Comments by Calilasseia

1. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208177 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Here is my contribution, just sent via E-Mail:

Dear Sir,

It has recently been brought to my attention that various individuals have been waging a hate campaign against Professor PZ Myers, tenured at your establishment, all because Professor Myers happened to make remarks on his weblog regarding a wafer biscuit.

Whilst Professor Myers has been robust and resolute in his rejection of the more florid manifestations of doctrine-inspired absurdity, and this naturally has brought him to be regarded as a target figure in the demonology of adherents of doctrine, the latest campaign launched against him is not only utterly vindictive, and says more about the prejudices of those pursuing it than it does about Professor Myers, it demonstrates once again that adherents of doctrine appear to regard themselves as being in the privileged position of being able to shut down freedom of speech whenever someone dares to do other than genuflect before their metaphysical presuppositions, or dares to criticise the absurdities that arise therefrom. This campaign, needless to say, should be treated with the scorn and derision that it manifestly deserves, as it is a blatant attempt to resurrect Inquisitional repression of free speech and free thought, by individuals who apparently see no inconsistency in preaching a religion whose central figure espoused tolerance and pluralism, yet decide on the basis of this religion that they possess the right to suppress the very pluralism purportedly inherent in their beliefs.

By contrast, Professor Myers has been a valuable source of in-depth information, including information on current scientific research in the life sciences, for a wide audience including lay persons spanning across whole continents, writing with a lucid, compelling narrative style that many of his readers would consider to aspire to the same elevated standards of clarity and inspirational exposition of the fascinating nature of the scientific endeavour last seen deployed by Carl Sagan. There are a considerable number of individuals among his large audience, eager for scientific information as seen from the inside, who regard Professor Myers as a worthy successor to that well-known and cherished legacy. He is, for this reason alone, someone that your institution should regard not as a candidate for removal of tenure, but as an asset of immeasurable value with respect not only to the promulgation of valid science, and defence thereof against mendacious and duplicitous attack by individuals with anti-science, anti-progress, anti-learning and anti-knowledge agendas, but with respect to its teaching within the walls of your establishment. If he can write on topics of considerable technical intricacy, in such a manner as to render them not only comprehensible to an international lay audience, but present them as exciting and utterly awe-inspiring reading, then surely his pedagogical value within your establishment is if anything magnified many fold, for how many tenured professors can you name who are thought of in the same light?

I would urge you to dismiss this entirely scurrilous campaign and its anachronistic revival of the mentality that doubtless surrounded the hounding of Galileo 375 years ago, which has no place in the 21st century, and certainly not in a nation that contains explicit statements of separation of church and state in its Constitution.

Yours sincerely,



[real name withheld from the RDF front page]

Hopefully that should suffice. :)

2. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208062 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Sadly most atheists DO NOT want to sincerely and objectively know what the truth is

Total crap.

It is precisely because we don't accept uncriticially the unsupported assertions of worthless doctrines that we are better equipped to find the truth than any number of propagandists for reality-denial masturbation fantasies.

because science has clearly revealed God

Total bollocks.

Science has done no such thing. In fact, if you understood any physics, science has made your invisible magic man superfluous to requirements. But then you don't know any real science, do you, because you've been too busy filling your head with masturbation-fantasy garbage.

and so has His Final revelation the Qu'ran 1400 years ago

Crap. Your worthless book containing the diseased ramblings of a kiddy fiddler is about as scientifically literate as the shit pumped out by AiG and ICR. The only way in which any claims of scientific legitmacy can be made for your book of diseased ramblings is if one engages in apologetic force-fitting of valid science to your doctrine and its presuppositions. Your book of nonsense still puts forward the story of Adam being formed, fully adult, with fully formed adult cognition and fully formed adult language capability, out of a ball of dirt. Scientific fact says something rather different. Or hadn't you noticed this whilst inserting your head into your own rectum and inhaling the stench of doctrine?

and yet they still resist, ignore and not accept the manifest truth - why?

Any idea that the diseased ramblings of a kiddy fiddler who lived before science in its current form even existed constitutes "the manifest truth" is something only the terminally doctrine-addled could assert. Did your kiddy fiddler prophet know about the Navier-Stokes Equations? Did he know about tensor analysis? Did he know about 4D effective theory and its linkage to M-theory? No? Why does that not surprise me in the least?

They have chosen to submit to their own vain and wishful thinking whims and desires.

Total bollocks. We have chosen to listen to REALITY instead of the diseased ramblings of a doctrine.

SCIENCEISLAM.COM

Is a pile of horseshit. It consists of a circle-jerk of apologists constructing convoluted semantic jsutifications for presuppositions that are wholly unsupported by observational reality. What part of "scientific theories are based upon correspondence with observational reality" are you too stupid to understand again?

To Calillasseia,

I am not hitting on anyone

Blatant and manifest lie. Propositioning a female poster constitutes the definition of hitting upon her. What part of this elementary notion are you too stupid to understand again, creep?

but just making a sincere offer to her provided she is not married.

I have news for you. She has better taste. Chances are she considers a seven inch piece of plastic and two 1.5 volt batteries to be a superior choice to you.

Are you jeolous or somethin?!

Jealous of an idiot who is incapable of addressing even the most elementary points put to him?

Jealous of a propagandist for doctrine who demonstrates time and again in his posts that he is scietifically illiterate, ignorant, boorish, palsied and too busy hypnotising himself to the music of the spheres of his own verbal diarrhoea whilst staring glassy-eyed at the doctrinal hologram in his head to be aware of the real world and what it is telling him?

You're fantasising again. Asking if I'm jealous of you is like asking if I'm jealous of someone who emerged from the clap clinic with a positive diagnosis.

I will not let you off the hook, so..

So you're going to post your worthless website again. Yawn. Got anything scientifically valid to post, such as the actual scientific papers that I've posted in the past? Or is your literacy level still too far below crayon to understand their contents?

SCIENCEISLAM.COM

Youre website is a pile of steaming intellectual faeces of the most putrid order. It comprises nothing more than assorted wank-break circle-jerk apologists erecting convoluted semantic justifications for doctrinal presuppositions and retroactively force-fitting valid science to those doctrinal presuppositions. It's about as scientifically valid as Grimm's Fairy Tales.

DO NOT FORGET THAT IT WAS THE MUSLIMS WHO TOOK EUROPE OUT OF THEIR DARK AGES AND ORIGINATED THE SCIENCES

Bollocks. All that the early muslims did was preserve the earlier works of Classical Greek civilisation.

Then, the muslim world disappeared up its own doctrinal rectum when it decided that conformity to a doctrine mattered more than correspondence with observational reality. Which is why islamic nations today are backward shit holes, several of which are only propped up by oil money, and without which, they would have reverted to the primeval slime years ago.

AND HOW IT WAS THE BOOK OF GOD , THE QU'RAN THAT INSPIRED IT ALL

Bollocks. Your diseased book of kiddy fiddler ramblings inspired only one thing - the abandonment of appreciation of reality in favour of conformity to doctrine based upon myth and fantasy. Which is why islamic nations are backward shit holes.

But just like the false teaching of evolution in academia you were deliberately not told about it.

Actually my history classes dealt a fair amount with the early years of the muslim world, and listed the contributions it made at a time when it had the courage to listen to reality. Unfortunately, it stopped listening to reality and instead turned to conformity to doctrine, and disappeared up its own rectal passage as a consequence.

Plus, since evolution is an OBSERVED FACT, and I have posted scientific papers that document the observations of evolution taking place in real world living organisms including speciation events observed in the laboratory, all of which refute your masturbatory bullshit above about evolution, none of which you have bothered to read or attempt to understand because you are so convinced that your doctrinal blinkers are the last word in "truth", and all of which are accepted as valid evidence by real scientists (you know, the people who spend decades of their life studying and researching the subject intensively, as opposed to posting pompous, bombastic fuckwittery on the Internet about it based upon rampant and wilful ignorance), your above statement is beneath deserving of a point of view.

So, once again, here is the challenge that Joe Morreale will chicken out of again when I post it:

PROVIDE A CITATION TO THE EXACT SURA IN THE KORAN THAT CONTAINS A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS.

After all Joe, YOU are the one who is asserting that your kiddy fiddler's book of ramblings is a valid scientific text, so I'm giving you the chance to put your money where your mouth is. Capable of doing that? Or are we going to see yet more evasion and apologetic bleating, accompanied by repeat spamming of the pages with the URL of your worthless website, composed of the output of circle-jerk practitioners of apologetics for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine?

3. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207804 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 7:29 am

To Kiki,

...

Why do you not become a Muslim and i will ask you to marry me and take care of you?

Showing your true colours now Joe?

Anyone else here regard this blatant hitting on a female poster as creepy and offensive?

4. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207798 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 7:26 am

lickin sardines is a way of saying that you are bitter and devastated.

In your dreams.

If your book of myths is so scientifically wonderful, how come most islamic nations are backward shit holes, several of which have only been rescued from descending into the primeval slime because they were lucky enough to have lots of oil underneath them?

Most islamic countries can't even make a working ballpoint pen themselves. They have to buy the expertise in from the West with oil money. That's going to come to an end the moment we develop oil-independent energy technologies, and then we'll see how backward these nations really are when the funds that prop them up come to an end.

The Qu'ran mentions dozens of Scientific facts

Funny how you can't point to a specific one that I asked for.

which are SUFFICIENT to prove that it is from God

Still hypnotising yourself with the music of the spheres of your own verbal diarrhoea whilst staring glassy eyed at the doctrinal hologram inside your head? Only thus far, you haven't provided anything that even remotely meets the definition of evidence. Where are your valid scientific paper citations? Where are your expositions of the content thereof? You have none. All you have is blind assertion and apologetic bluster.

like the admissions of non-muslims scientists on SCIENCEISLAM.COM testify

Your worthless website consists of apologists force-fitting valid science to presupposition. It is about as scientifically valid as Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Your verbal acrobatics

Pot, kettle, black.

The only one engaging in apologetic evasion here is you.

When are you going to be man enough to meet the SPECIFIC CHALLENGE that I put to you? Or are you an intellectual chicken?

are powerless to do anything about it.

The REAL SCIENTISTS of the world aren't listening to blowhards like you. They're getting on with the business of understanding reality without the need for your worthless doctrine or your non-existent invisible magic man.

Your opinion and that of anyone else on this site is worthless by comparison.

Spare me your impotent display of puerile indignation. The critical thinkers here bothered to become educated, which is more than you manifestly bothered to do. What part of "uncritical acceptance of the unsupported assertions of a doctrine" constitutes an intellectually valid stance in any logically consistent universe?

COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS ALL OVER and as we say in sicilian-style: non fare il lupo!

Yes, it's all over for your doctrinal masturbation fantasies ...

which is a term that is used against a person who knows but ignores or pretends not to but it is futile as the person knows it

You're really good at projection aren't you?

5. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207736 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 6:24 am

To Calilasseia

How you doin with those sardines your lickin?!

What is this bilge supposed to mean?

Do you have anything even remotely resembling a constructive coment here instead of your usual blind assertion and apologetic bluster?

IT SO EASY TO PROVE MY POINT:

ATLAS OF CREATION AND....

SCIENCEISLAM.COM

Repeatedly parroting these two disreputable and wholly discredited sources as though they are scientifically valid isn't good enough. Harun Yahya's book is the work of a CHARLATAN. Your "scienceislam" apologists are doing nothing other than force-fitting valid science to the presuppositions of a doctrine.

So are you going to take that challenge I gave above Joe? Are you man enough to attempt it, or are you too much of an intellectual chicken to face it?

Here's the challenge again:

PROVIDE A CITATION TO THE EXACT SURA IN WHICH THE KORAN DESCRIBES THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN DETAIL.

After all, YOU are the one asserting that this book is a valid science text. Let's see if it is courtesy of this challenge, shall we? Or are you going to chicken out of even touching this one?

6. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207709 by Calilasseia on July 10, 2008 at 5:55 am

LET US START WITH A BANG!

Given that we all arise from sexual intercourse, this hardly needs stating explicitly ...

21:30 "DO NOT THE UNBELIEVERS SEET THAT THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WERE JOINE TOGETHER, BEFORE WE CLOVED THEM ASUNDER? WE MADE EVERY LIVING THING OUT OF WATER. WILL THEY TEN NOT BELIEVE?"

Ah, mindless proselytising in CAPS LOCK mode.

Joe, posting your worthless drivel in CAPS LOCK mode doesn't stop it from being drivel.

Plus, your turgid and worthless holy book talks about Adam being formed, fully adult and fully conscious, with fully adult cognition, from a ball of dirt. So your worthless old tome cannot even maintain consistency with respect to the basics.

LET ME ASK YOU, HOW CAN YOU STILL NOT BELIEVE?!

Easy. We take off the doctrinal blinkers and look at the real world as it actually is instead of through your distorting ideological prisms.

As always when a person is truly on a mission to seek truth SINCERETY and OBJECTIVITY are key, otherwise he is in reality following/worshipping
HIS OWN WHIMS AND DESIRES even though he knows inside that it is in vain.

Nice revelation of your own motives and the motives of every other adherent of doctrine there. In other words, a combination of the need to conform allied to rampant narcissism.

This becomes clear when solid evidence is presented and it is still not accepted.

You've been doing plenty of summary dismissal of actual evidence thus far. Have you even bothered to read the citations for those scientific papers I presented, let alone the actual papers themseslves?

Again go and view the stunning example of admissions of non-muslim scientists on SCIENCEISLAM.COM which leave no room for a A SUCCESSFULL REFUTATION.

Bullshit. Those scientific papers I cited blow your collection of doctrinal apologists out of the water with nuclear depth charges. Because that is what those individuals are engaging in - doctrinal apologetics. Which is worthless in genuine intellectual circles, because apologetics consists of nothing more than the erection of convoluted semantic justifications for presuppositions. Science, on the other hand, is in the business of testing presuppositions to destruction.

All that your worthless apologists are doing is walking up to the scientific bullet holes and drawing apologetic bullseyes around them. They're engaging in nothing more than retroactive force-fitting of science to the presuppositions of a doctrine. A well-known logical fallacy, which, speaking of cowboys, is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

THE QU'RAN PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT IT IS INDEED FROM GOD.

Circular argument. Therefore worthless.

WHEN MANY PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD INCLUDING SCIENTISTS ARE INCREASINGLY COMING TO ISLAM, OF WHAT WORTH ARE YOUR LIES AND DISTORTIONS?

I love the way that propagandists for reality-denial masturbation-fantasy doctrines invert reality in this fashion, and claim that looking at the real world as it is and drawing appropriate conclusions therefrom constitutes "lies and distortions", whilst uncritical acceptance of the unsupported assertions of their doctrine is held up by them as The Truthâ„¢. The blinkers they wear are such that they cannot see the absurdity of this.

Sincere people who learned Arabic before commiting and confirming the inevitable fact that the Qu'ran is from God.

Ask yourself, Joe, why are all the other religions false? Then when you have answered that, you'll know why we think yours is false, because the same principles apply. To state otherwise consists of merely asserting that your doctrine possesses a privileged status over and above all the others, which of course is a well-known part of the aetiology of the doctrine centred mindset.

YOUR TRYING TO CAST DOUBT BY YOUR LIES AND ACROBATIC DISTORTING OF THE ARABIC.

I haven't mentioned any Arabic at all. I have, on the other hand, presented numerous scientific papers which you have ignored and summarily dismissed because those papers fail to genuflect before your masturbation fantasy of a doctrine.

WHAT YOU PRESENT HAS BEEN REFUTED LIVE ON MANY LECTURES AND DEBATES ALL OVER THE WORLD BY DR ZAKIR NAIK.

Who?

Should I know this individual at all? What is his claim to fame, other than as an apologist for doctrine? Because if that is his only claim to fame, I suspect that this is all I need to know about him, because anything he says as a consequence of being an apologist for doctrine will be intellectually superfical, shallow, worthless and vacuous.

At the end of his lectures the same stuff that you allege as mistakes are swatted in his long question and answer sessions.

If by this you mean that he erects apologetic word salad in order to sound big and clever, then I have to inform you that genuine refutation of canards takes rather more in the way of learning than this. As you are discovering here, if only you had sufficient functioning brain cells to remove your doctrinal blinkers.

Why do you not go to one of his lectures/debates when he is nearby and present yourself with your distortions and see how you would be exposed I as a fool and liar!

I've a better idea. How about your supposedly "world famous" apologist come here if he's hard enough? We need some new chew toys.

IF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS GUY IN ACTION YOU KNOW HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY HUMILIATE YOU

I suspect the only humiliation I would suffer at his hands would be due to my pissing myself laughing at his inadequacies.

As for this:

The Atlas does have a few mistakes (not many like you say) which in all probability were sincere ones.

This is demonstrable nonsense. Harun Yahya ripped off the work of someone with far less wealth than him in the form of Graham Owen, whose fishing lure artwork was stolen for Harun Yahya's worthless and absurd book of pretentious masturbatory garbage, and in doing so, demonstrated to the world his own rmpant scientific ignorance and incompetence. What part of "only an idiot would mistake a fishing lure with a bloody big metal hook sticking out of its arse end for a real Caddis Fly" are you too stupid to understand?

Nevertheless the rest of the book is solid

Only with respect to its mass. Its content, on the other hand, is droolingly encephalitic nonsense that the average 12 year old in the UK would laugh at for its rampant stupidity.

as can be testified by the fact that the secular establishment are running scared of it.

I love it when propagandists for masturbation-fantasy doctrines don't bother looking beyond the televisions inside their heads.

What part of "we're parading its absurdities worldwide and laughing at them" equates to "running scared" in any logically consistent universe?

Which, in case you hadn't worked this out, we're doing in order to counter the insidious, pernicious and utterly poisonous view that Harun Yahya, you and other doctrinal fantasists are peddling, namely that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

It is obvious that a few fishing lures are not enough to discredit it!

This utterly palsied nonsense can only be written by someone whose mind is so addled by doctrinal conformity at all costs that the denial of reality has transcended the pathological.

What part of "only an IDIOT and a CHARLATAN would mistake a FISHING LURE for a LIVING INSECT" are you too stupid to understand again?

There, I can use CAPS LOCK too. :)

When will people realise that evolution is a deception kept "alive" by propaganda and that anything that is pointed to as so-called evidence never goes beyond the speculation and hypothesies stage?

Bullshit.

Have you studied those scientific papers I have cited in previous posts? No? Then you don't know what you are talking about. The only "propaganda" being peddled here is that being peddled by doctrinal masturbation fantasists like you.

What part of direct experimental test of evolutionary concepts to determine their validity are you too stupid to understand?

Evolution has been refuted from the Molecuar to the Paleontology with many admissions of evolutionists themselves.

Bullshit.

All that has happened is that the words of scientists have been DISHONESTLY QUOTE MINED by mendacious and duplicitous propagandists for doctrine such as you.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SINCERELY BELIEVE IN IT ANY LONGER - IT IS ALL OVER.

As succinct a description of your creationist masturbation fantasies as one could wish for.

YES I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE BOOK

You have yet to establish that your literacy level extends beyond crayon.

AS I PROUDLY POSSESS ONE AND A FEW FISHING LURES DOES IS INSIGNIFICANT AS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE EXAMPLES

Only a complete scientific ignoramus could post such gibberish.

What part of "any book purporting to be a scientific text, that mistakes fishing lures for living insects, is worth less than toilet paper" are you too stupid to understand here.

(HUNDREDS) OF FOSSILS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION NEVER TOOK PLACE.

Only in the television inside your head. Keep watching that flickering screen and deluding yourself with that pretty doctrinal hologram of yours.

Once again, did you even bother to read the citations I provided to the scientific papers I presented, let alone their contents?

What a waste of oxygen you are.

THE FACT THAT THE BOOK CONTAINS MANY ADMISSIONS OF ITS INVALIDITIES AND THE FACT THE MASSES ARE NOT TOLD THIS, AT LEAST NOT ON THE MAINSTREAM TELLS WHAT IS GOING ON.

What is this syntactically atrocious word salad supposed to mean again?

SERIOUSLY WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

REAL SCIENTISTS did just that 150 years ago when they flushed your creationist masturbation fantasies down the toilet.

I do not believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God as it is well-known and established that it contains many errors including scientific ones.

And cue the apologetic assertion in the next sentence ...

BUT the same cannot be labeled at The Qu'ran which is infallible

Bullshit. Mere blind assertion on your part. Which, apart from apologetic bluster, is virtually all you have presented.

as witnessed by many people who are more and more learning of its scientic compatability with ESTABLISHED modern scientific findings

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Mere retroactive force-fitting of scientific reality to conform to doctrinal presuppositions. All that is happening is that propagandists for your worthless doctrine are drawing apologetic bullseyes around the scientific bullet holes.

Take a look at what non-Muslim scientists have admitted on SCIENCEISLAM.COM and then tell me what you think

I've just described what they're doing above. How many times does this need to be repeated before it sinks into the concrete inside your skull?

These people and many others learned the Arabic before confirming that it is indeed of Divine Origin.

Bullshit. They merely accepted uncritically the unsupported assertions of a doctrine.

Surely their word counts more over the liars and cowboys that engage in dishonesty on this site?

Nice admission of your own status here in that sentence above. Because your refusal even to acknowlege the existence of those scientific papers I cited earlier is DISHONESTY ON YOUR PART WRIT LARGE.

The reason why you cannot post or blog on Muslim sites is because there are sadly many cowboys who engage in insults on Prophet and foul language.

Translation: those sites are afraid of having their nonsense refuted wholesale. Excuses, excuses.

We let you come here and post your drivel. We're not afraid to let you vomit forth your droolingly encephalitic nonsense, because we can pound it into its constituent quarks without drawing breath. Why are your wonderful muslim sites afraid to let us visit them? RUNNING SCARED are they?

You are not deluded into thinking that we are scared are you?!

The EVIDENCE speaks for itself. We let you come here and vomit your nonsense because we're not afraid of you and your duplicitous fellow propagandists for masturbation-fantasy doctrine in the least. Your doctrinal fantasy web sites, on the other hand, are shit scared that we will eviscerate their pretensions, their presuppositions and their scientific ignorance.

Going to read any of those scientific papers I cited are you? Assuming of course that you can acquire a literacy level beyond the crayon stage?

People like Adnan Oktar are propagating the truth lies and charlatanism for FREE on the internet and go to many public fossil exhibitions.

There, fixed it for you.

Dr Zakir Naik has done over 1000 public lectures all over the world with long questions and answer sessions where he has always comprehensively dealt with everything that has come his way.

Tell your worthless apologist for doctrine to come here if he thinks he's hard enough.

Those who are actually running scared are the secularists as can be seen by the reaction to the Atlas.

Keep tugging your pudding whilst staring glassy eyed at that pretty doctrinal hologram in the television inside your head. You're talking horseshit. What part of "parading the absurdities of the work of your useless charlatan and laughing at them" equates to "running scared" in any logically consistent universe?

it is GAME OVER

For your masturbation-fantasy world view, it is.

The reasons for doing so? Obvious. It is the manifest truth.

Horseshit. Your book of diseased ramblings from your kiddy fiddler prophet is about as "truthful" as kent Hovind's tax returns.

It is the only scripture as testified by an increasing number of people to be scientifically compatable with modern established science.

Total bullshit. All that is happening is that apologists for doctrine are force-fitting valid science to conform to doctrinal presuppositions.

Tell you what, if your book of kiddy fiddler ramblings is such a wonderful scientific text, point to the part where it discusses the Navier-Stokes Equations. I want you to point to the precise sura that describes them in detail.

That's a challenge you'll never meet. Quite a few people here will probably put serious money on that one.

All that a person needs is sincerety and objectivity when in search for the truth

And what part of "uncritical acceptance of the unsupported assertions of doctrine" equates to "sincerity and objectivity in pursuit of the truth" in any logically consistent universe?

It is clear that such an insincere disposition from a person in that case is not worthy or deserving of GUIDANCE from God who will just leave that person wandering blindly in his ignorance.

I love the way that "ignorance" is defined by this masturbation fantasist as "failure to accept uncritically the unsupported assertions of my doctrine". A definition no dictionary on the planet would accept.

There are many pschological barriers that can be obstacles on the path to the truth such as:

Family tradition/culture
Social pressure
Pride/arrogance and rebellion
Difficulty in abandoning a certain life-style etc

You forgot to mention "unwillingness to discard doctrinal blinkers".

Now if a person does not make the effort in realising that surely God is more important than anything, that person even if shown the truth will not see it or simply ignore.

Provide substantive evidence that your invisible magic man actually exists, in accordance with proper evidential standards as opposed to the standards of your worthless apologetics, and we'll listen. Until then, if all you have to offer is blind assertion and apologetic bluster, we'll treat your wibblings with the scorn and derision they deserve.

So, here's the challenge that I predict Joe Morreale will NEVER meet. Namely:

POINT TO THE EXACT SURA IN THE KORAN THAT DESCRIBES IN DETAIL THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS.

After all, if the Koran is a valid science text, it should be easy to do this, shouldn't it?

7. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207400 by Calilasseia on July 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Vinelectric, the following page should prove highly enlightening in this respect:

The Authoritarians by Bob Altmeyer

8. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207355 by Calilasseia on July 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Time to deal with some of Joe Morreale's droolingly encephalitic nonsense and inability to use his CAPS LOCK key properly ...

WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION TO THE PHENOMENA OF THE UNIVERSE?

Because supernatural entities are by definition not subject to reliable and repeatable empricial test. Whereas natural phenomena are. What part of this elementary concept are you incapable of understanding?

SIR FRED HOYLE:
"Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so OBVIOUS that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The REASONS ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC."

Fred Hoyle wasn't a biologist. Plus, his remarks demonstrate an ignorance of the subject, such as his use of bad probability calculations based upon absurd notions (biologists don't claim that living things arose "by chance", but as a consequence of well defined and testable processes) and stupid analogies (Dawkins himself dealt with the "747" nonsense in TGD, which is just a repackaged version of Paley's "watchmaker" argument that was demolished by Darwin 150 years ago). He also made mistakes in his own field of astrophysics. Of course, there was much that he was right about, including stellar nucleosynthesis, so we can forgive him some of his other errors, which he made whilst genuinely striving to understand the operation of the universe, as opposed to the parroting of canards by propagandists for doctrine that pollute the comments section of this page. Unfortunately, some of Hoyle's ideas were blind alleys, and he made the mistake of being too wedded to those blind alleys to change his views. This does not in the least diminish his contributions in those areas where he was right of course.

Here's a tip for you: what is the difference between a 747 and a living organism? answer this correctly and you'll understand why the "747" argument is total tosh.

RICHARD C LEWONTIN of Harvard Uni
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a MATERIAL EXPLANATION of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that WE ARE FORCED BY OUR PRIORI ADHERENCE TO MATERIAL CAUSES to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, n o matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. MOREOVER, THAT MATERIALISM IS ABSOLUTE, SO WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."

Which he said because "allowing a divine foot in the door" is a guaranteed way of leading to bad science. Look at organisations such as AiG, ICR and the Discovery Institute, which all provide evidence for this phenomenon. None of them practise real science, instead they practise religious apologetics dressed up in scientific sounding language.

Science depends upon being able to perform repeatable and reliable empirical tests of its ideas. Because ONLY by performing such empirical tests can we determine whether or not the ideas being tested are in accord with observational reality. Supernatural entites are untestable. Therefore they cannot be admitted because they are scientifically useless.

Again, what part of this elementary concept are you incapable of understanding?

The above exposes and makes clear the false and deliberately imposed deception that Religion and Science cannot co-exist.

They can co-exist so long as religion does not arrogantly assume that it has the right to tell scientists what to think and how to conduct their research. The moment it does that, it becomes a pestilence. Again, what part of this elementary concept are you incapable of understanding?

More and more people are becoming aware of what is going on and abandon belief in this sinister fairy tale.
It is clear that those who stubbornly cling to it are only doing so out of vain wishful-thinking.

Your doctrine IS a fairy tale. Unfortunately for fetishistic adherents of masturbation-fantasy, reality-denial world views such as the one you are propagandising for, evolution is massively supported by evidence from observational reality. I don't suppose you bothered to check out any of the large number of scientific papers I have cited in previous posts that contain some of that evidence, have you? But then the aetiology of doctrine-addled creationists is all too familiar to the critical thinkers here: ignore any evidence that contradicts their masturbation fantasies and pretend that it doesn't exist.

It is an utter mockery of democracy the fact that both Creationism and darwinism are not taught alongside eachother as two possible explanations for the universe.

You appear to be wholly ignorant of a basic notion. Namely that scientific theories are NOT a "popularity contest" or the subject of public opinion. The ONLY criterion that matters is whether or not those theories are in accord with observational reality. Theories that are not thus in accord, like phlogiston, are discarded. Creationism is discarded for the same reason - namely it is flatly contradicted by observational reality. Again, what part of this elementary concept are you incapable of understanding?

THE SECULAR ESTABLISHMENT KNOW AND RIGHTLY FEAR THE RESULTS - THEY HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT THE ATLAS HAS HAD ON SINCERE AND OBJECTIVE STUDENTS IN US AND EUROPE AND HENCE THE ATTEMPT TO BAN IT!

Total bullshit.

We don't need to ban this stupid book, we can let its absurdities speak for themselves.

Why shoud we bother to ban this book when its own manifest stupidity is the best weapon we could possibly have? A book that contains pictures of fishing lures and presents them as real living creatures? A better advertisement for the intellectual vacuity and bankruptcy of creationist masturbation fantasies we could not wish for!

It is a pointer to your own blinkered stupidity that you not only do not realise this, but also do not realise that any reasonably educated five year old can see that picture of the "Caddis Fly" with the bloody great metal hook sticking out of its arse end and realise that this book is a pathetic joke. Care to point me to any real, living insects that possess large metal hooks sticking out of their arse ends? Only in my years spent studying entomology, I never encountered any. I wonder why that is?

THE FEW SINCERE MISTAKES FROM THE ATLAS OF CREATION DO NOT IN ANY WAY CANCEL OUT THE REST OF THE WORK WHICH UTTERLY EXPOSES, REFUTES AND RUINS THE FAIRY TALE CALLED EVOLUTION.

This is just apologetic wankery to distract from the fact that Harun Yahya is a charlatan whose ignorance of basic biology would be an embarrassment to secondary school children here in the UK. The only fairy tales being spun around here are the ones being spun by fetishistic adherents of masturbation-fantasy doctrines such as creationism. The idea that this ridiculous book, filled with basic errors that a twelve year old in a UK school would wet himself laughing at, somehoe "refutes" the untold millions of man-hours of patient observation, experiment and analysis that provide the massive evidential support for evolution is possibly the most pathetic joke you have told thus far. But then what else can one expect from an intellectual clown but pathetic jokes masquerading as serious comment, a category that so many of your worthless eructations fall into so neatly?

or find them spread about on youtube where as ever the Truth is mixed and surrounded by cowboys.

Yes we've seen plenty of creationist cowboys on YouTube. All of them classic examples of the mental retardation that results from inbreeding.

I HAVE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY THE FOLLOWING:

That evolution is a deception only kept "alive" by propaganda

The only thing you have proven is that you're a doctrine-addled masturbation fantasist. Don't suppose you bothered to read any of those scientific papers I cited in earlier posts that make a mockery of your arrogant pretensions to know better about biology than the world's biologists?

Modern Science has clearly shown that God exists.

Total crap. Where does it say this in any of the critically robust peer reviewed scientific literature again? Do you have a CITATION for this? Put up or shut up, big mouth.

The Qu'ran is indeed the word of God and also shows that He exists.

Your book consists of nothing but the diseased and psychotic ramblings of a kiddy fiddler. Your book is worthless as a scientific document, and worth even less as a guide to morality. In short, your holy book is something I wouldn't allow near any children of mine lest they end up needing psychiatric treatment from the shock of reading its barbaric contents.

IN ANYCASE TRUTH STANDS FIRM AGAINST FALSEHOOD AS MANY PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE.

Which is why science REJECTED CREATIONIST MASTURBATION FANTASIES 150 YEARS AGO.

See, I can use CAPS LOCK as well.

ADNAN OKTAR HAS RUINED THE FALSE HOPES OF THOSE WHO WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR WORLD VIEW.

The only thing Oktar has ruined is the integrity of his rectum as a result of being sentenced to prison. What part of "Oktar is a moron who published a book presenting fishing lures as real living insects" are you too stupid to understand here?

Meanwhile ....

Oh look, ertu is back with his nonsense.

Let's take a look at this pathetic pile of steaming intellectual excrement shall we?

The Fossil Record:
No Sign of Intermediate Forms

Total bullshit.

I can list no less than fifteen species of transitional theropod that have been discovered by scientists with respect to the transition between reptiles and birds alone. All of them extensively documented in the scientific literature. Here's the list (in no particular order):

Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Sinornithosaurus
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Epidendrosaurus
Cryptovolans
Scansoriopteryx
Yixianosaurus
Dilong
Pedopenna
Jinfengopteryx
Sinocalliopteryx

Then there's the list of tetrapods in the series from Rhipidistian fishes to Temnospondyl amphibians. Here's a representative list (again in no particular order):

Eusthenopteron
Metaxygnathus
Obruchevichthys
Elginerpeton
Sinostega
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Densignathus
Jacubsonia
Panderichthys
Tiktaalik
Ventastega (newly discovered in 2008)
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega

I happen to have been in receipt of the original scientific paper by Per Ahlberg et al on the subject of Ventastega, which is a relatively complete fossil and which has been described in full in the following paper:

Ventastega curonica And The Origin Of Tetrapod Morphology by Per E. Ahlberg, Jennifer A. Clack, Ervïns Lukševi�s, Henning Blom, & Ivars Zupiņs, Nature, 453:1199-1204 (26th June 2008)

I'll quote the abstract here:

The gap in our understanding of the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapod is beginning to close thanks to the discovery of new intermediate forms such as Tiktaalik roseae. Here we narrow it further by presenting the skull, exceptionally preserved braincase, shoulder girdle and partial pelvis of Ventastega curonica from the Late Devonian of Latvia, a transitional intermediate form between the 'elpistostegids' Panderichthys and Tiktaalik and the Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Ventastega is the most primitive Devonian tetrapod represented by extensive remains, and casts light on a part of the phylogeny otherwise only represented by fragmentary taxa: it illuminates the origin of principal tetrapod structures and the extent of morphological diversity among the transitional forms.

So, there's one scientific paper (published less than two weeks ago no less) that blows this canard out of the water.

I also refer the critical thinkers (because the creationist propagandists for masturbation-fantasy doctrines will doubtless ignore any evidence that fails to genuflect before their fantasies) to the following images:

Phylogeny of Tiktaalik roseae and its relation to other organisms in the series

Comparative anatomy of the forelimbs of Tiktaalik and selected organisms in the tetrapod phylogeny

Moreover, here is another paper from Per Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack, who are widely regarded being among the foremost experts in the field of tetrapod palaeontology and phylogeny:

Original PDF document of Ahlberg & Clack paper from which the original images above were taken

This paper is:

A Firm Step From Water To Land by Per E. Ahlberg and Jennifer A. Clack, Nature, 440: 747-749 (6th April 2006)

I quote from this paper:

A project designed to discover fossils that illuminate the transition between fishes and land vertebrates has delivered the goods. At a stroke, our picture of that transition is greatly improved.

The concept of 'missing links' has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative. But the concept has become freighted with unfounded notions of evolutionary 'progress' and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transitions. Much of the importance of transitional fossils actually lies in how they resemble and differ from their nearest neighbours in the phylogenetic tree, and in the picture of change that emerges from this pattern.

We raise these points because on pages 757 and 764 of this issue^1,2 are reports of just such an intermediate: Tiktaalik roseae, a link between fishes and land vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx. Several specimens have been found in Late Devonian river sediments on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Arctic Canada. They show a flattened, superficially crocodile-like animal, with a skull some 20 centimetres in length. The body is covered in rhombic bony scales, and the pectoral fins are almost-but-not-quite forelimbs; these contain robust internal skeletons, but are fringed with fin rays rather than digits. Tiktaalik goes a long way â€" but not quite the whole way â€" towards filling a major gap in the picture of the vertebrate transition from water to land.

It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes³, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a
tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1). Ichthyostega and Acanthostega⁵ retain true fish tails with fin rays but are nevertheless unambiguous tetrapods with limbs that bear digits⁶. Panderichthys⁷ is vaguely crocodile-shaped and, unlike the rather conventional osteolepiform fishes farther down the tree, looks like a fishâ€"tetrapod transitional form. The shape of the pectoral fin skeleton and shoulder girdle are intermediate between those of osteolepiforms and tetrapods, suggesting that Panderichthys was beginning to 'walk', but perhaps in shallow water rather than on land⁸.

Panderichthys lived about 385 million years ago at the end of the Middle Devonian; Ichthyostega and Acanthostega lived about 365 million years ago during the Late Devonian. However, the earliest fragmentary tetrapods from Scotland^9,10 and Latvia⁹ date back to perhaps 376 million years ago, so the morphological gap between fish and tetrapod corresponds to a time gap of under 10 million years.

Into this gap drops Tiktaalik. The fossils are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely. The closest match, however, is not to Panderichthys but to another animal, Elpistostege, from the early Late Devonian of Canada. Elpistostege is known only from two partial skulls and a length of backbone, but it has long been recognized as a fishâ€" tetrapod intermediate^11,12, probably closer to tetrapods than is Panderichthys. This impression is now confirmed: the authors^1,2 demonstrate convincingly that Elpistostege and Tiktaalik fall between Panderichthys and the earliest tetrapods on the phylogenetic tree.

So, that's the "no transitional forms" canard busted by two recent scientific papers at least, along with the evidence from the fossil record. Oh, and Tiktaalik was predicted to exist before it was found: not only was it predicted to possess a specific morphology, but was also predicted to be most likely to be found in a particular geographical location and in a particular stratum. When the scientists went looking for it, they found it exactly in the predicted location and it manifested the predicted morphology. In other words, transitional forms are not only real, but in the case of Tiktaalik, was predicted to exist before it was found, and when found, matched the scientists' predictions.

Now, returning to ertu's masturbatory nonsense:

The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

Those scientific papers above say that they did. Now who are the critical thinkers going to believe here? Two of the world's foremost scientific experts on tetrapod palaeontology and phylogeny, and their publicly presented evidence in the critically robust peer reviewed scientific literature, or some joker who thinks that he knows more than all the world's scientists just because he has an old holy book full of diseased rmblings inserted into his rectum?

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had.

Wrong, you mean transitional forms between fishes and amphibians. And I've just presented two scientific papers containing those very animals. Game over.

Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had.

Have you never seen an Archaeopteryx fossil? It has a beak like a bird, but teeth like a reptile. It has feathers like a bird, but a bony tail like a reptile. It has a wishbone like a bird, but no keeled breastbone, and moreover, its reptilian features correspond closely to those of a family of theropod dinosaurs known as the Dromaeosauridae.

So, before you spout nonsense about this not being a "transitional form", I suggest you learn some basic comparative anatomy.

Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings

Bullshit. Only a complete scientific ignoramus could make such a statement.

Those fifteen species of transitional theropod I listed above (which includes Archaeopteryx) weren't "disabled, defective, crippled living beings", they were fully functional living organisms that happened to possess the requisite transitional features. But then, like all other fetishists for masturbation-fantasy doctrines, you won't let the actual scientific facts get in the way of your proselytising for your worthless doctrine, will you?

Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures

Er, since scientists have found the requsite fossils and documented them in the scientific literature, they are all too real. The only thing "imaginary" here is your fantasises about the way the world operates.

which they believe to have lived in the past

We have the fossils. Science wins, you lose.

as "transitional forms."

Which even an elementary student of comparative anatomy can recognise as such. But then I don't suppose you ever learned any real science did you ertu?

If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety.

Oh there were large numbers of them. However, not all of them fossilised. Palaeontologists have to make do with the samples that the real world chooses to give them. However, if these creatures were, as you say, "imaginary", then NONE should have existed. They plainly DID exist, as we have the fossils. Once again, game over.

More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.

See above. I've just presented two scientific papers containing them. Once again, game over.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains."

Oh look, it's DISHONEST QUOTE MINE TIME AGAIN. Why does this not surprise me in the least?

Let's see what Darwin said in FULL, shall we?

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.

Oh look what was missed off the end. Once again, a DISHONEST QUOTE MINE from our resident propagandist for masturbation-fantasy doctrine.

Oh, and ertu, no reputable scientist claims that evolution operates "by chance", so stop spouting that worthless and blatantly false canard once and for all will you, because every time you spout it, you present a spectacle of yourself as being an even bigger moron than previously.

9. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207053 by Calilasseia on July 9, 2008 at 6:01 am

First of all, allow me to extend a hearty welcome to Kaph. Who provides welcome evidence that individuals capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy are present everywhere, even if local circumstances might make life difficult for them at times. :)

In reply to this:

@Fellows who have put up with BS by ertu et al.

Are you on tranquillizers or what? At least 300-400 comments after first trolling and excluding them, and you're still up and arguing? What kind of patience is that? Totally unbelievable. I take my hat off to you all. No racism, which Turks suffer heavily from on the web, despite repeated provocative attitude. Seriously. I would not have written anything here had it not been for an extraordinary patience on your part and the need I felt to thank Richard.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but my personal policy is that mendacious propaganda for a doctrine, the assorted lies and other instances of discoursive malfeasance that inevitably accompany it, and rampant scientific illiteracy should be confronted head on. The lies of propagandists for reality-denial doctrines should be exposed to the fullest extent whenever possible so that their lies can be seen by even the most causal of observers to be demonstrably and manifestly lies, the rampant stupidity and scientific illiteracy of such doctrines should be brought out into the open and exposed as such, and when patient explanation of the fallacies and errors inherent therein fails to dissuade the ideological warrior for doctrine from continuing along the same path of mindless proselytising, ridicule should inevitably follow, because ridicule is what such individuals plainly deserve. At times, the exercise of this process does take an inordinate amount of patience, but it requires less patience if one possesses a taste for debunking canards.

The simple fact is, that once we encounter an individual such as ertu, with the all too familiar aetiology of the doctrine addled mind, our purpose is not that of trying to educate the propagandist for doctrine, because such an individual is beyond education. Once a doctrine such as creationism takes hold in the mind, it distorts not only thought but perception itself, to the point where the adherent's very sensing of the real world is subject to doctrinal censorship. Such an individual is impervious to reason, to evidence, to any of the usual processes of discourse that you and I understand to be proper conduct with regard to the discussion of the validity of various postulates about the world. The critical thinkers here are not interested in any attempt at educating the hardcore ideological warriors for doctrine, because we know in advance that this is utterly futile. Our labours here can be thought of as a vaccination process - by exposing the fallacies, the errors, the mendacity and duplicity of the ideological warriors for doctrine, by making them manifest, we inoculate lurkers (such as you yourself were before your post above) against intellect-rotting doctrinal mind viruses. Reason, rational discourse, along with a healthy dose of ridicule of absurdities thus deserving of it, constitutes the vaccine that helps to reduce the incidence of infection by ideological pathogens, as you are doubtless aware. There are occasions when our labours take on the mantle of a thoroughly thankless task, but when an individual such as yourself emerges from the shadows to thank us for our efforts, we know that it has all been worthwhile. :)

10. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206668 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Well looks as if Ertu isn't going to address the fact that his ridiculous probability calculations are rendered null and void by my citation of the variation in insulin molecules in real living organisms, so I suppose I'm done here, as he's plainly nothing more than a cut-and paste troll who is manifestly wilfully ignorant and committed wholesale to being ideological cannon fodder for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine. What a total waste of oxygen.

11. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206662 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Calilasseia who doesnt know anythinf about statistics and matemathics.

Well since I happen to have studied mathematics at university, and moreover can spell it properly, that's another of your assertions that is complete and utter horseshit.

I don't suppose you will ever address any of the outstanding questions will you Ertu? All you will continue doing here is spamming the comments section with your masturbatory nonsense and assorted cut and paste screeds from creationist websites because you're too incompetent to form thoughts of your own.

Tell me Ertu, why should I believe for one moment the ravings of someone who cannot tell a LIVING INSECT from a FISHING LURE? Or for that matter the ravings of someone who, like you, cannot even spell "mathematics", let alone practise it properly?

12. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206645 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Let's address some more Ertu nonsense shall we?

There are billions of different protein molecules in milions of species. Even a single protein to come into being by coincidences is impossible mathetatically and statistically. That diprove the Evolution at the very basic level Now I will prove you this scientifically:

No you won't because you're talking complete bollocks.

first of all, real scientists have never said that these molecules came about "by chance" or "by coincidence" or "at random". They posited well-defined mechanisms for the appearance of these molecules based upon well-known and well-documented mechanisms of reaction in organic chemistry, which you would know if you had bothered to study any real science instead of filling your head with religious bullshit.

Second, all the bad "probability" calculations eected by creationists FAIL because [1] the probability of an event that has already happened is 1, [2] even if one winds the clock back 3.5 billion years, to when these probability calculations would have been appropriate, they are ALL based upon ex recto assertions that are either left unstated (thus making it impossible to check their veracity) or else, if the creationist makes the mistake of stating the assumptions upon which the calculations are based, they are usually manifestly FALSE assumptions (which is why they are usually omitted), and [3] the calculations are usually based upon the Serial Trials Fallacy, which is a well-known creationist fallacy that falls flat on its face the moment one considers how real world systems operate.

So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Complete twaddle. Scientists have documented it taking place in the laboratory. Try reading some of those scientific papers I cited in an earlier post instead of the tripe spread about like so much intellectual excrement by charlatans and fraudsters such as Harun Yahya.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures.

You obviously didn't read my earlier post where I documented the different insulin proteins in different organisms. What is selected for is not a specific sequence, but any sequence that produces a working protein. Of course, if you'd actually READ my earlier post, you would have known better than to erect the One True Sequenceâ„¢ fallacy, especially as I posted that material on Insulin specifically to pre-empt that fallacy being erected. Congratulations upon demonstrating once again that you don't bother reading anything that dares not to genuflect before your worthless doctrine, and that you are only here to spam the comments section and proselytise for your useless masturbation-fantasy world view.

These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

Since this is a statement of yours that isn't actually wrong, where did you cut and paste it from? Only the evidence thus far is that when you post any original thoughts of your own (the few of these that exist), you are inevitably wrong.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap.

Wrong. My reference to the insulin molecules of various living organisms dismisses this bullshit at a stroke. Notice that the insulin molecule of the Zebra Fish is not even the same length as the human insulin molecule, but it still works as an insulin molecule, and indeed, in an emergency, if enough of it was collected, it could be used as a stop-gap treatment for a diabetic human patient until human insulin became available. So, your assertion above is total crap as per usual.

Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order.

Wrong. This is the One True Sequenceâ„¢ fallacy that I specifically covered insulin in my earlier post to debunk. Look at those insulin sequences again. Most of them are not even the same length. You're talking horseshit.

The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance

This is total bullshit. Evolution does NOT claim that "life emerged as a result of chance", and if you had ever bothered to read a biology textbook you would know this. Evolution states that the moment the first cells came into existence, the existence of dissemination of variation across generations, for which we have evidence (evidence even you can understand in this case - are you identical to your mother?) and the fact that some of that variation will predispose the organisms inheriting that variation to possess differential reproductive fitness with respect to the other organisms of its own species will result in a selection process taking place, that removes those variations reducing reproductive fitness, and increases the proportion of those organisms with increased reproductive fitness in future generations. And, the only reason that the mutations involved in the process of generating the substrate upon which selection acts is described as a "random" process (more properly, a stochastic one) is because we lack the ability to track the behaviour of every last atom in an ecocystem to arbitrary precision. If we had that capability, those mutations would no longer be "random" but predictable, and the result would be that the process would become amenable to quantitiative analysis to an extent that is currently not possible.

is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence.

Except that scientists don't explain it by "coincidence", they explain it by the application of well-documented mechanisms of reaction in organic chemistry. Once again, you FAIL.

(Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

Total crap. I listed several scientific papers above on de novo genes appearing in real living organisms and documented to do so in the laboratory. Once again, you FAIL.

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

Oh here we go, bad probability calculations based upon the One True Sequenceâ„¢ fallacy (already debunked above) and the Serial Trials Fallacy. yawn, we've seen this crap before, try producing something original here.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.)

Except that proteins don't arise by chance. They arise courtesy of well-documented mechanisms of reaction in organic chemistry. Which means that your specious probability calculations are a complete waste of time.

Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule.

Bullshit. See those insulin molecules I covered above? They're different from each other, in most cases not even the same length, yet they ALL WORK. One True Sequenceâ„¢ is a fallacy, and you've just committed it.

he rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

Those insulin molecules I listed above say you're talking out of your arse.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300".

Total crap. See above.

Oh, by the way, can't you even manage superscripts? Didn't you mean "1 in 10³⁰⁰?"

Try becoming educated before coming here to post, because until you become educated, all you will do is prove your ignorance and vomit forth intellectual excrement of the most putrid, stinking order.

The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").

Wrong. No mathematician would equate a non-zero probability, no matter how small, to zero. Try learning some real science and some real mathematics.

Meanwhile ... with respect to your long cut-and-paste nonsense on left handed proteins, here's some more scientific papers that debunk your creationist tripe:

A possible prebiotic synthesis of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone from formamide implications for the origin of life by Raffaelle Saladino, Claudia Crestini, Giovanna Costanzo, Rodolfo Negri and Ernesto di Mauro, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 9(5): 1249-1253 (May 2001)

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740, 1st October 2002

A Self Replicating System by T. Tjiviuka, P.Ballester and J. Rebek jr., Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

An Efficient Prebiotic Synthesis Of Cytosine And Uracil by Michael P. Robertson & Stanley L. Miller, Nature,375: 772-774 (29th June 1995)

Carbonyl Sulphide Mediated Prebiotic Formation of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, Vol 306, pp 283-286, 8 October 2004

Homochiral selection in the montmorillonite-catalyzed and uncatalyzed Prebiotic synthesis of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 2497-2498

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151, 20 February 2004

Prebiotic Synthesis Of Nucleotides by G. Zubay and T. Mui, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31(1-2): 87-102, February-April 2001:

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau & David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263, 17th September 1998

RNA-Catalysed RNA Polymerisation: Accurate And General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science 292: 1319-1325 (18 May 2001)

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, J. Fed. Amer. Socs. Exp. Biol., 12(6): 503-507

These papers cover, among other topics, asymmetric catalysis and homochirality and demonstrate that preferential chiral catalysis of the formation of left handed amino acids is possible, but can be reproduced in the laboratory in conditions similar to those found on a prebiotic Earth

I have given you very powerful evidences and destroyed Darwinism.

Hahahaha .... bullshit.

All you have done is regurgitate cut and paste screeds from discredited creationist websites devoted to bad apologetics for theological pornography. You know NOTHING about REAL SCIENCE. The above scientific papers I have cited destroy your hubristic and ignorant pretensions to know better than the world's actual scientists.

Instead of trying to respond scientifically (yıu can't of course). you cry, scerami curse and insult.

Got an answer for any of those scientific papers I cited above? Which specifically refute your cut and paste nonsense about chirality in amino acids by demonstrating the existence of mechanisms for chiral catalysis that can be reproduced again and again in the laboratory?

That is very poor quality.

Your ignorant nonsense is.

You are not scientists. that is ok.

Actually, some of us are. Some of us have probably forgotten more science than you will ever be capable of learning.

But your situation is worst. I dont feel sorry about you because of your style.

We are completely indifferent to your view of us. What we are concerned with is the venomous nonsense you have chosen to believe in, and which has manifestly addled your mind.

If one protein can not emerge coincidentally, how could millions of species, tte universe. Etc. It is so silly to defend darwinism nonsense. Dont you get it?

Those insulin sequences say you are talking horseshit. You've already shown that you're incapable of recognising why the One True Sequenceâ„¢ fallacy is a fallacy, even when I provided the source material. Consequently, your hubristic and ignorant assertions that you know better than the world's scientists about such topics are demonstrated to be so much hot air.

Dont u understand what kid of situation you are?

Try repeating that in syntactically correct English. Then perhaps we'll answer.

13. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206170 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 6:36 am

Well look like evolins are in trouble with scientific facts

The only one having trouble here, Wooter, is you. Including in your case trouble with basic English.

Or didn't you bother reading my post where I presented numerous scientific papers from evolutionary biologists and other scientists that make a mockery of your worthless fantasies and droolingly encephalitic theological pornography?

Wonder if unityisfact bothered to read that too? Or did he do what mendacious and duplicitous propagandists for reality-denial doctrines usually do, namely dismiss summarily anything that fails to genuflect before doctrine? Classic case of creo-blinkers if ever I saw one.

Plus, is anyone else here developing the suspicion that Ertu, unityisfact and the newcomer Mertd are all sock puppets erected by the same individual? Especially as they contain the same drivel, the same bad English spelling, syntax and grammar (except for the copy-pastes from discredited creationist websites and copy-paste quote mines) and the same wilful ignorance?

Oh, and Adnan Oktar is a charlatan, a fraudster and a moron. He's doing well-deserved jail time precisely because of this, just like another charlatan, fraudster and moron called Kent Hovind.

14. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206121 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 5:52 am

I notice that unityisfact totally ignored my large list of scientific papers that refute his masturbation-fantasy creationist doctrine. Why does this not surprise me in the least?

After all, he's only here to troll the comments section proselytising for his worthless doctrine, which was worthless even before the ink was dry on the parchment however long ago his particular version of this droolingly encephalitic fantasy about invisible magic men in the sky was written.

15. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206103 by Calilasseia on July 8, 2008 at 5:31 am

Oh dear. First Ertu and his witterings inspired by the diseased ramblings of a paedophile, now we have unityisfact trolling the comments section.

Evolution did not happen, eh?

I have a nice list of scientific papers that says you are wrong.

Here they are, broken into convenient sections:

[1] De novo generation of genes:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984

De Novo Origination of a New Protein-Coding Gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Jing Cai, Ruoping Zhao, Huifeng Jiang and Wen Wang, Genetics, 179: 487-496 (May 2008)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification of the DNA Region Analogous to the Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamua and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424

Evolution of hydra, a Recently Evolved Testis-Expressed Gene with Nine Alternative First Exons in Drosophila melanogaster by Shou-Tao Chen, Hsin-Chien Cheng, Daniel A. Barbash and Hsiao-Pei Yang, PLoS Genetics, 3(7): 1131-1143 (July 2007)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (Feb 1994)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification and Characterization of the nylC Gene Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster are frequently X-linked and exhibit testis-biased expression by Mia T. Levine, Corbin D. Jones, Andrew D. Kern, Heather A. Lindfors, and David J. Begun, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(26): 9935-9939 (27th June 2006)

Recently Evolved Genes Identified From Drosophila yakuba and D. erecta Accessory Gland Expressed Sequence Tags by David J. Begun, Heather A. Lindfors, Melissa E. Thompson and Alisha K. Holloway, Genetics, 172: 1675-1681 (March 2006)

[2] Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes:

Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, pp 3817-3822, 1997

Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, vol 401, pp 443-444, 1999

Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, pp 3811-3816, 1997

Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 20, no 11, pp 1897-1908, 2003

Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 103, pp 10491-10496, 2006

[3] Speciation Events : Cichlid Fishes

Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)

Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005

Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003

Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, vol 13, pp 2471-2479, 21 April 2004

Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O'hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)

Mitochondrial Phylogeny of the Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Tanganyika in Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 751-768, 1993

Multilocus Phylogeny of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison of Microsatellite and Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 15, No 7, pp 798-808, 1998

Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003

Phylogeny of African Cichlid Fishes as Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, vol 80, pp 702-714, 1998

The Species Flocks of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances in Molecular Phylogenetics and Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, vol 91, pp 277-290, 20 April 2004

[4] Speciation Events Observed In The Laboratory:

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971)

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966

So, that's 28 scientific papers containing evidence for evolution. These are just a tiny fraction of the papers published on the subject. In 2007 alone, over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed scientific papers were published in the field of evolutionary biology. I therefore contend that unityisfact is, like all other propagandists for reality-denial masturbation-fantasy doctrines, talking out of an orifice more usually associated with a more solid form of waste.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this:

THERE IS NO PLACE FOR RANDOMNESS IN THE DNA
RANDOMNESS IS THE BASIC PILLAR OF EVOLUTION
THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EVOLUTION

Oh look, the scientifically illiterate propagandist for masturbation-fantasy doctrine forgot selection. Why do creotards ALWAYS neglect to mention selection? Could it be because selection blows their strawman canards out of the water?

Meanwhile:

EVOLUTION CREATIONISM IS A FAIRY TALE, A STORY TOLD FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, THAT HAS CAUSED MILLIONS TO GET INTO THE DEEP SLEEP OF IGNORANCE.

There, fixed that for you.

Oh, and by the way, with respect to insulin genes, how come insulin genes differ across various organisms in precisely the manner that would be expected from common descent with modification?. Here's some sample insulin genes and their corresponding protein sequences:

[1] Human insulin gene on Chromosome 11, which is as follows:

atg gcc ctg tgg atg cgc ctc ctg ccc ctg ctg gcg ctg ctg gcc ctc tgg gga cct gac
cca gcc gca gcc ttt gtg aac caa cac ctg tgc ggc tca cac ctg gtg gaa gct ctc tac
cta gtg tgc ggg gaa cga ggc ttc ttc tac aca ccc aag acc cgc cgg gag gca gag gac
ctg cag gtg ggg cag gtg gag ctg ggc ggg ggc cct ggt gca ggc agc ctg cag ccc ttg
gcc ctg gag ggg tcc ctg cag aag cgt ggc att gtg gaa caa tgc tgt acc agc atc tgc
tcc ctc tac cag ctg gag aac tac tgc aac tag

which codes for the following protein sequence (using the standard single letter mnemonics for individual amino acids:

MALWMRLLPLLALLALWGPDPAAAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPKT
RREAEDLQVGQVELGGGPGAGSLQPLALEGSLQ]KR
GIVEQCCTSICSLYQLENYCN

Now, I refer everyone to this data, which is the coding sequence for insulin in the Lowland Gorilla (differences are highlighted in boldface):

atg gcc ctg tgg atg cgc ctc ctg ccc ctg ctg gcg ctg ctg gcc ctc tgg gga cct gac
cca gcc gcg gcc ttt gtg aac caa cac ctg tgc ggc tcc cac ctg gtg gaa gct ctc tac
cta gtg tgc ggg gaa cga ggc ttc ttc tac aca ccc aag acc cgc cgg gag gca gag gac
ctg cag gtg ggg cag gtg gag ctg ggc ggg ggc cct ggt gca ggc agc ctg cag ccc ttg
gcc ctg gag ggg tcc ctg cag aag cgt ggc atc gtg gaa cag tgc tgt acc agc atc tgc
tcc ctc tac cag ctg gag aac tac tgc aac tag

this codes for the protein sequence:

MALWMRLLPLLALLALWGPDPAAAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPKT
RREAEDLQVGQVELGGGPGAGSLQPLALEGSLQKR
GIVEQCCTSICSLYQLENYCN

which so happens to be the same precursor protein. However, Gorillas are closely related to humans. Let's move a little further away, to the domestic cow, Bos taurus (whose sequence is found here):

atg gcc ctg tgg aca cgc ctg cgg ccc ctg ctg gcc ctg ctg gcg ctc tgg ccc ccc ccc
ccg gcc cgc gcc ttc gtc aac cag cat ctg tgt ggc tcc cac ctg gtg gag gcg ctg tac
ctg gtg tgc gga gag cgc ggc ttc ttc tac acg ccc aag gcc cgc cgg gag gtg gag ggc
ccg cag gtg ggg gcg ctg gag ctg gcc gga ggc ccg ggc gcg ggc ggc ctg gag ggg ccc
ccg cag aag cgt ggc atc gtg gag cag tgc tgt gcc agc gtc tgc tcg ctc tac cag ctg
gag aac tac tgt aac tag

Already this is a smaller sequence - 318 codons instead of 333 - so we KNOW we're going to get a different insulin molecule with this species ... which is as follows:

MALWTRLRPLLALLALWPPPPARAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPK
ARREVEGPQVGALELAGGPGAGGLEGPPQKRGIVE
QCCASVCSLYQLENYCN

clearly a different protein, but one which still functions as an insulin precursor and results in a mature insulin molecule in cows, one which differs in exact sequence from that in humans.

Moving on again, we have a different coding sequence from the tropical Zebrafish, Danio rerio, (sequence to be found here) which is as follows:

atg gca gtg tgg ctt cag gct ggt gct ctg ttg gtc ctg ttg gtc gtg tcc agt gta agc
act aac cca ggc aca ccg cag cac ctg tgt gga tct cat ctg gtc gat gcc ctt tat ctg
gtc tgt ggc cca aca ggc ttc ttc tac aac ccc aag aga gac gtt gag ccc ctt ctg ggt
ttc ctt cct cct aaa tct gcc cag gaa act gag gtg gct gac ttt gca ttt aaa gat cat
gcc gag ctg ata agg aag aga ggc att gta gag cag tgc tgc cac aaa ccc tgc agc atc
ttt gag ctg cag aac tac tgt aac tga

And this sequence codes for the following protein:

MAVWLQAGALLVLLVVSSVSTNPGTPQHLCGSHLVDALYLVCGPTFTGFFYNP
KRDVEPLLGFLPPKSAQETEVADFAFKDHAELIRK
RGIVEQCCHKPCSIFELQNYCN

so again we have a different insulin precursor protein that is ultimately converted into a different insulin molecule within the Zebra Fish.

So, let's nail the One True Sequenceâ„¢ fallacy before it is even erected, shall we?

What is selected for is function. ANY protein sequence that functions properly will be selected for. And this is precisely what has happened in the case of the insulin gene. The fun part being, of course, that these insulin molecules ALL work, and indeed can be used in different species. Bovine insulin was used for many years to treat human diabetes until the recombinant technology to manufacture pure human insulin was devised.

Oh and I see "Clearmind", aka Wooter, has joined the tardfest. They're crawling out of the woodwork tonight aren't they?

Oh by the way, with respect to the mind, neuroscientists are increasingly alighting upon evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. But since unityisfact is too busy filling his head with masturbation-fantasy creationist garbage, he probably wouldn't recognise the valid science if it piloted an AH-64D Longbow Apache gunship and shot a Hellfire missile at his testicles.

Oh, and the tard about speciation being unable to happen that unityisfact posted thus:

However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, deer continue to exist as deer.

Is directly refuted by the existence of documented speciation events in the scientific literature including speciation events observed in the laboratory. Game over.

Oh, and as for the Cambrian Explosion nonsense, let's look at some more scientific papers shall we?

Can fast early rates reconcile molecular dates with the Cambrian explosion? by L.D. Bromham & M.D. Hendry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 1041-1047 (2000)

Estimating Metazoan Divergence Times With A Molecular Clock by Kevin J. Peterson, Jessica B. Lyons, Kristin S. Nowak, Carter M. Takacs, Matthew J. Wargo & Mark A. McPeek, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, April 2004, 101, 17, 6536-6541

Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk, and Mona Singh, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645-1655 (2002)

Fossils, Molecules And Embryos: New Perspectives On The Cambrian Explosion by J.W. Valentine, D. Jablonski & D.H. Erwin, Development, February 1998, 126(5): 851-859

Inferring The Historical Patterns Of Biological Evolution by Mark Pagel, Nature, 401: 877-884 (28 October 1999)

Interpreting the Earliest Metazoan Fossils: What Can We Learn? by Ben Waggoner, Amer. Zool., 38: 975-982

Molecular Phylogeny of Arthropods and the Significance of the Cambrian "Explosion" for Molecular Systematics by Jerome C. Regier & Jeffrey W. Schultz, AMER. ZOOL., 38: 918-928 (1998)

Precambrian Sponges with Cellular Structures by Chia-Wen Li, Jun-Yan Chen and Tzu-En Hua, SCIENCE 279(6) February 1998

Quality of the fossil record thorugh time by M.J. Benton, M.A. Wills and R. Hitchin, Nature, 403: 534-537 (3 Feb 2000)

Sr and C isotopes in Lower Cambrian carbonates from the Siberian craton: A paleoenvironmental record during the 'Cambrian explosion' by L.A. Derry, M.D. Brasier, R. M. Corfield, A. Yu. Rozanov & A. Yu. Zhuralev, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 128: 671-681 (1994)

Taxonomic Congruence Versus Total Evidence, and Amniote Phylogeny Inferred from Fossils, Molecules and Morphology by Douglas J. Eernisse and Arnold G. Kluge, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 10(6): 1170-1195 (1993)

Testing the Cambrian explosion hypothesis by using a molecular dating technique by Lindell Bromham, Andrew Rambaut, Richard Fortey, Alan Cooper and David Penny, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, October 1998, 95: 12386-12389

The Cambrian "Explosion": Slow Fuse Or Megatonnage? by Simon Conway Morris, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, April 2000, 97(9): 4426-4429

The Ediacaran Biotas in Space and Time by Ben Waggoner, Integrative & Comparative Biology, 43: 104-113 (2003)

The Timing Of Eukaryotic Evolution: Does A Relaxed Molecular Clock Reconcile Proteins And fossils? by Emmanuel J.P. Douzery, Elizabeth A. Snell, Eric Bapteste, Frédéric Delsuc & Hervé Philiipe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, October 2004, 101, 43, 15386-15391

First of all, the minimum time scale posited for this event is 18 to 23 million years. This is before we take account of the fact that there exist Precambrian fossils that extend the timeline of phylogenesis considerably. One of these fossils I covered here, which is, wait for it, a multicellular eukaryote that is 1,200 million years old and therefore predates the Cambrian by 700 million years. The paper describing it is this one:

Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes by Nicholas J. Butterfield, Palaeobiology, 26(3): 386-404, September 2000

The abstract can be found here, and I shall quote it in full below:

Multicellular filaments from the ca. 1200-Ma Hunting Formation (Somerset Island, arctic Canada) are identified as bangiacean red algae on the basis of diagnostic cell-division patterns. As the oldest taxonomically resolved eukaryote on record Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen. n. sp. provides a key datum point for constraining protistan phylogeny. Combined with an increasingly resolved record of other Proterozoic eukaryotes, these fossils mark the onset of a major protistan radiation near the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic boundary.

Differential spore/gamete formation shows Bangiomorpha pubescens to have been sexually reproducing, the oldest reported occurrence in the fossil record. Sex was critical for the subsequent success of eukaryotes, not so much for the advantages of genetic recombination, but because it allowed for complex multicellularity. The selective advantages of complex multicellularity are considered sufficient for it to have arisen immediately following the appearance of sexual reproduction. As such, the most reliable proxy for the first appearance of sex will be the first stratigraphic occurrence of complex multicellularity.

Bangiomorpha pubescens is the first occurrence of complex multicellularity in the fossil record. A differentiated basal holdfast structure allowed for positive substrate attachment and thus the selective advantages of vertical orientation; i.e., an early example of ecological tiering. More generally, eukaryotic multicellularity is the innovation that established organismal morphology as a significant factor in the evolutionary process. As complex eukaryotes modified, and created entirely novel, environments, their inherent capacity for reciprocal morphological adaptation, gave rise to the "biological environment" of directional evolution and "progress." The evolution of sex, as a proximal cause of complex multicellularity, may thus account for the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes.

So already we're pushing back the time scale for various steps along the process. Looks like it's canard busting time once again.

Plus, as this page mentions, scientists have in their possession no less than eighteen excellent specimens of a Precambrian chordate. Here's a picture of one of the fossils:

Ediacaran Chordate

Here's a photo showing some of the sketches produced by the scientists reconstructing the original animal:

Reconstruction Work

Oddly enough, the Panda's Thumb article I've just cited also references the scientific paper by Douzery et al (2004) above that I included in my list of papers. Here's the abstract:

The use of nucleotide and amino acid sequences allows improved understanding of the timing of evolutionary events of life on earth. Molecular estimates of divergence times are, however, controversial and are generally much more ancient than suggested by the fossil record. The limited number of genes and species explored and pervasive variations in evolutionary rates are the most likely sources of such discrepancies. Here we compared concatenated amino acid sequences of 129 proteins from 36 eukaryotes to determine the divergence times of several major clades, including animals, fungi, plants, and various protists. Due to significant variations in their evolutionary rates, and to handle the uncertainty of the fossil record, we used a Bayesian relaxed molecular clock simultaneously calibrated by six paleontological constraints. We show that, according to 95% credibility intervals, the eukaryotic kingdoms diversified 950â€"1,259 million years ago (Mya), animals diverged from choanoflagellates 761â€"957 Mya, and the debated age of the split between protostomes and deuterostomes occurred 642â€"761 Mya. The divergence times appeared to be robust with respect to prior assumptions and paleontological calibrations. Interestingly, these relaxed clock time estimates are much more recent than those obtained under the assumption of a global molecular clock, yet bilaterian diversification appears to be ~100 million years more ancient than the Cambrian boundary.

Oh, and that paper also cites how the authors subjected their Bayesian analysis to a reliability test in order to reinforce the robustness of their conclusions. :)

I think I'm done here for the day. :)

16. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205876 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:39 pm

So evolution cannot explain the Bombardier beetle?

Oh look. Scientific papers exist on that very subject.

Here's one I just found:

Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus) by T Eisner, DJ Aneshansley, M Eisner, AB Attygalle, DW Alsop and J Meinwald, Journal of Experimental Biology, 203: 1265-1275, 2000

Here's the abstract:

The bombardier beetle Metrius contractus discharges its defensive secretion as a froth that clings to its body. When attacked from the rear, it allows the froth to build up over the gland openings near the abdominal tip; when attacked from the front, it conveys the secretion forwards along special elytral tracks. M. contractus has two-chambered defensive glands typical of bombardier beetles, and its secretion, like that of other bombardiers, is quinonoid and hot. Its frothing mechanism, however, is unique for bombardiers and possibly illustrative of the ancestral glandular discharge mechanism of these beetles. M. contractus, thus, could be the least derived of extant bombardiers.

Oh look. A primitive Bombardier beetle illustrating one of the intermediate stages.

Real science wins again.

Oh, Ertu, since it's obvious that you're completely ignorant of REAL SCIENCE, just answer that simple question again. Why should I believe some moron who cannot tell a living insect apart from a fishing lure?

17. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205857 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Going to answer that question I posed Ertu?

Namely why should I believe someone who can't tell the difference between a LIVING INSECT and a FISHING LURE?

Or are you going to spam this comments page with yet more worthless blind assertion borne of scientific ignorance and a complete inability to recognise that your beloved doctrine is nothing more than a masturbation fantasy? And, for good measure, post DISHONEST QUOTE MINES such as the one you posted above from Charles Darwin, which I've just EXPOSED as a dishonest quote mine?

18. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205849 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:17 pm

OI! ERTU!

WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LIVING INSECT AND A FISHING LURE?

19. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205844 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Oh look - QUOTE MINE TIME!

Here's what Darwin said in full from that passage. Notice the large chunk of text that was missing from Ertu's BLATANTLY DISHONEST QUOTE MINE ...

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Boldface emphasis in above mine.

So, Ertu, care to answer that question I posed above?

Namely, why should we consider a theory promulgated by a man who posts pictures of FISHING LURES and labels them as REAL LIVING ORGANISMS, to be anything other than a worthless masturbation fantasy?

20. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205830 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Ertu, take a look at this:

http://forbiddenmusic.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/yahya_lure.jpg

This is a photo from Harun Yahya's worthless book. Notice the BLOODY HUGE HOOK STICKING OUT OF THE ARSE END?

Harun Yahya claimed that this was a REAL CADDIS FLY.

Tell me, where on the planet can I find LIVING CADDIS FLIES with METAL HOOKS STICKING OUT OF THEIR ARSE ENDS?

Now, if this is the sort of nonsense that is associated with creationism, why should anyone with a minimum of ten functioning brain cells regard creationism as anything other than a masturbation fantasy?

21. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205825 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Ertu, if your Allah is so powerful, why did your Allah arrange for Harun Yahya to be such an incompetent moron when disseminating this tome of his? You know, such as using a photograph of a fishing lure with a bloody great metal hook sticking out of its arse end and claiming that it was a real Caddis Fly?

Your Allah fucked up regally there didn't he?

Just as it seems he fucked up regally arranging for all the people with functioning brain cells to be people who accepted the validity of evolutionary science, while all the retarded dickheads believe in creationist masturbation fantasies.

22. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205801 by Calilasseia on July 7, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Ah, the infamous Harun Yahya.

I don't suppose any of the recipients of this tome, who are currently using it as an elaborate doorstop, would care to send one to me? Only I really love the idea of having a copy with the fishing lures to show to people, especially the image of the Caddis Fly with a bloody huge metal hook sticking out of its arse end ...

23. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196284 by Calilasseia on June 19, 2008 at 3:25 pm

To all concerned Louisiana citizens ... here's a message you can send. I edited it slightly to remove a remark about creationists that m