Clear evidence of Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic

Whoever made the chart had no choice but to make it this way because this is how it was designed.

The 4 codons that code for Valine are:

GTT
GTC
GTA
GTG

Tell me the human scientist that decided to code the amino acid Valine to these 4 sequences? They had no choice but to assemble the chart this way because this is how it was designed.

Wrong. That would mean that humans don't have free will, at least how humans define free will. The sequences come together naturally through self assembly. This has been proven over and over - of course, you don't care about the science. That would ruin your agenda.

At the end of the day, you have nothing but a lot of cut and paste garbage that you don't understand yourself.

When the guy in the sky shows up, let us know.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
Well it does not matter what you eat as the body stops producing many things whether you are a man or woman.

Spoken like a true religious zealot who believes everything out of the mouths of their chosen petty-tyrant-wanna-be gods in gvernment.

Hint: you couldn't be more dangerously wring if you tried.

having kids past 35 for women increases a good many risks.

Only for those who aren't esating a proper human diet.

There are COUNTLESS women who have experienced a very nasty surprise long after t hey were post menopause, in the form of the return of their period, or even strnager, becoming pregnant.

Also, carnivore women have far far less problematic pregnancies (the longer thy are/were carnivore before getting pregnant, the better their experiences), like no morning sickness, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

This means we would need old men having kids with extremely younger women, and that is not typical in any sense of even with animals in nature as the older alpha gets replaced by the younger alpha.

Not at all... there is nothing requiring the older gents to impregnate the younger women - unless something happened and there weren't enough younger alphas to do the job - hmmm.... kindof like what is happening now with the vast majority of younger males today being sickly beta soy-boys.

The human has really been a 50 year animal if you made it past childhood,

There is actually ZERO evidence to support this ludicrous claim, unless you are only looking at stats based on modern humans who are eating the crap-crud filled 'standard american diet' pushed by big food/pharma.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Spoken like a true religious zealot who believes everything out of the mouths of their chosen petty-tyrant-wanna-be gods in gvernment.

Hint: you couldn't be more dangerously wring if you tried.

I think you missed my point that if most are not eating your prefect diet then that plays into evolution too. BTW how old are you? Unless the masses are eating your prefect diet then the small percent that do make little difference to evolution as we are talking small changes over long periods of time through procreation. The reality is the world has never fit within your perfection and we see that as I have said.

Only for those who aren't esating a proper human diet.

There are COUNTLESS women who have experienced a very nasty surprise long after t hey were post menopause, in the form of the return of their period, or even strnager, becoming pregnant.

Do women crate new eggs during their life? I would say no...

Not at all... there is nothing requiring the older gents to impregnate the younger women - unless something happened and there weren't enough younger alphas to do the job - hmmm.... kindof like what is happening now with the vast majority of younger males today being sickly beta soy-boys.

And once again you missed my point I made... IF the young studs are who are doing the procreating then that is where evolution stops. I really think you do not read my posts and just want to answer, but your answer are a swing and a miss each time. What you wrote above is exactly what I'm telling you happens and why evolution stops at like 35.

There is actually ZERO evidence to support this ludicrous claim, unless you are only looking at stats based on modern humans who are eating the crap-crud filled 'standard american diet' pushed by big food/pharma.

You keep debating something I'm not sure what it is. Diet plays hugely in the evolution process, so what is your point?

I'm 62 and do believe in the carnivore style diet. I find Jordan Person and daughter's stories interesting and even started OPs on them. I'm extremely healthier than others even 10 years less my age, but that doesn't change the fact my testosterone levels are about the same as a 9 yearold girl and even taking testosterone supplements I'm not popping out kids any time soon to effect the evolutionary process.

How far back do you want to go to look at evidence as to how long humans lived? Also stop with the outliers as they have zero effect on evolution, so unless the population is doing something there is little effect to evolution as a whole from the one offs that you seem to focus on.

originally posted by: Phantom423


The sequences come together naturally through self assembly. This has been proven over and over - of course, you don't care about the science. That would ruin your agenda.

Yikes. No they don’t self assemble we’ve been over this before. Biological organisms require The polymerase enzyme to catalyze nucleic acid polymerization (the formation of DNA/RNA strands). If nucleic acid monomers (DNA pieces) self assembled then you’d have malignant masses of DNA clumps forming everywhere in nature and biological life would not be possible.

Can you please just finally accept this basic tenet of biology?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


The sequences come together naturally through self assembly. This has been proven over and over - of course, you don't care about the science. That would ruin your agenda.

Yikes. No they don’t self assemble we’ve been over this before. Biological organisms require The polymerase enzyme to catalyze nucleic acid polymerization (the formation of DNA/RNA strands). If nucleic acid monomers (DNA pieces) self assembled then you’d have malignant masses of DNA clumps forming everywhere in nature and biological life would not be possible.

Can you please just finally accept this basic tenet of biology?

Self assembly. Happens all day long. No supernatural input required.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
I think you missed my point that if most are not eating your prefect diet then that plays into evolution too.

Nope... not unless it continues for another million years or so.

We've only been eating crap for about a hundred years (when Crisco first came out), and eating lots of the wrong foods for 6-15,000 years (the agri revolution), which is just a flash in the pan evolution wise.

Do women crate new eggs during their life?

Irrelevant to my point - the menopause in those cases was not true menopause, it was a malfunction due to their toxic diet. Clean up the diet, eliminate the malfunction, things start working again.

Women losing their period (and becoming infertile) due to the vegan diet is extremely common, as is the reversal and return of their period when they start eating properly again.

IF the young studs are who are doing the procreating then that is where evolution stops. I really think you do not read my posts and just want to answer, but your answer are a swing and a miss each time.

No, actually, you are apparently arguing a point that I'm not even sure what it is.

My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with EVOL"UTION, my points have to do with vital, optimal health and how to achieve it.

What you wrote above is exactly what I'm telling you happens and why evolution stops at like 35

See, this is really just a moronic statement.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Many scientist are saying, spacetime is an quantum error correcting code.

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's a video called Is Spacetime a Quantum Error-Correcting Code?

Here's Professor James Gates saying he found error correcting codes:

You couldn't be online without error correcting codes. They're an important DESIGN FEATURE!

So, evolution isn't something natural. It's a program encoded on logical qubits in a quantum error correcting code. A natural interpretation saying this powerful storage medium that stores digital information, has redundancy as error correction and a quantum error correcting code connected to spacetime came from some primordial goo is a fantasy.

What we call matter has no causal power. It's an interface just like the reply button on ATS is an interface. What we call matter allows us to interact with the information that's coming from outside of our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, it doesn't create that information.

The reason why all of these scientists are talking about error correcting codes is because these codes are protecting information encoded on logical qubits. This information was encoded by an Intelligent Designer.

The Bible says near the end of days, knowledge will increase.

Sadly, it also tells us that heaven will roll up like a scroll. This will be portals opening and lifting the veil of our limited perceptions in 3 dimensions.

Jesus on His Throne with the Angels will come down to our world. People will have boils on their skin and they will be in scorching heat and they still will not repent.

Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Also:

Revelation 16:9 “And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.”

If God is calling you, don't harden your heart.

This is an excellent destruction of "evolution." However, it doesn't mean "god" created us or the rest of the universe for that matter. It means there were intelligences that used the system Gates discovered to created us. Why would a god need an error correcting code for anything? If he is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-whatever, he wouldn't need that. He wouldn't create something with errors. Oh sure, someone's going to claim, "well, since Adam sinned, creation has been corrupted." That doesn't hold water at all. It's an actual cop-out from the illogic of thinking that a "supreme" diety created us. We were engineered by some unknown intelligence, yes. But that intelligence wasn't a god.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

We've only been eating crap for about a hundred years (when Crisco first came out), and eating lots of the wrong foods for 6-15,000 years (the agri revolution), which is just a flash in the pan evolution wise.

Well, how long do you think humans lived 100k years ago?

Irrelevant to my point - the menopause in those cases was not true menopause, it was a malfunction due to their toxic diet. Clean up the diet, eliminate the malfunction, things start working again.

I'm not debating diet here, but you seem to want to keep going back to it.

My arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with EVOL"UTION, my points have to do with vital, optimal health and how to achieve it.

OK... wrong OP then

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: whereislogic

Again, you're all over the place. Your link talks about M-Theory and String Theory which are speculative while Quantum Field Theory is not.

That quote was just to show how people use the terms "quantum field theory" and "quantum field theories". My issue was with the way people talk about these quantum fields as explained earlier. Also I found the description "the most succesful scientific theory of all time" rather funny. Which might become more clear to you if you read some of the answers to this question on Quora.com:

Why is there still uncertainty about whether the fields in quantum field theory actually exist? Isn't something in a scientific theory considered to 'exist' if it fits empirical evidence better than anything else we've come up with? - Quora

Charles Francis
PhD in Mathematics & Quantum Electrodynamics, University of London (Graduated 1983)

There is no empirical detection of a field. QFT is a (pseudo-)mathematical theory which produces correct empirical predictions, but just because something exists in mathematics, it does not follow that it exists in reality. [whereislogic: he's talking about physical reality] We can make correct empirical predictions by using the square root of minus one in formulae, but it does not follow that we can eat the square root of minus one apple.

In mathematics we say that a mathematical structure "exists" if it has a consistent axiom set. This has no bearing on physical existence, but only on logical consistency. ...

Mark H. Smit
Ph.D in Biotechnology in Biopharmaceuticals & Medical Devices, Imperial College London (Graduated 1990)

QFT is a theoretical framework for exploring, amongst other things, subatomic particles. There is a big difference between a theoretical framework and a theory. They are completely different in meaning. A theory is arrived at following the Scientific Method. That method requires rigorous testing under controlled conditions; attempts are made to disprove the theory. If these fail, then a particular scientific community has a new or revised theory.

Theoretical math and theoretical physics cannot produce a theory, unless they wanted to call it a "theoretical theory". ...

How can "a theoretical framework" (the term also used on wikipedia to describe QFT on its page) be "the most succesful scientific theory of all time" in light of the above? That description is so over the top, way to toot your own horn. And these are people who know the difference between a "theoretical framework" and a "scientific theory" (talking about those who described it that way in your link). So they are well aware of what they're doing here in choosing to describe it as such.

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

...

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18)

Source: article linked in my signature and preceding page

Talking about QFT as "the most succesful scientific theory of all time" is after all quite beguiling, it makes quite an impression on the reader if one writes a lot about QFT and those working on that subject while giving them that impression that it's the most succesful scientific theory of all time. Efficient marketing strategy though, worthy of the entertainment industry. Which is what much of the scientific community has turned into: 'look at me! look at me!' (everybody is shouting).

a reply to: whereislogic

You know you have hit the bottom of the barrel when you're quoting responses from Quora. This means you couldn't find any published papers to support anything that you're saying.

You can simply provide a theory that has made more accurate predictions. Let's look at what you copied. It says:

QFT is a (pseudo-)mathematical theory which produces correct empirical predictions, but just because something exists in mathematics, it does not follow that it exists in reality.

IT PRODUCES CORRECT EMPIRICAL PREDICTIONS.

That's science and this is why you're playing go fish on Quora.

It's called a theoretical framework because it combines different theories. It's still a theory and one of the most successful theories in science.

In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
en.wikipedia.org...

IT COMBINES these theories and forms QFT which makes accurate preditions. This is why you had to go fish on Quora and you couldn't find published papers that says Quantum Field Theory is not a theory. Let's look at some papers that show subatomic "particles" aren't real in the physical sense as Heisenberg and Max Planck said.

There are no particles, there are only fields

ABSTRACT
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it's also true of nonrelativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus, the Schrödinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The field for an electron is the electron; each electron extends over both slits in the two-slit experiment and spreads over the entire pattern; and quantum physics is about interactions of microscopic systems with the macroscopic world rather than just about measurements. It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public. This article reviews classical and quantum fields, the two-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field theories.

aapt.scitation.org...

Let's look at Quantum Electrodynamics

In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.

In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]:
en.wikipedia.org...

RICHARD FEYNMAN CALLED IT THE JEWEL OF PHYSICS FOR IT"S EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS.

This is how the forces of nature was quantized, except gravity, into quantum fields. It found agreement between special relativity and quantum mechanics that's why they call it a theoretical framework. That doesn't mean it's not a theory. It means you're combining other theories as a framework for your theory.

Like I said, show me a published paper that refutes the highly successful predictions of QFT not a fishing expedition on Quora.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: whereislogic

You know you have hit the bottom of the barrel when you're quoting responses from Quora. This means you couldn't find any published papers to support anything that you're saying.

You can simply provide a theory that has made more accurate predictions. Let's look at what you copied. It says:

QFT is a (pseudo-)mathematical theory which produces correct empirical predictions, but just because something exists in mathematics, it does not follow that it exists in reality.

IT PRODUCES CORRECT EMPIRICAL PREDICTIONS.

That's science and this is why you're playing go fish on Quora.

It's called a theoretical framework because it combines different theories. It's still a theory and one of the most successful theories in science.

In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
en.wikipedia.org...

IT COMBINES these theories and forms QFT which makes accurate preditions. This is why you had to go fish on Quora and you couldn't find published papers that says Quantum Field Theory is not a theory. Let's look at some papers that show subatomic "particles" aren't real in the physical sense as Heisenberg and Max Planck said.

There are no particles, there are only fields

ABSTRACT
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it's also true of nonrelativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus, the Schrödinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The field for an electron is the electron; each electron extends over both slits in the two-slit experiment and spreads over the entire pattern; and quantum physics is about interactions of microscopic systems with the macroscopic world rather than just about measurements. It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public. This article reviews classical and quantum fields, the two-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field theories.

aapt.scitation.org...

Let's look at Quantum Electrodynamics

In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.

In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]:
en.wikipedia.org...

RICHARD FEYNMAN CALLED IT THE JEWEL OF PHYSICS FOR IT"S EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS.

This is how the forces of nature was quantized, except gravity, into quantum fields. It found agreement between special relativity and quantum mechanics that's why they call it a theoretical framework. That doesn't mean it's not a theory. It means you're combining other theories as a framework for your theory.

Like I said, show me a published paper that refutes the highly successful predictions of QFT not a fishing expedition on Quora.

And no supernatural input was required for any of that to happen.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

Well, how long do you think humans lived 100k years ago?

Available evidence suggests anywhere from 100-130 years... as long as they had access tyo real food and clean water.

I'm not debating diet here, but you seem to want to keep going back to it.

That is true - because that is what I've been mostly talking about (other than the side comments about no one being able to know with certainty how things all started and whether or not it is ID, or pure evolution).

OK... wrong OP then

No, just tangential discussion...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Available evidence suggests anywhere from 100-130 years... as long as they had access tyo real food and clean water.

That is silly. No such evidence exists.

Star and flag from lj01.

Although I am not an intelligent design "do'er", I came by to say that this is the type of thread that I miss.

Well done

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly. Happens all day long. No supernatural input required.

Sure self assembly happens, but not for DNA and RNA monomers polymerizing into strands, which is what your comment was referencing. This is simple biological fact. It has to be this way otherwise random clumps of DNA strands would form uncontrollably.

I bet you don't admit you're wrong though. You more so want the perception of thinking you're right, rather than actually pursuing righteousness.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly. Happens all day long. No supernatural input required.

Sure self assembly happens, but not for DNA and RNA monomers polymerizing into strands, which is what your comment was referencing. This is simple biological fact. It has to be this way otherwise random clumps of DNA strands would form uncontrollably.

I bet you don't admit you're wrong though. You more so want the perception of thinking you're right, rather than actually pursuing righteousness.

If self assembly of all organic molecules didn't happen, we wouldn't be here. It happens all day long - to every organic molecule in the body and all organic life on the planet.

originally posted by: Phantom423

If self assembly of all organic molecules didn't happen, we wouldn't be here. It happens all day long - to every organic molecule in the body and all organic life on the planet.

DNA monomer polymerization specifically does not happen spontaneously. It needs catalysis, which is the opposite of self-assembly.

Aren’t You supposed to be a biologist……….

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

If self assembly of all organic molecules didn't happen, we wouldn't be here. It happens all day long - to every organic molecule in the body and all organic life on the planet.

DNA monomer polymerization specifically does not happen spontaneously. It needs catalysis, which is the opposite of self-assembly.

Aren’t You supposed to be a biologist……….

Self assembly happens all day long. No supernatural intervention required.

It's always the same people endeavoring to deliver the same message, every single time this topic comes up. It suggests to me that all parties are equally insecure, or equally sustained in their respective philosophies. No one here has more blessing or burden than anyone else, so whatever it is we have accomplished with our fragile and finite resources, no rewards have been dispensed to one objector or the other. A curious absence of validation for such an enduring conflict. Almost as if there's no prize to be won regardless. And yet, we persist.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly happens all day long.

Not with DNA/RNA monomer polymerization. You specifically said that these DNA sequences come together through self-assembly, but that's the opposite of the truth. They need to be catalyzed by specific enzymes in biological organisms. They do not self-assemble. "This has been proven over and over - of course, you don't care about the science. That would ruin your agenda."

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's always the same people endeavoring to deliver the same message, every single time this topic comes up. It suggests to me that all parties are equally insecure, or equally sustained in their respective philosophies. No one here has more blessing or burden than anyone else, so whatever it is we have accomplished with our fragile and finite resources, no rewards have been dispensed to one objector or the other. A curious absence of validation for such an enduring conflict. Almost as if there's no prize to be won regardless. And yet, we persist.

If atheists are right then it doesn't matter, if theists are right then it does matter. The paradox of nihilism is that, according to its own precepts, there's no point in even expressing your opinion