Posted on 04/05/2022 3:30:54 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
They are, in a way. Because those Foo Fighters were secret weapons. Allies won the war, allies got that war booty and a couple of years later we see essentially foo fighters flying all over the place.
Renato Vesco identified the project as the Kugelblitz.
Even if there are billions of planets (which is what I believe too) the odds of there being a just right planet in a just right star system of a just right window of a just right galaxy, with all the many parameters required for each of those is still almost non-existent.
***I find it very frustrating because when I try to look at the updated Drake Equation parameters, everyone plugs in the most optimistic numbers.
For instance, this article
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/
generates “one part in 10 to the 22nd power.” 10^-22.
That’s a very very small number. And it pretends like Coppedge never calculated the chance of a single polypeptide molecule forming into an Amino Acid over a 14 billion year life span as 10^-23, where there needs to be hundreds of thousands of these for a single cell life to form, so the chances are 10^-22 X 10^-23 X 10^-5 which is about 10^-50 even with optimistic approaches but much much worse with realistic approaches.
Mathematically, the definition of impossible is, you guessed it, 10^-50.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evidence-for-irreducible-complexity-in-proteins/
To demonstrate that proteins are irreducibly complex you must demonstrate that the amino acids of the proteins are necessary for the protein to be functional and that removing or replacing the amino acids within the proteins will result in a loss of functionality for the protein.
“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed”
Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)
“A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble.”
Problems in Protein Evolution:
per uncedu
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
– ncbi
Darwin’s God: Post Synaptic Proteins Intolerant of Change – December 2010
Excerpt: Not only is there scant evidence of intermediate designs leading to the known proteins, but the evidence we do have is that these proteins do not tolerate change.
– darwin’sgod
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors – Doug Axe
Excerpt: Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular.
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.ed.....lution.pdf
Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? – Ann Gauger – October 11, 2011
Excerpt: Based on a realistic population genetics model, we calculate that the waiting time for a bacterial population to acquire seven specific mutations in a duplicated gene, none of which provide any functional benefit until all seven are present, is something like 10^27 years. That’s a ten with 27 zeros after it. To put this in perspective, the age of the universe is believed to be on the order of 10^10 years.
In response to our work, one critique was that we didn’t start with the right ancestral protein.,,,
,,, if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51801.html
Following the Evidence Where It Leads: Observations on Dembski’s Exchange with Shapiro – Ann Gauger – January 2012
Excerpt: So far, our research indicates that genuine innovation, a change to a function not already pre-existent in a protein, is beyond the reach of natural processes, even when the starting proteins are very similar in structure.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55171.html
“Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
That is precisely the point we are making.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html
“Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015
Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92291.html
Simply put, the irreducible complexity of proteins is demonstrated by showing that amino acids are interdependent and/or ‘context dependent’ in regards to producing a functional protein,
Moreover, Dr Gauger states that context dependent effects are found “at the level of primary sequence, secondary structure, and tertiary (domain-level) structure’ of proteins.
“Why Proteins Aren’t Easily Recombined, Part 2” – Ann Gauger – May 2012
Excerpt: “So we have context-dependent effects on protein function at the level of primary sequence, secondary structure, and tertiary (domain-level) structure. This does not bode well for successful, random recombination of bits of sequence into functional, stable protein folds, or even for domain-level recombinations where significant interaction is required.”
http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....ned-part-2
She is basically saying that there are three interlocking levels of irreducible complexity within proteins.
That ‘contextual’ information resides along the entire ‘irreducibly complex’ protein structure is also established here
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/
Kirk Durston states that the context dependency and/or irreducible complexity of the amino acids of a protein “reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude”
(A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012
Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse
This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent, (i.e. context dependent), with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search.
http://powertochange.com/wp-co.....Myers_.pdf
How many of orders of magnitude are the chances reduced by the interdependency and/or irreducible complexity of a protein? The following paper on quantum criticality gives us a glimpse,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules
Excerpt: The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
“what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
In fact, since quantum entanglement/information falsified local realism in the first place, then the probability is zero. i.e. There is NO chance! Simply put, materialism has no beyond space and time cause to appeal to so as to explain ‘non-local’ quantum coherence in proteins. i.e. No possible cause equals no possible chance!
Don't worry guys it all swamp gas. That's it,or maybe its the Russians. They must have stuff we don't know about. After all there is no such things as UFO's or UAP's. Don't worry your little heads about any of this just fake news, yeah that's what it is fake news. (Hard to imagine it takes this long.....)
One night in the 60’s we were working in the field and my brother asked our dad what that light in the sky was. Dad laughed, saying, “Son, that’s the moon.”
“If that’s the moon, then what’s that?”, pointing at another light in the night sky.
“You’re right. That ones the moon. I don’t know what the first one is.”
Eventually the extra moon took off.
You don’t seem to have many answers at all. It’s clear you don’t have a clue. But, nice try with the disinfo.
Stop with the logic, it won’t work here....
For a change a correct reply. Fully half of the sightings are “ours” our stuff which is now formidable.
I want to believe there is a forgiving divine supreme being, it just doesn’t work for me within my decades of experience, reasoning, and no evidence.
***No evidence? Nonsense. Familiarize yourself with the evidence. Even the enemies of Jesus acknowledge that He was put to death for mere words, for simply answering the direct question of His identity. Even His enemies acknowledged that He was put to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be equal with God Himself. That’s a discussion of HISTORICITY, not religion.
A good book to start familiarizing yourself with the evidence is “The Case for Christ” by Lee Stroebel. Also “Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru” by Buell & Hyder.
You can even read right here on FR
“The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?” by FF Bruce
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1971569/posts
I see that but keep hoping I’m wrong
He’s got more answers than you and your simplistic sniping.
Been like that for years here,no one will do the requisite research to learn what really goes on.
The power source is Element 115 (Uunpentium/Moscovium) details at Links below.
https://gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm
https://gravitywarpdrive.com/Anti-Matter_Reactor.htm#ELEMENT%20115
Did a UFO attack in the Vietnam War change US policy toward responding to UFO encounters? That’s what season 2 or Hangar 1: The UFO Files explores on Netflix. The show reveals evidence gathered by MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network.
As we know, most unidentified flying object stories don’t include mention of a UFO attack. At most, there may be a tense confrontation, but here we have stories where witnesses claim a wartime fight ensued.
Furthermore, the incidents in question seem to have had a significant impact, changing how the military would respond to UFOs ever after. Fortunately, UFO attack stories remain extremely rare.
The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) UFO Attack
On June 15, 1968, during the Vietnam War, a remarkable UFO encounter dubbed the DMZ incident took place.
Lieutenant Pete Snyder and crew headed out for patrol in the demilitarized zone between North and South Vietnam. Aboard the PCF-12 patrol boat, they kept an eye out in the rivers near Cua Viet, a port area.
At 12:30 AM, Lieutenant Davis aboard the PCF-19 patrol boat contacted Snyder saying the boat was under attack. Shockingly, Davis said the attackers were unidentified objects, possibly “enemy helicopters.” At the time, there were no Vietnamese helicopters.
In the distance, Snyder and his crew watched as the boat raced toward them. Above the boat, two glowing UFOs were following along. Then, in a flash of light, the UFO destroyed the boat. Suddenly, the objects flew rapidly back to sea and disappeared from view.
A Second UFO Attack
Fortunately, two people survived the attack on PCF-19. Thus, they were able to tell Snyder that the UFOs followed them for miles along the river.
Nevertheless, the Navy instructed Snyder to continue with his patrol, and the crew spotted the same UFOs again hovering in the air.
Afraid they might suffer the same fate as the crew of PCF-19, Snyder ordered the crew to fire as the UFOs approached. However, the fire was returned, spraying the area around the boat as they attempted to escape.
Steffes, the second engineman, described seeing two beings aboard the UFOs sitting in an observation area. Although they believed the aircraft was firing at them, he never saw any weapons.
Later, investigations revealed the bullets they fired at the UFOs were the same ones returning at their boat. Possibly, a protective field around the aircraft caused the bullets to bounce back?
Phantom Fighter Jets Give Chase
Reacting to the UFO attack, the military sent Phantom F-4 fighter jets to protect the patrol boats at 3:20 AM. However, the UFOs quickly left and headed out to the China Sea once more.
There, the HMAS Hobart from the Royal Australian Navy was cruising along the coast. The Hobart Commander reported seeing 30 UFO lights nearby. Then, the ship sent a radio message that two lights were approaching.
Soon, the fighter jets came within range and shot at the UFOs near the Hobart. Suddenly, the UFOs vanished, and all went back to quiet again. So, the jets returned to base in Da Nang.
The Hobart Incident
The next morning near daybreak, the Hobart was near Tiger Island when suddenly, a missile struck the boat. Sadly, the impact killed Seaman RJ Buttersworth and wounded two others. Before the remaining crew could respond, two more missiles struck the Hobart and killed the chief electrician.
In the distance, the survivors saw UFOs hovering on the starboard side of the boat. Interestingly, descriptions match what Lieutenant Snyder witnessed the previous night. Following the attack, UFO reports continued for months in the Australian newspapers.
Later, investigators traced a serial number on a missile that struck the Hobart. Amazingly, it matched the number on a missile that one of the US Phantom F-4 fighter jets shot at the UFOs. Therefore, the conclusion of the formal investigation found it was a case of friendly fire.
Years later, General George S. Brown would explain that it was not friendly fire but an unseen enemy, a UFO attack.
You can see the damage to the Hobart below:
https://eraoflight.com/2021/07/28/did-a-ufo-attack-in-vietnam-change-us-policy-about-ufos/
Most interesting, TY.
We need that deflector shield tech. :)
I remember reading about that as a kid.
My first thought was: ‘you opened fire on an unknown technology and species...smart move.’
I have no doubt the AA rounds where returned to sender, luckily not with interest.
The truth about aliens isn’t a frightening idea, this isn’t the Victorian era any more. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.