No, real forgiveness costs nothing except the mental effort of letting go of resentment. And to God or anyone else omnipotent there can be no such thing as effort. What you show is a naive form of sympathetic magic.
Real forgiveness is in no sense costly. And nothing can be costly to the omnipotent.
In no sense is this true.
Not in my experience. What we have here is a bunch of weaselly words to paper over what is indeed “a very silly theory”. You understand that in this metaphor God is making a payment to himself. Again, substitutionary atonement is nonsensical.
This makes God seem exceedingly petty. If you commit murder, God is the primary victim? It’s all about him?
Could be both, you know. Paradoxes are logical absurdities.
If. He fails to see many (none so blind) and invents others.
Kierkegaard claimed to embrace Christian doctrine because it was absurd. I consider this better than failing to notice that it’s absurd or weaseling past the absurdity.
Nostradamus is just as prophetic. Or as little. All sort of prophets around, really.
They do try and restrict themselves to scientific evidence! But once you talk about design, you certainly have brought in the concept of a Designer. And the identity of a good candidate for that role is a different topic.
Evolution doesn’t have to proceed entirely by de novo discovery, and there’s more to it than just single amino acid substitutions. None of these factors figure anywhere in your response, that’s why it’s a failure.
All right, folks. I told someone yesterday that what I get mostly in this forum is insults, misunderstandings, claims of victory, and speculations on my motives. She asked, “So what’s the point?” I think I agree with her, I think I’m done here.
Some words to the wise, I hope you all are wise…
One problem here is that people here seem to be utterly self-confident. They simply don’t seem to have doubts about their position. That’s a bad position to take. Speaking of madmen and materialists. “Materialists and madmen never have doubts” was quoted here (and not by me!). But it seems, though it’s hyperbole, in some real sense, there does seem to be some truth to this. It seems the only doubts materialists have are doubts about those who disagree with them! But more Chesterton:
“In dealing with the arrogant asserter of doubt, it is not the right method to tell him to stop doubting. It is rather the right method to tell him to go on doubting, to doubt a little more, to doubt every day newer and wilder things in the universe, until at last, by some strange enlightenment, he may begin to doubt himself.”
Finally, it appears many if not most of the skeptics here are given to anger and bitterness, just check the recent posts! Let me describe how this will turn out, you won’t be able to keep anger in a bottle, it will overflow and disrupt your relationships, you will hurt people you want to be with, and you will become more and more isolated, and leave behind you a trail of burnt bridges. And what you keep in your heart will affect your body, psychosomatic illnesses, you may have heard of those. And bitterness blinds people, I’ve seen this here again and again, where for example when people speculate on my motives, they say I am dishonest, or wanting to be important, or that I have some other similar sinister motive. I assure you that I do believe what I argue for, I’m not here to make a splash, and I’m not out to otherwise hurt or harm anyone. Really…
So I recommend to you all, to try a different path.
It’s hard to resist the interpretation that you’re ducking out because you know you have no good response to my request for you to show how Axe’s number shows a problem for evolution.
Which was addressed by Stadler and Tour’s video, investigating this claim, among other things.
And how is this not still random sampling into protein sequence space? Duplication is random, right? Divergence involves random mutations, right?
But one case is not “a lot of overlap”, sure, there may be overlap, but the essential question is how frequent are functional proteins?
I notice you do not give any numbers, though, in support of your view. “Many, many proteins” is not a number. And there are numbers for frequencies, from Axe and others.
That’s fine, I acknowledge those other types of mutations, but if you have estimates of the frequency of functional enzymes, then let’s multiply the number of ways to get to a new possible amino acid by 10! or 100. None of this is getting anywhere near a number like 1 in a million million. Or 1 in 10^77.
Yes, I think that’s what I did, and with your subsequent correction, it’s still going to take an inordinately long time. How is this unclear? And then you switch to talking about duplication and divergence, for some reason, I can only conclude that you now think the inordinately small frequencies are indeed problematic, and so abandon this challenge, and propose a different reason to reject Axe’s and others’ numbers.
But again, how do duplication and divergence not involve a random search as an essential component?
All right, I did one more post here, and one more reason I’m done here is that at work, I’m now working 5 days a week, instead of 4 days a week, and I’m just getting further and further behind in responding. Which is why I missed one of your posts. I can’t do this, even using all my spare time. Thank you though, for a post that was not just mostly insults, etc.
And he leaves as he entered, unconsciously ironic.
Yes, but do you believe your arguments? That’s not the same thing. Then again, I’m willing to think you believe everything you say, and in fact are very self-confident about all you say.
It’s never been quite clear what you’re here for. You claimed you were here to learn, but nobody ever saw any sign of that. Well, have a nice life.
For instance when we had a brief discussion about your hypnagogic experience, you refused to consider that this may have been a completely natural (not supernatural) experience.
You dismissed all of my experience in sleep-related phenomena, which is far more extensive that your own.
I pointed out that you appear to have already made up your mind about it and nothing would change. At which point you responded doubling down on your claim it was supernatural, seemingly based on nothing more than your personal feeling about it.
See, there’s an example if wilful incomprehension. Duplication and divergence do not involve complete randomisation - and that’s the only case where you could use Axe’s figure even if it were the correct figure for any functional fold. And it isn’t.
The difference is that duplications are still functional proteins, so when they diverge they’re sampling already folding, functional proteins, rather than just any sequence pulled at random from all of protein sequence space.
It matters because of how functional sequences are distributed. Since different structures and functions are typically clustered together, sampling into the vicinity of already functional sequences have much higher probability of discovering new functional sequences.
Whoever said anything about “one case”? This isn’t something unusual. The vast majority of protein sequences are known to be multifunctional.
No, for reasons already explained. It is part of the question (it would matter for the discovery of the first functional proteins), but since different functions can be connected in that space, the demand for de novo discovery can in principle be very low, with most of subsequent evolution owing to divergence of already functional sequences.
But let’s also be clear here that different functions have different frequencies. Remember the chorismate mutase at 10-24, ATP-binding proteins at 10-12, antibiotic peptides at 10-8, and random fusion proteins being effective regulatory proteins at a frequency of about 10-5?
So, if you can discover new functional proteins at anywhere from 1 in fifty thousand to maybe 1 in a million, and more complex/rare functions can in turn evolve from those, then Axe’s 10-77 number becomes meaningless.
We already know the TEM-1 evolved from DD-transpeptidases. It was not discovered de novo. So however unlikely the de novo discovery of that structure with that function might be, if we were to sample blindly and randomly into protein sequence space, the fact that it wasn’t discovered by such a process at all makes the number completely irrelevant.
How is this a response to what I write? It isn’t. That’s you trying to shy away from demonstrating that Axe’s number constitutes a problem.
And this entire exchance is about why your inept handwaving in the direction of Axe’s number does not accomplish what you appear to think. You still have all your work ahead of you.
For reasons already explained that number is meaningless. Even if enzymes are generally much more rare than other functions in sequence space, the fact that enzymes can evolve from non-enzymatic proteins means the evolutionary “search” that occurs in the vicinity of existing functional sequences means the probability of discovery of enzyme sequences is massively increased. Again, this fact is intentionally exploited in directed evolution of novel enzymes from substrate binding proteins. They’re not sampling 1077 novel protein sequences to find new enzymes. They’re typically sampling a few hundred million at most in the neighborhood of a substrate binding protein. That’s a 10-77 problem having been reduced to a 10-8 problem.
Since there are tens of millions of species on Earth, and all of them are simultaneously sampling a considerable sequence space around already functional sequences in their genomes as new mutations occur in the genomes of quintillions of organisms, well above 108 new sequences are being sampled every single day all around the globe. This is how we get stuff like bacteria being able to degrade nylon by duplication and divergence of… class A beta-lactamases (evolutionarily related to TEM-1 beta-lactamases that did his experiment on). Oh sweet irony.
That is depressingly inept. Particularly in light of how I already previously explained to you how the types of mutations that occur can massively alter the probability of novel functional proteins evolving. You even appeared to have achieved a (somewhat temporary) understanding.
I’m sorry to have to say but I think you have trouble remembering past exchanges. You learn nothing from these discussions as they progress. Weeks-old realizations or epiphanies you’ve had disappear into the aether and you press on none the wiser.
It’s unclear for all the reasons already stated. All over again.
Then your powers of concluding non-sequiturs are really quite something to behold.
I guess I will jsut have to trust that the reading comprehension abilities of any potential third party readers of this post are able to see the logic of my arguments here.
Oh cut it out. Hold up a mirror. You have insulted by holding peoples professional livelihood in contempt, and repeated discredited arguments completely oblivious to corrections already stated.