• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationist argument about DNA and information

Daniel said:
...
Natural Selection, eh?? Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??

Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine Cornell University, Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

Is there something here that's confusing that you need me to elaborate on?

"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005

So if Scientific Theories elucidate "The Mechanism" and according to you... "the mechanism" for evolution (whatever that is :confused:) is "Natural Selection"...and from above we learned that "Natural Selection" is not a mechanism; Therefore.... "Theory of evolution by Natural Selection" is INVALID.


...
Click to expand...


Given that mutations occur and we have some knowledge of the RATES OF MUATIONS, how would it be possible for there to be no "selection"?
How would it be possible for an advantaged individual (due to mutation) NOT to be more likely to survive and reproduce?
Evolution is the logical consequence of random mutations (the universe does behave mathematically -- an extension of logic).
Try to understand that in this context, "selection" refers to a process, not an intelligence making a choice.
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
I've already explained this buffoonery @ length more than 3 TIMES to you personally on more than one thread.


regards
Click to expand...

Hand waving it away is not explaining it, Daniel. How do you suppose 250,000 layers were formed? What mechanism, other than the one I illustrated, would account for that observation? What would a scientist conclude? Or for that matter, anyone else?

Calling it not science does not answer the question. Do you deny that 250,000 layers were recorded in the ice core? Do you deny that ice layers forming in an ice sheet are a known observable yearly phenomenon? How do you reconcile the fact that volcanic debris is found in the exact layers where they are predicted to be, if the layers are not an accurate yearly record? By what other mechanism could those exact layers have those exact debris?

This is your big bug-a-boo. It is the skeleton in your closet. The 800 pound gorilla in the room. If you cannot answer those questions with out hand waving them away, then your arguments are intellectually (and scientifically) bankrupt.

Chillingly, I remain yours, ect, ect.....
 
Apparently, with all the other danielspeak definitions, we must add "self" as having the single definition of "living" or psiibly "conscious ".
Therefore, something like crystalline structure cannot be self-replicating, unless it is directed by a consciousness, e.g.,God. ..
 
Perpetual Student said:
Given that mutations occur and we have some knowledge of the RATES OF MUATIONS, how would it be possible for there to be no "selection"?
How would it be possible for an advantaged individual (due to mutation) NOT to be more likely to survive and reproduce?
Evolution is the logical consequence of random mutations (the universe does behave mathematically -- an extension of logic).
Try to understand that in this context, "selection" refers to a process, not an intelligence making a choice.
Click to expand...

It's also tough deciding where the choice happens. As far as I know, I was the product of some lucky sperm among millions of competitors. Was I somehow chosen to be here whereas those others weren't?

Very strange when you consider all the babies, of all the different species, being born/hatched every minute of every day.

But if I allow chance to intrude in this single step (among so many other chancy steps) then doesn't the whole recipe fall apart, tainted by the intrusion of random? What an odd sort of design that I am just as good as any other place-holder-person in a game with frequent dice rolls meant to remove the design from the design.

What are we to make of a design that relies on no design at all? Surely the purpose of designing something is to get some preferred outcome rather than a less preferred one. Am I then "preferred?" Very strange.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
With regards to the self replicating RNA/PNA, we can get that by catalysing the polymerisation of the RNA/PNA monomers.
Click to expand...


Begging The Question: where'd you get "Functional" RNA??

PNA?...Are you referring to Peptide Nucleic Acids?? You know they're Synthetic, right?


As for the left-right handed thing Daniel mentioned.
First of all, left or right handed monomers preferentially bind to similar molecules, thus creating polymers that will be primarily one handed.
Once you GET a self replicating molecule of either handedness this will rapidly (geologically) deplete that version of the monomers.
Click to expand...


Wrong Again ...

"Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.”
Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.


regards
 
Daniel said:
Begging The Question: where'd you get "Functional" RNA??

PNA?...Are you referring to Peptide Nucleic Acids?? You know they're Synthetic, right?





Wrong Again ...

"Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.”
Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.


regards
Click to expand...

*current* PNA is synthetic yes. That does not preclude that it could have been a precursor of RNA.
And are you being wilfully obtuse? I've both said and given links to a LOT of literature that you can get functional RNA by randomly stringing nucleotides together. Just because that goes against your personal beliefs does not make it any less true.

And again with the 22 year old papers while so much more recent literature is available.
Not to mention that copying by RNA polymerase (evolved to handle a single class of monomer) is not the same as self assembly from a pool of mixed nucleotides. Using this argument is along the lines of 'apples cannot be red because bananas are curved'
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
*current* PNA is synthetic yes. That does not preclude that it could have been a precursor of RNA.
Click to expand...


Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html



I've both said and given links to a LOT of literature that you can get functional RNA by randomly stringing nucleotides together.
Click to expand...


You have NOT Supported Whatsoever, what you've said... and your 'links', show exactly squat.


And again with the 22 year old papers while so much more recent literature is available.
Click to expand...


As mentioned previously, we are not on the cutting edge of like... the Optimal Dose of B12 for Cancer Prevention.

The Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science" were codified in the late 1800's. There hasn't been anything NEW here in quite some time. According to your clumsy appeal here, they're old hat and should be discarded. :rolleyes:


Not to mention that copying by RNA polymerase (evolved to handle a single class of monomer)...
Click to expand...


Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get "Functional" RNA and where'd you get "Functional Proteins"?? (RNA Polymerase = RNA + "Functional Protein" Complex)....?

"evolved", what's that?


regards
 
Daniel said:
There isn't a Scientific Theory of evolution; Ergo...from a Scientific standpoint, it Doesn't EXIST.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. You have been fed that very thing on a spoon over and over and over and over. Still you come up with this crap notion. You have been handed it in all variations from the deeply technical to the kind of thing a kindergartner would understand. At this point, you have demonstrated that you are unable to even spell kindergarten. What conclusion would you draw from a poster who ignores replies? What conclusion would YOU draw from a demonstrably illiterate poster?

Daniel said:
regards
Click to expand...
Once again, you have regard for nothing. Tagging the word "regards" onto the end of every post is, in and of itself, a flat out lie.

You need to return to your pastor who gave you this assignment and seek a refund.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Really? MUTATIONS Here is a summary for you to review.
Click to expand...


1. Another "Wiki" link eh? :rolleyes:


2. Your "Link": "In genetics, the mutation rate is a measure of the rate at which various types of mutations occur over time."

Genetics?? 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...?


regards
 
Daniel said:
1. Another "Wiki" link eh? :rolleyes:


2. Your "Link": "In genetics, the mutation rate is a measure of the rate at which various types of mutations occur over time."

Genetics?? 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...?


regards
Click to expand...

STILL doing fallacies from Ignorance and Incredulity? Because that is your entire post.
 
Daniel said:
..........The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.......
Click to expand...

You can repeat this until you are blue in the face, Daniel. You only make yourself look silly. Superseded and quote mined source, cited repeatedly because it's all you've got. In other words.........you've got nothing.
 
marplots said:
It's also tough deciding where the choice happens. As far as I know, I was the product of some lucky sperm among millions of competitors. Was I somehow chosen to be here whereas those others weren't?

Very strange when you consider all the babies, of all the different species, being born/hatched every minute of every day.
Click to expand...

The 'choice' you are having trouble locating is whether or not your father survived long enough to produce that sperm and have a fun evening with your mom. If his genetic makeup was not as good as it was, he might not have had that encounter (similar is applied to mom and her egg).

But if I allow chance to intrude in this single step (among so many other chancy steps) then doesn't the whole recipe fall apart, tainted by the intrusion of random?
Click to expand...

Nope. In fact, it actually helps. See, your dad has a specific genetic makeup, and contributes half. Which half is randomly determined, but it's always half of what he actually had. All the genes he had were tested to be good enough to survive long enough to have the above 'chance encounter', so you know they're all good enough for that. So were Mom's. By taking some from each, you almost certainly end up somewhere close to the average of the two: (good enough + good enough)/2 = good enough. But, as you don't have the specific makeup of either, you will only end up *close* to them, not exactly. you have a chance to be worse off, and a chance to be better off. Not, to you, that deal is pretty grim: 50-50. But, you go back to the start, and those that were worse off don't have as many kids (if any), but those who are better off tend to have more. This means that your kids have a better chance to have their own 'chance encounter' with someone who came from parents with slightly better than 'good enough' genetic makeup.

What an odd sort of design that I am just as good as any other place-holder-person in a game with frequent dice rolls meant to remove the design from the design.

What are we to make of a design that relies on no design at all? Surely the purpose of designing something is to get some preferred outcome rather than a less preferred one. Am I then "preferred?" Very strange.
Click to expand...

Your existence, as an individual, is random. Some individuals end up preferred, some not. Our species, as a group, is selected by the survival of preferred individuals and removal or the rest.
 
I would pay to see big money to see a presidential debate where one candidate simply keeps insisting that the other candidate doesn't exist.
 
Daniel said:
To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...

"Natural Selection" is not a mechanism; Therefore.... "Theory of evolution by Natural Selection" is INVALID.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

Scientific words don't necessarily have the same meaning as the same words in popular usage. Natural Selection is defined as:-
the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time...

Nomenclature and usage
The term natural selection has slightly different definitions in different contexts...

Following Darwin's primary usage the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms.
Click to expand...

You cannot deconstruct scientific terms by taking words in isolation and making invalid inferences. The words 'natural' and 'selection' have particular meanings when used in everyday speech, but a different meaning when used together in a scientific capacity.

Darwin invented the phrase 'Natural Selection' to label his discovery. He could just as easily have called it 'the Darwin effect' or 'Turboincabulation', but he chose those words because they were a more powerful mnemonic - not to act as a concise description of the theory.

"Natural Selection" is not just the words 'natural' and 'selection' jammed together; Therefore.... your deconstruction of it is INVALID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom