Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

What Professor Polanyi is essentially saying is...

What Professor Polanyi is actually saying is his personal opinion as a chemist (not a biologist ) in a 1968 Science article !
What you are ding is cherry picking irrelevant quotes from non-experts, Daniel.

 

[Lowpro]

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

Drosophila genetics had many advantages then,
and now, according to Lewis. "There was an
immense background of information available as
well as hundreds of mutants. All of the obvious
things had been done by then, so you could go
into greater depth of analysis than you could in
any other organism. You could begin CO try to
see how a gene is constructed, even though DNA
hadn't yet been determined to be the hered itary
material. The laws of genetics had never depended
upon knowing what the genes were chemically
and would hold true even if they were made of
green cheese."

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3809/1/Lewis.pdf

 

[Sideroxylon]

Iam still surprised this looks like a total denial of evolution without anything on front loading. Did I miss that?

 

[Lowpro]

Iam still surprised this looks like a total denial of evolution without anything on front loading. Did I miss that?

I don't think we're dealing with Randman again. But if we are, at least we have an easy reference already.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't think we're dealing with Randman again. But if we are, at least we have an easy reference already.

I thought creationist arguments had moved on and that a large amount of adaptation, even to the degree of speciation, was accepted. Was very Public in the Ham-Nye debate.

 

[Daniel]

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.

ad homiem Fallacy.

What did you do, search your repository of quotemine for the word "predict" and just copy-paste? Talk about some cdesign proponentsists...

1. Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy.

2. ad Hominem Fallacy.

Are you aware, that Logical Fallacies....are Fallacious?

Oh I didn't dodge it, genes are the sequences of DNA that act as the substrate.

1. Yea, you did. I then asked you: What is the "Reagent"...which you're still "dodging"

2. Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get genes? SEE: "Start here", that you "dodged".

Their sequence determined through selection.

Selection?? Selection of what?? We're talking "Pre-Biotic" here...

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)...

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."
C. de Duve., Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (Burling-ton, N.C.: Neil Patterson, 1991), p. 187.

aka: Begging The Question (FALLACY).

"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)

Whichever ones have the appropriate stereochemistry really.

You're attention to excruciating detail is OCD like

Fred Hoyle made a similar remark you know...


2. How does RNA Polymerase "KNOW" where/when to start??

1. Did he now?? Smart Man. Can you CITE the Reference...?

2. But I started before it, Remember...

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?

THEN....

2. How does RNA Polymerase "KNOW" where/when to start??

It doesn't know when to start, it simply starts when the chemistry facilitates it. I mean, this question actually is stupid.

rotflol, then you call me stupid.

That's asking how water knows how to boil at 100C. Dammit water, you so smart.

Water "Knows", eh? How bout in Denver?

Can it give us a Western Omelet Recipe?

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.

How can I donate my brain to "a method"?? What's the address ??


regards

 

[Lowpro]

I thought creationist arguments had moved on and that a large amount of adaptation, even to the degree of speciation, was accepted. Was very Public in the Ham-Nye debate.

Eh give it time and the gradual changes of the arguments will adapt to the new environment, selecting the most fit and mobile goalposts.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Someone hasn't gotten the memo:

Since creationists do indeed believe that animals change (just not from one basic created kind to another), the argument is a straw-man fallacy. The argument does not refute what creationists actually claim.

Such a misrepresentation could be unintentional; it could be that a particular evolutionist simply misunderstands what a creationist is teaching. Or the fallacy could be quite deliberate. That, of course, is a dishonest approach, yet it is quite common in origins debates.​

https://answersingenesis.org/logic/straw-man-fallacy/

 

[Daniel]

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:

Since you have no substantive arguments, you're reduced to nonsensically chasing down Quibbling motifs. It's tantamount to being overly pre-occupied with where the bear came from while being eviscerated by it's business end.


I actually got it from here, a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3okle8DKbA8(Time 19:35)

Watch the whole video (you may someone to help explain it to you) it takes "Junk DNA" (rotflol, btw) to the Woodshed and Bludgeons it Senseless.


regards

 

[Reality Check]

adAre you aware, that Logical Fallacies....are Fallacious?

Obviously you are not, Daniel. This thread states with AIG ignorantly committing the fallacy of begging the question (or assuming the consequent). Now we have you endlessly repeating that fallacy !

7 March 2016 Daniel: Why are the creationists at AIG and you, Daniel, allowed to use the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that information has to be designed and concluding that information in DNA is designed?

 

[MikeG]

....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3okle8DKbA8(Time 19:35)

Watch the whole video.........

There must be a fallacy which is based around the YouTube video as evidence in an argument, surely. Anyway, it's a stage all the creationists get to eventually, when they've nothing left to say, and all their arguments are in tatters. Daniel, to give him his due, took longer than most to fall into this pattern of behaviour, but they all do it in the end.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: A video stating 95% of DNA is junk is supporting the existence of junk DNA

I actually got it from here, a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3okle8DKbA8(Time 19:35)

Watch the whole video (you may someone to help explain it to you) it takes "Junk DNA" (rotflol, btw) to the Woodshed and Bludgeons it Senseless.

There is an internet fallacy often called "argument by YouTube video". It is a fallacy because there are a lot of nuts that put videos on YouTube. Also linking to videos that are long is a way of actually hiding the science.
This is not one of those but lying about the video contents is bad, Daniel.
The Noncoding Genome: Finding Treasures in our Junk DNA

The sequencing of the human genome provided a template with encrypted sequences within that are the code for life. The genome sequence has allowed us to map which regions of our genome associated with human disease. Surprisingly, the efforts to map human genetic diversity have pointed to many regions of DNA previously considered "junk DNA" as critical for human health. Junk DNA comprises approximately 95% of our genome that doesn't encode for protein genes that have been the predominant focus of modern medicine. Yet more recently profound new clues to human health and disease have arisen from the junk DNA.

Here we will discuss the biological treasures that have been identified in the noncoding genome in a historical context.

John L. Rinn is an assistant professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University and Medical School and Senior Associate Member of the Broad Institute.

My emphasis added
10 March 2016 Daniel: A video stating 95% of DNA is junk is supporting the existence of junk DNA !

The video is abut the known feature that non-coding DNA (junk DNA) that does not code for proteins can do other things. An analogy: We have balls that are white and define them as "white balls". This does not stop the white balls from also being bouncy balls!

 

[ThunderChunky]

2. How does RNA Polymerase "KNOW" where/when to start??

Depends on the polymerase and the context. In a test tube, I can make a polymerase start where I want without the assistance of any other proteins or any particular sequence in the DNA template. So basically it doesn't "know" where to start, it's an enzyme--it doesn't know what it's doing any more than an inorganic catalyst.

Even in the cell, the process of start site selection is far from perfect. Many genes have multiple transcription start sites. Sometimes deleterious transcription can even start from within a gene because of the promiscuity of the transcription initiation machinery. Also, when transcription is going in one direction it very often "accidentally" goes in the opposite direction as well. These accidents are so pervasive that cells evolved a lot of mechanisms just to clean up the mess.

 

[Reality Check]

There must be a fallacy which is based around the YouTube video as evidence in an argument, surely.

No officially named fallacy but there is argument from ignorance (of English in this case):
10 March 2016 Daniel: A video stating 95% of DNA is junk is supporting the existence of junk DNA !

 

[Reality Check]

I actually got it from here, a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3okle8DKbA8(Time 19:35)

The fallacy of argument from the inability to comprehend what a citation is, Daniel?
RussDill writes about this sentence from Ed Lewis
"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese"
And you cite a 46 minute long video supporting the existence of junk DNA by John L. Rinn who quotes Lewis without citation !

ETA: This sentence from Lewis is obviously true. The Laws of Genetics basically started with the work of Gregor Mendel who had no idea that genes existed let alone their composition.

 

[Daniel]

Depends on the polymerase and the context. In a test tube, I can make a polymerase start...

That's cool. Can you form a "Functional" RNA Polymerase "Naturally" spontaneously from it's respective "Building Blocks" outside a living cell/organism....?

...where I want without the assistance of any other proteins or any particular sequence in the DNA template.

Are you an Intelligent Agent? Did you study the mechanisms of replication, transcription, and translation et al as a knowledge base or did you fall *** backwards into it?

So basically it doesn't "know" where to start, it's an enzyme--it doesn't know what it's doing any more than an inorganic catalyst.

So RNA Polymerase just floats around and spits out millions of Transcripts per day "all accidental like", eh? sheesh

Even in the cell, the process of start site selection is far from perfect. Many genes have multiple transcription start sites. Sometimes deleterious transcription can even start from within a gene because of the promiscuity of the transcription initiation machinery. Also, when transcription is going in one direction it very often "accidentally" goes in the opposite direction as well.

Astonishing. Yes, there's lots of "accidents".

These accidents are so pervasive that cells evolved a lot of mechanisms just to clean up the mess.

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


regards

 

[Daniel]

There must be a fallacy which is based around the YouTube video as evidence in an argument, surely.

If not, and there isn't lol (it's just "A Medium", duh).... I'm sure you can conjure one up right quick and float it with the other VOLUMES of nonsensical buffoonery.

Anyway, it's a stage all the creationists get to eventually, when they've nothing left to say, and all their arguments are in tatters. Daniel, to give him his due, took longer than most to fall into this pattern of behaviour, but they all do it in the end.

Yea, Just like the New England Patriots left the Chicago Bears 'in tatters' during Super Bowl XX.


my word

 

[Sideroxylon]

What might be astonishing are your utterly dishonest cheap debating tequniques.

You have no interest in the truth. You have no intellectual high ground believing the young earth, deluge and all life respawning at a point in the Middle East that you do. That notion is a joke and you would never attempt to defend it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

1. I didn't say or imply Computer SOFTWARE, I just said "Software".

Software

Computer software also called a program or simply software...

Software runs on a computer (a device designed by humans) and nothing else. Any reference to 'software' in any other field must be an analogy.

2. HE implied (HEAVILY) the "Computer" motif...

motif
1. a recurring subject, theme, idea, etc., especially in a literary, artistic, or musical work.

Use of the word 'motif' implies that he didn't believe the cell is an actual computer (a device designed by humans) but is merely analogous to one, ie. they share certain structural or behavioral patterns.

Patterns are ubiquitous in Nature. Every snowflake forms a complex geometric pattern that can be precisely reproduced by a computer program with the right algorithm. But that doesn't indicate that snowstorms contain software, nor that they are created in a computer. It simply shows that computers can perform mathematical operations that mimic Nature - because we designed them to do just that!

along with the words "Actually" and "LITERALLY"..."DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life...

Again, this make no sense if taken literally. By definition, software runs only on a computer. The first software was designed by Charles Babbage in the early 19th century, for use on his mechanical computer. Before then it simply did not exist. So either he is using the words incorrectly, or they are actually metaphors.

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."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

So they took a naturally occurring formation of organic molecules - that evolved into that form over a period of millions of years - and modified it to do something it wouldn't have done by itself.

This what humans do, take naturally occurring stuff and turn it into something else. A stone becomes an axe head, and a tree branch the handle. A handful of sand becomes a semiconductor chip, copper ore becomes wires, oil becomes a case - and you have a computer. Naturally occurring substances behaving according to the laws of physics and chemistry, being made into something that wouldn't occur naturally because we designed it that way.

Just because humans can design a machine that utilizes the natural properties of the materials it is made of, doesn't mean that they were designed.

 

[Reality Check]

If not, ...

Maybe you should try reading what you have previously written, Daniel !

• Many repeats of using original sources for science and quotations.
  You should know that YouTube videos quoting other sources are not original sources!
• Many repeats about not citing Wikipedia.
  YouTube videos are in general less reliable sources than Wikipedia articles.
  Wikipedia has guidelines to prevent obvious nuts from creating or editing articles.
  Wikipedia has feedback that can address errors in articles.