Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

New Scientist ^ | November 15, 2005 | Gaia [sic] Vince

[Coyoteman]

Excerpt from the last substantive conversation I had with Fester:

I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts [08/06/2005].

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456767/posts?page=201#201 .

[Fester Chugabrew]

'laws' are nothing but descriptions . . .

Speaking of bald assertions. Laws are more than "descriptions." They have been in operation prior to being described. Just like intelligent design, they precede science, and are attendant to science. Otherwise, you've only made further elaboration upon the fact you are unwilling to grant science the latitude it ought to enjoy. As such, you are in a rut. Don't worry. You're not alone. There are plenty of narrow-minded ideologues and their cheerleaders in your kamp.

My understanding of intelligent design and its involvement in the universe does not in the least stifle scientific inquiry or "make science impossible." It encourages it. Furthermore, it does not insist upon "my Christian God," as you say. Frankly it comes as no surprise that you find science where there is none, and vise versa.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Are you saying it is scientifcally feasible to differentiate between humanly designed and non-humanly designed entities?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Also, are processes of intelligent design strictly limited to humans? IOW, are humanly devised implements the only evidence in the universe for intelligent design?

[highball]

I had a quote here, but New Jacobins forced me to pull it out.

They are of their father the devil! No one forced you to take it down, anymore than people forced you to put it up.

I'm glad that I posted the quote before he took it down.

And those who forced him to take his quote opposing "race-mixing" down are "of their father the devil", huh?

It just gets better and better.

[highball]

Aw, shucks. Messed up the formatting.

Just to keep it straight, Stingy Dog has on his homepage:

I had a quote here, but New Jacobins forced me to pull it out.

They are of their father the devil!

And Liberal Classic replied to it with:

No one forced you to take it down, anymore than people forced you to put it up.

It's important that we keep the players clear, lest anyone think that I'm accusing Liberal Classic of harboring the same hidden thoughts as Stingy Dog.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Would not be surprised if you framed that quote, hung it up on your wall, and howl over it every night. How about an evolution story for us all? Or do you only have a library of creation stories?

[Fester Chugabrew]

We claim [order] is because of the physical attributes of the universe.

Well good gawd, pal. What are the physical attributes of the universe that completely exclude information for our "primate brains" to recognize and comment upon? If they had no order, i.e. design, or physical attributes science may not even notice them.

Is it scientifically possible to detect intelligence?

[b_sharp]

"Speaking of bald assertions. Laws are more than "descriptions." They have been in operation prior to being described. Just like intelligent design, they precede science, and are attendant to science. Otherwise, you've only made further elaboration upon the fact you are unwilling to grant science the latitude it ought to enjoy. As such, you are in a rut. Don't worry. You're not alone. There are plenty of narrow-minded ideologues and their cheerleaders in your kamp. "

Again you cherry pick what you respond to and show your lack of understanding of the point.

The phenomena have indeed been occurring since a Planck second after the Big Bang, however, we have only recently observed, developed -in most cases - a mathematical description for, and labeled as laws.

How about addressing something more from my post.

[highball]

Well, it's not like the quote were my own words, even though it had no credit to the unknown author. Unknown to me at least.

I had just posted today trying to start a small, but concise, homepage, to let everyone know a little about me and my ideology, beliefs etc.

Trust me, we learned all we need to know about you and your ideology, thanks.

You can't hide from a statement like that.

[b_sharp]

"Are you saying it is scientifcally feasible to differentiate between humanly designed and non-humanly designed entities?"

Currently, no. In the future, maybe, as long as the supernatural is taken out of the equation.

[Coyoteman]

Would not be surprised if you framed that quote, hung it up on your wall, and howl over it every night. How about an evolution story for us all? Or do you only have a library of creation stories?

If you tell me you no longer stand by that quote, I certainly won't use it again.

I am giving the creation stories a rest, having made my point, but here is an evolution story, by popular request:

---

KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis)

Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The braincase is surprisingly modern in many respects, much less robust than any australopithecine skull, and also without the robustness and large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. The face, in contrast, is extremely large and robust.

In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists have been classifying this skull as Homo rudolfensis. If 1470 is related to the newly-discovered fossil WT 40000 (Kenyanthropus platyops) to which it has some resemblances, it may eventually be reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus.

Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You have created a universe where everything and anything that can be construed as having 'order' is evidence of a designer, a designer that you have given the power to not only 'create' irrespective of the laws of physics but can also interfere at will with the observation, investigation and testing of all phenomena.

Excuse me, but I am only one small object of the creation, not the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator no more receives power from me than the sun receives power from plants. And although the Creator may indeed overstep what has typically been observed in my lifetime, science can, and does, carry on in discovering more and more evidence of intelligent design, single strands of DNA and cubic inches of water being small cases in point.

But it is your responsibilty to explain to the rest of us what might reasonably, scientifically, otherwise be behind the existence of this order; these physical attributes. Tell me why atoms retain their consistency if it is not due to any element of intelligence or design. It is a question your method of science cannot begin to address. It can only sit on its hands and say, "Duh. We don't know, and we can't know."

You'd sell science for a cheap pile of philosophy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Oh no. That quote is your trophy. Far be it from me to deter you from putting it on proud display.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I believe I see signs of a red nose on that skull. Good choice.

[b_sharp]

"Well good gawd, pal. What are the physical attributes of the universe that completely exclude information for our "primate brains" to recognize and comment upon? If they had no order, i.e. design, or physical attributes science may not even notice them.

If I understand your post correctly, it appears you are making a huge assumption that the only way we notice or recognize phenomena is because the phenomena provides information that can only be the result of an intelligence. Or are you simply defining information as anything we observe?

What information is encoded in the observation of a planets orbital path? If there is any, how do we determine that it is from an intelligence?

"Is it scientifically possible to detect intelligence?

Depending on the definition of intelligence; human like intelligence, yes. Nonhuman intelligence? That is unknown.

[b_sharp]

"Excuse me, but I am only one small object of the creation, not the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator no more receives power from me than the sun receives power from plants.

You truly are a literalist. You gave the designer those powers in your argument, not literally. "he lets hang his tail like a cedar"

"And although the Creator may indeed overstep what has typically been observed in my lifetime, science can, and does, carry on in discovering more and more evidence of intelligent design, single strands of DNA and cubic inches of water being small cases in point.

DNA and water only show evidence of a designer in the minds of those that desperately need their belief system reinforced.

[Liberal Classic]

Well, it's not like the quote were my own words, even though it had no credit to the unknown author. Unknown to me at least. I had just posted today trying to start a small, but concise, homepage, to let everyone know a little about me and my ideology, beliefs etc.

Uh huh. How about some other Sam Francis quotes?

“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.