Creationist argument about DNA and information

Perpetual Student said:
Clearly these are letters of a Western European alphabet clustered in various sized groupings numbering eleven. They do not appear to have any linguistic meaning but may be some code for anther purpose. On the other hand, they could be senseless clustering of letters in an attempt to make some meaningless semantic argument.
Click to expand...

You've just proved, once again, that information doesn't need an intelligent source.
 
Daniel said:
OK, please extract the Information in this "Contextual" 'data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsxrefd qzofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.

??
Click to expand...
No problem. It tells us you are right handed due to the bias of character selection.

Next?
 
Forgot the link to the mined quote

Sorry, y'all, forgot to post the link to the mined quote used by Daniel above. I provide it so that, you know, someone could actually read the paper, and not just rely on mined quotes from it.

Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors

http://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-4-47
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Clearly these are letters of a Western European alphabet clustered in various sized groupings numbering eleven. They do not appear to have any linguistic meaning but may be some code for anther purpose. On the other hand, they could be senseless clustering of letters in an attempt to make some meaningless semantic argument.
Click to expand...


Wrong-O-RAMA. You said Information = "Contextual Data". I asked you to Extract the Information form this "Contextual" 'Data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsxrefd qzofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.

SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM!!!!

In any case, I am still waiting for you to make some scientific point. Do you have one or is it all semantics?
And -- what are the theological implications of all this?
Click to expand...


Yes: Semantics ("Word's...they mean things" :rolleyes:), Quote Mining, I was on The Grassy Knoll, la la la

This is outside the TOPIC: DNA and Information. SUPPORT your trainwreck above or head to the Rail.

regards
 
Jihad has to be understood from the perspective of the holy warrior.

The short cut to the virgins is being in the battle. You don't have to win. The more humiliating the defeat, the more Christ-like we become: carry the cross to your own crucifixion while the crowd mocks and jeers.

We are looking at a vision of Christ.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Technology is not science!

Texas strawman of the golden middle fallacy!

You can't "develop" computer code, it's not film.

Develop:

a. To process (a photosensitive medium such as exposed film) in order to produce a photographic image.

b. To produce (a photographic image) by use of a photosensitive medium or by printing from a digital file.

A five year old can see that. I know cuz I are one. Skeptics are poopy heads.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you need to work on your spelling and grammar (it's pretty... consistent), and your formatting is rather too uniform.
 
Daniel said:
Wrong-O-RAMA. You said Information = "Contextual Data". I asked you to Extract the Information form this "Contextual" 'Data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsxrefd qzofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.

SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM!!!!
Click to expand...

Did that. Now what?
 
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...

I've repeatedly asked you a basic SCIENCE question in the other thread you haven't answered yet. If you want any "SCIENCE" credibility I suggest answering this post.

Do you recognize/know/understand the following terms:
Mitosis
Meiosis
Allele
Allele frequency
Differential Fertility
Differential Mortality.

Unless you can demonstrate a basic, 5th grade level of understanding these terms and concepts, you really have no ground to stand on from which to criticize others' knowledge.

Hell, I'd even be happy with you reading Wikipedia about them.
 
Daniel said:
Really?? Would you like a list of the Baseless Insults I received in the past 6 days?? I'd crash the servers. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Ah, so it's completely sensible for you to hurl insults. Got it.

And, ahhh...Be careful if it's this scenario:

A candidate for a Neurosurgical Position stating in the middle of an Interview with the Chief of Neurosurgery.... "What's a Cerebellum??"; THEN...heading down to Resource Management and filing a Harassment Complaint after he was Physically thrown out of the Office and Laughed at.

Be sure you're not that Neurosurgical Candidate...otherwise you have NO CASE and you're gonna get the SAME treatment from Resource Management. :thumbsup:
(Like you have over and over again here and on the QM thread) ;)
Click to expand...

So what you are trying to tell me here is that you have a doctorate in quantum mechanics? Or that you feel that it's perfectly acceptable to insult people you disagree with on the internet because you think they are wrong?
 
abaddon said:
LOL. Fire and brimstone for me, please. The link fairy is just staff.
Click to expand...

Too late, I sold my soul to rock-n-roll.

I was generally familiar with the work, but I'd never read the conclusion and the "further research needed" bit.
 
rwguinn said:
For someone who "can't pass a 5th grade general science test, we're doing pretty good guessing.
We have folks who have put satellites in orbit around faraway moving objects; who have designed and/or built some incredible buildings; who have put things together in new ways; developed computer code that can take you anywhere/anywhen
Click to expand...


Really?? Please list the: paleontologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, evolutionary biologists, theoretical physicists "non-Experimental", cosmologists...that have built these....??? :rolleyes:

You're Equivocating Fallacy x 2: Pseudo-Scientists with actual "SCIENCE".
And Science with Technology...

What Science Isn't, Part III: Science is not Technology:

"One of the mistakes many people make in thinking about science is to confuse it with technology. As a result, science often either receives undue credit (for the "miracles of modern science" in one's kitchen) or undue blame (for everything from overly firm tomatoes to nuclear war). In fact, science doesn't make things. Scientists developed the understanding of radiation sufficient for the invention of the microwave oven, but neither making a microwave oven nor using it are science. Scientists are in the business of generating knowledge, whereas engineers are in the business of generating technology.
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.

In short, science often leads to technology, and it often uses technology, but it isn't technology, and in fact it can operate quite independently of technology."
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html

So figure out what ACTUAL "Science" is first, THEN...Re-Compute.

regards

ps. Do you have a Definition for Information....? So we can stay on Topic.

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom