andrewcellini

many thanks

you're asking questions that are way outside the scope of the theory of evolution; you made a jump from biology to cosmology and cosmogony. perhaps if you understood more about evolution you would ask more relevant questions.

I'm going to be taking a concepts in biochemistry course, and I'm looking to prepare a little for it. What would be the best places to start? I'm primarily looking for supplementary books to the actual textbook (which I have yet to get), but any learning material would be great.

this demonstrate your lack of knowledge of evolution. the key to understanding evolution is to not focus so much on individuals but on the gene frequencies of populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632098/ here's 12 similar populations of ecoli to the one i posted before evolving 2 different traits. there are numerous posts by others on IC i have now posted 2 papers on evolution in bacteria. and you have not presented evidence of an intelligent designer, or any evidence contrary to what has been posted. the onus is on your to demonstrate these claims.

your talking points introduce intelligent design as a counter argument to explain what we see. there is no insult when i say "that is not good enough" or "that is false." they are concepts which have either been falsified or are unfalsifiable. i'm sorry that you believe them so dearly that evidence will not erase them.

you are arguing, in your first post, that an intelligent designer makes more sense than evolution so of course i will go on the offensive against this idea. there is simply no evidence for it. by introducing this concept of an intelligent designer you are, in essence, bring creationism/ID to the table in your argument. it is your "counter argument" to evolution. and it holds no water in reality.why have faith in this idea when it simply means that you accept it without a base? it seems like an unstable way to look at the world. evolution, contrary to what you believe, is built upon facts.

that's exactly it; irreducible complexity is a belief. it sounds pretty scientific too. it's a shame that it is a falsified concept held by those who also believe that a god made one man and one woman on the 5th day and who want to force these beliefs upon you rather than empirical evidence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/ evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in an experimental population of e coli. the e coli did not have the capacity for conjugation. i don't know of DIY kits, but i do know if you are interested you can always go to school for something like this. there are numerous other papers that you can probably find on google scholar.

they are more political movements in order to force religion into the classroom than actual scientific models. they make very few falsifiable predictions (like the existence of an intelligent designer), and more importantly the predictions that are falsifiable (irreducible complexity) have been demonstrated to be false.

how do you prove a fact wrong? a fact is a fact. it is demonstrated by experiment, or experienced.

. the fossil record is not the only evidence. there is mountains of genetic evidence, take this for example http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf

i hope that your "biology" teacher is not trying to teach a supposed controversy about evolution as it is an observed fact and the basis of many different fields from microbiology to medicine. no, where in my statement did i say that? they too have brains yes. and they are different in physical ways yes. and they are similar in physical ways yes. i'm not saying anything about knowledge.

that is assuming that the mental is not derived from the physical. the hunk of fat between my ears cares to disagree

i hope this is in english and not biology class. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

as a simulation is not evidence but a prediction against which we can compare an actual experiment, your conclusion is invalid.

ah okay that's an important distinction.

what is it then? "means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments" that seems similar to "attacking one personally" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem edit: as this may be off topic, feel free to explain in pm.

i know what an ad hominem is. no one is attacking you personally. it seems that people are frustrated because you seem to be unable to answer their questions or are just ignoring them. in general, people are questioning what you have posted. the video in question goes over one experiment to test bells theorem. you didn't model that experiment, so i don't see how going back to it would help anything. perhaps there is a paper on an experiment exactly like the one you've simulated. it would be helpful to see that.

if you believe you are being personally insulted (which from the looks of things you aren't) then you can report posts and have moderators look. strange brings up a valid point; you have not yet cited a single experiment. if your simulation is based on an actual experiment then i'm sure you would have no problem locating and posting the proper literature. i'm still confused as to where "hidden variables" come in in your simulation.

as this was asked on the first page and i don't think it got an answer, can you show where this simulation is taking into account entanglement? what are the hidden variables in your code? maybe you can bold it in your code: long i; long double PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795L; long double TWO_PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795L * 2.0L; long double HALF_PI = PI / 2.0L; long double photon_polarization, probability1, probability2, probability_same, probability_same_total=0; long double polarizer_angle2; // polarizer_angle1 is always 0 deg. long double total_polarizer_incs = 3.0L; long double polarizer_angle2_inc = TWO_PI / total_polarizer_incs; long double total_photon_incs = 10000.0L; long double photon_polarization_inc = TWO_PI / total_photon_incs; // draw bottom line, 0% for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) { pDC->SetPixel(i,500,0xff0000); } // draw top line, 100% for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) { pDC->SetPixel(i,200,0xff0000); } // draw center line, 50% for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) { pDC->SetPixel(i,350,0xff0000); } // code that does the simulation starts here for(polarizer_angle2=0; polarizer_angle2 < TWO_PI; polarizer_angle2 += polarizer_angle2_inc) { for(photon_polarization=probability_same=0; photon_polarization < TWO_PI; photon_polarization += photon_polarization_inc) { probability1 = powl(cosl(photon_polarization), 2.0L); // photon #1 probability2 = powl(cosl(photon_polarization - polarizer_angle2), 2.0L); // photon #2 // calc probility of photon #1 & #2 both being a 1 probability_same += probability1*probability2; // calc probility of photon #1 & #2 both being a 0 probability_same += (1.0L - probability1)*(1.0L - probability2); } probability_same_total += probability_same/total_photon_incs; // draw result for this polarizer angle pDC->MoveTo(10+polarizer_angle2*100.0L, 500); pDC->LineTo(10+polarizer_angle2*100.0L, 500-probability_same/total_polarizer_incs*300); } probability_same_total /= total_polarizer_incs; // Result: 0.5

ah okay i didn't even look at the title of the aritcle ha

he quoted a section about gravity and claimed it was einstein talking about entanglement.

that's about gravity, and if you continued reading "This problem has been resolved by Einstein's theory of general relativity in which gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry. Matter warps the geometry of space-time and these effects are, as with electric and magnetic fields, propagated at the speed of light. Thus, in the presence of matter, space-time becomes non-Euclidean, resolving the apparent conflict between Newton's proof of the conservation of angular momentum and Einstein's theory of special relativity. Mach's question regarding the bulging of rotating bodies is resolved because local space-time geometry is informing a rotating body about the rest of the universe. In Newton's theory of motion, space acts on objects, but is not acted upon. In Einstein's theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter, accelerating it."

he is only attacking you arguments. note how he says "your comment" or "absurd statements." you are not your statements so don't take personal offense when other people find them invalid. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem