>How is it showing evolution? Explain the article to me. It
>is assuming evolution. If there was a painting called E
>Coli and a painting called B Aspirida that shared common
>features. You wouldn't say that they evolved from one
>painting. You would say that's proof that one artist did
>both paintings.

Why do you need me to explain it to you - I thought you were supposed to be a biochem guy? It is explained in the excerpt I posted; if you have a biochem background then you should be able to understand what the article is saying, and if it is wrong or if its conclusions are of dubious validity, you should be able to refute them with more convincing arguments than some bogus painting analogy.

>Clock's still ticking.

Don't hold your breath.

>Evidence without proof isn't evidence.

??? I think you are having a little difficulty with semantics there.

> Fairly tales can be
>proven false, I've yet to see someone prove the bible wrong.

I thought you said Adam and Eve were mythical? Well, which is it? If they're mythical, then the bible is wrong.

>I'm not trying to reconcile anything. My point is that the
>fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is
>proof of creation.

Funny how you deride genomic mapping which shows strong scientific evidence for reductive evolution as invalid proof, yet you think this hand-waving argument is somehow "proof" of creationism - that is not very objective, now is it?

>Why would God create a perfectly good
>metabolism pathway only to change things from species. It
>would seem to me that if was left to evolution there would
>be multiple ways of getting energy from sucrose...why only
>have TCA cyles?

Maybe bc it worked fine and there was no need to change from an evolutionary standpoint.

>This is what I said:
>>What a funny world, we don't believe
>>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>>that work on the same principles.

Right - you said it works on the "same principles" (plural) of "an omniscient God"; you did not specify that it was only the principle (singular) of being ominiscient - RIF.

>So a qubit would hold simultaneously a zero, a one, both a
>zero and one, and nothing...and you wouldn't know what value
>was until you accessed it. So if I had a memory module that
>was 4 qubits wide, and my computer wanted the value 0101
>from ram...it would already be there. What about the value
>1010? 0001? 0010? 1100? 1001? 0110? I see because, of
>quantum physics every outcome possible (from the computers
>point of view) is already stored in memory. Sort of like it
>knows all. That principle sounds familiar.

It cannot store "every possible outcome", just a great, great # of outcomes - however, it is not an infinite #. And anyway, being able to store a great # of multiple values at the same time does not equate to infinite knowledge of all things everywhere; therefore "omniscience" is quite a misnomer for this.

>But let's get back to why humans evolved so much over
>~700,000 generations, yet E Coli haven't. Experiments are
>being run on the very subject. I wouldn't call adapting
>evolution, though. We get a new hominid species with every
>new skull found. The bacteria in the experiments are still
>called E. Coli.

Your premise is inherently flawed bc you are presuming an equivalent 1-to-1 correlation between E coli and hominid generations. For starters, the degree of clonality in E coli populations is not 1 (more like ~ .5), therefore each generation does not encompass a complete genetic shuffling as with sexual reproduction and thus cannot be directly compared to hominid generations on a 1-to-1 basis for the purpose you are suggesting.

Furthermore, your method of calculating all the E coli generations over 40 years or whatever for comparison is faulty bc all of those generations are not in the same population - 5,000 generations studied and terminated in 1960 and another 5,000 generations studied and terminated in 1990 does not give a sum total of 10,000 sequential generations in the same population. So you cannot come up with some theoretical number of E coli generations over 40 years or whatever and compare this to sequential generations of hominids over whatever millions of years.

In short, your fuzzy math simply doesn't add up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude