and (10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease36 among other functions. In some cases, “junk” DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38 Indeed, far from being “junk,” as materialistic theories of evolution assumed, the nonprotein-coding DNA directs the use of other information in the genome, just as an operating system directs the use of the information contained in various application programs stored in a computer. In any case, contrary to the often heard criticism that the theory makes no predictions, intelligent design not only makes a discriminating prediction about the nature of “junk DNA”; recent discoveries about nonprotein-coding DNA confirm the prediction that it makes.39

Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. Its the capacity that its given that is in dispute.

Natural selection has a limited range, that is constraint to micro adaptation.

Creatures have the ability to adapt and change to conditions they encounter in their environments. But those changes come mostly if not completely from a genetic ability that is already there.

correct.

Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found (already found)


The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. In this review, I propose that we need to change that perspective and understand the genome as an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. Cells operate under changing conditions and are continually modifying themselves by genome inscriptions. These inscriptions occur over three distinct time-scales (cell reproduction, multicellular development and evolutionary change) and involve a variety of different processes at each time scale (forming nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic formatting and changes in DNA sequence structure). Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.

This is where the so called junk DNA may come in. Maybe there is a lot more capacity for creatures to draw on their existing genetics to change and switch on and off genes or recombine their existing genetics to bring about those changes. But those creature primarily remain as they are but have a great capacity for variation. They dont turn into other creatures and all living things didn't come from a common ancestor.

exactly.

The instructions that control when and where a gene is expressed are written in the sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene. These instructions are written in a language that is often called the ‘gene regulatory code’. This code is read and interpreted by proteins called transcription factors that bind to specific sequences of DNA (or ‘DNA words’) and increase or decrease gene expression. Changes in gene expression between species could therefore be due to changes in the transcription factors and/or changes in the instructions within the regulatory regions of specific genes.


In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.

In fact evidence shows that there were many lines for where all creatures come from and that the genetic capacity was there from a very early point in the scheme of things. Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.

ThinksDesign

Agreed. thats called front loading. From there on, genetic entropy kicked in.

[Thinks Design]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

James,
I want you to know I have lips like those of a burro. While my ability to spaek is not purfeck I can express much love for a man. You are pure maness is what a a ladypersan liek I needs.
Make I your pet.
Aweys,
Angelo

That's too weird. I don't what to get involved in this.

Pervert.

[FreeFromBrains]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

Agreed.

Signature of the cell, page 320

Cell and genome biologists have also discovered that these supposedly “useless” nonprotein-coding regions of the genome: (1) regulate DNA replication,27 (2) regulate transcription,28 (3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material,29 (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes,30 (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix),31 (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing,32 (7) modulate translation,33 ( 8 ) regulate embryological development,34 (9) repair DNA,35 and (10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease36 among other functions. In some cases, “junk” DNA has even been found to code functional genes.37 Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.38 Indeed, far from being “junk,” as materialistic theories of evolution assumed, the nonprotein-coding DNA directs the use of other information in the genome, just as an operating system directs the use of the information contained in various application programs stored in a computer. In any case, contrary to the often heard criticism that the theory makes no predictions, intelligent design not only makes a discriminating prediction about the nature of “junk DNA”; recent discoveries about nonprotein-coding DNA confirm the prediction that it makes.39



Natural selection has a limited range, that is constraint to micro adaptation.





correct.

Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found (already found)


The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. In this review, I propose that we need to change that perspective and understand the genome as an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. Cells operate under changing conditions and are continually modifying themselves by genome inscriptions. These inscriptions occur over three distinct time-scales (cell reproduction, multicellular development and evolutionary change) and involve a variety of different processes at each time scale (forming nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic formatting and changes in DNA sequence structure). Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.




exactly.

The instructions that control when and where a gene is expressed are written in the sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene. These instructions are written in a language that is often called the ‘gene regulatory code’. This code is read and interpreted by proteins called transcription factors that bind to specific sequences of DNA (or ‘DNA words’) and increase or decrease gene expression. Changes in gene expression between species could therefore be due to changes in the transcription factors and/or changes in the instructions within the regulatory regions of specific genes.


In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a stepwise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.



Agreed. thats called front loading. From there on, genetic entropy kicked in.

Obvious cut and past is obvious. We have a real genius here, folks!

lol.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

Obvious cut and past is obvious. We have a real genius here, folks!

lol.

What do you know, even an atheist clock gets it right sometimes.

YIC

[Angelo]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

That's too weird. I don't what to get involved in this.

Pervert.

i hope you recognize that's me.

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

You talk round and round in circles like a Jesuit.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from brazil, the smelliest country in Lower Mexico

A bit, but only what I have learnt from the internet. What makes me laugh is how evolutionists used to say that most of our genomes was junk DNA...

Natural selection does and can work with intelligent design. ... Too early for that complexity to have evolved from a gradual process that has very rare beneficial mutation for the amount that would be needed to just make small changes where several mutational changes are needed at the same time.

ThinksDesign

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system...

For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept...
...the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen -- would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes,6exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth's history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the "edge" of what Darwinian evolution can do.

Miss Design and our new albeit impolite Friend Angelo,

You have good intentions. That is nice and somewhat cute but it does not help Jesus when He faces the swarm of atheist science when fighting for souls. You both propose simplistic statistical models that originate from the Catholic/agnostic Michael Behe and his irreducible complexity -heresy [he also believes in panspermia: "Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being...(Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001)].

The "7 simultaneous mutations" idea is also from Behe and his work on the malaria parasite. In these cases you really, really should follow the atheist literature, as well. The atheist scientists do take the bait and produce experiments to enrage Jesus further. In this case, the atheist interpretation was that the mutation were sequential and either slightly beneficial or so slightly detrimental that there was time to reproduce. They have actually produced all this in the laboratory. I suggest you do the same and THEN criticize this.

The genome? Don't fight the atheists on this front, either. They have trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people working for them and Satan. They are impressive if you just admire the craftmanship and the meticulous nature, with which they do their work.

• Could RNA be formed with passive robust reactions from common molecules that abounded in the "primitive Earth" and "comets"? Yes, the reactions take place spontaneously with the probality of approximately 1 (the journal from which the reference is contains lots of related materials. It is utterly heartbreaking to read it but know thy enemy!).
• The Code? They've almost cracked it. Some amino acids have a higher affinity to certain short RNAs (future tRNA) and very short peptides (dipeptides) are already giving some benefit for RNAs in the heretic "RNA world".
• It does not end there... The rRNA subunits and even smaller fragments can perform all the tasks of ribosomes albeit not as efficiently as with proteins. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the atheists have been looking for: something that natural selection () could work on.
• Metabolism? It takes place without cells. The most crucial metabolic reactions take place in a spontaneous manner at high temperatures without protein catalysis.
• The eukaryote: They've made a breakthrough with the "inside-out" model that suggests the early events of symbiosis (mitochondria) were not ingested by the primordial prokaryote byt that membrane blebs grew out to engulf these. They can to the chagrin of Jesus also make predictions based on this: the nuclear envelope should show proteins that reflect its past. From the atheist viewpoint, this is very advanced and opens up incredible vistas.

What you two are doing is trying to fight the atheist menace with the heretic ID menace that makes God an ever-increasingly small player in the stage of Life and Creation. In addition, if you accept the long eras of billions of years, you accept that God has to tinker with His Creations and improve them as if He was not perfect from the Start (Deuteronomy 32:4)! You make theodicy almost impossible by accepting suffering caused by God but not based on SIN (Genesis 3:6)!

You are fighting the atheists biochemistry by citations and reproducing obsolete arguments. Since the polymerase chain reaction was domesticated, the rate of atheist scientific discovery has been staggering and in 2015 the atheist abiogenesis is starting to look very convincing. If you want to fight it you should fight at the level of science: do the actual experiments, look at the details of the actual reactions chains they have seen and checking them for errors. That is not easy. It is easy to shout from behind the veil of ID ignorance. Ignorance of science and - even worse - ignorance of God and Jesus! The few references I mentioned are but a tiny dribble. If you want to fight for ID you should actually read them AND the others and start fighting them not with copied texts from alien-believing agnostics but by making actual atheist science.

Only by believing in the actual Word of God without interpretations can you avoid these pitfalls. The Earth is young not because overwhelming atheist evidence points to an old Earth but because God tells us so. The Flood took place not because it is impossible that the floodwaters would produce thinner sediments on ocean floors (as there are) but because God tells us so. Creatures were created in Kinds not because the rapid micro-evolution and genetic entropy could not have produced the biodiversity but because God tells us so.

You have to believe this FIRST.

Then you realize that unless you believe, your senses are flawed. God aggravates your sorry situation by sending you delusions. All this atheist science is the product of those delusions, mirages, false information that really helps Jesus to distinguish between True Believers™ and ID scum.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

God deceives sinners. The new atheist literature on abiogenesis (and I am nor referring to popularized books but actual peer-reviewed science and so should you) is too perfect, too fitting, too much in concert with the evolutionary theory to be True™. It has advanced too well, the answers to the minor and incompetent challenge of ID are too detailed and overwhelming. Hence, they must be wrong. They are the DELUSIONS.

Understand this.

Then you can look at the wonderful world of God with opened eyes. You can choose the phenomena of the natural world that fit the concept of the Young Earth, the 6-day Creation, Created Kinds, Flood, Behemoth (Job 40:15) as the dinosaur, etc.

You learn to see the actual Jesus and the only evidence of Him (the Bible) in this manner. You are no longer ignorant.




Yours in Christ,

Elmer