This straight after having been told of your complete misinterpretation of what the quote means. Do you never think? Is there nothing that you ever learn? That quote does not mean what you think it means. Do you understand?
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
This straight after having been told of your complete misinterpretation of what the quote means. Do you never think? Is there nothing that you ever learn? That quote does not mean what you think it means. Do you understand?
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Daniel has his set conclusion, and will ignore anything else as he desperately tries to find evidence for it. He's got a hammer, and still can't force that square peg into a round hole.
As someone who dislikes Rule 11 in its current format, I certainly am reporting lots of off-topic posts lately. At least I understand irony, unlike some. Have you got anything to say about evolution, Daniel, or are you going to spend all your time in a thread on evolution talking about particle physics?
Sure. And this means: DNA doesn't contain Software, doesn't send messages, and doesn't DIRECT hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS....
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
And DNA is not a CODE !!
oy vey
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Jesus now I see your game. Yes Ed Lewis's quote you've misinterpreted was regarding the history of genetic theories. He was remarking at how we didn't need to know about DNA to study genetics.
Secondly what you're asking for is a complete smokescreen. Evolutionary theory is enough to predict the sequence of functional genes in organisms, and asking for functional genes in a vacuum is nonsensical. The pressure selects the sequence amidst the chemistry of the substrate, hence why genes are genes.
But you did point out my lack of brevity in transcription and translation. Here, let me help. Coding gene sequences have a chemical structure to allow for binding of molecules which allows for more binding of molecules, which in term synthesizes a precursor form of RNA, which itself can be bound my other molecules and translated into amino acids. All thermodynamically driven. If you want more precision, then you may research it yourself. All quite thermodynamically driven. Again, the physio-chemical link is evident.
Also, Dr. Venter's statements don't even contradict mine and sure as hell don't support that DNA is a message. DNA doesn't direct protein function anymore than the stairs direct skull fractures when your mother throws you down them. They're a consequence of thermodynamics, and arranged as such from selection pressures.
DNA is a substrate with respect to its interactions with other molecules (the reagents). I don't even know how you are trying to argue the contrary.
So I don't know how you even think you're within any sense of rationality here. You've deliberately lied and misrepresented others statements, avoid your failures, and continue to do so in spite of knowingly being contradicted.
Secondly what you're asking for is a complete smokescreen. Evolutionary theory is enough to predict the sequence of functional genes in organisms, and asking for functional genes in a vacuum is nonsensical. The pressure selects the sequence amidst the chemistry of the substrate, hence why genes are genes.
But you did point out my lack of brevity in transcription and translation. Here, let me help. Coding gene sequences have a chemical structure to allow for binding of molecules which allows for more binding of molecules, which in term synthesizes a precursor form of RNA, which itself can be bound my other molecules and translated into amino acids. All thermodynamically driven. If you want more precision, then you may research it yourself. All quite thermodynamically driven. Again, the physio-chemical link is evident.
Also, Dr. Venter's statements don't even contradict mine and sure as hell don't support that DNA is a message. DNA doesn't direct protein function anymore than the stairs direct skull fractures when your mother throws you down them. They're a consequence of thermodynamics, and arranged as such from selection pressures.
DNA is a substrate with respect to its interactions with other molecules (the reagents). I don't even know how you are trying to argue the contrary.
So I don't know how you even think you're within any sense of rationality here. You've deliberately lied and misrepresented others statements, avoid your failures, and continue to do so in spite of knowingly being contradicted.
Well look @ your responses
...what else is left??Sure: What is the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
regards
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
I've also been noticing a strange tendency to focus on terminology and not the meaning behind the terms. Look at this:
One of the main reasons is that the words are different? Does Daniel honestly believe that the terms employed modify the nature of the things they describe? Do synonyms exist in his world?
Again?
Go read on the Origin of Species, first, then come back to us for the next 200 years worth. I look forward to you quote-mining Darwin to prove that he was actually a creationist.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
From the arguments he has presented, 1)yes, and 2) no.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of rule 6
ROTFLOL, Literally
"evolutionary theory", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
1. Well to have a Scientific Prediction (as opposed to a: Jeanne Dixon/Edgar Cayce/Nostradamus/Carnival TENT "Prediction") You need a viable "Independent Variable", Go ahead....?
and you have some problems...
“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
2. Begging The Question: Remember this from the last post, that you "Wholesale Dodged"..."where'd you get GENES??". Please go back and answer before moving on, we don't want to be anchored to fairytales.
Which Molecules....?
You're skipping some "stuff". For Transcription:
1. Where'd you get the Helicases ("Functional Proteins") and Topoisomerases ("Functional Proteins") and the other 50 or so Transcription Factors (All "Functional Proteins") to avail the opportunity for RNA Ploymerase (RNA + "Functional Proteins") to even begin the process of Transcription...???
When.... you're trying to make "Functional Proteins".
Is this like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?
2. How does RNA Polymerase "KNOW" where/when to start??
Mind numbing, the scary thing is you actually hit "Submit Reply"...
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html
Post a "coherent" substantive response or be ignored. Savvy??
Last edited by a moderator:
Christ, that was quick. You've read it already? Bloody hell, that's impressive. I only posted it in the last 10 minutes.
Son of Inigo
Thinker
Daniel,
You are clearly ignoring my questions, but that is ok. I understand why. Probably more than anyone interacting with you in this thread, I understand you.
By the way, since you like use quotes so much to prove your points, here is one I really like, and think is appropriate for this thread. .
Particularly the part I hilited.
Yes, I like irony.
Here is another. From http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=most-popular
There is the TOE you have asked for repeatedly, but since you only seem to know how to search creationists websites, were unable to find.
And contrary to your protestations, you don't know science. If there was a shred of evidence that could overturn the TOE, thousands of scientist in multiple disciplines would try and use it to refute it. Could you imagine being the scientist that proves Darwin wrong!? Can you imagine the fame and wealth that would bring? Can you imagine the accolades. Having all the science textbooks rewritten, because of you? If there was any evidence at all that ID, or Creationism, was a viable line of research, and could overturn the TOE, it would be investigated vigorously by tens of thousands of scientists. Why do they completely shun this line of research, when so much can be had by proving it?
Instead, as my quote above shows, TOE is "one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science". Why is that? You say 'satan' and 'evil scientists'. You claim stupidity and lack of understanding of "one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science". You claim it is not science.
Yet you fail, over and over in this thread alone, to offer any proof that it is not science. You fail, over and over, to offer any proof of anything but obtuseness on your part. You fail, over and over, to even acknowledge that you might not quit grasp all of the science you are disputing. Instead you insist that you, and you alone in this thread are correct. Only your version of 'science' can be the answer.
Oh, Daniel, I know your arguments so very well. I was taught them in my 'science' classes. I read and admired them myself on Creationists websites. I used them in forums just like this one. The difference between you and I though, is I eventually started to question what I had learned in my Christian high school, and on those Creationists websites. Started to follow the evidence and think for myself. It led me to abandon the Creationist world view and adopt a rational, science (the real science, not Creationist science) world view.
Just remove the lens of religion for a moment and ask yourself one question. Why do so many people see 250,000 layers in an ice core and conclude the ice field it came from is at least 250,000 years old? How can they be so wrong? What is the evidence? Are they wrong, or just perhaps, am I (and the very small group of Creationists) wrong?
You started on a very dangerous journey my friend Daniel. From experience, there are three outcomes. 1. You continue to put your fingers in your ears and shout your unscientific nonsense in science forums no matter what. 2. The internal conflict of denying scientific proof finally causes you to abandon your visits to these sites altogether, and you will struggle for the rest of your life with them while maintaining your current world view. Or 3. Finally realize that you were so very wrong about science, and abandon the world view you hold now.
If you love your soul Daniel, if you love Jesus, and don't want to spend eternity in hell, run now. Go. Do not look back. Do not concern yourself with science, it will only led you astray. Cling to your bible. Knee before Christ and ask him forgiveness for dabbling in things that could hurt your faith. Go Daniel, go.
Simpathatically, I remain yours, ect, ect....
You are clearly ignoring my questions, but that is ok. I understand why. Probably more than anyone interacting with you in this thread, I understand you.
By the way, since you like use quotes so much to prove your points, here is one I really like, and think is appropriate for this thread. .
Particularly the part I hilited.
Yes, I like irony.
Here is another. From http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=most-popular
There is the TOE you have asked for repeatedly, but since you only seem to know how to search creationists websites, were unable to find.
And contrary to your protestations, you don't know science. If there was a shred of evidence that could overturn the TOE, thousands of scientist in multiple disciplines would try and use it to refute it. Could you imagine being the scientist that proves Darwin wrong!? Can you imagine the fame and wealth that would bring? Can you imagine the accolades. Having all the science textbooks rewritten, because of you? If there was any evidence at all that ID, or Creationism, was a viable line of research, and could overturn the TOE, it would be investigated vigorously by tens of thousands of scientists. Why do they completely shun this line of research, when so much can be had by proving it?
Instead, as my quote above shows, TOE is "one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science". Why is that? You say 'satan' and 'evil scientists'. You claim stupidity and lack of understanding of "one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science". You claim it is not science.
Yet you fail, over and over in this thread alone, to offer any proof that it is not science. You fail, over and over, to offer any proof of anything but obtuseness on your part. You fail, over and over, to even acknowledge that you might not quit grasp all of the science you are disputing. Instead you insist that you, and you alone in this thread are correct. Only your version of 'science' can be the answer.
Oh, Daniel, I know your arguments so very well. I was taught them in my 'science' classes. I read and admired them myself on Creationists websites. I used them in forums just like this one. The difference between you and I though, is I eventually started to question what I had learned in my Christian high school, and on those Creationists websites. Started to follow the evidence and think for myself. It led me to abandon the Creationist world view and adopt a rational, science (the real science, not Creationist science) world view.
Just remove the lens of religion for a moment and ask yourself one question. Why do so many people see 250,000 layers in an ice core and conclude the ice field it came from is at least 250,000 years old? How can they be so wrong? What is the evidence? Are they wrong, or just perhaps, am I (and the very small group of Creationists) wrong?
You started on a very dangerous journey my friend Daniel. From experience, there are three outcomes. 1. You continue to put your fingers in your ears and shout your unscientific nonsense in science forums no matter what. 2. The internal conflict of denying scientific proof finally causes you to abandon your visits to these sites altogether, and you will struggle for the rest of your life with them while maintaining your current world view. Or 3. Finally realize that you were so very wrong about science, and abandon the world view you hold now.
If you love your soul Daniel, if you love Jesus, and don't want to spend eternity in hell, run now. Go. Do not look back. Do not concern yourself with science, it will only led you astray. Cling to your bible. Knee before Christ and ask him forgiveness for dabbling in things that could hurt your faith. Go Daniel, go.
Simpathatically, I remain yours, ect, ect....
RussDill
Philosopher
Sure. And this means: DNA doesn't contain Software, doesn't send messages, and doesn't DIRECT hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS....
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
And DNA is not a CODE !!
oy vey
Such anthropomorphism would also prove that you are software. Are you software?
RussDill
Philosopher
Ad hominem, of a dead mother of two no less. Does your lack of decency know no bounds? Do you normally defame the dead, or just as a last vain effort to win arguments on the internet?
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
This is what happens when scientists try to dumb down their research so that idiots can understand it. The idiots just take it all literally and don't understand anything!
Software
Computer
Machine
Robot
'Machine', 'software', 'robots' - these are all artificial things made by humans. We might make an analogy between them and the role of DNA in an organism, but that doesn't prove they are the same or that the analogy has any deeper meaning. One huge difference is that we design software/machines/robots to do particular tasks, whereas DNA evolves through a process of random mutations and environmental factors. Perhaps one day we will use DNA to make computers or robots, but they will still be artificial devices made by us.
And you're still not understanding it.
1. I didn't say or imply Computer SOFTWARE, I just said "Software".
2. HE implied (HEAVILY) the "Computer" motif... along with the words "Actually" and "LITERALLY"...
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
Go ahead and email Dr. Venter and state your case. Please post the dialog here for our review....?
Well it looks like you're gonna have to take the issue up with them...
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410
Please post the dialogue with each for our review...?
regards
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A single un-cited sentence is suggestive of a lie by quote mine, Daniel. Please give a citation to the context of this quote so that we can see that he is talking your assertion of "They knew it had nothing to do with 'physical chemistry' just before Woodstock".
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Well guys, I wasn't sure this was a brilliant performance art or the desperate cries of a madman, but now I can tell that it's definitely the desperate performance of a conman.
Check your local library for more on that.
Good thing I wasn't predicting the future. What did you do, search your repository of quotemine for the word "predict" and just copy-paste? Talk about some cdesign proponentsists...
Oh I didn't dodge it, genes are the sequences of DNA that act as the substrate. Their sequence determined through selection. But I can tell you're more of a picture-book kinda guy so:
somewhere in there I'm thinking.
Whichever ones have the appropriate stereochemistry really.
Refer to back to the picture.
Fred Hoyle made a similar remark you know...
It doesn't know when to start, it simply starts when the chemistry facilitates it. I mean, this question actually is stupid. That's asking how water knows how to boil at 100C. Dammit water, you so smart and handsome too!
Well damn guys, he increased the font size, that means it's definitely true now... Please just donate your brain to science when the time comes.
Oh I'd just good company if you ignored me, so by all means...
Last edited by a moderator:
RussDill
Philosopher
The only places it appears on the Internet are from posts by Daniel, starting in January 2015.
ETA: Closest I can come to is here:
https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-nobel-laureate-ed-lewis-dies-866
ETA: here we go http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/179/2/ES21.2.1957.pdf
ETA again: The quote seems to be an unsourced quote in the caltech article and not actually from the article, which BTW, is such an awesome example of common descent. Can't believe this type of work was done all the way back in 1957.
Last edited: