Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Perpetual Student]

1. "theory of evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution....

I have no doubt that you know quite well that the evidence for the theory of evolution is massive. Asking someone to post the theory of Evolution is utter nonsense.
On the other hand, evidence for the validity of your "scriptures" and your deities is simply nonexistent -- and I am sure you know that quite well!

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Learn what science actually is before making comments about it

Sure. Science is a Method of Inquiry; The Scientific Method...

Followed by ignorance, Daniel.
The scientific method is not a linear series of steps.
The scientific method contains scientific theories (not just hypothesizes).
There is no "Lit Review" in science (that is literature!). There is peer review.
Results are reported throughout the method.
The scientific method is not a quote mine from one person.

4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what the science and the scientific method actually are before making comments about them!
Science
Scientific method

 

[jimbob]

So, that would be a no? You got nothing.

My dear David. I was you not too many years ago. I was raised in a Christian household, attended a Christian school that used the ACE curriculum. I was a born again believer. I was on forums such as this one, preaching the gospel according to Genesis. I knew, KNEW, that evolution was wrong, cause my bible told me so.
Age of the earth was what moved me from being a Young Earth Creationist to believing in Intelligent Design. I could no longer ignore scientific evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth. But I still held on to my bible beliefs. In fact it was reasons.org that helped convince me to accept the 4.5 billion age for earth.
I now no longer believe in ID. I no longer believe in the bible. Science is what I believe in. I see you making all the same crappy arguments that I did, and I see they are still as wrong now, as they were when I made them myself.

Your logic is wrong. Your analogies are wrong. Your 'science' is wrong.

Do as your bible says, and prove all things. Prove scientifically that evolutionists are wrong. The entire theory of evolution can be discredited by proving one thing. Prove that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billions years, and you have destroyed Darwin and all that come after him.

Prove it.

Your former fellow traveler,

I think this is the key one.

If one assumes that there is a creator, then they have written the history of the Earth in the very rocks and elements, and the history of the Universe in the red-shift of the starlight. This is not a fallible book, transcribed by men, however divinely inspired, it is written for anyone to see - all they'd have to do was to use the senses and intelligence that their creator gave them.

I'd say that if one believed in a benign creator, it would be blasphemous to rely on fallible stories, when they'd given humans all the tools to point to the correct age.

Although I am not a believer, I do know several devout Christians who espouse such views.

 

[sphenisc]

Alrighty then (From your Post link above)...

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:
Begging The Question: "evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Evolution is the result of process I described.
I have given you a link to the Scientific Theory of evolution. A link you have clearly followed, I see no reason to post it as well.

btw, Scientific Theories aren't 'ABSTRACT Ideas', they're birthed from Empirically Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.

I have not claimed that theories are 'ABSTRACT Ideas', so your point is entirely irrelevant.

Given there is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments,
Given?? Who gave you this?? Ergo...Begging The Question.

"Given", here is a synonym for "If". In this context, it doesn't imply anyone in particular is doing the giving.

Since all the rest (below) follow your 2 logically compromised premises above, they are Kaput:

As you've failed to identify a flaw, they still stand.

[ Please look up "Begging the Question". I do not think it means what you think it means. ]

 

[MikeG]

..........You'd have better chances of resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!........

Interesting that you should bring Percephalus up. The horse had a remarkable trait: it had multiple toes instead of complete hooves.

Now, why would this be interesting? Well, funnily enough, because it is a pretty straightforward example of genetic throwback, which demonstrates very well the antecedence of the modern horse as being a creature with toes. So Percephalus demonstrates very neatly that evolution happened. Your petard. Your hoisting.

 

[Reality Check]

Why don't you start providing "Scientific Evidence" of what is (purportedly) the most validated 'theory' in the history of Science forever and ever and ever...

A dumb misrepresentation of science. Daniel, because you are trying to avoid the actual question.

FYI: There is an actual, existing most validated scientific theory in the history of science until it is superseded by an even more validated theory. That is quantum electrodynamics (QED) with its large body of successful predictions. The best one is the prediction of the g-factor to parts per billion.
There is an argument that GR has surpassed QED with the recent detection of gravitational waves.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.

--snip--

Heavens to Mergatroid! Medical Doctors are not Evolutionary Biologists!

Did you know that none of the auto mechanics I have used are physicists? Not even in the Newtonian sense. How can they possibly have fixed my car? Telekinesis?

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: It is a lie to state that TOE does not exist

No, it's not that it's wrong...it's that, it Doesn't Exist !!

Repeating an obvious lie does not make it true, Daniel.
The scientific theory of evolution exists.
4 March 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that the scientific theory of evolution does not exist.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Please show how the 1LOT shows that the world was created

They already know; SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and others.

Unsupported assertions about science such as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is not an rational argument, Daniel.
4 March 2016 Daniel: Please show how the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) means that the world was created (in 7 days by a supernatural being )?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No, it's not that it's wrong...it's that, it Doesn't Exist !!



They already know; SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and others.




1. "theory of evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution....?

2. Really?? ...

"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1t8jeG8hc

What's the Mechanism they use, Telekinesis?

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005






It's not only an 'assumption', it's an Affirming The Consequent Fallacy.






Just because there is no "Common Ancestor" doesn't have anything WHATSOEVER to do with the efficacy of Medicine; It's Non-Sequitur.


regards

The thermodynamics thing has been rebuked so often it's a telling sign you keep bringing it up. According to your reading of that law fire cannot exist.

The rest of the quotes are pointless and wrong.

All current cancer research is done by examining the function of the defective genes in simpler organisms (usually yeasts or mice), which can help in designing a medication. It's not an easy field to work in, but it's successes can only be explained using the theory of evolution and common descent.

As for your repeated requests about the theory, if you are really interesting in learning how it works, I would suggest you first read the Biochemistry by Stryer et al, followed by Molecular biology of the cell by Alberts et al. Then brush up on genetics and organic chemistry. That should get you the basis you need.
And maybe a crash course in physics so you understand how the laws of thermodynamics work would not come amiss.

Of course, you never will, you seem to despise all learning not about a single book, but hopefully it will help others.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Please cite the exact source of your Nesse quote

"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.

You think that argument by Wikipedia is bad but use an ignorant argument by YouTube video, Daniel. Quoting a sentence from an hour long video without specifying where in the video it is ridiculous.
Randolph M. Nesse is an evolutionary biologist who not only graduated from medical school but has also worked in medical schools and is a professor !
This is a real citation:
Evolutionary Biology in the Medical School Curriculum by Randolph M. Nesse (!) and Joshua D. Schiffman

The principles of evolution are finding new applications in medicine, but little is known about the role of evolutionary biology in medical curricula. To determine which aspects of evolutionary biology are included in medical curricula and the factors that influence this, a questionnaire was sent to all deans at North American medical schools who are responsible for curricula. The questionnaire asked about content areas in the curriculum, their perceived importance, and the factors that influence the amount of coverage given to those areas. Forty-eight percent of the deans who responded considered evolutionary biology important knowledge for physicians. Only 32 percent of the respondents reported that their schools covered at least 8 of 16 core topics in evolutionary biology, and only 16 percent of the schools reported having any faculty with a PhD in evolutionary biology. Lack of time in the curriculum and lack of faculty expertise are the main perceived impediments to increased teaching of evolution. We conclude that the role of evolutionary biology as a basic medical science should be carefully considered by a distinguished group of biologists and medical educators. In the meanwhile, undergraduate educators need to recognize that, for now at least, most future physicians must learn evolutionary biology as undergraduates if they are to learn it at all.

4 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the exact source of your Nesse quote.

Try to learn to read what is posted and not deceive by splitting a sentence up.
Lukraak_Sisser wrote

How then would you like medicine to proceed from then on? Nowadays new medication is tested and designed using the theory of evolution using the assumption that all organisms on earth are related. But since under creationism that assumption is no longer valid, should we go back to the power of prayer?

And of course, how do you explain that new medications designed this way actually work, when according to you they should not?

One example of this is animal testing. Do you really think that scientists are stupid enough to test drugs on animas that have no relationship to human beings? Why do they go the cheap route and use worms that can be dug ot of the ground ?

 

[Son of Inigo]

Sure. Science is a Method of Inquiry; The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005)

regards

Thank you.

Regarding ice cores that show the age of the earth (or at least of the ice accumulated upon it) is at least 250,000 years old (From post #248 by Reality Check)

The TAlos Dome Ice CorE Project is a new 1620 m deep ice core drilled at Talos Dome that provides a paleoclimate record covering at least the last 250,000 years.

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

It has been observed that during the summer months, dust and other particles are deposited on the surface of ice fields forming layers of various thinkness. It is observed that those dirty layers are then covered up by fresh snow fall during the winter. The process is observed to happen over a multi year period.

Step 2: Lit Review

Others have observed this same phenomenon, and liken it to the growth rings in trees. No recorded of the dirty layers being deposited in anything other than a yearly cycle.

Step 3: Hypothesis

Taking core samples of a deep enough ice core will allow us to age the ice field, with one layer representing 1 year.

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Drill a core sample from the ice field.

Step 5: Analyze Data

Count number of layers represented in the core drilled from the ice field.

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Hypothesis is validated. The validity of the ice core layers, thus the age of the deepest layer retrieved is verified by analyzing the composition of the dirty layers, and correlating that composition with known recorded local and global "dusting" events, such as volcanic ash being found in the layer dating to a known and recorded volcanic eruption. That volcanic ash is found in the expected layers, validates the geological date of the sampled layer.

Step 7: Report Results

http://www.taldice.org/pub/taldice/


I am not a scientist, however, I think that what I have posted is a fairly accurate, in a dumb downed kindergarten-ish manner, of the science you required*.

So, given how I did 'your' science, would you care to explain how they found 250,000 years of layers in the ice core aligns with your 6,000 year old creation story.

Inquiringly I remain yours, ect, ect......

*This was done off the cuff, and with no formal scientific training whatsoever. Please correct me if I am way off base, so that I can learn from any misteps or misunderstanding I may have posted. Any gross error is due to ignorance, not malice.

 

[Daniel]

Thank you.

Regarding ice cores that show the age of the earth (or at least of the ice accumulated upon it) is at least 250,000 years old (From post #248 by Reality Check)

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

It has been observed that during the summer months, dust and other particles are deposited on the surface of ice fields forming layers of various thinkness. It is observed that those dirty layers are then covered up by fresh snow fall during the winter. The process is observed to happen over a multi year period.

This is not a Phenomenon, You're merely Observing an End Result then making up a story off an extrapolation. Here, I just wrote something on this: http://http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11155097&postcount=269

Therefore...all the Rest is Begging The Question; BUT I'll a do couple more...

Step 3: Hypothesis

Taking core samples of a deep enough ice core will allow us to age the ice field, with one layer representing 1 year.

1. This is not a Scientific Hypothesis, the least of which... you're assuming your conclusion is True from Jump Street.

2. What's your "Independent Variable" here... the on/off switch of the drill??

3. Begging The Question: "one layer representing 1 year".

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Drill a core sample from the ice field.

This is not a TEST. To perform an Experiment you are TESTING Variables (The Cause...."Independent Variable"; The Effect....Dependent Variable)

All "Dating Methods" or attempts to ascertain "ages" are outside the Purview of the Scientific Method; since the Scientific Method is about validating Cause and Effect Relationships. You're in a simple Category Error.

*This was done off the cuff, and with no formal scientific training whatsoever. Please correct me if I am way off base, so that I can learn from any misteps or misunderstanding I may have posted. Any gross error is due to ignorance, not malice.

Fair Enough

regards

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much misstatement>

Interesting that you do not apply the standards you pretend to insist upon for "SCIENCE[sic]" to your own superstitions.

Who "observed" your "Ontological Primitive[sic]" in the act of creatio ex nihilo?

Why spam so many threads with your copypasta?

 

[Daniel]

The thermodynamics thing has been rebuked so often it's a telling sign you keep bringing it up. According to your reading of that law fire cannot exist.

Baseless Assertion: SUPPORT...?

The rest of the quotes are pointless and wrong.

Ipse Dixit, Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy. How so...?

All current cancer research is done by examining the function of the defective genes...

Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Genes? Start Here...

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

It's not an easy field to work in, but it's successes can only be explained using the theory of evolution and common descent.

1. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2. "Common Descent"? Descent of what?

...I would suggest you first read the Biochemistry by Stryer et al, followed by Molecular biology of the cell by Alberts et al.

That would be Painfully Redundant for me personally.

Then brush up on genetics and organic chemistry. That should get you the basis you need.
And maybe a crash course in physics so you understand how the laws of thermodynamics work would not come amiss.

Again, Painfully Redundant.


regards

 

[Son of Inigo]

This is not a Phenomenon, You're merely Observing an End Result then making up a story off an extrapolation. Here, I just wrote something on this: http://http://www.internationalskept...&postcount=269

Explain growth rings in trees then. A very large red wood tree is cut down and the rings are counted. They add up to 214. Since you personally, nor anyone else for that matter, observed the tree continuously since is was a sapling, why is declaring the tree to be 214 years old not scientifically valid? How do you determine the age of the tree using Daniel science?

Or can we observe that for each year a tree is alive, there will be a corresponding growth ring. Those growth rings can be reliably used to arrive at the age of the tree. No red wood tree (or any other tree that I am aware of) has ever been observed not to have a number of growth rings that correspond to the exact age of the tree.

 

[marplots]

Sure. Science is a Method of Inquiry; The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005)

regards

Bible Method (for comparison)

Step 1: Observe Misunderstand a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Bible Review
Step 3: Hypothesis Wild guess
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT PRAY
Step 5: Analyze Data Make-up stuff to fit Bible story
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis Claim Wild-assed guess is confirmed.
Step 7: Report Results Make a website

"Science Religion is nothing more than a method of inquiry obfuscation."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005) Every decent thinker, ever.

 

[RussDill]

Hi Daniel. I can tell you are getting frustrated, but please don't fret. One of the many advantages of online discourse is that you can take a step back and review ideas you are unfamiliar with. I do this often, it's very enriching.

I've seen you struggle here with various concepts such as evolutionary theory, quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, microbiology, thermodynamics, geology, and others. I've seen you ask many times for people here to teach you about these things. Unfortunately, pasting walls of text from the relevant resources is frowned upon.

Since this is a very diverse and wide range of topics, maybe you could pick one and we could help you track down the necessary resources. The are even free online university classes you can take. We live in a very exciting time with such a huge wealth of information available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

 

[Daniel]

Explain growth rings in trees then. A very large red wood tree is cut down and the rings are counted. They add up to 214. Since you personally, nor anyone else for that matter, observed the tree continuously since is was a sapling, why is declaring the tree to be 214 years old not scientifically valid?

Because you have No viable "Independent Variables" which is the sine qua non of Scientific Hypotheses. Why?? Because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon.

And again, you're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands.

How do you determine the age of the tree using Daniel science?

You don't, it's not Science (SEE: above)

regards

 

[Daniel]

Hi Daniel. I can tell you are getting frustrated

More like lol-ing and face palms to be more precise.

I've seen you struggle here with various concepts such as evolutionary theory...

"evolution", what's that?? Can you post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

...quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, microbiology, thermodynamics, geology, and others.

Yes, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her florist.

I've seen you ask many times for people here to teach you about these things. Unfortunately, pasting walls of text from the relevant resources is frowned upon.

Thanks for the 'Color Commentaries"; without which, you wouldn't have anything to post.

Did you find that definition for Virtual Particles yet?

regards