I haven't been on here in quite a long time as well. Consistent with what?

Nice taste, brother...

I don't think she saw your questions as a "theoretical", I think she read them as you wanted to "put her in her place" with all kinds of technical knowledge/jargon. Let's face it, you went out of your way creating some flawless persona of her while you claimed ignorance, in the next post you then asked technical questions. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but you don't come across as receiving information very well from either of us. We're both pretty reasonable and nice people, but it's insulting when it appears you don't read what we said or understand it. This is why she doesn't respect you, because it looks like you're trying to back her into a corner with some sort of rehash of Dr. Behe's arguments involving irreducible complexity. I think you will find that she and I agree that he asked good questions... the problem is, his questions have mostly been solved, which is what she's trying to explain.

I like how people in the creationist club complain constantly that people who understand the science have "over-sized" egos. It's kind of a tiresome retort, to be frank. It's something I do not really understand, it's as if "I don't understand this" and then have it explained then claim "you have a huge ego, I can't listen to you!". I don't know, that's the impression I'm walking away with. It's very confusing if you ask me.

Nah its not semantics, I'm just not sure that you have any idea what I'm implying. I'm tired of seeing Behe's irreducible complexity everywhere and you're using one of his archetypal examples. You're basically insisting that the cycle couldn't have started because it's a self perpetuating cycle, which is not true.

Ok. Explain to me what I have been telling you. In your own words.

No, glycolysis is a catabolic process, not anabolic. Also to state that ATP is "usually" the source of the energy is erroneous as it overlooks other forms of metabolism such as purine metabolism, based around AMP, which would have predated ANYTHING using ATP. Additionally, the formula for glycolysis is C6H12O6+2[NAD+]+ 2[ADP] +2[P]i --> 2[CH3COCOO- +H+] + 2[NADH] +2[H+] + 2[ATP]. Think about it. The first ever 2[ADP] did not have to be broken apart specifically by ATP, as long as they were present and there was energy in the system (as there would be due to other metabolic processes running parallel) to jump start it. Then it could repeat itself as a cycle. You're so hung up on ATP and your own self righteousness that you can't figure out what I am trying to tell you. You have not made a valid point, and so I will not concede that you have. All you have done is proven you can stick to the guns of creationist literature and lack the imagination to step outside it.

And yes, metabolism is a process for creating other molecules. Read the SECOND sentence on the site you linked: In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized. There are many types of metabolism, and any single one can be referred to as process (singular).

The point is that you're referring to the first cycle ever. My point here is that the first metabolic cycle EVER would not have started using ATP, and would not have been recognizable as glycolysis, because it wouldn't have been glycolysis--there are metabolic cycles that do not require ATP but rather simply AMP. So what that it requires ATP? The answer to your question "how does an organism, or specifically early, primitive organisms, obtain these 1st ATP molecules to start the process off?" has been answered in the fact that they could easily obtain all the materials from their environment, and did not need to use every step of modern metabolic processes to do so, instead working their way UP to the modern processes. Again, you can't remain consistent. You say: "I understand ...that there are severe differences between the cellular respiration set-up of today and of a primitive earth." then you get hung up on "OMG ATP" and throwing around terminology which you don't wield competently

You seem to have missed one HUGE step here, well, several. Maybe you just made a typo in your first post (which I missed) where you said "Glycolysis... requires 2 ATP in an investment phase". This is factually incorrect, it requires two ADP molecules. If you look on your diagram, you'll notice that all that entails is removing the unstable bond, so the founding elements of metabolism are NOT unstable. The POINT of metabolism is to create an unstable molecule (ATP) that will break apart and create more energy in the cell. There's your "process": METABOLISM. The second thing you don't get here is where I've been going with the initial "investment". This cycle did not poof into existence magically working in the first cell, the predecessors of it were operating before ANY endosymbiosis took place; probably not using ATP at all but AMP or ADP which would have been available and stable. This would imply that the initial investment was already there before metabolism was refined.

Covalent bonds are unstable?

Did you miss where I said that adenosine is found in the environment itself? It's also not necessary to go through every step of the Krebs cycle to metabolize. Of course there was a process to help it along; evolution. Starts out simple: uptake and integration of chemicals from natural environment, to complex: synthesize them yourself with the help of some friends (mitochondria). This is not a tough concept. The reason the old system (just take/integrate from environment) isn't used anymore is because evolution into complex cells has rendered it obsolete.

Oh and by the way, you are actually adding a God factor into the Gravity equation. You are essentially saying that God is the cause (or reason behind) of it. There is no data to actually suggest this.

Yes, but all of these religious people discuss things like their religious text. The Bible, for example, many maintain that it is the direct word of God or whatever (and usually claim it is infallible). This is complete nonsense, but if I take the assumption that EVERYTHING in the Bible must be a true statement (i.e. even the descriptions of the nature of this God) then working within that closed system, I can show it is not logically consistent. So either the Bible is completely wrong, the God described doesn't exist, or God is defined some "other" way that humanity has never actually encountered.

First of all, you can't assume the modern state of things is how it always worked. You also can't assume that ancient predecessors possessed the same features as modern cells. Many of the organelles in cells today were in the past individual organisms who began to cooperate as a unit to form the metabolic pathways for the Krebs cycle-- this is proven by the unique DNA present in mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc. Additionally, adenosine can form outside of the metabolic process, so the first steps in the first metabolic cycle feasibly came from the environment itself.

My main stance on God (especially the Christian one) is based on the fact that God is an illogical construct. I derive this by the way Christians describe their God. It can't maintain all the attributes they claim and exist, so to me, there's no possible way for it to exist. While proof of there being "no God" is probably impossible, I can at least talk about the God's conjured up by the human race over millennia. Those have specific traits and are defined, thus I can work within those definitions and prove their impossibility. And no, I don't want to just limit myself to Christianity in this endeavor.

No, simpler isn't always better. Okay, well most of the time it's better, but it has to fit the data and explain EVERYTHING and more. If incredibly complex is the simplest answer and it explains all the data... well then that's your answer. In fact the natural world is anything but simple, which is why we use things like Chaos Dynamics to represent things mathematically (Chaos being the key term : P). In any event I think my use of Occam's Razor isn't too far fetched in our particular discussion. God over complicates the systems we're talking about. I also think God over complicates things like Gravity, trying to work in some kind of "god factor" to explain how objects fall on Earth is, frankly, quite absurd. But a notion of a "God" is so all encompassing that for God to be true, there must be a God factor in ALL things. This is simply not the case, per the data we analyze.

If you follow the RNA world hypothesis, then RNA was the first recognizable, stable replicator. RNA does not require proteins, so it is not a paradox. The RNA world hypothesis seems the most plausible to me, but we're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Despite what you seem to think, I do not deal in absolutes, so the idea that I should "be [your] constant source of knowledge regarding evolution" is not necessary. Just pull your own weight and actually DEBATE, don't simply preach while wondering why I'm not particularly responsive.

Yeah, I never disagreed with that, you'll see here I said : "No one will disagree that evolutionary theory will "change" when worded that vaguely". Of course it will grow. What I was looking for is whether or not you have bothered to think about it beyond that. For example, based on the results of our most recent mapping of the neanderthal genome, we have adjusted our timelines. I believe that further genetic research will refine phylogenic trees and possibly completely restructure some of them. This is an example of a change I expect is likely to happen, reasoned out and based on what I know. When I ask you what changes you expect, you have nothing, and even get offended. I was hoping for a somewhat more fruitful conversation, since on the surface you at least appear to know more than others. All I was looking for to prove that you are at least somewhat interested in learning something new was simply asking ONE question about some of the concepts I brought up.

Just so you know, your friends below don't give up and have been doing what they've been doing to our group and members for a long while. :) Isos and RageofAnath are very set in their ways and very against Christian ones. I think they'll agree?? Let's see.

I'm also not sure what you're going on about with the Judas thing, I'm not sure you read what I said clearly. God does "dictate" actions, I think you've forgotten the story of Pharaoh and Moses. "He allows us to choose for ourselves, consequences and all." This is not true, you assume in this statement that God factually exists. It is impossible for the Christian God to exist as described, so therefore your assumption is incorrect. We have freewill because we are our own people and minds. God's existence would over complicate the system. There is no need for it, Occam's Razor.

I'm aware it's a mathematical model, I don't think you read my "about me" very closely. In any event, as with any mathematical representation it's an idealized theoretical. It's used to represent a best estimate of something, or it is used to approximate what's happening in nature. The HWP, is an idealized model with an ultra controlled environment and is a laboratory system. And genetic mutation is also a mechanism that makes evolution work, not just natural selection. Anyway, if that kind of model was actually happening then scientists would use THAT data and we'd have a different model. Even if there existed on Earth a species that perfectly followed the HWP it would NOT disprove evolution. Why? Because Evolution is a totally open system, all the data with all the other species on the planet follow the Evolution model, just because one doesn't, doesn't mean Evolution is false. It's not the same type of problem facing things like physics and Magnetic Monopoles, for example.

You've also proven yourself to be uninterested in becoming more knowledgeable by the fact that you've not once asked a single question about anything I've posted. You're more interested in proclaiming that you believe in "meaning", "god", etc, then having a mutual discussion, as the only questions you HAVE asked have been either leading questions or rhetorical. If you really wanted to know more, you would have asked specific questions upon realizing I was more knowledgeable than you rather than retreating and requesting mercy for your self-imposed ignorance. Your actions have spoken quite clearly.

You're exceedingly confusing. First you say: "I do believe in evolution" then "natural selection is a fact" then "current ideas on evolution might be outdated" then "I am not, in ANY way attempting to say that evolution is a false statement" then "Evolution is an theory, yes a logical one, but still a theory, based on facts. This does not discredit it, but it does not make it a fact" then "showed the DDR model to be incorrect... I think that it is quite possible that the same will happen with evolution" then "I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU" then "Evolution, natural selection, Mendelian genetics, all these things are sound theories,sound,not perfect." then "I DO NOT think that evolution is in ANY WAY incorrect." So basically, you believe it is true, not true, a fact and not a fact. You disagree with me according to what you wrote in my shoutbox but not according to what you wrote in ISoS's. What exactly is it you are trying to accomplish?

Then you are looking at things in the scientific fields incorrectly. Their importance or lack thereof after we die is entirely irrelevant to the pursuit in which scientists engage their research. The whole point of doing it is to understand the natural world. Current research could affect other scientists in the future, so it is not necessarily irrelevant after the scientist dies. However, evolution is a fact, I don't know why you keep calling it a theory, because you're not using the correct aspect of the definition when you say it the way you do. The Hardy-Weinberg Principle does NOT do what you claim. I think what you are trying to point out is that it shows that natural selection wouldn't occur. Evolution still occurs, just without that mechanism. Also, I know Judas was not ashamed of it. I think it is a shameful act. It denotes weakness because he's repenting to something that doesn't exist. When an inexistent manifestation dictates your life and your actions then you are weak.

So, basically what you're saying is that you agree with Anath? I don't understand what the argument is then, or what you are trying to imply by "the data will dissolve"??? Also, the Hardy-Weinberg Principle would NOT disprove natural selection. (PS: What does Judas repenting have to do with anything? I already knew that, that doesn't change the fact he sold out Jesus for 30 silver, which is the heroic act. His repenting would be something to be ashamed of.)

I've been following this "debate", if one can call it that, for some time. Your assertion that the "data" will dissolve doesn't have any meaning for us. Asserting that Evolution is "just a theory" while Gravity is a fact, implies (to people that study science) that the Theory of Evolution WILL be overturned. I don't think you fully realize what your statements actually imply. You also seem more concerned with "respect" for an opinion, than getting your facts correct. I do not understand this approach. The facts are what they are whether you respect someone's opinion or not. Anath is discussing factual information, you are not. This is why you feel like you are being disrespected. Also, facts are VERY closed minded things. They are real and you cannot make them become "not real", which is what I see most people in these kinds of discussions doing. You want to maintain that "evolution is just a theory", yet you haven't articulated why you believe this very well at all.

And I do NOT respect you, not because you are "less knowledgeable", but because you express no desire in becoming more knowledgeable. You have not responded to any technical points I have made. You have not answered my questions. You have not attempted to listen and understand what I am saying, and you have not cared enough to ask questions about things you do not understand. You simply cry that I don't respect you and that you feel I am insulting you and make that the cornerstone of your argument against me. Don't you see how this does not inspire respect? Also, these are not my "beliefs", I have not once mentioned a "belief". You don't "believe in" a scientific theory, you either accept it or reject it. These are not opinions either, they are facts. Unless some extreme evidence comes to light that completely falsifies centuries of currently-irrefutable evidence, I will never agree with you. Occam's razor has ensured this.

The reason it seems that you are implying an overturn is because you are using as your comparison theories that have been overturned. Comparing evolution to gravity is much more realistic. The fact is, we are able to map evolution at work. This is not an opinion of mine, or a belief. It is a fact. I will never agree with you because I understand this FACT. We can map the dna of one generation, then compare it thousands of generations later and physically observe what evolution has done. Also you don't have to be psychic to point out flaws in a theory, if those flaws exist, and we are not striving for perfection, we are striving for accuracy. For example, I can point out issues in mendelian genetics that were fixed with modern genetics (i.e.-too simple, does not explain what an allele IS), this is because I have examined the theory and determined what is weak about it. In order to make the assertion evolution will be significantly modified, you must provide similar examples.

No one will disagree that evolutionary theory will "change" when worded that vaguely, but the idea that it will be overturned in the manner of geocentrism is out of the question. As for your age "point", there were technically alternatives to geocentrism as early as 270 BC, so no, its not about "age" its about data fitting facts, and humans accepting those facts rather than dwelling on childish anthropocentrism. Our knowledge of genetics is less than a century old, yet it would be absolutely absurd to assert that in the future we will discard it all as wrong. Now, how about you reply to my question. I will rephrase it to be more specific: "What exactly about the theory of evolution causes you to believe it will ever be overturned?" In order to make such a bold statement, you must have a REASON. I have reasons for making the opposite statement, you have to have REASONS for making yours. If you don't have reasons, you have no business making such an assertion.

Actually, respect for your uninformed opinion has very little to do with this conversation. You have provided me no reason to respect your opinion, as you have yet to provide a foundation for it. You refuse to respond to my points, instead, you throw red herrings around expecting me to chase them, attempting to provide a smokescreen for your lack of an argument. Displaying knowledge is not "boasting," it is speaking on the same level as someone who actually DOES have knowledge on the subject. You don't speak this way, you speak as though you've read some AiG or Discovery Institute articles and consider yourself "informed". I am also perplexed as to why you're bothering to "debate" with me in the first place as you have NOT "respected" my position in the debate, but are rather using my page as a platform for your point of view; instead of participating mutually, you simply throw your "opinions" around and demand they be respected, and refuse to truly discuss anything.

However if you like to define security this way "Never, in the entire history of mankind, has there been a large amount of reasonable data that has caused us to think it untrue." Then I can say the exact same thing about evolution. The only things that cause people to believe "evolution is untrue" are religious teachings; this hardly constitutes "data" of any kind.

Actually Gravity, specifically the Newtonian model, is not as "sound" as you might believe. It breaks down entirely at the quantum level, and it has other complications which have required modification in the past 100 years as it was modified into General Relativity, and beyond. There are also assumptions that we have made to compensate for irregularities and anomalies in our predictions, such as dark matter. The idea that the theory of gravity is less subject to change than the theory of evolution is erroneous. The age of a theory has little to do with its validity. Additionally, evolution has already been modified significantly since it was proposed in the 1800s. What exactly do you think is likely to be revised about the theory? I see a lot of hot air, and no substance in your argument. You have not yet displayed you even know the slightest thing about evolution, just that you want it to be disproven somehow (not going to happen) so you can go on believing god-did-it.

No, Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. The term theory, when applied to science: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." Heliocentrism is a theory also, and both are also facts. Evolution by natural selection is both a theory and a fact as well. This is why: Variation + heritability + differential net reproduction = Evolution by natural selection. This is true because there is variation in a population, which is heritable (DNA). Not every creature gets to reproduce (differential net reproduction). This means that the heritable variation will follow trends that are measurable, gradual, and changes according to environment. That is the system we live and work within. That is a fact. That is evolution.

Sure, as long as you're aware its as secure as Gravity and Heliocentrism.

Problem is (with the CS Lewis quote), if you want to make an analogy, it has to make sense. Meaning does not, and cannot compare to darkness in the way you are attempting to. It conceptually does not make any sense.

I misread part of your first post, I see what I did now. Elaborate on this. "My not being able to present a "testable hypothesis" is the very reason that current ideas on evolution might be outdated."

What now? Evolution HAS presented a testable hypothesis, which has not yet been falsified, and positive evidence (primarily DNA evidence) has indicated that is incredibly unlikely to be falsified. We can now WATCH evolution occur and measure it quantitatively. I also read up a bit on catastrophism, turns out geologist synthesized both that theory and uniformitarialism to create a theory that makes sense; Earth's history is long and slow, punctuated by occasional natural disasters. I don't see how this compares to the state of evolution? Also, I don't see how you can compare presence and absence of meaning (a subjective trait) with presence and absence of light (an objective trait). Meaning, in the existential sense you imply, only exists when an agent bestows it. While you can't prove solipsism/God/etc false, you also can't prove either to be true, and you can prove both to be superfluous, which ultimately means there is no justifiable reason to believe either is true. (Occam's Razor)

1) You make the assumption that you know what I think about certain matters with this statement: "yet you are not willing to extend to them the same courtesy?" 2. It's not a matter of how you view these things that determine whether or not they are facts, its a matter of what really happens, in REALITY. "God loves you" is not a fact because "God" is an undefined concept with no objective evidence supporting it, "love" is also unable to be defined quantitatively. "Evolution happens" is a fact because we can quantitatively measure and prove that it does occur, through DNA evidence. DNA evidence didn't exist over 200 years ago. "Gravity pulls objects towards the center of the earth" is also a fact because we can quantitatively measure and prove that this is, in fact, the case. And also, if you want to assert that in 200 years natural selection will be outdated and regarded as illogical (as you do by comparing it to catastrophism), then please present an alternative, testable hypothesis

You're making a lot of assumptions. First of all, I'm not "just" talking about religious people when I use the word dogmatic, I'm talking about ANYONE who fits the bill. Your last sentence exemplifies what I intended; we can't just stick to what the common assumption is, especially when evidence arises that contradicts that common assumption. (i.e. telescope data, bolstered by mathematics) Secondly, I know you're talking specifically about evolution here, so I will assert that evolution by natural selection is a FACT. You don't "believe in" facts, you either accept them or you deny them. There is nothing else for me to consider in that realm. Finally, you are also making a lot of assumptions when you assert that I have not considered other points of view. Are you implying that you know more about my worldview than I do? Also, I am not offended by anything you say. Perplexed is more apt.

I actually do not respect people who dogmatically "stick to their guns". People should be open enough to change their minds in the light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary of what they "believe" to be true.

It's not a "debate", by the way. The only people "debating" anything are creationists who refuse to acknowledge scientific fact. As for the deist "watchmaker" perspective, its not nearly as unhealthy as what those fools dish out, but Occam's Razor can fix the remaining dissonance. Keep studying! :D

There are even species of lizard that don't have ANY males, or very very rare males. Interesting and useful adaptations! :)

No it's not a traveling concert but I was pretty convinced that's where you might have seen them. :P. My favorite House of Heroes song is "If." What about you?

ok...i'll ponder those..and get back to you.I am in a "bad lieutenant"place right now with the Celtics/Cavaliers !!! If that doesnt make sense,dont worry about it....but i will get back to you.

well,as a typical British male.i have been in the pub all night,and i dont think i will do myself or your question any justice if i try to understand it or respond to it whilst slightly inebriated.....give me a little time.:-)

I wont be offended in the slightest.I may not agree with you,but i wont be offended.:-)

Yes I have heard of House of Heroes I actually first saw them in concert with Children 18:3, Stellar Kart, Nevertheless, Capital Lights, the Wedding, Fireflight, and Wavorly.... You don't happen to be from Arizona right? Lol. A lot of the bands you listened to were at Castles and Coasters thing I went to a couple years ago....

Yes i sort of understand that...but i,as a non-believer dont see it that way.To me,sin is just a concept.I have NO faith in god but i inherently KNOW what is right and wrong....and act accordingly.