Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

a reply to: Raggedyman

im talking about scientific journals in general which looks like you have some serious issues with, this goes for evolution/ID and the "rising" of the sun.

whereas one side has alot of journals and alot of study into the subject, you claim its complete BS.

the otherside which has barely any, if at all, scientific study but for some reason it isnt complete BS.

so someone here is being intellectually dishonest.

also im here to offer commentary, i am not interested in providing you with evidence as it has been 10 pages of people showing you already which you like to hand wave away.

I just find it interesting that you can ask so vehemently for evidence (while ignoring everyone elses evidence) of one thing and completely ignore the lack of opposing views evidence.
but that you can still sit there and argue it is quite fascinating. its almost trollish.

originally posted by: choos

whereas one side has alot of journals and alot of study into the subject, you claim its complete BS.

Please choos, dont twist your knickers
I am asking for evidence, not assumption, I am not calling it BS, I believe it is BS, all of it BS, BS upto and beyond a persons hairline
But I havnt called it BS

I am asking for evidence, again, not assumption and possibility's and beliefs

originally posted by: choosthe otherside which has barely any, if at all, scientific study but for some reason it isnt complete BS.

You are correct of course, creation has no evidnce, its a belief

originally posted by: choos
also im here to offer commentary, i am not interested in providing you with evidence as it has been 10 pages of people showing you already which you like to hand wave away.

Of course you are not going to, you havnt any, none without the magic words assumption and possibility's and beliefs.
If you did I wouldnt be here

so someone here is being intellectually dishonest arnt they choos

I know why not go slam Tzar Chasm for saying sun rise again, love to watch people eat each other over pedantics

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am asking for evidence, again, not assumption and possibility's and beliefs

You are correct of course, creation has no evidnce, its a belief

but do you realise that studies into evolution are a study? they are studying it looking for answers, for many questions evolution has the answers for. for several others they are still searching.

Of course you are not going to, you havnt any, none without the magic words assumption and possibility's and beliefs.
If you did I wouldnt be here

thats to assume that evolution from start to finish is 100% completely known about.
As far as im aware a large portion of evolution is known about but not 100% known about and neither is it claimed it is if it was there wouldnt be current studies in this subject. the unknown areas are where the "magic words" are used mostly.

so someone here is being intellectually dishonest arnt they choos

you seem to think that evolution is 100% completely understood, you seem to think that these studies into evolution prove that evolution isnt 100% completely understood since they use your "magic words"

i would agree with you in that if it was 100% completely understood, they wouldnt use those words, however that isnt the case is it?

I know why not go slam Tzar Chasm for saying sun rise again, love to watch people eat each other over pedantics

im fairly certain he knows why it "rises" im also pretty certain you know why also.. but then again, you also have claimed you cant trust peer reviewed journals.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: choos

whereas one side has alot of journals and alot of study into the subject, you claim its complete BS.

Please choos, dont twist your knickers
I am asking for evidence, not assumption, I am not calling it BS, I believe it is BS, all of it BS, BS upto and beyond a persons hairline
But I havnt called it BS

I am asking for evidence, again, not assumption and possibility's and beliefs

originally posted by: choosthe otherside which has barely any, if at all, scientific study but for some reason it isnt complete BS.

You are correct of course, creation has no evidnce, its a belief

originally posted by: choos
also im here to offer commentary, i am not interested in providing you with evidence as it has been 10 pages of people showing you already which you like to hand wave away.

Of course you are not going to, you havnt any, none without the magic words assumption and possibility's and beliefs.
If you did I wouldnt be here

so someone here is being intellectually dishonest arnt they choos

I know why not go slam Tzar Chasm for saying sun rise again, love to watch people eat each other over pedantics

I am asking for evidence, not assumption, I am not calling it BS, I believe it is BS, all of it BS, BS upto and beyond a persons hairline But I havnt called it BS

And let's not forget this EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, yet to be acknowledged:

I'll do a little homework for you - since you're incapable of doing it yourself. Here's the Materials and Methods plus Results and Discussion from a research article on evolution. This is empirical evidence - get it???

Pervasive Adaptive Evolution in Mammalian Fertilization Proteins

Willie J. Swanson,*† Rasmus Nielsen,‡ and Qiaofeng Yang† *Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington; †Departments of Biology and Genetics, University of California, Riverside; and ‡Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University

Mammalian fertilization exhibits species specificity, and the proteins mediating sperm-egg interactions evolve rapidly between species. In this study, we demonstrate that the evolution of seven genes involved in mammalian fertilization is promoted by positive Darwinian selection by using likelihood ratio tests (LRTs). Several of these proteins are sperm proteins that have been implicated in binding the mammalian egg coat zona pellucida glycoproteins, which were shown previously to be subjected to positive selection. Taken together, these represent the major candidates involved in mammalian fertilization, indicating positive selection is pervasive amongst mammalian reproductive proteins. A new LRT is implemented to determine if the dN/dS ratio is significantly greater than one. This is a more refined test of positive selection than the previous LRTs which only identified if there was a class of sites with a dN/dS ratio
1 but did not test if that ratio was significantly greater than one.

Materials and Methods

We used likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) to determine if any codon positions were associated with  signifi- cantly
1 and hence possibly subjected to positive Darwinian selection (Nielsen and Yang 1998; Yang et al. 2000). The power of these tests increases with increased sequence diversity and number. Simulation studies show that the tests are robust when the tree length is approximately one substitution per codon. All data sets analyzed had tree length greater than one substitution per codon (table 1). However, it should be noted that the low number of species may reduce the power and accuracy of these analyses (Anisimova, Bielawski, and Yang 2001, 2002). A neutral model (M7) with  assumed to be beta-distributed was compared with a selection model (M8) with two additional parameters: ps, the proportion of codons with dN/dS
1, and s, the value of  in these sites. Positive selection is inferred if the estimate of s is larger than one if an LRT is significant. The LRT is performed by taking the negative of twice the log-likelihood difference between the nested models (M7 and M8) and comparing this to the 2 distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of parameters between the models (test I; table 1). For the M7 versus M8 comparison, there are two degrees of freedom. However, as noted in Yang et al. (2000) under the null hypothesis, one of the parameters is on the boundary of the parameter space and another parameter is not estimable. The use of two degrees of freedom is therefore an approximation that results in a conservative test. Another problem is that test I may result in a high proportion of significant tests even when there is no positive selection if the beta-distribution provides a poor fit to the true distribution of  in the interval (0, 1). For example, if much of the probability mass is located around   0.5 and   1.0, M8 may provide a significantly better fit to data than M7, with an estimate of s
1 with probability 0.5, although no positive selection occurs. We, therefore, implemented a new version of the LRT which is robust to the assumptions regarding the distribution of  in (0, 1). It has the additional advantage that the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic follows from standard theory in contrast to test I. The test is performed by adding a category of sites with s  1 to the null model. The new modified null model M8A then specifies that the distribution of  follows a mixture between a beta-distribution and a point mass at   1. Model M8A is then compared with a version of model M8, constrained such that s
1, using an LRT. The only difference between the models is that under the null model (M8A) s  1, whereas in the more general model (M8) s
1. From standard theory (Chernoff 1954), it follows that the log-likelihood ratio statistic is asymptotically distributed as a 50:50 mixture of a point mass at zero and a 1 2-distribution.

Test II may in some cases have more power than test I because of the reduction in the degrees of freedom and because the true asymptotic distribution, and not an ad hoc approximation, is used. However, it may in other cases have less power if there exists a category of positively selected sites with a value of  that is only slightly larger than one.


con't

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Raggedy, don't forget there will be a pop quiz.

a reply to: Phantom423

A reply and pop quiz will have to wait for Monday, I have a life
Be patient, this should be loads of fun

Please note terms like likelihood ratios assumed inferred et al
Also note adaptation, I don't deny species adapt, doubt they change species though
Pretty crappy effort in my opinion so far at first glance

Be patient

originally posted by: cooperton
What would even constitute evidence for you atheists - an old guy with a grey beard hanging out in the clouds? Get real.

If the claim is of an old guy with a grey beard hanging out in the clouds then that would have to be it, wouldn't it?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

A reply and pop quiz will have to wait for Monday, I have a life
Be patient, this should be loads of fun

Please note terms like likelihood ratios assumed inferred et al
Also note adaptation, I don't deny species adapt, doubt they change species though
Pretty crappy effort in my opinion so far at first glance

Be patient

No problem. Have a nice weekend!

originally posted by: daskakik

If the claim is of an old guy with a grey beard hanging out in the clouds then that would have to be it, wouldn't it?

I was saying it facetiously because believing God is an old man hanging out in the clouds is a very rudimentary understanding of the Most High. All the major spiritual philosophies agree that we are a vehicle of the original Creative Force - God should not be looked for above or below; rather, that Force is within us.

originally posted by: cooperton
I was saying it facetiously because believing God is an old man hanging out in the clouds is a very rudimentary understanding of the Most High. All the major spiritual philosophies agree that we are a vehicle of the original Creative Force - God should not be looked for above or below; rather, that Force is within us.

I was saying that the claim sets the bar for the proof. So, if the claim is that of an old man hanging out in the clouds then that has to be produced in order for it to be proof of that claim.

If it is claimed to be a Force within us then that Force has to be found and measured in order for it to be considered proof. If some force was found, outside of us, that was the Creative Force then, someone wanting to split hairs could say that the claim that it is something within us is wrong because it wasn't found there and they would be correct.

What I see in these types of threads, this one in particular, is that someone points out the obvious, we don't really have a full answer, and uses that to say that all theories are equal. That is not quite right either.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik

If the claim is of an old guy with a grey beard hanging out in the clouds then that would have to be it, wouldn't it?

I was saying it facetiously because believing God is an old man hanging out in the clouds is a very rudimentary understanding of the Most High. All the major spiritual philosophies agree that we are a vehicle of the original Creative Force - God should not be looked for above or below; rather, that Force is within us.

us exclusively?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

us exclusively?

Our opposable thumbs, upright stance, and huge neocortex indicate we are the ideal vessel for the Creator - The human was made in the semblance of this Creative Force. But, the Creative Force would logically be within all of creation. This is why Jesus, the pure embodiment of this force, in the Gospel of Thomas, says this:

"Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

a reply to: cooperton

You don't see the contradiction ?

If he is in wood and stones then why need the "ideal vessel".

a reply to: Raggedyman

When people talk about ID to me I ask if they mean aliens or God. Alien ID is far far more likely imo. But like Metallicus said, I hate religion not the idea of God. I've always found ID discussions to be beyond pointless since it doesn't & can never really differentiate between aliens or God.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

us exclusively?

Our opposable thumbs, upright stance, and huge neocortex indicate we are the ideal vessel for the Creator - The human was made in the semblance of this Creative Force. But, the Creative Force would logically be within all of creation. This is why Jesus, the pure embodiment of this force, in the Gospel of Thomas, says this:

"Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

It is arrogance to consider our species the crown jewel of life.

a reply to: TzarChasm
You are the Crown of Creation
And you've got no place to go.

originally posted by: SmurfRider
a reply to: Raggedyman

When people talk about ID to me I ask if they mean aliens or God. Alien ID is far far more likely imo. But like Metallicus said, I hate religion not the idea of God. I've always found ID discussions to be beyond pointless since it doesn't & can never really differentiate between aliens or God.

Intelligent design doesn't suggest God did it, intelligent design places a theory into the scientific community that life is to complexed to have evolved

No one is telling you what you should believe, well not in intelligent design anyway, that it's always your decision to choose aliens or God

and isn't God an alien, alien to humanity?

The gospel of who, who

If Jesus was human, how could he also be a stick or stone

a reply to: Raggedyman

Intelligent design doesn't suggest God did it, intelligent design places a theory into the scientific community that life is to complexed to have evolved

and isn't God an alien, alien to humanity?

Aliens didn't evolve from something? What makes them (or us) special?

*ping* Highly advanced aliens.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

Intelligent design doesn't suggest God did it, intelligent design places a theory into the scientific community that life is to complex to have evolved

Aliens didn't evolve from something? What makes them (or us) special?

*ping* Highly advanced aliens.

I guess that will come down to how an individual considers aliens, for all I know that individual may believe in a race of timeless aliens who didnt evolve, no more absurd than life evolving from dirt and water as far as I can see.

What makes us special is subjective, some believe we are just animals

a reply to: Raggedyman

What makes us special is subjective, some believe we are just animals

We are animals. Well, I am.
What are you? A plant?