Creationist argument about DNA and information

Daniel said:
Well here, try this....

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's... which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.

Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?

Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then @ the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.

Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

So Go Ahead....?

There's No Quotes, that Pavlov's Dogs can't run around and spit out frenzied Baseless Assertion Fallacies: "Quote Mining" "Quote Mining"... because they haven't a cogent substantive argument for absolutely anything; AND...which they have no clue what 'Quote Mining' is/means anyway LOL.


What NOW, eh?? Was I on The Grassy Knoll, miss any Comma Splices, not in the Right Font ?? C'mon conjure up something :rolleyes:

oy vey
Click to expand...

Cool explanation. I bet that's exactly how it went down too. Can I use that one my 5th Grade Science test?

Reminds me of the cool story of my existence. Everyone who ever lived prior to me had to attend a giant meeting to discuss and agree exactly how everyone's lives would play out to the most minute of details in order to ensure that I was born. All that bother just for me. How special I must be in order for the dead and the yet to be born to plan just how to create me.
 
Daniel said:
Lets get back on Topic shall we ??
Click to expand...
Ok Daniel.
Give us the definition of information that does not beg the question or assume the result by asserting that information can only be created by an intelligent agency.
This is not "Code is written by human beings, DNA is code. Thus DNA was written by human beings" :p!
 
Daniel said:
And Again, Shannon Information (and Kolmogorov Complexity) speak nothing WHATSOEVER to the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity of the Information in DNA/Biologic Systems...
Click to expand...
Whoops, Daniel - you really need to read the science about DNA :p!
The information content of DNA is often analyzed using Shannon’s theory of information ("Shannon Information").
Read
Better yet - read what you cite :jaw-dropp!
BTW, that's Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize, Physiology) that you are quoting who is not an ID supporter and whose paper is not about ID!

ETA: You did not understand Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins.
This is simply that Shannon entropy applied to DNA does not include the functionality of the information. So the authors extended Shannon entropy to include functionality. Thus functional sequence complexity!
 
Last edited:
 
Daniel said:
Well here, try this....

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's... which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Click to expand...

~snipped the rest~

First, no, we do not have to conclude what you wrote. No one involved in TOE research concludes that.

Second. Why do you insist that the earliest life was composed of DNA? DNA in the form we see it today, did not spontaneously appear, there were intermediate steps. In other words, there was evolution.

Third. You are missing one very important point to all of this Daniel. Time. Lots and lots of freaking time. 4.5 billion years worth of it. Yes, 6,000 years is not enough time for it to happen, but 4.5 billion is, as evidenced by the fact that we have DNA based life forms on this planet.

There's No Quotes, that Pavlov's Dogs can't run around and spit out frenzied Baseless Assertion Fallacies: "Quote Mining" "Quote Mining"... because they haven't a cogent substantive argument for absolutely anything; AND...which they have no clue what 'Quote Mining' is/means anyway LOL.
Click to expand...

First. Well that is a welcomed change.

Second, why do you accuse us of quote mining Daniel. Would you care to share any examples of anyone quote mining in this thread?


What NOW, eh?? Was I on The Grassy Knoll, miss any Comma Splices, not in the Right Font ?? C'mon conjure up something :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

First. I doubt you are old enough to have been present on the grassy knoll.

Second. No one has accused you of being on the grassy knoll.

Third. I am trying to conjure up the reason you won't comment on your debunked quotes. Why is that Daniel? Care to help me out there?
 
Daniel said:
Well here, try this....

To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's... which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.

Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?

Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then @ the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.

Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

So Go Ahead....?

There's No Quotes, that Pavlov's Dogs can't run around and spit out frenzied Baseless Assertion Fallacies: "Quote Mining" "Quote Mining"... because they haven't a cogent substantive argument for absolutely anything; AND...which they have no clue what 'Quote Mining' is/means anyway LOL.


What NOW, eh?? Was I on The Grassy Knoll, miss any Comma Splices, not in the Right Font ?? C'mon conjure up something :rolleyes:

oy vey
Click to expand...

Could God, being omnipotent and all, create a universe where such amazing complexity can emerge? Where self organisation produces complex entities that then arrange themselves in greater complexity? Where self replicating entities can become ever more complex and "clever" through mutation and selection by their environment?

Is God constrained by what you think are the laws of nature and what they allow for?

The universe as a grand machine was a popular one for a long time among Christian thinkers. Maybe your brand of American 20th century Protestantism is misguided?
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
Well here, try this....
Click to expand...
A fairy story about what a "you" concludes need not reflect what real people conclude.
I hold a "Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position". I hold that we can look at the universe and work out what it does. I even allow for ghosts, gods, etc. - if they provide scientific and credible evidence that they exist.
When I view DNA, etc. I
  • see overwhelming evidence that DNA evolved.
  • see a complex molecule that obeys the laws of physics and chemistry.
  • see reactions that work despite any still unsupported assertions about change in Gibbs free energy.
  • are not ignorant about abiogenesis and that it need not start with DNA.
  • see no signs of intelligent design.
  • am not ignorant about Demski's debunked idea about a free lunch.
  • are not dumb enough to write nonsense about a cocktail party, grassy knob or other fantasies :p!
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
It keeps the dachshund company while I'm at work.
Click to expand...

Here's how thick I am - I thought, "Oh, marplots has a dachshund!

Daily I submit to the will of Dog ...

To bring this back to DNA, I think whoever bred these beasts burrowed so far into the wolf genome that they teased out a transitional creature - a generic mammal, prototypically poised at the intersection of Predator and Prey ... but I have some very odd ideas.

This reminds me of another sort-of-on-topic topic: What did God have against dinosaurs, that he drowned them all to death? Or, what kind of creator condemns so much of his creation to eternal torture?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Good catch! This is how Daniel argues: out of context quotes, bad science from ID sources, ignorance and incredulity. He's got nothing!
Click to expand...

The editor in me feels compelled now to make this point: All quotes are taken out of context. That's what makes them quotes. Otherwise they would be transcripts.

There is though IMO a duty to remain faithful to the spirit of the source from whom we borrow. That's a personal and professional ethic. Also a practical guideline for a news reporter: You don't want to burn bridges with sources you may need in the future.
 
Daniel said:
You and your cohorts are an embarrassment, I haven't found one that could pass 5th Grade General Science.



All you and you cohorts can do is post "WIKI" links ROTFLOL. And Carpet Bomb Baseless Assertion (Fallacies) with Op-Ed Color Commentaries. rinse/repeat, rinse/repeat ad nauseam.



Have you read through this Thread :jaw-dropp





oy vey
Click to expand...

Who do you think you are fooling? Oy vey!
 
Reality Check said:
Whoops, Daniel - you really need to read the science about DNA :p!

The information content of DNA is often analyzed using Shannon’s theory of information ("Shannon Information").

Read


Better yet - read what you cite :jaw-dropp!

BTW, that's Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize, Physiology) that you are quoting who is not an ID supporter and whose paper is not about ID!



ETA: You did not understand Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins.

This is simply that Shannon entropy applied to DNA does not include the functionality of the information. So the authors extended Shannon entropy to include functionality. Thus functional sequence complexity!
Click to expand...

Quoted so that Daniel gets a chance at getting enlightened although he has Reality Check on ignore. He will of course ignore this too, but now he had the chance to learn.
 
Daniel said:
Where is the Information in DNA...? Show us a Picture? Please show on DNA Proper, the Instructions for the assembly of: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase...?
Click to expand...

Why choose this two random enzymes? Well, like all proteins, the DNA gene doesn't just have "instructions" for the assembly of the proteins, like an assembly manual, but there is a direct physico-chemical link between the DNA sequence and the assembled and folded protein. The process doesn't require an agreed arbitrary language - it occurs through entirely natural (although very complex) reactions.
 
From what Daniel posted:

People doing science often use sophisticated technology, but science doesn't require it. Our ecologist observing natural bird behavior and our geologist examining an outcrop neither use particularly sophisticated technology. In fact, the only technology in common to all science is the notebook in which observations are recorded.
Click to expand...

Daniel, your own citation says that ecologists and geologists are "doing science." Do you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom