mooeypoo

Did you go over the documents I shared? They have quite an extensive scientific overview that answers these questions. The fact you may not understand why the conclusion was reached doesn't make the conclusion false. Read the information again, please, you'll see exactly what was researched, how, and how the conclusion of this relation between HIV and AIDS was established. May I ask, then, why do you think this "conspiracy" is so widespread? even if we assume for a moment that you might be right (and I do this thought experiment painfully) what would anyone gain by making the connection between HIV and AIDS when none exist?

! Moderator Note Since this challenges mainstream science, it was moved to speculations, where the debate can continue on whether or not this is... valid. This can be a good start as to why AIDS denialism is not only 'not mainstream', but dangerously false: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/ You may pay some more attention to the long long list of references at the bottom, supporting the article. This, too, may help clarify the unambiguous evidence of the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS: http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/answering_denialists There is no "maybe's" here. Studies of the virus were done, extensively, and proved undeniably and with a remarkably large amount of evidence that HIV does cause AIDS. Disliking facts does not make them nonfacts. ~mooey P.S, HIV is not a germ, it's a virus. If you're already going that far to deny real established science, you might as well at least try to get the terms right.

I agree the proof proves the specific type of argument presented. I don't quite see it generalized, which, as far as I'm concerned, is a problem if it's supposed to check the complexity of algorithms in general. Then again, I think I see what you mean.. and... I'll try to be less of a smartass, maybe if I see more examples of how it's supposed to be actually dealt with I will understand whether or not it could be generalized... or.. not... Thanks ~mooey

I think my problem is that I'm trying to generalize the case. If I see "PROOF" I want to make sure that I can do it on any given scenario to solve the issue. The inequality steps might work with polynomials, but what do you do when you have a mix of exponentials, or some mix of exponentials inside roots, etc? This inequality process seems to rely on your INSTINCT to choose the proper "g(x)" and then prove it. That might be fine when the f(x) given is simple, but what do you do when your instincts aren't sufficient? If I plan to be a computer science person that does physics simulations (which is more or less what I want to do), then I should take into account that this O-notation will come most handy when the algorithm in question is the most complex. For instance, in a class a while back we were doing some calculations involving Kepler's equations and adding perturbations to it. We wanted to calculate the location of some planet at some particular date relative to another planet. This may be doable in small increments, but it gets rather complicated if you want to calculate this for 10,000 years from now. The equation also may include a partial derivative, which is not uncommon in physics. No matter how intuitive you are, I don't see anyone just doing an inequality as a form of proof for the O-notation when such a complicated algorithm is involved. You don't necessarily always have the luxury of "guesstimating" correctly what to guess towards in your inequality proof. Do you see what I mean? ~mooey P.S On *top* of the above problem, I also have a personal conceptual issue with the idea that I have to firt reach a conclusion and then try to prove the conclusion mathematically as part of a proof. I am fully aware this is a personal problem with the way mathematics works, and I know that there are many cases where math does just that. I still get annoyed with this, though... can't help it. ~mooey

Hi guys! So, yesterday was my first day as a grad student, and my first grad-level class. Yay. I'm also the only one in class that is not a computer-science major in undergrad, but rather a physics major. The teacher said that will help me in this class since it's more a 'math-oriented' course, but ... I'm... not so sure. I have a feeling that the approaches of how "proof" works or how to consider a proof varies drastically between what I am used to from Physics and what I'm supposed to follow here in compsci class. I might be wrong, though, but either I didn't manage to phrase my questions correctly in class or I completely misunderstood the process on the board. So.. here I am, asking you guys! We were talking about the Big O Notation and its proof. I understand the goal of big-o-notation in terms of compsci, as a method of checking the complexity of an algorithm and factoring in how much time it would take to solve, etc. It makes sense, I understand it, and I see its use. What I don't get is the professor's example of "how to prove it", and it seemed to me that the proof was more based on initial assumptions and "leading to the answer we want" rather than actual proof. Then again, I always had that problem with mathematic's "Let's assume X=whatever, and prove it" approach. eh. in class, the professor used this proof, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Example (He used a slightly different f(x) but the same idea) We already pick the "highest growth" factor and then went step-by-step to make it easy for us to solve, ti seems. This whole "bigger than" methodology where we seem to change the variables arbitrarily just to make it comfortable for us to solve might be "rigidly true" but it's .. also.. leading, isn't it? how can you have a proof that's on its face a LEADING process. You basically decided what you want to have, and now you're leading towards the solution you invisioned. (Example, x^4 is bigger than x^2, but so is x^3, and yet we picked x^4 purposefully to make it "easier" to solve...) In class, I asked that if our goal is to simply find the factors of the variable that is "highest growth" why aren't we working with limits. I didn't quite understand the answer the professor gave me, hoenstly, but when I researched online, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Formal_definition Which indeed goes by limits, and.. makes more sense to me. So.. I guess my question is this -- am I wrong to say that the example (whic my professor used as "proof") is not proof, or is, at least, a proof-after-you-already-know-what-to-look-for? And to illustrate my point, this might be extremely easy when we deal with polynomials, but that "proof" becomes a lot harder if the algorithm has a mix of exponential factors, not to mention if it is a partial derivative or "worse" a mix of those. If that happens, you no longer have an "obvious" strongest factor to "aim towards" in that example of 'bigger than / smaller than' and when that is the case, you can't solve it. You HAVE to revert to limits. And if a proof only works in certain cases, it's not a proof. ..... is it??? I'm confused. I hope I'm making sense at all in expressing where my confusion lies... am I just expecting "physics'y" methods in a place where I should just be satisfied with "engineering" questions? That sounds a bit insulting to engineering if that's true... but I don't know, and no one in class understood much to help me. ~mooey

! Moderator Note ParanoiA, personal attacks are not contributing to debates. There are plenty of ways to convey your disagreements without falling down the trap of making things personal.

! Moderator Note This thread was moved to speculation because it's not mainstream science. Sense is absolutely needed, as is described by the rules of the speculation forum. The OP is still required to provide scientific evidence, references, and full answers to counter points.

Okay, you guys are going to laugh at me (go ahead) but I have a question about a Dr. Phil episode I just watched. Forget for a moment whether or not the show is representing psychology or not (I certainly don't watch it for that) or whether or not you approve of it, my question is strictly about some psychological effects that I am wondering about. The show was just a trigger for the question. However, in order to give some context, I am talking about this episode from earlier today: http://community.drphil.com/boards/?EntryID=32102&SubCategoryID=84&CommentID=0#CommentID_0 Okay, so my concern is mainly about the use of the polygraph in this particular case in specific. I dislike polygraphs in general just for the relatively large amount of evidence showing they are not too reliable, but in this particular case I think it's more than just "show", it's grossly negligent, and here's why: It is my understanding that if a person suffers from some repressed trauma, he or she may not consciously rememeber the events of that trauma, but they may react physically to mentions of the event, to things that raise the issue, or to attempts to help them remember. So while a person may have a physical reaction to some question, they may not necessarily *remember* the event, and sometimes even not quite understand why they feel stress or feel shame or whatever it is the body "reacts" to. Well, polygraphs are not testing truths, they're testing physical reactions. Supposedly, they're testing minute physical changes like pulse change, trembling, etc etc. Even *if* the polygraph was the most reliable tool on earth to test the physical reactions, isn't this type of case (if it is indeed some repressed trauma) the absolute last case we should be surprised about polygraph failure?! If there was some repressed memory, I would expect that woman to have a physical reaction during the polygraph interview. Her surprise when she was told she failed it, and her confusion about this result, just emphasize the point it may well be an involuntary reaction to something she actually does NOT remember. Could this be the case? Could someone really lose 13 hours of their lives due to some trauma? And if so, am I wrong in assuming it's actually logical that the first thing they'd fail is a polygraph? Is the fact that she did have a reaction (of whatever kind) to these questions about those 13 hours mean that she might actually remember, or can we still assume innocence and she may actually be telling us the truth, and not remember a thing? (As a side note, I am not entirely sure why she would lie at all, unless she went off to kill someone in those 13 hours; what she did was reckless and silly if it was on purpose or as a mistake, but it was a one-time thing that is usually solved fairly decently... why would she make this such a deal if it's false is beyond me. But that's just an observation on my part, and has nothing to do with the above question.) Any thoughts on this? ~mooey

You were warned several times, Pymander, against the same type of issues. We welcome varying opinions and points of view in this forum, but there are still rules. If you want to start over with a new posting attitude, try to notice when you evade questions and stop posting wall-of-biblical-texts, you are more than welcome to continue the discussion. ~mooey

! Moderator Note The bible on itself is not evidence of anything other than being written in a book that is viewed, by some, to have cultural significance. Its use in the context of evidence is restricted to that context, Pymander. This is a science-minded and science-driven forum, even its religion and philosophy subforums (and *especially* in the speculation forum). We require adherance to logic, substantiation of claims and proper evidence. Reciting biblical texts is proselytizing and will not be accepted. If you don't like our rules, you can go to a theology forum and preach to the choir. As it goes, if you stay to debate here, you will need to do better. Please stop saying that what you say is true just because what you say is true. it's getting tiring, and it's against our rules. Don't make things worse by replying to this note. It will be deleted if you do so. ! Moderator Note Also, those of you who are on the other side of the attempted proselytizing, please try not to fall into preaching traps. It doesn't help keeping the thread on the discussion *you* intended it to go, and, quite frankly, you're better than that. Please get back on topic.

This isn't a bibliography database site, Elshamah, it's a discussion forum. We can all post links back and forth, but the point is to discuss the meaning of things and describe the logic of your opinions. You may use links to support your assertions, but don't be rude as to simplify my entire post (and other questions) and send us to someone else's text. Especially when it doesn't answer the original question. This thread discusses whether or not morality depends on religion/objective or whether it is subjetive. We're not here to go read blog posts. We're here to discuss. Obviously, your answer is not obvious or everyone would go by it, and everyone do not. Get off your horse, and participate in a decent discussion please. We could all just post links for you to RD forums or rational morality sites; these theories are not our own invention and they are supported by quite a number of philosophers. And yet, if each side was to post links, then we might as well go to Google to discuss our opinions. You were posed with several (not just one, and not as simple as you tried make it) questions -- by me, and others -- and you should have the decency to relate to them. Your evasion to send me to external "why the bible" answers is not answering the subtle points I (and others) raised. This isn't your blog, Elshamah. You don't make up the rules and you don't get to choose who to answer and where to steer the discussion to. ~mooey

That's not answering the question asked; you were asked to prove that your moral standards are "correct" and to "Prove that your morals are moral." Even if we all agree about the 10 commandments, that doesn't make them moral; do you suggest morality is simply voted for by the majority? I assume (and hope) you do not, in which case asking us if we disagree (or agree) with them is irrelevant to proving them as moral ethical system. That said, there are two versions of the ten commandments. The commandments themselves are more or less the same, but it's worth noting that there ARE variations between then (a nice comparison table can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Two_texts_with_numbering_schemes) And finally, do tell, which ten commandments are we to agree on? The ones that state clearly thou shall not work in the sabbath, or the one saying clearly "thou shall not make any graven image" ? Both are later expanded upon, by the way. Graven image clearly includes any and all graven images regardless of intent or purpose (which puts the depiction of the cross - especially one that includes a crusified man on it - no the other side of this moral law) and the rules about "respecting the sabbath" are clearly emphasized as having a day off not only for yourself, but for your animals and slaves. If this is our moral compass, it seems only extremely religious jews are moral. Then again, you need to tell us why this list, out of this archaic book written over 2000 years ago, is representing morality, when the book it is written in has extreme examples of quite radical evil done by people who are supposedly representing good. There are laws in this book that might have had some shred of logic 2000+ years ago but only because of the way cultural biases went. A woman who was raped must marry her rapist. ( Deuteronomy 22:28-29) While 2000+ years ago, this *might* be excused for cultural reasons -- the raped woman would have likely been cast aside and be left husband-less, which in those times meant poverty and death -- it is quite hard to claim this is "the moral behavior" today. That's only one example, out of many. God murders all first-born children in Egypt just to "harden pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7). Both the murder of innocent little children (whatever order of birth they may have) *and* doing so to purposefully make Pharaoh resist and fight so God can show his might are incredibly cruel. Should we judge these as moral? (The chapter is here, if you wish to review it: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0207.htm) And there are more examples, if you really insist, we can go in depth into the morality (or lack thereof) of the bible. But that's not the topic of this argument. If you claim the 10 commandments are moral (or the source of morality) then you need to explain why. If your reasoning why is that it is given by God and/or written in the holy bible, then you have a problem by mere existence of the abundance of immoral acts and decrees in the bible. We can't follow something half way, and we definitely can't just "Accept" this is moral just because some people might agree on the loose terms of this particular chunk of text and this particular iteration. You were asked to prove it, and this isn't a theology forum; you need to do better, and provide evidence of why you claim this is a better moral strategy than any other. Your evidence can come from literature, psychology, sociology, physics, evolution, biology, and whatever else you think fits, but they have to be properly cited, properly backed up by logical arguments and properly explained. "Do you disagree with the 10 commandments" is not proof of anything regardless of the answer to the question. ~mooey

Athena, with due respect, I spent a long time answering your points. I rather you relate to the points I made in the same manner rather than summarize the issue; I think I answered quite a lot of them in the post I wrote to you before, and the points themselves are important. I don't quite see your above answer fully covering the points I made at all, but rather the general idea of what I may have came across if I had 140 characters to deliver my point -- and that's not quite representative of my actual counter claims and explanations to your points... (Though it could serve as an amusing exercise to try...)

Sorry, it might be my being a foreigner, but what's U of O and how do I get there...?

I think the point was that since the claim was quite bombastic (that scientific research is politically skewed) and generalized, the evidence for it was needed. I don't think showing funding is enough, though, honestly, especially since many endeavors of research ended up going against the companies' "desires" or "motives". I do agree that all research should be scrutinized -- including the funding sources and the potential bias of the people who run it -- but the point of the scientific method is that if it's done right (fully double blinded, fully repeatable, established with independently verifiable evidence, etc) is that it is meant to erase potential biases. Maybe (I don't know this case so I can't judge this particular case) but you can tell it wasn't truly scientific not for the source of funding alone. If it wasn't scientific, it was because it didn't follow the scientific method and it (hopefully?) was exposed as such under some peer review. I don't think the generalized statement that 'most' scientific research is politically skewed is true, and I don't think that wikipedia article (and/or sources of funding on their own) prove this point. I think it's fair to say, at least in my opinion, that while we do need to keep being diligent to prevent any occurence of anything remotely close to Nazi germany, we should also still be weary of bringing it up as a comparison too quickly. The comparison itself brings out more emotional outrage than rational thought, so it should be used when appropriate. And I think in that broadcast, it wasn't. It served more as fear mongering and bombastic emotional claims rather than something we really need to act on. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix things that might be unjust in the way that universities teach or anything like that, but to go on and compare it to Nazi germany was a big nono in my book on the part of that Broadcast. There are a lot of philosophers that make a lot of claims that we, today, consider unjust or maybe even dangerous if they were literally followed. For that matter, Hobbes' theory of a ruthless all-powerful rather oppressive ruler supports dictatorship, and I (to say the least) am highly against it. I would guess I'm not alone. However, when we study Hobbes, we don't necessarily say that his theory is absolutely correct or should be absolutely followed; we study the elements that led him to conclude his theoretical parts, and we analyze the parts that might reflect on what could be considered human nature. We can also analyze what elements could work well in a society and what couldn't or shouldn't. It's not "black and white" type of "he was right" and "he was wrong". We study philosophy to learn the different theories in context and compare them to whatever political situation we believe in. That's why a lot of people love Machiavelli (which I don't, by the way, but I seem to be in the minority). Most of the people who claim to have Machiavelli on their bed table don't usually go out and kill their rivals or use his literal suggestions. They use it as a source of theoretical points about some part of human nature that could be taken figuratively, or inspire people to use it PROPERLY within context. So, I don't think your concern with specific things Nietzche said is warranted. There's a reason why, in philosophy, you study more than one theory, and you usually also study the background information about that person. You want to know not only what they say, but what led them to conclude whatever they said, and you want to be able to do it in proper context and reach whatever conclusions based on their text. Some you may agree with, some you may disagree with, but the mere fact they got you *thinking* about those points can be extremely valuable to the development of a better political theory or social theory of conduct. Those are things that are worth knowing and learning about, regardless of how "good" a person was or how valid their points are to our present. Another example: I personally like Socrates, I think he's a cool dude albeit very annoying in his methodology of argument. I love the way he reaches certain conclusions -- but I love it because I know of the time he lived in. His way of concluding the equality of women, for instance (limited as it may be) was brilliant, not because of the way he did it (because I disagree with some of his premises) but because in HIS time it was absolutely revolutionary. And yet these are still processes and claims that we may use today, some of them at least. So I think that your fear of a particular philosopher, in my opinion, is unwarranted. And that's also why I think your leap to fear that we may be at risk of getting close to resembling Nazi germany is even more unwarranted, if it's based on these reasons. You see what I mean? I think the problem here is that you see God as something very natural in this process, which is perfectly okay, but you have to understand that not everyone do. I, for instance, don't think God has any place in this discussion because I don't believe any sort of God exists -- and if God does exist, I don't see this god as any form of influencial being on our personal lives. I see this piece as irrelevant, then. I'm not the only one , and that might be the reason why people took the arguments to a different direction than what you intended. It's not that I don't respect your belief in that, it's just that I don't see the argument this way at all because of a different belief (or a nonexistent belief?) in such a God as you describe. It's like we speak two different languages in this particular case.... does this make sense? It doesnt' matter whether god is supernatural or not, I don't see the same analysis as you. For me, the entire issue of god (whatever form it, she, he or they) may take is utterly irrelevant and is a red herring. The only thing that comes out of this mention is to move the argument in a different way -- that of belief, or religion, or emotion -- even if you don't mean to. This might also be why I may misunderstand your point here. Can you explain it again without using God, if you say that God is not supernatural? I am not entirely sure I understand the relevancy then...? Right. But wht if I don't believe in a universal truth (which I do not, for the most part) ? Do you see where our misunderstanding seems to stem from? Of course it does, but it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with their literal points. Read above about my point with Machiavelli, as an example. Second, even if it does mean you agree with their literal points, I don't think it's enough to show that such agreement with Nietzche is sufficient to show resemblence to Nazi germany. Third, *most* philosophy classes (especially the basic ones in undergrad) are about analysis of views *in context*. They are interpreted many times based on people's individual beliefs. The biggest and best example for that -- especially in context of Nietzche -- is his influence on such a wide variety of completely different groups. Check out this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche Nietzche seemed to have influence over fascism, anarchism, nazism, and even psychoanalysis. And even Zionism! Zionism, which is the absolute opposite (if nothing else) of Nazism that tried to eradicate it. How would you explain such a vast range of influence if the only meaning one can get from Nietzche is the one leading to Nazism? I think you're oversimplifying the influence and forgetting that these things are usually read in the context of the time and society they were written in, and interpreted further after analysis. That's why I think your logic in this conclusion is flawed. ~mooey

Even if this is true (which as iNow pointed out, it is not quite) it does not prove an intelligent designer. I am reiterating the point to make this clear: Even IF theory A is wrong, that does not mean theory B is true. Theory B must have its own, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE evidence. We can discuss the flaws in current science (or the explanations of them) -- but that's not evidence for intelligent design, or god. Since that was the idea of the previous post, I want to make this point clear. ~mooey

I agree with you. More than that, I think the initial reference at all (not by you, but by the broadcast) to Nazi germany is fallacious and misleading to begin with. What I was answering was the rest of your post, which I think was a bit of a leap on your part regarding Nietche and the supposed dismissal of other philosophers. I don't think this comes any remotely close to bringing anything remotely close to the situation that led to Nazi germany, so I don't think that our propensity towards science is what saves us. We're not there, and that's not getting us there. There might be other things that might, at some point, under some circumstances, get societies towards this stage -- and we need to be diligent in making sure we spot those cases and warn so they don't come. I just don't think what you put forth after correcting the broadcast was it. I agreed with where you STARTED, I disagreed with what you ENDED with. (I'l answer the rest a bit later, not ignoring your post, I'm just running late to a meeting) ~mooey

We're not going to argue facts, it's meaningless. If you claim you're right, test it, tell us what you tested and what it ACTUALLY came out to be -- not what you guess it would be, not what you insist it should be -- what it actually was in the test. Do it. Report back. Until then, I think we're pretty much done here.

Whether a specific scientist was an atheist or not has no bearing on the actual findings and evidence he formulated to support his theories. I don't see the point even if Einstein was a devout religious Jew. He didn't pray to find the formulation of Relativity or any of his other science theories. What difference does it make even if he did, personally, think of God as a mystical being? It proves nothing, and shows nothing about the existence of God - for or against it. ~mooey

It doesn't have to. You are the one who needs to prove God's existence, we're not under any obligation of logic or this discussion to prove his (or any other claimed-to-exist entity) existence. You say God exists, you need to prove it. We're here to scrutinize the evidence, as is done in all science, all claims, without exception. Great philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science or with realistic proof. You can believe whatever you want to believe, it's your personal choice. But the moment you claim that this is "more logical" than other claims, you are in need of substantiating that claim. I don't "jump you", I am merely stating this is not proof, and while the opinion is wlcome, it has no bearing in a scientific discussion. You can believe whatever you want, but science isn't about opinions or beliefs; it's about observable reality. The moment you put your claim in the context of science, you commit yourself to playing by the rules of science. And if you don't, we're here to remind you ~mooey

"Is this a snake in your pants? OH MY GOD IT IS A SNAKE IN YOUR PANTS!!!!!!" </personal nightmare>

Which people repeatedly told you is incorrect, why it's incorrect, and supplied evidence on the matter. But none of this matters, because you seem to be convinced of the conclusion you want to believe in, and nothing we show you, claim, or explain, seems to matter. Why bother, then? We're really not here to hear you preach, Elshamah. ~mooey I am absolutely flabbergasted that you give this example about the magical invisible Santa Claus and doesn't see that it's exactly the same case as any magical invisible intelligent designer. Do you really miss the fact that an intelligent designer without a single evidence is more similar in concept to Santa Claus than a natural process with some evidence? If so, this entire discussion is just pointless. ~mooey

He did not say this, and your misunderstanding of the laws do not make them false. I'm not going to argue elementary physical facts here. Newton's laws are clear, and are being used routinely and consistently in elementary technology, as well as being solved routinely in high school classes -- successfully and consistently. You expect me to take your word for it over repeated evidence. That's not going to happen. I don't mind explaining how the laws work and getting to the bottom of your misunderstanding of it; I've done it in the past quite a lot in tutoring sessions. That said, you need to be able to consider the explanation given, and from what you're typing so far, it's getting to be quite clear you are only here to insist you're right despite of available evidence. Do you want us to really get into the crux of the laws? We will be happy to do that, but you'll need to stop stomping your feet on the ground and insist we're wrong just 'cause you want us to be. [[[edit]]] Egh, on second thought, I'm going to remove this explanation for now seeing as Capn made a great basic explanation and did not get into friction and inertia. Take it one step at a time, I guess.[[[/edit]]] ~mooey Not understanding something doesn't make it wrong. Sure, but you need to have some way of discerning what's really true and what you might want to think is true but is actually a misleading truth. Things might LOOK like A, but actually be B after careful examination. How do you know what's true if you don't have proper ways to verify? Biblical arguments do not belong in scientific discussions, not even speculative ones. Work is dependent on distance - W = F*d (force *distance). Here's the representation of the force as an integral: Work-energy principle connects the idea that work done by all forces acting on an object/particle equals the change of kinetic energy. So, yes, if I move something twice as fast (that is, I bring its initial velocity from 0 to 2v, while you bring it from 0 to v) I will exert more energy. It's also more tiring to push something twice as fast. You spend more energy. ~mooey

I'm reacting to your claims and the paper you posted. It talks about irreducible complexity, and you've been talking about it throughout the thread as well. This is getting tiring. The person that needs to prove their claim true is you, and so far your evidence have been sub par to say the least. "Institute of Creation Research" (ICR) is not a scientific source. Discovery institute (creationist / intelligent-design proponents) is not a scientific source. When you give a scientific source, please link or quote the full paper, because quote-mining (as was done before) is also not science, and is intellectually dishonest. So far the only semi-valid evidence you posted is a paper in the NIH by a surgeon talking about, among other things, irreducible complexity, a paper that was comprehensively discredited in various places. If we're talking about abiogenesis, DNA "information" is almost invalid on its own, because no scientist claims that DNA just "popped into being" randomly. The idea of abiogenesis is that this stage occured slowly, incrementally, over chemical processes and bonds that we managed to replicate. Do you have any other claims you're interested in supporting, please do so, even just for the sake of organizing this thread and getting back on whatever topic you intended to focus on rather than having us reading articles that tend to go all over the place, and when we answer the "all over the place" points, you claim we're off topic. ~mooey

Please read this: http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/a-response-to-joseph-kuhns-dissecting-darwinism/ And this http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/02/more-bad-science-in-the-litera/ As both contain answers to the above paper; it's been quite extensively discredited, and the above two are just examples. Before you start yelling about those not being peer reviewed, read them through -- they use peer reviewed data to corroborate their findings, which is more than what was done in this thread. That said, irreducible complexity has been proven bunk for a while now http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html (will you read talkorigins or should we just give up in advance?) I don't know anymore, you keep dancing around the subject and moving the goalpost. People answered multiple time on the claim you keep saying is false. You tell me.