Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

[Larniavc]

A human cell contains about 10000 different proteins, do you want to play this numbers game?

I’m sorry but that does not mean anything. Those proteins aren’t just a soup. I don’t see what point you could be making. Do you have any academic training in biology? Do you understand the dice analogy? Can you rephrase the analogy in your own words?

I only ask because you’ve ignored to solution to to your conundrum.

 

[driewerf]

We following Jesus do not need any models for development.
He told us what we need to know,

Apparently, he didn't think we need to know a cure for cancer, he didn't need to tell us that Thalidomid wasn't a wonder drug. He didn't think the the 230.000 victims of the 2004 tsunami needed a warning. And so on.
There is a lot he doesn't think we need o know, about which I differ.

 

[Shemjaza]

We following Jesus do not need any models for development.
He told us what we need to know,
and He Says He Will Reveal more than we can figure out when we ask Him.

That's fine, but if someone is mathematically critiquing evolutionary theory, as Thurston-howell-III is attempting to, then they need to be able to describe how they worked out their maths.

 

[BCP1928]

I’m sorry but that does not mean anything. Those proteins aren’t just a soup. I don’t see what point you could be making. Do you have any academic training in biology? Do you understand the dice analogy? Can you rephrase the analogy in your own words?

I only ask because you’ve ignored to solution to to your conundrum.

He doesn't want a solution. He came here sure that there wasn't one. Now he's not so sure but still hoping.

 

[driewerf]

Not following you, what goal post??????
But it doesn't matter- a moot pt really,, no codes have ever arranged themselves.

This has been explained in the part of post #650, that you deleted. So for highlighting:
T-h III in post n° 607:
"For a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, more than 10^390 different polypeptide chains could theoretically be made. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe."
Driewerf in post n° 617 * gives three examples where under experimental investigation DNA can rearrange and write itself.* writes the phrase "Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein. This switch can be activated by a hormone, a the metabolic starting material or any other signal molecule." Note that the word "before" means on the (linear) DNA sequence, not a temporal sequence.
T-h III in post #645: " "Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein."
Where did the DNA come from? How about the machinery to interpret DNA? did they evolve at the same time? If so, what luck!!!!"
And here the goalposts have moved. From "DNA can't write itself" - despite three well documented examples provided we have move to "Where did the DNA came from.?" and the request to explain how the machinery to read the DNA evolved. That are the goalposts that have been moved. But T-h III prefers to play the ignorance card.
Instead of showing integrity and admitting the his "rebuttal from math" has been shown to be bonkers, a new challenge is issued.

 

[Aaron112]

That's fine, but if someone is mathematically critiquing evolutionary theory, as Thurston-howell-III is attempting to, then they need to be able to describe how they worked out their maths.

Not at all. Thurston might critique how tall Casper the Ghost is, and how much he weighs,
and it doesn't matter if he is able to describe how he worked it out or not, math or anything.

It doesn't matter at all what anyone critiques concerning evil theories. They are not even necessary to be considered, nor thought about, nor discussed at all. And in assemblies of those following Jesus, most discussions of the forums are null and void - not needed.

 

[Aaron112]

Apparently, he didn't think we need to know a cure for cancer,

Why do you say this? Did you bother to look for the proven known for thousands of years cures for cancer ?

 

[Aaron112]

he didn't need to tell us that Thalidomid wasn't a wonder drug.

Those who were honest doctors , and scientists, and others it was revealed to,
they all know/ knew, and some tried to prevent it (and still trying to prevent other deadly drugs)

 

[Aaron112]

He didn't think the the 230.000 victims of the 2004 tsunami needed a warning.

If you care to accept it, others immediately after the tsunami published the warnings that had been given long BEFORE the tsunami. They were ignored.

 

[Aaron112]

There is a lot he doesn't think we need o know, about which I differ.

Differ ? Why ? Why didn't you find out the truth about anything posted before differing? Or did you try?

 

[Aaron112]

Can anyone explain what it took for a moth to gain owl eyes on ea wing?

What did it take for a human being born yesterday to have eyes, ears, mouth, nose, kidneys, brain, heart, legs, toes, fingers, ?
Simply birth. (yes , conception by God's Grace of course, and growth in the womb, by God's Grace of course.... all gifts and given by God in His Grace, of course)

 

[driewerf]

Apparently, he didn't think we need to know a cure for cancer,

Why do you say this? Did you bother to look for the proven known for thousands of years cures for cancer ?

Cures for cancer, thousands of years old? Where? Which ones? Currently a very close friend of mine is fighting against cancer and getting a new experimental cure.

1. I say grace to the human doctors
2. I say grace to the human oncologists
3. I say grace to the human nursing staff
4. I say grace to the human researchers
5. I say grace to the human pharmacologists
6. I say grace to any first responder: nurse, fire fighter, police officer, dog master for earth quakes, avalanche rescuer. These deserve my praise.

 

[driewerf]

Those who were honest doctors , and scientists, and others it was revealed to,
they all know/ knew, and some tried to prevent it (and still trying to prevent other deadly drugs)

Names? Documents? Did these "honest doctors , and scientists, and others it was revealed to" publish these revelations? In what journals -edition and volumes-?

 

[driewerf]

If you care to accept it, others immediately after the tsunami published the warnings that had been given long BEFORE the tsunami. They were ignored.

Really? Show me the source. I challenge you.

 

[Aaron112]

"I prefer to be shown wrong 15 times a day, each day than to be falsely told that I am right and carry even one wrong opinion for the rest of my life."



It will take a few years likely, to correct the errors. (Just an optomistic guess after the way you resisted today.)
Or no time at all if wrong opinions become okay!

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

This has been explained in the part of post #650, that you deleted. So for highlighting:
T-h III in post n° 607:
"For a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, more than 10^390 different polypeptide chains could theoretically be made. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe."
Driewerf in post n° 617 * gives three examples where under experimental investigation DNA can rearrange and write itself.* writes the phrase "Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein. This switch can be activated by a hormone, a the metabolic starting material or any other signal molecule." Note that the word "before" means on the (linear) DNA sequence, not a temporal sequence.
T-h III in post #645: " "Before the actual gene there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein."
Where did the DNA come from? How about the machinery to interpret DNA? did they evolve at the same time? If so, what luck!!!!"
And here the goalposts have moved. From "DNA can't write itself" - despite three well documented examples provided we have move to "Where did the DNA came from.?" and the request to explain how the machinery to read the DNA evolved. That are the goalposts that have been moved. But T-h III prefers to play the ignorance card.
Instead of showing integrity and admitting the his "rebuttal from math" has been shown to be bonkers, a new challenge is issued.

From whence did this genetic "switch" arise? If DNA can arrange itself, it needs to arise in the first place. The ability for arrangement is built into the genome, adaptability is part of the programming/coding.

 

[Ophiolite]

From whence did this genetic "switch" arise? If DNA can arrange itself, it needs to arise in the first place. The ability for arrangement is built into the genome, adaptability is part of the programming/coding.

It's chemistry. The inherent ability of carbon to form polymers; the nature of hydrogen bonding; a host of other chemical characteristics of the constituent atoms, lead to the observed behaviour upon which you wish to impose a teleology. For convenience of explanation one aspect of this has been called coding and has said to be analagous, not identical, to programming. Chemistry.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not at all. Thurston might critique how tall Casper the Ghost is, and how much he weighs,
and it doesn't matter if he is able to describe how he worked it out or not, math or anything.

Sure, but an empty critique is completely unconvincing.

His claim was that he had a mathematical critique... then if he can't express that he's either lying or indistinguishable from lying.

It doesn't matter at all what anyone critiques concerning evil theories. They are not even necessary to be considered, nor thought about, nor discussed at all. And in assemblies of those following Jesus, most discussions of the forums are null and void - not needed.

It really does matter, because you need to demonstrate that they are in fact evil and wrong.

I'm also more than a little suspicious of an explanation or justification that involves dishonesty or unwillingness to explain a position.

I have considerably more respect for the position "God says it, that settles it!" than I do for some of the "Well actually, this special version of science proves I'm right about evolution... but I'm not a Creationist, it's just wrong."

 

[Ophiolite]

It doesn't matter at all what anyone critiques concerning evil theories. They are not even necessary to be considered, nor thought about, nor discussed at all.

In that case, why are you participating in a discussion about them?