Creationist argument about DNA and information

[abaddon]

Yes, akin to the Chicago Bears being the 'chewtoy' for the Patriots in Super Bowl XX.

Then you charge me with insults This is tantamount to Pol Pot charging the Dalai Lama with genocide.

regards

You left out Anna Nicole.

The simple fact is that you have demonstrably been caught posting dishonest spam. When you joined you signed up to the MA which explicitly forbids such behaviour. Another little bit of dishonesty, no?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Yes, akin to the Chicago Bears being the 'chewtoy' for the Patriots in Super Bowl XX.

Then you charge me with insults This is tantamount to Pol Pot charging the Dalai Lama with genocide.

regards

You're not Da Bears. You're the ball. Where's Brady's staff when you need it.

 

[abaddon]

You're not Da Bears. You're the ball. Where's Brady's staff when you need it.

Oh, I got the balls right enough, don't you worry.

 

[turingtest]

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."

Creationists are like 9/11 CTists- they generally* don't do explanations, because that gets messy. The methodology seems to be 1) see effect; 2) posit cause; 3) ignore need for explicated mechanism that links, but also, somewhat paradoxically, separates the two. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but the easiest distance is to make the two points one. Step 3 allows them to simplistically see any effect as the product of a necessarily normative cause; without the intervention (and complication) of the mechanism, effect and cause both are reduced to universally intent. DNA must be a message, and (in Daniel's CT, which didn't surprise me much), the TOE is only accepted academically due to brainwashing, because explaining the messy details in the middle- how it's a message, how the brainwashing is done- is not only not important, it would leave room for the non-normative. The need to explain "how" is entirely obviated by the non-testable assertion of "why." Gods and conspiracies are only what gods and conspiracies do; and you can't falsify an idea that's deliberately constructed to be impenetrable.

(Shrug) Conspiracy theorists have their faith, and creationists have their ultimate conspiracy theory.

*TBF, I've seen them try- thermite is an attempt at a mechanism by 9/11 Truthers, and I've seen creationists "explain" extended Biblical lifespans in folks like Adam by way of increased oxygen in Earth's earlier atmosphere. Aside from the fact that there isn't any actual evidence for either thing- they're only asserted because they need to be true for the conspiracy/religion to work- they don't work anyway- thermite would not, in fact, do what CTists need it to do for their idea to work, and increased oxygen over sustained periods would decrease lifespan. When those mechanisms fail, recourse is had to the simple claim that, hey man! the CIA/god can do anything! The conspiracy/deity is simply assumed, for the sake of belief in it, to have whatever properties it takes to be a conspiracy/deity. And then, of course- step 3 above, avoid inconvenient and easily-debunked explanations.

 

[jimbob]

Creationists are like 9/11 CTists- they generally* don't do explanations, because that gets messy. The methodology seems to be 1) see effect; 2) posit cause; 3) ignore need for explicated mechanism that links, but also, somewhat paradoxically, separates the two. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but the easiest distance is to make the two points one. Step 3 allows them to simplistically see any effect as the product of a necessarily normative cause; without the intervention (and complication) of the mechanism, effect and cause both are reduced to universally intent. DNA must be a message, and (in Daniel's CT, which didn't surprise me much), the TOE is only accepted academically due to brainwashing, because explaining the messy details in the middle- how it's a message, how the brainwashing is done- is not only not important, it would leave room for the non-normative. The need to explain "how" is entirely obviated by the non-testable assertion of "why." Gods and conspiracies are only what gods and conspiracies do; and you can't falsify an idea that's deliberately constructed to be impenetrable.

(Shrug) Conspiracy theorists have their faith, and creationists have their ultimate conspiracy theory.

*TBF, I've seen them try- thermite is an attempt at a mechanism by 9/11 Truthers, and I've seen creationists "explain" extended Biblical lifespans in folks like Adam by way of increased oxygen in Earth's earlier atmosphere. Aside from the fact that there isn't any actual evidence for either thing- they're only asserted because they need to be true for the conspiracy/religion to work- they don't work anyway- thermite would not, in fact, do what CTists need it to do for their idea to work, and increased oxygen over sustained periods would decrease lifespan. When those mechanism fail, recourse is had to the simple claim that, hey man! the CIA/god can do anything! The conspiracy/deity is simply assumed, for the sake of belief in it, to have whatever properties it takes to be a conspiracy/deity. And then, of course- step 3 above, avoid inconvenient and easily-debunked explanations.

I hadn't thought of it like that before, so thanks...

 

[turingtest]

I hadn't thought of it like that before, so thanks...

YW (and thank you for the nom, btw). I don't insist on it, of course; but I'd seen the similarity before, and, reading certain posts in the "Experiment" thread in the 9/11 sub-forum, it struck me even more forcefully the ways the mindsets are the same.

 

[Son of Inigo]

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.

~Anything not a mined quote snipped~

Daniel, again with the quote mines.

Let us see, where to start picking them apart? Oh, I know, with the Richard Lewontin one. This is from later in that article

I make a living as a molecular geneticist. My laboratory has expensive machinery for sequencing DNA, an operation we perform every day of the week, because the knowledge about genes that DNA sequencing and genetic engineering have produced represents the single most important advance in population and evolutionary genetics in the history of these sciences

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/03/06/science-the-demon-haunted-world-an-exchange/

That quote is pulled from the exact same source Daniel. He is not, in either his critique of The Demon Haunted World, nor in the Science & ‘The Demon-Haunted World’: An Exchange follow-up article, saying that the TOE is wrong. He is critiquing Sagan's style and phrasing. He nowhere objects to any of the science, but he does object to how Sagan's portrays that science, and how he thinks Sagan is giving counter-productive arguments.

From the review of Sagan's book you are trying to use.

Nearly every present-day scientist would agree with Carl Sagan that our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural demons, witches, and spirits of every kind, including any of the various gods from Adonai to Zeus. (I say “nearly” every scientist because our creationist opponent in the Little Rock debate, and other supporters of “Creation Science,” would insist on being recognized.)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/

Daniel, again, I will say that those quotes don't mean what you think they mean. Taken in context, they are not "proof" of anyone denying the TOE. Again, this is a squabble between a biologist and a cosmologist, about how best to present science to the masses. Lewontin actually might have a point, up to a point.

I am also guessing you skipped over the first part of the review where it is noted that Lewontin and Sagan appeared together in a "Evolution vs Creation" debate. They were the ones advocating the teaching of TOE in science classes. Why would a scientist appear at a debate to argue the merits of TOE science education, if he did not think the TOE was real science? Nowhere in the review does Lewontin indicate that Sagan is wrong about the TOE.

I read the review, and I am pretty sure I grasped what Lewontin was saying. Not sure the original poster of the review can say the same.

On to the next one. Ernst Mayr

It is a bit disingenuous of you to not include the subtitle to Mayr's work. The complete title of the work is:

Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist.

http://philpapers.org/rec/MAYTAN and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...ayr&qid=1457984724&ref_=sr_1_6&s=books&sr=1-6

Why did you leave the subtitle off? Was it because you knew it was damning to your argument and thought no one would go check your quote mine? Or did you not know it existed, as you are only copying and pasting off of other people's 'research'?

This is the abstract from the philpapers link on this work:

Provides a philosophical analysis of such biological concepts as natural selection, adaptation, speciation, and evolution.

Emphasis mine

Would you please show me a science paper of Mayr's that refutes TOE, or even just slightly agrees with anything you have argued in favor here?

Oh, and while your at it, would you care to rebut the quote from Leslie E. Orgel. You brought Orgel into this, and this is what he said about an earlier paper that was being disingenuously used to argue for inclusion of Creationist science in schools. It was a paper similar to the one you quote mined from.

The paper is intended to support a conventional Darwinian form of evolution based on reproduction, selection, and mutation of polymeric molecules and to argue against a different form of evolution based on self-organizing cycles of chemical reaction. Supporters of both sides of the argument take evolution for granted, as do all competent biologists, but they disagree about important details. … it would be appropriate to point out that all scientists carrying out experimental work on the origins of life believe that one form or another of Darwinism can adequately explain the origin of life on the earth without any recourse to "intelligent design.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full and http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1754

Why do you continue to dodge rebutting this quote, Daniel? This is at least the third time (I admit I may have lost count) that you have been asked for a rebuttal.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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

Obviously. It's gods all the way down.

Seems like this should be a meme or something.

 

[Reality Check]

"Gibbs Free Energy" (yep, in caps).

Daniel definitely does not understand what Gibbs free energy is.

The Gibbs free energy (kJ in SI units) is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a thermodynamically closed system (one that can exchange heat and work with its surroundings, but not matter); this maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process.

If living beings existed at constant pressure and temperature then a decrease in Gibbs energy is needed for spontaneous processes. But this is obviously not true - temperatures and pressures change daily because of a thing called day and night .
This is one reason why abiogenesis does not assume constant pressure and temperature. The various mechanisms have environments that supply energy, e.g. the "lightning" in the Miller–Urey experiment.

For that matter maybe Daniel is denying the existence of living beings (including him)! I wonder if the deltaG for transcription of DNA by RNA is positive or negative?

Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question seems all we have from Daniel
8 March 2016 Daniel: Cite the value of DeltaG for reaction of Nucleosides forming from bases and sugars (and you need to learn what Gibbs free energy actually means!).

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: A lie about Joyce and Orgel The RNA World 1993

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

...A lie by quote mining:
9 March 2016 Daniel: A lie by quote mining Mayr 1988: 162 (he provides his definition of evolution in the next sentence that you mined out)

The idiocy of citing an evolutionary biologist: “Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould

An actual lie.
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.
This is a 1993 book about abiogenesis by the construction of RNA first (the RNA world). The authors support one mechanism for the abiogenesis that Daniel denies even exists .
This essay starts:

The general idea that, in the development of life on the earth, evolution based on RNA replication preceded the appearance of protein synthesis was first proposed more than 20 years ago (Woese 1967; Crick 1968; Orgel 1968). It was suggested that catalysts made entirely of RNA are likely to have been important at this early stage in the origins of life, but the possibility that RNA catalysts might still be present in contemporary organisms was overlooked. The unanticipated discovery of ribozymes (Kruger et al. 1982; Guerrier-Takada et al. 1983) initiated extensive discussion of the role of RNA in the origins of life (Pace and Marsh 1985; Sharp 1985; Lewin 1986) and led to the coining of the phrase “the RNA world” (Gilbert 1986).
The RNA world means different things to different authors, so it would be futile to attempt a restrictive definition. All RNA world hypotheses include three basic assumptions: (1) At some time in the evolution of life, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA; (2) Watson-Crick base-pairing was the key to replication; (3) genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts. RNA world hypotheses differ in what they assume about life that may have preceded the RNA world, about the metabolic complexity of the RNA world, and about the role of low-molecular-weight cofactors, possibly including polypeptides, in the chemistry of the RNA world.

It should be emphasized that the existence of an RNA world as a precursor of our DNA/protein world is a hypothesis. We find...

15 March 2015 Daniel: A lie about Joyce and Orgel The RNA World 1993

Ending with "the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room" stupidity of intelligent or even stupid atoms !

 

[Daniel]

I think I'm beginning to see the type of experiment that would convince Daniel

When someone, from a loose collection of atoms, recreates all 4.5 billion years of earth's formation, the emergence of complexer molecules, self replicators, life and more complex lifeforms, all WITHOUT using any equipment, then he will be convinced.

Yes, you see:

My Argument is: "Intelligent Design".

Your Argument is: "Nature" did it.

Are you still following?

Nature, doesn't have "Equipment". Equipment is built by Intelligent Agents; see the connection with "My Argument"??

Your only other recourse is to postulate...that there were Companies/Labs on your fairytale "Pre-Biotic" Earth Synthesizing then Polymerizing "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins from their respective building blocks!!!

Do you see the problems with this, by chance?

oh and btw, can you Scientifically Validate "all 4.5 billion years" for us...? I mean, this is "SCIENCE", right...?

So, please provide the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment that Validates/Supports your trainwreck here...?
And, please Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?

Because any smaller experiment, no matter how much it disproves his central tenets, just get handwaved away.

Like, for instance....?

So you conjure a non-existent fairytale experiment which disproves my 'central tenets' then "Cherry On Top" divine a future Hand-Wave dismissal from me??

What on Earth sir?? Do you have a Crystal Ball or Special evo Mind Powers? Other??

Let's TEST your Blind Conjured Fairytale Conjecture Acumen...what's my favorite color?



Will you be posting this motif @ some point so as to drive home your "Rock Solid" position ??...

oy vey

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, you see:...

What we read is Creationist Gibberish, Daniel !
You have no arguments that an intelligent design or designer exists except constant begging the question that they do exist.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, you see:

My Argument is: "Intelligent Design".

Nope. You are attempting to insert creationism by flat out lies.

Your Argument is: "Nature" did it.

Nope. Everyone else's position is that it demonstrably happened with no need for divine intervention.

Are you still following?

Yup. But it appears that you are not.

Nature, doesn't have "Equipment". Equipment is built by Intelligent Agents; see the connection with "My Argument"??

"Nature" has no need of equipment. Why you think it does is anyone's guess.

Your only other recourse is to postulate...that there were Companies/Labs on your fairytale "Pre-Biotic" Earth Synthesizing then Polymerizing "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins from their respective building blocks!!!

Strawman.

Do you see the problems with this, by chance?

Yup. The problem is that you are making up total BS.

oh and btw, can you Scientifically Validate "all 4.5 billion years" for us...? I mean, this is "SCIENCE", right...?

Yup. You have been handed that on a gilded platter several times by several members. Pretending that you have not is no substitute for an actual argument.

So, please provide the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment that Validates/Supports your trainwreck here...?

Done. Many times.

And, please Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?

Done. Many times by many members.

Like, for instance....?

Why? You will neither read nor cogently respond beyond your copypasta. Why should anyone expend that effort?

So you conjure a non-existent fairytale experiment which disproves my 'central tenets' then "Cherry On Top" divine a future Hand-Wave dismissal from me??

Why not? You conjecture an invisible bloke in the sky.

What on Earth sir?? Do you have a Crystal Ball or Special evo Mind Powers? Other??

What on earth sir??? You claim to know the mind of whichever crackpot god you claim.

Let's TEST your Blind Conjured Fairytale Conjecture Acumen...what's my favorite color?

Your favourite colour is triangle. Now what?

Will you be posting this motif @ some point so as to drive home your "Rock Solid" position ??...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/IntelligentScientists_zps39b1ebd6.jpg[/qimg]

Look to your own foundations first.

oy vey

Still Jewish, I see.


So where next spamboy?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That cartoon Daniel is so very fond of and linked now for the 4th time or so pretty much indicates his (and the cartoonist's) utter lack of understanding how such science works and the timescales that we try to emulate.

Daniel, kindly explain how, without any machinery or lab equipment, the myriad of conditions of pre-biotic earth (temperature, pressure, lack of oxygen, various forms of minerals etc) can be simulated while at the same time compressing reactions that occurred at a geological timescale (ie millions if not hundreds of millions of years) into something humans can observe.

And while you are at it, can you refute the actual science of the ribozyme experiments I explained? You know, the ones where randomly created pieces of RNA exhibit biological function coupled to genetic information?
Or do you consider random sequences a form of actual design? In other words, did your god just randomly throw things together and looked at what worked?

 

[hecd2]

Daniel, again with the quote mines.

Let us see, where to start picking them apart? Oh, I know, with the Richard Lewontin one. This is from later in that article

Yes, it's very telling but completely expected that having asked for the maths of natural selection, and having been presented with a thoughtful and accurate post about just that (and the other mathematical foundations of theoretical biology), he hand waves it all away as mere "statistics" (he is not sufficiently educated to realise that thermodynamics is a classically stochastic subject and major aspects of QM are also statistically based); and incredibly he quote-mines Lewontin and Mayr in support of his silliness.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, it's very telling but completely expected that having asked for the maths of natural selection, and having been presented with a thoughtful and accurate post about just that (and the other mathematical foundations of theoretical biology), he hand waves it all away as mere "statistics" (he is not sufficiently educated to realise that thermodynamics is a classically stochastic subject and major aspects of QM are also statistically based); and incredibly he quote-mines Lewontin and Mayr in support of his silliness.

Daniel is copypasta. End thread.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, you see:

My Argument is: "Intelligent Design".

Your Argument is: "Nature" did it.

Are you still following?

Nature, doesn't have "Equipment". Equipment is built by Intelligent Agents; see the connection with "My Argument"??

Your only other recourse is to postulate...that there were Companies/Labs on your fairytale "Pre-Biotic" Earth Synthesizing then Polymerizing "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins from their respective building blocks!!!

Do you see the problems with this, by chance?

oh and btw, can you Scientifically Validate "all 4.5 billion years" for us...? I mean, this is "SCIENCE", right...?

So, please provide the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment that Validates/Supports your trainwreck here...?
And, please Highlight the "Independent Variable" used in the TESTS....?






Like, for instance....?

So you conjure a non-existent fairytale experiment which disproves my 'central tenets' then "Cherry On Top" divine a future Hand-Wave dismissal from me??

What on Earth sir?? Do you have a Crystal Ball or Special evo Mind Powers? Other??

Let's TEST your Blind Conjured Fairytale Conjecture Acumen...what's my favorite color?



Will you be posting this motif @ some point so as to drive home your "Rock Solid" position ??...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/IntelligentScientists_zps39b1ebd6.jpg[/qimg]


oy vey

If you understood the evolution account you would recognise the cartoon for a strawman. ***** and giggles among ignorant creationists I guess.

I dare you to start a thread on the age of the earth. Or the Flood and ark myth that kids can disassemble.

 

[Perpetual Student]

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

Same ignorance and incredulity! When will you learn that this approach has no traction here?

 

[abaddon]

Same ignorance and incredulity! When will you learn that this approach has no traction here?

Never.

 

[Mcreal]

Nature, doesn't have "Equipment".

All 'Nature' needed & needs is chemical bonds centered around C, H, O, N, S, & P -

Organic chemistry provides wonderful mechanisms.