Creationist argument about DNA and information

[steenkh]

Copy and Paste, eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message?

The reason why your copious copypasta is a kind of browbeating is that whenever somebody checks your references, it turns out they are worthless to your argument: they are taken out of context, and often by authors who hold exactly the opposite view of what you imply. You have been told this again and again, and yet you continue. I think it is a kind of dishonesty of you. Even if you really think the quotes a valid, it is still dishonest to continue using the mined quotes when you known that the source is tainted.

It is also counterproductive for your debate, because some people - like me - might stop taking your quotes seriously, knowing your history of misquotes.

2. I not only SAY Age can't be proven/Validated by the Scientific Method ("Science"), I SHOW WHY, Big Difference.

You can say that only by employing a nonsense definition of science that supports your case. In doing so you have defeated yourself: I have not seen anybody here who thinks this move is brilliant of you. Perhaps you should keep that kind of argument for those who are already fans of creationism.

Well...as soon as I surmise the obvious, My mission here switches @ Light Speed from "persuading" to EXPOSING and to PUMMELING all arguments against the TRUTH. (SEE Mandates: Ephesians 5:11 and 2 Corinthians 10:5)

Start using valid arguments and refrain from the steady stream of wrong definitions, and arguments from incredulity and ignorance, then we might feel exposed and pummeled. So far? not so much ...

 

[Daniel]

Daniel has demonstrated his inability to engage in rational discourse, so this isn't so much for him as for others who might be reading this thread.

Here's something for those "others"...

A great deal of discussion about the Theory of Evolution focuses on its qualitative features, and ignores the complex mathematical foundation for its various aspects such as the statistics of allele frequency, the fixation of alleles, the wave dynamics of the spread of beneficial alleles, kin selection, fitness costs and benefits, genetic drift, linkage disequilibrium and so on. The relevant branch of evolutionary biology is known as Population Genetics.

1. Statistics, Correlations, Similarities, Comparisons...isn't Science, they speak nothing to Causation.

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
(I HIGHLY recommend reading this review)


2. Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is not only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING." {Emphasis Mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.


You're just 40 years behind the Power Curve.

There are several textbooks on population genetics

Begging The Question: 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

 

[abaddon]

Here's something for those "others"...




1. Statistics, Correlations, Similarities, Comparisons...isn't Science, they speak nothing to Causation.

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
(I HIGHLY recommend reading this review)


2. Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is not only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING." {Emphasis Mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.


You're just 40 years behind the Power Curve.






Begging The Question: 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

Emergent behaviour. Go look it up.

 

[Daniel]

The reason why your copious copypasta is a kind of browbeating is that whenever somebody checks your references, it turns out they are worthless to your argument: they are taken out of context...

Sure and Anna Nicole married for love and Pol Pot was her florist.

You forgot that I was on the Grassy Knoll also.


regards

 

[abaddon]

Sure and Anna Nicole married for love and Pol Pot was her florist.

You forgot that I was on the Grassy Knoll also.


regards

Copypasta again. How droll.

Got any new material?

How about you tell us all...

"What caused your god?" eighth time of asking.

Your inability to answer this simple question indicates that there is something about the question that bothers you.

 

[JeanTate]

Somewhat OT, but not really ...

Presumably, Danielscience aims, at some level, to provide explanations of how things work. After all, curiosity about this sort of question is widespread among humans, and is certainly near universal among ISF members.

We know, from Daniel's many posts, that GR, QM, and the ToE have no place in Danielscience; he has spent a great deal of ink (an analogy, Daniel) arguing baldly stating that they are worse than useless. Not to mention, illogical, not science, not backed by objective evidence, etc, etc, etc.

So, how does one explain how a computer works, at the physical level, using Danielscience? What are 'bits' at the physical level? What is a 'band gap'? Etc.

Likewise, successfully finding your way from one location to another, by driving your car (I assume Daniel drives cars), using a GPS?

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"¹ How, then, to explain cancer, using Danielscience? For example, why do plants not get cancer? What is the role of "information" (in Daniel's idiosyncratic meaning) in cancer? Why are some cancers, in some animals, contagious, but not generally? (I ask about cancer because it is so prevalent, and in mainstream biology its explanations so intricately tied to evolution).

Now I'm not expecting Daniel to respond - I'm sure he has me on Ignore - but if anyone else who's been assiduously reading Daniel's posts here (and in the other threads) would like to take a shot ...

¹ source WP, and the ones it cites; per WP: it "is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution."

 

[abaddon]

Somewhat OT, but not really ...

Presumably, Danielscience aims, at some level, to provide explanations of how things work. After all, curiosity about this sort of question is widespread among humans, and is certainly near universal among ISF members.

We know, from Daniel's many posts, that GR, QM, and the ToE have no place in Danielscience; he has spent a great deal of ink (an analogy, Daniel) arguing baldly stating that they are worse than useless. Not to mention, illogical, not science, not backed by objective evidence, etc, etc, etc.

So, how does one explain how a computer works, at the physical level, using Danielscience? What are 'bits' at the physical level? What is a 'band gap'? Etc.

Likewise, successfully finding your way from one location to another, by driving your car (I assume Daniel drives cars), using a GPS?

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"¹ How, then, to explain cancer, using Danielscience? For example, why do plants not get cancer? What is the role of "information" (in Daniel's idiosyncratic meaning) in cancer? Why are some cancers, in some animals, contagious, but not generally? (I ask about cancer because it is so prevalent, and in mainstream biology its explanations so intricately tied to evolution).

Now I'm not expecting Daniel to respond - I'm sure he has me on Ignore - but if anyone else who's been assiduously reading Daniel's posts here (and in the other threads) would like to take a shot ...

¹ source WP, and the ones it cites; per WP: it "is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution."

Computers work because of the demons trapped inside the box. Obviously.

Possibly unicorns if you have an Apple. Or hobgoblins if you have linux.

 

[TheAdversary]

'Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.'

This is why evolution probably didn't start with DNA, there had to have been a simpler molecule that started copying itself. This then later evolved, through natural selection,
into the DNA based creatures that became prevalent. DNA is a later product, when Evolution must have been going on for some time already. Dogs don't form spontaneously either.

 

[Daniel]

'DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the
first creatures'

Yep

Shannon Information Theory tells us....

Neither Shannon Information or Kolmogorov Complexity speak to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity of DNA.

Information and Entropy are really just two sides of the same coin. Information is absence of Uncertainty, and Uncertainty is absence
of Information. So this 'information never comes about by chance'...

Correct.

That's a good question, but then they say it must come from a 'mind'. And how did that 'mind' arise in a Universe

Not IN the Universe, HE created IT; Ergo...HE's outside of it.

Nothing can create itself because that would mean it existed prior to it's existence.....Logical Seppuku.

HE is the First Cause/Prime Mover/Un-Caused-Cause...The "Ontological Primitive".

They already have to assume that the Mind of God did it, in their 'proof' that God did it. So, it's circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion.

Well since Information is the Basis for the Existence of Life and Matter (SEE: Quantum Mechanics) and Information is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!! Then, pray tell....

How in the World can this be Circular Reasoning


regards

 

[Daniel]

'Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.'

This is why evolution probably didn't start with DNA, there had to have been a simpler molecule that started copying itself.

Yes and Invisible 3 toed gnomes create dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the crab nebula.

This then later evolved...

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

...through natural selection

Yes and FREEDOM (another "CONCEPT") wrote the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

Dogs don't form spontaneously either.

Good to know


regards

 

[abaddon]

Still avoiding the question that you dare not answer, Daniel?

What caused your god, Daniel?

Ninth time of asking but you are afraid to answer.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Still avoiding the question that you dare not answer, Daniel?

What caused your god, Daniel?

Ninth time of asking but you are afraid to answer.

Quoted for visibility in case you're on someone's ignore list.

 

[Daniel]

In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only valid for closed systems, which means that they do not get input from outside. The Earth is continually getting energy from the Sun, and this is used to generate more order, but at the cost of massive increase in entropy in the Sun, so overall the universe moves towards more entropy.

So then, your contention is that since the Earth is an Open System (and receives energy from the SUN) that it is Exempt from the affects of 2LOT, eh? ROTFLOL...

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Enqineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

I suppose Dr. Asimov is just using an analogy, eh?


The Sun is the Savior, eh?

In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Specific Complexity" (Cellular Structures) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts/ Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the Energy meaningfully. Without them EXISTING FIRST, the SUN'S Energy is like a Bull in a China Shop!
Extracellular Nucleo-bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program.

Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive. It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough. And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected. Why? Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use. Now let's put solar panels on the roof to capture the sun's energy and add an information program (computer) to direct it to produce electricity. Now the sun is no longer destructive. But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy!

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?

Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it?

This point is lost on creationists who think that the 2nd LofD prevents life from forming without God.

You're just Blindly Parroting this nonsensical mantra without the least bit of scrutiny/due diligence. I'd bet the farm you think DeltaG is a disco band from the 70's.


oy vey

 

[RussDill]

Sure and Anna Nicole married for love and Pol Pot was her florist.

You forgot that I was on the Grassy Knoll also.


regards

I'm sure unbelievers who read this thread and see your expert defamation of a deceased mother of two will be convinced of the power of Christ and accept young earth creationism into their heart on the spot.

 

[abaddon]

So then, your contention is that since the Earth is an Open System (and receives energy from the SUN) that it is Exempt from the affects of 2LOT, eh? ROTFLOL...

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Enqineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

I suppose Dr. Asimov is just using an analogy, eh?


The Sun is the Savior, eh?

In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Specific Complexity" (Cellular Structures) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts/ Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the Energy meaningfully. Without them EXISTING FIRST, the SUN'S Energy is like a Bull in a China Shop!
Extracellular Nucleo-bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program.

Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive. It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough. And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected. Why? Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use. Now let's put solar panels on the roof to capture the sun's energy and add an information program (computer) to direct it to produce electricity. Now the sun is no longer destructive. But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy!

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?

Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it?






You're just Blindly Parroting this nonsensical mantra without the least bit of scrutiny/due diligence. I'd bet the farm you think DeltaG is a disco band from the 70's.


oy vey

Why are you copying verbatim from this place?

Have you no thoughts of your own?

 

[Minoosh]

Do you think that my response to your question about this thread was accurate?

"sophistry and word games "

"and insults."

I'm sure it was - but I need to read up on "sophistry." Also I'm not sure what degree of "agency" is taking place.

There are whole walls of type that seemed to be triggered, in a defensive effort to throw out enough barbs to overwhelm calmer lines of enquiry. A computer could probable be programmed with such automatic walls of miscellaneous cacophony whenever it recognizes attempts to introduce certain questions.

But then, certain approaches occasionally bring out calmer responses (surrounded by defensive jeers, but still occasionally a direct answer). The danger to the young-earth model comes not just from atheists but from many other Christian interpretations of Genesis. (Jewish and Muslim as well, maybe).

I'm not sure this is meant to be personally hostile - just to shut down dangerous conversations with repetitive, strident and stereotypical ridicule.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I usually switch, day by day, from feeling sorry to laughing at these silly creationists. But I've lost track so today I think I'll just point and giggle.

The endless copy pasta that they think provide gotcha moments.
Hilarious.

I think I'll have a go......

The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881)

 

[Minoosh]

Why are you copying verbatim from this place?

Have you no thoughts of your own?

A salient question.

 

[abaddon]

A salient question.

You should google random phrases from those posts. It all appears to be copypasta.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Come on Daniel, answer the question...

"What caused your god?" for the seventh time of asking.

He will not respond because the god that caused this god was caused by another god, who... Well, you know the rest.