This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There are facts here. The facts are that human, fly and worm appears to have some common genomic processes. These are facts that I will not deny.
This is the interpretation. That human, fly and worm have a common ancestor. The interpretation of the facts is just an opinion. It is not a fact that human, fly and worm have a common ancestry. That is simply an interpretation, a conclusion, of what the person thinks it means. Evolutionist like to conflate their interpretation with the facts and promote their interpretation as fact. This is the reason why so many people are deluded. They do not think enough to separate the facts from the interpretation of what the facts mean. If you are still confused as what my point is: FACT: "Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common" INTERPRETATION: "reflecting their shared ancestry." I could just as easily said: MY INTERPRETATION: "reflecting a common designer." Hence: YOUR VIEW: "Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry." MY VIEW: "Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting a common designer." Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal Nature, offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and other biological processes vital to understanding human biology and disease. Consortium studied how gene expression patterns and regulatory proteins that help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators also detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein packaging to compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome function by controlling access to DNA. "The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes greatly help to inform our understanding of human biology." "One way to describe and understand the human genome is through comparative genomics and studying model organisms," said Mark Gerstein, Ph.D., Albert L. Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the papers. "The special thing about the worm and fly is that they are very distant from humans evolutionarily, so finding something conserved across all three – human, fly and worm – tells us it is a very ancient, fundamental process." Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs for turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically, they used gene expression patterns to match the stages of worm and fly development and found sets of genes that parallel each other in their usage. They also found the genes specifically expressed in the worm and fly embryos are re-expressed in the fly pupae, the stage between larva and adult. The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression levels for both protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's promoter tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA, which can be used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in cells, and changes in this packaging can regulate gene function. If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not have been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day. I hope that clears things up. On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS. Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field? OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution. My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether you like it or not. Jojo PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man. Wait .... Wait .... Wait for it ... Here it comes: You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. You should be banned from this forum because you do not accept basic science." Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Well, your prediction is wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like "Life", we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409140674&sr=1-1 You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. Best Regards, Sunil ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science." Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the "proof" word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a "big number" is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just "proved" something". May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather "long time" (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576000000000000 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576000000000000/1000000000000) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
