Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, September 16, 2012

A Totally Clueless Sparc- Chokes on Artificial Ribosomes

-
Several times I have posted about artificial ribosomes not being functional. Finally one dumbass evoTARD named "sparc" tried to put me in my place. Unfortunately for the dumbass TARD he didn't read the articles he found on the other end of his link. If he had he would have read that Church et al., used most of the original ribosome and that they just synthesized a small portion of one, from Science Daily:

Using the bacteria E. coli, Church and Research Fellow Michael Jewett extracted the bacteria’s natural ribosomes, broke them down into their constituent parts, removed the key ribosomal RNA and then synthesized the ribosomal RNA anew from molecules.

And even then, the ribosome now only produces one polypeptide, albeit a polypeptide that as not present in the bacteria the ribosome came from.

Oh well sparcky, you blew that one but I don't expect you to ever admit to that. And unfortunately the cowards who run atbc won't let me correct you in that thread- have to protect their tards at all costs.

posted by Joe G @ 8:06 PM  

40 Comments:

  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Looks like you were wrong then.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14862.html

    From the abstract:

    "By engineering a hybrid rRNA composed of both small and large subunit rRNA sequences, we produced a functional ribosome in which the subunits are covalently linked into a single entity by short RNA linkers. Notably, Ribo-T was not only functional in vitro, but was also able to support the growth of Escherichia coli cells even in the absence of wild-type ribosomes. We used Ribo-T to create the first fully orthogonal ribosome–messenger RNA system, and demonstrate its evolvability by selecting otherwise dominantly lethal rRNA mutations in the peptidyl transferase centre that facilitate the translation of a problematic protein sequence. Ribo-T can be used for exploring poorly understood functions of the ribosome, enabling orthogonal genetic systems, and engineering ribosomes with new functions."

    Where is your additional programming now?

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Where does it say it was a fully artificial ribosome?

     

  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Where does it say it was a fully artificial ribosome?

    Read the whole paper and then tell me where there is any way they could have included your undetected, undefined 'extra' programming.


     

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK so you can't answer the question. You read the paper and quote the part that it is a fully artificial ribosome.

     

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OR you pay for it and give me the username and password...

     

  • At 1:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    OK so you can't answer the question. You read the paper and quote the part that it is a fully artificial ribosome.

    If you really cared you could look for other articles about the discovery that you do not need a subscription to read.

    "Researchers design first artificial ribosome": http://news.uic.edu/researchers-design-first-artificial-ribosome

    "Single-Unit Synthetic Ribosome": http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43629/title/Single-Unit-Synthetic-Ribosome/

    "Researchers design first artificial ribosome": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150729215735.htm

    "An artificial ribosome that doesn’t need to fall apart to work": http://wildtypes.asbmb.org/2015/07/29/an-artificial-ribosome-that-doesnt-need-to-fall-apart-to-work/

    There's more. No mention of additional programming.

     

  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you really cared you could look for other articles about the discovery that you do not need a subscription to read.

    But only a moron would think that press releases accurately portray the actual science.

    You didn't read the paper, did you, Jerad? You are a douchebag.

     

  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the abstract:

    The ribosome is a ribonucleoprotein machine responsible for protein synthesis. In all kingdoms of life it is composed of two subunits, each built on its own ribosomal RNA (rRNA) scaffold.

    Ribosomes are made up of rRNA AND proteins.

    More, from the abstract:

    By engineering a hybrid rRNA composed of both small and large subunit rRNA sequences, we produced a functional ribosome in which the subunits are covalently linked into a single entity by short RNA linkers. Notably,

    Looks like they just engineered the rRNAs and they did not say they synthesized each molecule. And nothing about the proteins that are part of the ribosome.

    Looks like Jerad jumped to a faulty conclusion due to his ignorance.

     

  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    But only a moron would think that press releases accurately portray the actual science.

    You didn't read the paper, did you, Jerad? You are a douchebag.

    Okay, let's get this straight . . .

    Dr Behe (a non-biologist) published a non-peer reviewed book full or references (which you did not read) that is slammed by almost every evolutionary biologist who read it but you think it's right.

    Dr Spetner (not even a scientist) published a non-peer reviewed book full of references (to mathematics which you yourself cannot do) that is likewise slammed by people who actually work in the field but you think it's right.

    I give you a reference to a paper published by one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed science journals on the planet and links to discussions of that paper by reputable science new agencies who have read the paper and that's not good enough for you.

    Something you said could not be done has been done. And everyone agrees but you. So, when are you going to admit you were wrong?

    Let's say I read the paper and confirmed that it does say what the new agencies say it says. You wouldn't believe me. You won't pay to read the paper and you couldn't understand the math or the science if you did so . . . Are you just going to wait for Dr Behe to tell you what to think? Joe with an IQ of 150 who says he thinks for himself?

    Looks like they just engineered the rRNAs and they did not say they synthesized each molecule. And nothing about the proteins that are part of the ribosome.

    What? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

    They made a new ribosome that didn't exist before1! 'Synthesize each molecule'? Are you completely stupid? You think it doesn't count until they 'synthesize' each molecule? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaha

    The subunits have proteins in them, what the fuck difference would it make if you built them up atom-by-atom, they'd be the same protein.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    There's no 'hidden' programming in the proteins or the sub-units. You can back-peddle all you like, you can go back and edit all your old posts to make them say that you really meant that the new ribosome had to be built atom-by-atom. Synthesise the molecules, hahahahahahahahah

    Looks like Jerad jumped to a faulty conclusion due to his ignorance.

    Whatever. What you said couldn't happen has happened. Someone has created a new ribosome in the lab which functions as it should.

    There's no 'hidden' programming. You can't find it. You can't say how it works, You can't say at what stage it has an influence. You haven't even got a clue as how it MIGHT be encoded, how big it is or anything. You said: it has to exist because man-made ribosomes don't work. That was your only justification. But this one does work. And the people who made it know what is in all the molecules and they know there's nothing else there.

    Your ship is sinking. Going down with it might be noble but it doesn't make you right.

     

  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Behe (a non-biologist) published a non-peer reviewed book full or references (which you did not read) that is slammed by almost every evolutionary biologist who read it but you think it's right.

    The people who slammed it don't have anything to offer as an alternative.

    Dr Spetner (not even a scientist) published a non-peer reviewed book full of references (to mathematics which you yourself cannot do) that is likewise slammed by people who actually work in the field but you think it's right.

    Dr Spetner is a scientist, I can do the math, you can't and again the people who slammed him have nothing to offer.

    I give you a reference to a paper published by one of the most prestigious, peer-reviewed science journals on the planet and links to discussions of that paper by reputable science new agencies who have read the paper and that's not good enough for you.

    The paper doesn't say what you think it says.

    Something you said could not be done has been done.

    Only a moron would think so and here you are.

    They made a new ribosome that didn't exist before1!

    Out of what? That is the key you ignorant ass.

    The article that this thread was about says they synthesized each molecule. So grow up and stop being an imbecilic child.

    What you said couldn't happen has happened.

    Only ignorant people would say that.

    Someone has created a new ribosome in the lab which functions as it should.

    My claim only pertains to them synthesizing the entire ribosome, asshole.

    There's no 'hidden' programming.

    The evidence says otherwise and you don't have anything to explain the evidence.

    You said: it has to exist because man-made ribosomes don't work.

    Man-made means the entire ribosome was synthesized. Obviously you are just an ignorant asshole who can't read or can't comprehend what you have read.

    And the people who made it know what is in all the molecules and they know there's nothing else there.

    Spoken like a little bitch wanker.

     

  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By engineering a hybrid rRNA composed of both small and large subunit rRNA sequences, we produced a functional ribosome in which the subunits are covalently linked into a single entity by short RNA linkers.

    Did they synthesize those rRNAs? They don't say anything about the PROTEINS that also make up the ribosome.

    My bet is it is NOT a synthetic ribosome. So YOU lose.

     

  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Behe is a biochemist. Biochemist is short for biological chemistry. Biochemists study the chemistry of living organisms, ie biology.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Spetner was a biophysicist- yup the physics of biology.

     

  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The people who slammed it don't have anything to offer as an alternative.

    Same old same old: deny, deny, deny.

    Dr Spetner is a scientist, I can do the math, you can't and again the people who slammed him have nothing to offer.

    Okay, he's a physicist. But he's not a biologist. You can't do the math Joe. You chickened out on several challenges I proposed. I even suggested you go find a problem out of the first few chapters of a Calculus textbook and you couldn't manage that.

    Oh, by the way, in his book A Tour of the Calculus, Dr Berlinkski calls Georg Cantor a genius and one of the mathematicians who help put Calculus on a solid foundation. Are you going to call him a Cantor worshipper? Are you going to accuse him of not being able to think for himself?

    The paper doesn't say what you think it says.

    How would you know? Did you read it? Did you?

    Only a moron would think so and here you are.

    Whatever.

    Out of what? That is the key you ignorant ass.

    Out of building blocks where all the constituent parts are known and there is no hidden programming. Have you found it? Can you say how it affects development? Can you say how it's encoded? Can you say how big it is? Can you say when it affects development? Can you? Start with the finding part since the bits that make up the ribosome are known. And since you're so smart and know more that anyone else. And you've got that 150 IQ. It should be dead simple. So . . .

    My claim only pertains to them synthesizing the entire ribosome, asshole.

    Such a dope. The molecules will be the same either way.

    The evidence says otherwise and you don't have anything to explain the evidence.

    You can't find the hidden programming can you? Go look at the molecular structure of the ribosome and show us where it is. Go on.

    Man-made means the entire ribosome was synthesized. Obviously you are just an ignorant asshole who can't read or can't comprehend what you have read.

    Obviously you keep thinking there's something hidden when there isn't. Go find it if you think you know where it's hidden. Go on.

    Spoken like a little bitch wanker.

    Do you know a lot of little bitch wankers then? Do you hang around with them frequently?

    Did they synthesize those rRNAs? They don't say anything about the PROTEINS that also make up the ribosome.

    My bet is it is NOT a synthetic ribosome. So YOU lose.

    Uh huh. The molecules would be the same either way.

    And if you think otherwise then show us the difference. Go on. If you can't you lose. So, let's see it.

    Dr Behe is a biochemist. Biochemist is short for biological chemistry. Biochemists study the chemistry of living organisms, ie biology.

    Too bad he gets a lot of stuff wrong. Based on the analysis of evolutionary biologists.

    Dr Spetner was a biophysicist- yup the physics of biology.

    Not according to Wikipedia. In fact, there's no indication he did any bio-engineering before retirement at all.

    You think there's some hidden programming in the bits that were used to make up the ribosome but you can't find it. And until you do find it then what you say is just pissing in the wind. Mostly up-wind.

     

  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Gotta love this: Dr Spetner derives non-random evolution from the Talmud. Too funny.

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm

    From the review:

    "Spetner accuses Dawkins of not understanding the meaning of probability. Actually such an accusation could be directed toward Spetner himself, who obviously knows how to calculate probabilities but ascribes to them properties those quantities do not possess. The value of probability does not predict the outcome of any particular event. Despite the extremely low calculated probability of an event, it can well happen on the very first trial, whereas an event whose calculated probability is much higher may not happen even in hundreds of thousands of tests. When such problems as the possibility of the spontaneous emergence of life are discussed, their calculated probability is rather irrelevant and cannot be used as a proof of any opinions on that subject."

    And later:

    "Spetner gives no indication that he is familiar with the mathematical definitions of randomness and complexity.

    At the core of Spetner's hypothesis is the suggestion that the variations leading to evolution are triggered by forces of environment and are directional rather than random. To substantiate that suggestion, he must first clearly understand in what way the variations in question are not random. To this end he must clearly define what is random and what distinguishes non-random from random. Without first building the foundation in terms of random vs non-random, Spetner's idea remains too vague for a scientific hypothesis.

    Spetner may believe that the variations he admits to be the steps in evolution are non-random, but he actually has no knowledge which allows him to clearly establish that the variations in question are indeed non-random. So far his classification of events as random or non-random remains a matter of his personal preference rather than a clearly established fact."

     

  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Obviously the molecules are NOT the same- read this OP you freak. You are just proud to be willfully ignorant.

    Dr Spetner was a biophysicist at Johns Hopkins. Dr Behe has not been refuted.

    Oh, by the way, in his book A Tour of the Calculus, Dr Berlinkski calls Georg Cantor a genius and one of the mathematicians who help put Calculus on a solid foundation.

    Dave cannot tell us the useful nature of declaring the cardinality of all countable sets is the same.

    Why are you such an ignorant asshole that you cannot figure out that I am just debating one small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor's work?

    Why can't you grasp the fact that there are two ways to match numbers in countably infinite sets?

    Too bad he gets a lot of stuff wrong. Based on the analysis of evolutionary biologists.

    Too bad those evolutionary biologists don't have anything to support their claims. And too bad all you can do is bluff like a little bitch wanker.

    The evidence for software is in the genetic code. It is in alternative splicing and overlapping genes. It is in the chaperones which usher molecules to their proper destination.

     

  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, the ignorant piece of shit can't even read nor understand the OP he is trying to respond to.

     

  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr Spetner derives non-random evolution from the Talmud.

    No, he doesn't.

    Talk reason is the last place to go for an honest review of evolutionism's critics. They sure as hell cannot support the claims of evolutionism.

     

  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Obviously the molecules are NOT the same- read this OP you freak. You are just proud to be willfully ignorant.

    I read it, you just assert that there's a difference. What is the difference? Spell it out. We're all waiting for you to make the big reveal you say must be there.

    Dr Spetner was a biophysicist at Johns Hopkins. Dr Behe has not been refuted.

    You mean when he was studying guided-missle systems? Too bad you don't understand the math and the chemistry Dr Behe talked about then you could make up your own mind. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to take someone else's word for it.

    Dave cannot tell us the useful nature of declaring the cardinality of all countable sets is the same.

    Dave? hahahahahahahahahah Read the book and see.

    Why are you such an ignorant asshole that you cannot figure out that I am just debating one small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor's work?

    Because it's not insignificant and the fact that you think so shows AGAIN how little you understand the mathematics. As if we needed any further proof.

    You are almost completely ignorant of real mathematics (I mean stuff beyond arithmetic) and just about every time you offer an opinion you exhibit that ignorance.

    AND you chickened out of a challenge.

    Why can't you grasp the fact that there are two ways to match numbers in countably infinite sets?

    There are a lot more than two. Obviously. (Again you show your ignorance.) Some are one-to-one and that proves the sets are the same size. Something you've never been able to grasp despite the fact that it's dead simple.

    Too bad those evolutionary biologists don't have anything to support their claims. And too bad all you can do is bluff like a little bitch wanker.

    Deny, deny, deny. You must really be fond of little bitch wankers since you think about them all the time.

    The evidence for software is in the genetic code. It is in alternative splicing and overlapping genes. It is in the chaperones which usher molecules to their proper destination.

    Uh huh. So where is it? In the bits of the ribosome? Funny that all those molecules are known and there's nothing unexplained there. Curiouser and curiouser.

    Again: you can't point to the 'software', you can't say how it's encoded, you can't say how it affects development, you can't say when it acts.

    Jerad, the ignorant piece of shit can't even read nor understand the OP he is trying to respond to.

    I read it. You didn't spell out where the ribosome bits would differ if everything was 'synthesised'. Clearly you don't know where they would be different or you'd just spell it out. Funny that.

    Talk reason is the last place to go for an honest review of evolutionism's critics. They sure as hell cannot support the claims of evolutionism.

    Find a mistake in the mathematics of the review. Go on, since you know so much about mathematics.

    How about this review then:

    http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho36.htm

    Maybe you don't think the fact that the publisher of Dr Spetner's book (The Judaica Press) matters. Maybe it doesn't. Or maybe it's because no one else would touch it. Funny that.

     

  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I read it, you just assert that there's a difference.

    I did no such thing. The science says there is a difference. Obviously you didn't understand the post nor the science.

    Read the book and see.

    Jerad cannot tell us the useful nature of declaring the cardinality of all countable sets is the same.

    Because it's not insignificant

    Obviously it is as you cannot say what use it is.

    You are almost completely ignorant of real mathematics

    You are almost completely ignorant. You prove it with your posts.

    AND you chickened out of a challenge.

    Liar. You want to change the challenge.

    There are a lot more than two.

    Then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence. Obviously you are plain simple.

    Deny, deny, deny.

    Bluff, bluff, bluff.

    So where is it?

    In the cell.

    Funny that all those molecules are known and there's nothing unexplained there.

    You are one ignorant ass, Jerad. Software cannot be seen. Information is immaterial- it is neither matter nor energy.

    Again: you can't point to the 'software', you can't say how it's encoded, you can't say how it affects development, you can't say when it acts.

    I have said when it acts you fucking dick.

    Again: Your position has NOTHING- No how, no when and why is "just because".

    You didn't spell out where the ribosome bits would differ if everything was 'synthesised'.

    The ribosome barely functioned, dumbass. It pumped one and only one polypeptide.

    Find a mistake in the mathematics of the review.

    Find some mathematics that supports evolutionism. Find a way to model unguided processes producing a ribosome.

    BTW I am pretty sure Spetner responded to Kortoff...

    Read this as it is where I got the information that synthetic ribosomes didn't function: Life, What A Concept- the ribosome shows up on page 13

     

  • At 12:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad cannot tell us the useful nature of declaring the cardinality of all countable sets is the same.

    I have told you, you didn't get it. I'm done wasting my time on a denier.

    Then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence. Obviously you are plain simple.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Like I said, you don't get the math. Clearly. You've never even taken a real set theory course. You're just wasting my time.

    So where is it?

    In the cell.

    So you don't know. Thanks for confirming that.

    You are one ignorant ass, Jerad. Software cannot be seen. Information is immaterial- it is neither matter nor energy.

    It has to be encoded somewhere to have an effect!! It has to be in the system somewhere!! Clearly you haven't got a clue where it is, how it works, how it's encoded, etc.

    The ribosome barely functioned, dumbass. It pumped one and only one polypeptide.

    It functioned!! The one in the paper was good enough to sustain a bacterium.

    Read this as it is where I got the information that synthetic ribosomes didn't function: Life, What A Concept- the ribosome shows up on page 13

    That's from 2008!! So what? Some seven year old round-table discussion is your reference? Gee, I guess things have moved on since then!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Check out page 51. Venter says: " . . . the ribosome is such an incredibly beautiful complex entity, you can make synthetic ribosomes, but they don't function totally yet." So he accepts that someone probably will do it. And now someone has.

     

  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have told you, you didn't get it.

    LIAR.

    Like I said, you don't get the math.

    A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one match, dumbass. You have admitted there is more than one.

    So you don't know.

    It's in the cell, asshole. So I do know.

    It functioned!!

    Barely and it only produced one polypeptide. And it functioned only because it wasn't 100% synthetic, moron.

    The one in the paper was good enough to sustain a bacterium.

    It isn't synthetic, dicklick.

    I know what Venter said and no one has produced a working synthetic ribosome. You are a liar, a loser and a bluffing coward.

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LIAR.

    Since you don't teach mathematics, do mathematical research, publish anything mathematical and can't follow freshman level mathematical arguments who cares what you think? Your goofy ideas aren't going to affect anything or anyone anyway.

    A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one match, dumbass. You have admitted there is more than one.

    Nope, wrong again. But by all means, keep saying dumb-ass stuff. It's pretty amusing and continues to prove you haven't got a clue about what you're trying to talk about.

    It's in the cell, asshole. So I do know.

    So you don't know. You just keep hoping someone else will do the work which you can't and will find it.

    Barely and it only produced one polypeptide. And it functioned only because it wasn't 100% synthetic, moron.

    Again, who cares what you think?

    It isn't synthetic, dicklick.

    Who cares how you define synthetic. I'll go with the people who actually know what they're talking about.

    I know what Venter said and no one has produced a working synthetic ribosome. You are a liar, a loser and a bluffing coward.

    Whatever. You can go back to your little bitchy wankers now.

     

  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you don't teach mathematics, do mathematical research, publish anything mathematical and can't follow freshman level mathematical arguments who cares what you think?

    You are still a LIAR as you did NOT show how the concept is useful. And I have proven that you are a little lying bitch. So no one cares about your false accusations. You would never say any of that to my face.

    Nope, wrong again

    Fuck you.

    So you don't know.

    I do know- it is in the cell. It is the only thing that can explain what happens inside of the cell. Your ignorance means nothing.

    Again, who cares what you think?

    Again it has nothing to do with what I think.

    Who cares how you define synthetic

    I don't define it. I use the standard and accepted definitions. And this ribosome doesn't fit.

    Whatever.

    Typical cowardly response.

     

  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You are still a LIAR as you did NOT show how the concept is useful. And I have proven that you are a little lying bitch. So no one cares about your false accusations. You would never say any of that to my face.

    Sigh. You didn't understand the links i gave you. You deny everything you disagree with. You're too lazy to look for yourself. Your mathematical ability is negligible. And nobody cares what you think.

    Ooooo, trying to be a BIG bitch wanker now are we? Too bad that kind of play-ground intimidation doesn't count eh?

    Fuck you.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahha You're funny when you lose.

    I do know- it is in the cell. It is the only thing that can explain what happens inside of the cell. Your ignorance means nothing.

    You can't find it though can you? Neither can anyone else. So you're just going to sit around, not doing any work yourself, not doing any research and hope someone finds something. Way to do science dude!!

    Again it has nothing to do with what I think.

    Thank goodness!

    I don't define it. I use the standard and accepted definitions. And this ribosome doesn't fit.

    Funny that the news articles I linked to define it differently.

    Typical cowardly response.

    Whatever.

     

  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You didn't understand the links i gave you.

    Liar. All you can do is lie and post false accusations. You are one ignorant coward.

    You can't find it though can you?

    The evidence says it is there. Why do you ignore the evidence?

    Neither can anyone else.

    And yet they don't have any explanation for what goes on inside of a cell.

    Funny that the news articles I linked to define it differently.

    Liar.

     

  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From one of Jerad's links:

    So, to tether the subunits, Mankin and his colleagues engineered one long rRNA molecule from two rRNAs, 16S and 23S, which reside in the small and large subunit, respectively. Linking these rRNAs thus linked the subunits.

    It does NOT say they synthesized the rRNAs. From the article it appears they took existing rRNAs and linked them together.

     

  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Liar. All you can do is lie and post false accusations. You are one ignorant coward.

    You don't even understand what a theorem is or the implications. Your mathematical abilities and knowledge are almost negative. So who cares if you don't get stuff that most undergraduates understand?

    The evidence says it is there. Why do you ignore the evidence?

    Because I disagree with your interpretation of 'the evidence' as does almost the entire rest of the planet. AND no one has found it. And you don't know where it is. How it 'works'. How it's encoded. Nothin'. All you've got is a hope and an assertion.

    And yet they don't have any explanation for what goes on inside of a cell.

    Not entirely true, obviously. And even if it were it doesn't make you right.

    Liar.

    Your record is stuck.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It does NOT say they synthesized the rRNAs. From the article it appears they took existing rRNAs and linked them together.

    It doesn't mean there's some hidden programming in there hiding.

    You can't point to something in the existing subunits that's your programming. Building up the subunits atom-by-atom would give you the same thing!

     

  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't even understand what a theorem is or the implications.

    Liar

    Your mathematical abilities and knowledge are almost negative

    Liar

    Because I disagree with your interpretation of 'the evidence' as does almost the entire rest of the planet.

    You don't have an alternative explanation. BTW the majority of the planet accepts ID or Creation.

    Not entirely true, obviously.

    It is true, obviously.

    And even if it were it doesn't make you right.

    It is the only thing that can explain what we observe.

    Your record is stuck.

    Nice projection as you are stuck of lies, bluffs and cowardice.

     

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It doesn't mean there's some hidden programming in there hiding.

    Nice cowardly response to the fact Jerad's links do not support his claims.

    You can't point to something in the existing subunits that's your programming.

    Seeing that fully synthesized ribosomes don't work...

    Building up the subunits atom-by-atom would give you the same thing!

    Obviously not, as the OP says.

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Nice cowardly response to the fact Jerad's links do not support his claims.

    Found the hidden programming yet? Figured out how it's encoded? Figured out how it affects development? Can you explain what the chemical processes it uses to make the ribosome more effective?

    Still haven't got anything other than a supposition eh?

    Did it ever occur to you that at least one of the books you reference all the time was written before the human genome was sequenced? Did it occur to you that we know a lot more about the atoms and molecules that make up ribosomes and such, even in the last seven years? Did it occur to you that you really should update your knowledge base? 'Cause that's part of science, isn't it?

    Seeing that fully synthesized ribosomes don't work...

    Have fun in your critical-thinking-free zone.

     

  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Found the hidden programming yet?

    The evidence says it is in the cell.

    Figured out how it's encoded?

    No

    Figured out how it affects development?

    It determines what the organism will be

    Can you explain what the chemical processes it uses to make the ribosome more effective?

    That's like asking for the electrical processes that make a compiler more effective.

    Did it ever occur to you that at least one of the books you reference all the time was written before the human genome was sequenced?

    The HGP doesn't help you, Jerad.

    Did it occur to you that we know a lot more about the atoms and molecules that make up ribosomes and such, even in the last seven years?

    We know that purely synthesized ribosomes don't work.

    Did it occur to you that you really should update your knowledge base?

    Updated daily and I know more than you.

    How does a purely chemical process know when there is an error and how to correct it? A ribosome is a genetic compiler and it even stops when it detects an error- it knows what it is supposed to be producing.

     

  • At 1:39 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    The evidence says it is in the cell.

    So you really haven't got a clue where in the cell it is.

    Figured out how it's encoded?

    No

    Okay.

    Figured out how it affects development?

    It determines what the organism will be

    So you can't say specifically, chemically, physically how it operates.

    Can you explain what the chemical processes it uses to make the ribosome more effective?

    That's like asking for the electrical processes that make a compiler more effective.

    Nonsense. We know how DNA and RNA do their thing. You say there's some extra programming . . . somewhere . . . you should be able to specify how it does its thing.

    The HGP doesn't help you, Jerad.

    I'm talking about YOU and what you're using as references for your statements.

    We know that purely synthesized ribosomes don't work.

    Even if I accept your goofy version of 'synthesised' we don't know that yet because, according to you, no one has built a ribosome atom-by-atom.

    Did it occur to you that you really should update your knowledge base?

    Updated daily and I know more than you.

    And yet your reference for synthesised ribosomes is from 2008 and Dr Spetner's book is from the late 90s. Not exactly up to date.

    How does a purely chemical process know when there is an error and how to correct it? A ribosome is a genetic compiler and it even stops when it detects an error- it knows what it is supposed to be producing.

    Just because you don't understand how that happens doesn't mean (a) that no one does or (b) that there's something hidden that no one else has found.

     

  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you really haven't got a clue where in the cell it is.

    I have a clue.

    So you can't say specifically, chemically, physically how it operates.

    No

    That's like asking for the electrical processes that make a compiler more effective.

    Nonsense.

    It's true.

    We know how DNA and RNA do their thing.

    No, we don't. We have no idea why transcription and translation do their thing.

    You say there's some extra programming . . . somewhere . . . you should be able to specify how it does its thing.

    And yet kids know there is software in computers and yet couldn't explain how it does its thing. Heck I bet you don't know.

    I'm talking about YOU and what you're using as references for your statements.

    The HGP doesn't refute anything that I have said.

    Even if I accept your goofy version of 'synthesised' we don't know that yet because, according to you, no one has built a ribosome atom-by-atom.

    Read the OP, asshole. A ribosome that was partially synthesized didn't function properly.

    And yet your reference for synthesised ribosomes is from 2008 and Dr Spetner's book is from the late 90s. Not exactly up to date.

    There isn't anything that supersedes those so they still hold. Pythagoras still holds and you refer to the 19th century with Cantor.

    Just because you don't understand how that happens doesn't mean (a) that no one does or (b) that there's something hidden that no one else has found.

    No one knows, Jerad. If they do then they are keeping it of the public's eye and also out of science. BTW Donald Johnson wrote the book "The Programming of Life" which supports my ideas.

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How does a purely chemical process know when there is an error and how to correct it? A ribosome is a genetic compiler and it even stops when it detects an error- it knows what it is supposed to be producing.

    Jerad chokes. How typical...

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have a clue.

    Somewhere in the cell covers a lot of territory. And it couldn't be 'outside the cell' could it? So you really have no clue.

    We know how DNA and RNA do their thing.

    No, we don't. We have no idea why transcription and translation do their thing.

    I said HOW not why. Pay attention.

    And yet kids know there is software in computers and yet couldn't explain how it does its thing. Heck I bet you don't know.

    I do having done some assembler level language programming on a UYK-20 Navy computer. AND there's a lot of people who do understand how a programming language gets translated into assembler then into machine code, how it's stored in memory, how it's accessed and processed, etc.

    The HGP doesn't refute anything that I have said.

    Sigh. The point is all the structures you keep thinking are hiding some hidden code have been sequenced!! There's nothing hidden.

    And yet your reference for synthesised ribosomes is from 2008 and Dr Spetner's book is from the late 90s. Not exactly up to date.

    There isn't anything that supersedes those so they still hold. Pythagoras still holds and you refer to the 19th century with Cantor.

    Mathematics is different. Oh, I forget, you don't understand about theorems. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and becomes more refined with the passage of time. Spetner's book is out of date.

    No one knows, Jerad. If they do then they are keeping it of the public's eye and also out of science. BTW Donald Johnson wrote the book "The Programming of Life" which supports my ideas.

    I don't know that book or him although this web reference (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1639376.Donald_E_Johnson) says he's not a biologist. The only reviews I found were on Amazon from non-biologists. By the way the title of the book doesn't include 'The'. I am a bit curious about this one, I'll see if I can source a copy cheaply on ebay.

    How does a purely chemical process know when there is an error and how to correct it? A ribosome is a genetic compiler and it even stops when it detects an error- it knows what it is supposed to be producing.

    Read a good book on genetics and biochemistry. You can learn how it works.

     

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I ordered a used copy of Programming of Life over Amazon but it has to get shipped from the US which might take a while. But I will read it. If it's math/computer based then I should be able to follow it easily.

     

  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Somewhere in the cell covers a lot of territory.

    Cells are very small so inside the cell covers very little territory.

    I said HOW not why.

    How isn't the question. We know how those processes work. we have no idea why they do.

    I do having done some assembler level language programming on a UYK-20 Navy computer. AND there's a lot of people who do understand how a programming language gets translated into assembler then into machine code, how it's stored in memory, how it's accessed and processed, etc.

    OK then- how does software make the electrical processes more effective?

    The point is all the structures you keep thinking are hiding some hidden code have been sequenced!! There's nothing hidden.

    The HGP was about the hardware. And evolutionists cannot explain anything.

    Scientific knowledge is always tentative and becomes more refined with the passage of time. Spetner's book is out of date.

    2014- his updated version was released last year and no one has anything else.

    I don't know that book or him although this web reference (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1639376.Donald_E_Johnson) says he's not a biologist.

    Biology needs more than biologists. It also needs system engineers, programmers, chemists, etc. See Approaching Biology From a Different Angle.

    Read a good book on genetics and biochemistry. You can learn how it works.

    Already read it. No one knows how the genetic code came to be nor why transcription and translation do their things. When we put all of the correct chemicals into a test tube nothing happens. We can't build artificial life and yet we know all of the chemicals involved.

    Life is a mystery and will always be so under evolutionism.

    But thank you for your cowardly bluffing.

    AND this is still a FACT:

    A ribosome that was partially synthesized didn't function properly.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You should also order "Probabilities Nature and Nature's Probability" also by Johnson

     

Post a Comment

<< Home