mm-2549 .... It was intended to sting :-) And you know this how? I cited the research. They've done the work, and showed what they have showed. What work shows either that life falls anew from the skies or that life cannot have arisen de novo on earth? In short, in what way is the rest of the universe privileged that the earth is not, as a source of life? Is this just your opinion, or is it backed up with solid work? And before you refer me to a web page - I am aware of the online material. All of the scientific work at whatsisface's site (brain spasm, sorry) is merely observation of organic molecules in space, which is not support for panspermia (all molecules on earth originally came from space, after all). .... -- John Wilkins Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me [Marlowe's Faust] stinging someone is a reflection of the hegemonist patrimony deconstructed by de man, et al...a concept of the mind... well, you get the idea... -------------------- To find out who 'wf3h' is, go to 'qrz.com' and enter 'wf3h' in the field. lat. 40 41.288N long. 75 32.177W Fortunately Isaac Newton had more faith in *his* computer simulations and pursued them until he developed a successful theory of gravitation. The computer he had to work with was, of course, his own mind assisted by pen and paper. The point I'm making is that computer simulations today are a continuation of that tradition of mathematically modeling nature. The problems being worked on are now so complex that the analytical working out of closed form solutions of systems of equations can no longer be accomplished. It is necessary to numerically compute possible solutions and display them in elaborate ways in order to understand them. This probably isn't the biggest gaffe in simulation either. What about the Club of Rome's computer models that predicted a complete collapse of the world economy due to scarcity of resources and overpopulation by the end of the 20th Century? However, computer modeling is used just about everywhere in science these days, even in the classically backward field of biology. And interaction of quarks inside nuclei using lattice gauge theory. Molecular biologists build computer models of protein folding. Astrophysicists model the formation of galaxies and stellar evolution. Cosmologists model the big bang and extensions to the big bang like Linde's eternally self-reproducing inflationary universe. And yet climatologists are making great strides in improving their global weather models, which are increasingly able to make accurate *predictions* of climate change. Soon almost no one will disbelieve global warming except idiots and that wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America known as the Republican Party. And Rush Limbaugh of course, and his legions of ditto heads. --dkomo@cris.com Note that Tony has completely avoided the question, instead preferring to concentrate on what is at issue - i.e. not the issue at hand. *You* may see that - but that's because you don't read scientific you in particular, and rarely respond to posts featuring this information. For example, on at least three occasions I have described to you how changes in the upstream promoter region of the Drosphila gene bric-a-brac (bab) cause different patterns of abdominal pigmentation in in two closely related fly species. What is a novel structure, Tony? Can you give me an example of a structure in, say, a modern vertebrate that cannot be traced back to an ancestral structure? Just out of interest, what sort of unambiguous evidence do you have in mind here? You're not asking for evidence that you know doesn't exist, are you? Andy What will you give me if you are wrong? What will you give me if you are wrong? Absolutely true. So please draw a line in the sand and describe it as best you can. Heh. How about this: the most recent species could not have evolved had there not been a particular transitional species? Forget novel structures. Don't include stuff that was not in my original question. If you want to continue ignoring the question, fine. But don't change it. Chris -- So, if we had a lineage: You would feel copmfortable saying Species B is NOT a transitional form? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do nicely. Even Jabriol answered that way when I asked him to. Chris -- By the way, Tony, it's hard to figure out the connection between the title of this post and the post itself; this was also a problem with your response to my post on AiG's response to the _Scientific together, an argument will emerge via some mechanism unconnected with intelligent design. You aren't supposed to believe this, remember? The problem is, you strain to find ambiguity and inadequacy in the fossil record, by demanding features it is utterly unlikely to demonstrate (e.g. preservation of fine-grained series of every species in a sequence), and a refusal to consider any actual explanation for the patterns of similarities and differences we observed in living things. Now, what we observe in the fossil record is, e.g. mammalian inner ear bones that are homolgous with vestigial jaw bones, which are homologous with articulated jaw bones, or wings that are basically theropod forelimbs with flight feathers on them, but are homologous with modern bird wings, and so forth. We observe whale limbs that are modified homologs of the limbs of landgoing mammals. We see, in short, fossil evidence that any structure whose history *can* be reconstructed is a modified form of some previous, fully functional structure, just as the theory predicts. Your response is to ignore this point, and harp on the gaps in the record, and pretend that the fossil record is really complete, and above all else, change the subject when asked to either look at the evidence or define your terms. False. Now, granted, all examples where it is known that the accumulated traits arose by mutation are in fast-breeding species like bacteria, but it is known that in bacteria, a series of beneficial mutations can occur and produce an irreducibly complex biochemical system. It is known that natural selection can accumulate some alleles and eliminate others, as artificial selection can, to produce strikingly modified versions of the fully formed and mature structures of the original population. I can see no reason why it should matter whether these alleles arose by mutation are were present in the original population. It is known that mutations are present in virtually every multicellular organism born, hatched, seeded, or whatnot. You declare that mutations which are beneficial always result in loss of information, and (typically) never define information or tell how to measure it. Of course, depending on how one defines and measures information, almost any mutation could be said to increase it, or decrease it. You have been pointed to Ian Musgrave's discussion of why Spetner's proof of your point is riddled with errors and evasions, and I know of no creationist who has done better. Mutations which increase the number of genes in the individual, or the variety of genes in the population, or the size or complexity of some structure, or which reverse the effect of a previous mutation (to take some possible examples, by different definitions of information, of mutations that increase it) are all known. By the way, exactly the same mutation may be beneficial in one context, deleterious in another, and, conceivably, neutral in a third. Some *purported* process of speciation? As long ago as Linnaeaus in the 18th century, creationists were admitting that new species had arisen within historical times. And both speciation and the evolution of novel structures, systems, and organs occurs by incremental modification of existing phenotypes. This is a mug's game, of course, as much as Kent Hovind's $25,000 reward for proof of evolution. As long as some creationist who can't even comprehend his opponents arguments, and can't be bothered to look at the evidence when it's offered to him, gets to decide what is unambiguous evidence, there will never be such evidence. -- Steven J. Here it we knew- regard mutations new. You have yet to provide a definition of information that corroborates this preposterous statement. Taxonomy is sometimes in dispute. Big deal. How does this support your claim? I think we can agree that speciation is unlikely within populations of immature organisms, since they are not capable of reproduction. produce Numerous posters have already done so. You have ignored them, persisting with this silly unsupported argument that we have stasis in the fossil record. what dictates when a behavior wil be stored in DNA? is this a random mutation process? if this was a random mutation process wouldn't we see a lot of beahvioral abnormalities (random mutants)? If one beahvior can be stored in DNA what's to stop someone like an intellgient designer from writing desired behaviors into DNA? Do behaviors stored in DNA effect physical traits stored in DNA? If an animal's instinct is to shivver when cold, then does this make hair grow thicker? I propose beahviors stored in DNA could be a feedback mechanism to physical traits (and vice versa). . yes. Lot's of random mutations happen daily. For the most part, they have no impact, or a negative impact Negative mutations usually die off without passing the new gene to it's offspring. The mutations that survive and are beneficial AND are past on to offspring are given the opportunity to make the species change, evolve and continue. Not necessarily. Not all mutations affect behavior. Some are minor, like extra pigmentation or something that has little impact. Some mutations are seriously negative and the mutant croaks (two headed calf, etc) Nothing at all, providing that there is in fact an intelligent designer, which is completely unprovable at this time. And if you consider that we were designed by an intelligent designer, he/she/it can't be too intelligent since there are so many flaws in life. Possibly, I am not sure That's doubtful. An instinct to shiver may give a animal the ability to survive and pass on that instinct to it's offspring.. later on, perhaps, it's offspring breed with other animals that happen to have thicker hair, and then you have a combination of the two. It's not impossible that two beneficial mutations could happen to the same critter. Indirectly, yes. Through succesful breeding. Bubba where was this argument when the supreme court reversed it self on removing killer retard from the genepool??? sigh!!!!! -- Disclaimer: The above post was written from a purely objective and personal viewpoint. It was not design to offend or to start a flamewar. My objective commentary is mine and mine alone, and it is designed for a specific group of individuals. If you can not respond in an educated manner please do not respond.. Your response will be ignored and dump into my killfile. For a continuance of the subject discussed in this thread please go to: ThirdMil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I don't think wanting something is a factor.. however sex is biological need, that may end or not with a byproduct.. sex is a reproduction stragety for reproduction.. you might not wants kids, but you still want to sexually bang somebody.. the result may be a child, whether you desire one or not. greed..as in: oh crap I got pregnant by the boss to climb up to the glass window.. gotta abort before my lowpay husband worker finds out! -- Disclaimer: The above post was written from a purely objective and personal viewpoint. It was not design to offend or to start a flamewar. My objective commentary is mine and mine alone, and it is designed for a specific group of individuals. If you can not respond in an educated manner please do not respond.. Your response will be ignored and dump into my killfile. For a continuance of the subject discussed in this thread please go to: ThirdMil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com jabriol@navegalia.com (jabriol) rambled mindlessly: English is not so much a second language as a second guess with you, isn't it? Why don't you change your name to Jabberall? Either that or get a good goddamned clue before you fart any more of this worthless horse- where it's only value is in its tragically weak and completely unintentional humor. Budikka So... how old are you, Jab? I'm 51. I'd like to know whether to cut you any slack. And are you a native English speaker? I admire the work required to be multilingual. Yes? No? As far as greed goes... no, I doubt very much that your hypothetical situation applies to many women or girls. I guess you don't know many, do you? Altho I can't imagine why. jabriol@navegalia.com (jabriol) insisted: Cannot be both: Objective adj 1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; an objective appraisal; objective evidence [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective] post to. Those who would be most outraged by your posts, yes. [...] test -- macaddicted Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time James Taylor Message received & understood; counter-measures engaged. Have Fun Martin -- aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0) [...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile. -- Tertullian Almost always SMASHed PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint: A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0 *plonk* *plonk* Once more, an attempt to summarize and cut to the chase. warning to others: most of this post may appear to be word salad to those who cannot or will not step outside of their box to view the world from a different angle. For such, I would suggest you don't read any further. I don't want to waste your precious time. ------ when you plot the RATIOS at solidification, you get a theoretical straight line. the illusion is that all oldD amounts to a fraction of what it really is in all samples -- the same fraction. A sample may have 20 oldD, but through use of ratios, if the Y-intercept is 10, then all samples appear to have only 10 oldD. Where did the rest of the oldD go? It remains in the plotted values above the Y-intercept, and gets incorporated into the age for the slope. The slope gives an older age than it should. If you get same ages but different Y-intercepts, then you have two different sources. Same age alone is not sufficient to prove harmony between the generic graph and the isochron graph. The Y-intercept must be the same, as well as the X-intercept for original P. The Y-intercept for newD is always at zero, and the X-intercept for original P is always at the X-axis, not above it. I am not claiming a straight line for oldD. Indeed, there should NOT be a straight line for oldD. In relation to original P, oldD is all over the map -- and most certainly ABOVE the D/Di Y-intercept of the isochron. If the real meaning of the isochron methodology is applied, then the only intercept for newD should be at the zero point of the Y-axis. Any other intercept on the Y-axis has the meaning of samples whose P has all decayed to D at the time of measurement today. I am superimposing one concept upon another. Both graphs purport to do the same things: 1. Trace the history of decay of P to D. 2. The X-axis for both generic and isochron depicts P at time of solidification and its decrease over time. 3. The Y-axis for both graphs depicts D at time of solidification and its increase over time. 4. True age zero is the zero point of the Y-axis for both graphs, in relation to the range of P values along the Y-axis at the time of solidificatioction -- a horizontal line with slope zero. 5. For both graphs, the presence of oldD is background noise that fuzzies the picture and needs to be screened out in order to find newD from total D. The isochron purports to screen this out, but does not accomplish this, imo, if the real meaning of the pathway of P to D is acknowledged. 6. Point of solidification is always true zero on the Y-axis. The Y-intercept for that rock source cannot be changed. In other words, the samples will always start out with zero newD and total original P. These values are found only on 0-point of the Y-axis in relation to the range of P values on the X-axis, not above it. 7. If the samples for either generic or isochron start out with oldD, then old's values will remain at the forefront of the advancing trajectory of newD. NewD's trajectory will never overtake oldD's outline. It will simply tilt oldD's line as time passes. At solidification, the generic graph should look like this: 100------------------------3----------------------3 95I oldD at present oldD at oiginal 90I 85I 80I 75I 70I 65I 60I 55I 50I-----------------2--------------2------------- 45I oldD present oldD original 40I 35I 30I 25I 20I ----------1-----------1----------------------- 15I oldD present oldD original 10I 5I 0I__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ __ __ __ _ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 sample1 sample2 sample3 This shows the values of newD and original P for samples 1 through 3 at time of solidification. NewD is at 0. P starts at 40, 60, and 80, and an imaginary path is traced for the decay of P to D, going from the X-axis, moving left and higher to the Y-axis. The horizontal lines at 20, 50, and 100 indicate oldD at time of solidification for each sample. There is no trajectory for oldD. The points remain at their starting values through all time since oldD remains unchanged from what it was at time of solidification. However, in an isochron, Di is introduced, and when ratios are reduced, the Y-intercept becomes interpreted to be oldD/Di when, in fact, oldD/Di has no Y-intercept to call its own, for it has no trajectory. The Y-intercept of an isochron, if the meaning of the decay is to remain consistent, is simply the value of any samples that have had their P all decayed totally to D at the time of measurement. Subtracting same ratio of newD across all samples will give the same appearance and results as that of subtracting oldD/Di. The results are the same, but the identity of the Y-intercept differs, and the conclusion and understanding of age will differ.