Creationist argument about DNA and information

[turingtest]

Helluva debating style you’ve got there son: Ignore what you can’t deal with. Get back to me when you actually want to deal with the issues rather than the author.

I'll get back to you when you raise any actual issues; everything you've done in this thread (in the whole forum, AFAICT) amounts to thousand-word expositions of your personal incredulity. IOW, there's no there there except the author.

 

[abaddon]

Well that's the Scientific Method: "Science"...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

It's not mine, I didn't establish it. See: Sir Francis Bacon et al.

Please apply that to noah's pathetic flood.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What on Earth sir??

Well done, Daniel!
Incredulity is Daniel's major contrivance when dealing with science. Can there be a more vague and meaningless expression of personal incredulity than the above response?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Daniel keeps asking for someone to post "the theory of evolution." But nobody has. This is due to one or more of the following:

1) there is no such thing as a theory of evolution. We're all liars.
2) there is one, but nobody here understands it. We're all fools.
3) there is a theory of evolution and some of us understand it, but no one gives enough of a crap to attempt to summarize an entire entire university 2-semester undergrad level class sequence into a bumper sticker for Daniel. We're all lazy.
4) we have actually posted "the theory of evolution" for him dozens of times in various sized pieces and methods of wording, but he's chosen to ignore

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME

and has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of ability to even recognize much less understand the explanations given.

Once again I'll waste the bits to ask Daniel a (loaded and leading) question about the subject of DNA and "information:"

Do you recognize and can you define the terms

Mitosis
Meiosis
Allele
Allele frequency
Differential Mortality
Differential Fertility


I'm confident this post will be utterly ignored or Ignored by Daniel because he doesn't actually want an answer to his derp question and will totally not understand that my question is an answer to his question.

 

[Jodie]

1. So us in the Future we designed our DNA in the now? Forgive me, but this is beyond Ludicrous.

As compared to the biblical version of creation? What ruler are we using?

2. You have yet to post what the Scientific Theory of evolution is yet.

I don't do "WIKI Links"...

I suppose Google Scholar gets an honorable mention. I don't do King James so I guess that makes us even.

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.dokeyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Well you weren't an expert in the field, it seemed like an appropriate resource for you to refer to for starters.

List the others (besides "Us in the Future")...?

See post 1653.

Where'd you get DNA to begin with?

The two articles I linked describing how proteins work as pre-cursor RNA wan't clear enough?

And, you can't get an Elephant's Trunk from Amoeba DNA.

No, but you can get an Amoeba and an Elephant from the basic building blocks that were here when life first EVOLVED on Earth.

I asked you to Post the Scientific Theory of evolution; a simple request...NOT post 'links'. It's not my job to rummage through "links' to SUPPORT/Prove your claims.

And I asked what was wrong with Google Scholar. You are the OP that insists that the description for the Theory of Evolution is lacking even though there is plenty of scientific documentation available to you for referral that states otherwise. Why should I spoon feed someone who has the ability to read, who came here unprepared for the debate? I'm not sure why it's a sticking point for you.

However, I do believe in a creator also, I think it's us. I don't have a shred of evidence to prove it but at least we do exist in the here and now, which is more tangible than your version of a creator. Like you, I still think I'm right, so no judgement here on my part.

That said, I don't think a bunch of old men in prehistoric times knew or experienced more with the creator than I have in my life on earth to be telling me what to think and how to live, it's as simple as that. If salvation is real and this is a type of prison that we are in then I'm not sure how Christ's hanging on a cross is going to pay my bail. I don't think there is a shortcut in evolving either physically or spiritually. In my mind the two aren't really separate things.

 

[Daniel]

Good tactic- when in doubt, double down.

Well it's better than standing behind the rail bemoaning that disheveled Duece-Seven Off Suit you tried bluffing that got called ALL IN!!!

What's left?? Instead of sitting quietly contemplating the steps that led to your demise and how not to repeat the same in the future, you heckle nonsensical gibberish from the rail in a feeble attempt to divert away from your trainwreck hand when everybody and their sister knows right where your @ ...because they used the same tactic when they were on playground.

Case in point...

ETA- BTW, got your comet-watching gear ready? I don't care who you are- that right there is funny.

You pick a gnat out of the Grand Canyon (The QM Thread)?? That thread is a shining testimony to the absolute bankruptcy of the Materialist/Realist position.... an outright PUMMELING, that you never got within Earshot of; that had a PhD Physicist reduced to bringing up the "OJ Trial" as an example of Science (ROTFLOL)!!

But you 'Stage 5 Cling' to that gnat...tantamount to watching your entire team getting dragged down the court by Kareem giving up a Backboard Smashing Dunk, then when they return to the bench attempting to drum up support for how clumsy he is for having one of his shoe strings undone.

Sing it: "You, House Proud Town Mouse..."


regards

 

[turingtest]

Daniel keeps asking for someone to post "the theory of evolution." But nobody has. This is due to one or more of the following:

1) there is no such thing as a theory of evolution. We're all liars.
2) there is one, but nobody here understands it. We're all fools.
3) there is a theory of evolution and some of us understand it, but no one gives enough of a crap to attempt to summarize an entire entire university 2-semester undergrad level class sequence into a bumper sticker for Daniel. We're all lazy.
4) we have actually posted "the theory of evolution" for him dozens of times in various sized pieces and methods of wording, but he's chosen to ignore

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME

and has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of ability to even recognize much less understand the explanations given.

Once again I'll waste the bits to ask Daniel a (loaded and leading) question about the subject of DNA and "information:"

Do you recognize and can you define the terms

Mitosis
Meiosis
Allele
Allele frequency
Differential Mortality
Differential Fertility


I'm confident this post will be utterly ignored or Ignored by Daniel because he doesn't actually want an answer to his derp question and will totally not understand that my question is an answer to his question.

5) He's not asking the question honestly; no answer will satisfy.

As for your question (a good one)- it's possible he's not ignoring it so much, but just that desperate scrabbling through the bible he regards as "substance and evidence" still hasn't given him anything he can use as an answer, even by the loose constructions of DanielScience^TM.

 

[tsig]

Admittedly, geology isn't one of my interests. Personally, I'd rather watch paint dry. However, The same general principles apply....




This is the Elephant in the Room. Claims can never be Validated; ergo...it's not Science. Observations are not TESTS.





Yes well, that's your 'Opinion'; Everybody has one.

Of course, the Billions of Fossils and 'Sedimentary' Rock covering most of the Globe have to be thrown out initially to begin the "Just So" Story.





Yes and I've Pummeled those Divination's/'Dating Games' more than once in this thread.


regards

I don't think pummeling is part of the scientific method.


I missed the pummeling though.

 

[tsig]

Well it's better than standing behind the rail bemoaning that disheveled Duece-Seven Off Suit you tried bluffing that got called ALL IN!!!

What's left?? Instead of sitting quietly contemplating the steps that led to your demise and how not to repeat the same in the future, you heckle nonsensical gibberish from the rail in a feeble attempt to divert away from your trainwreck hand when everybody and their sister knows right where your @ ...because they used the same tactic when they were on playground.

Case in point...




You pick a gnat out of the Grand Canyon (The QM Thread)?? That thread is a shining testimony to the absolute bankruptcy of the Materialist/Realist position.... an outright PUMMELING, that you never got within Earshot of; that had a PhD Physicist reduced to bringing up the "OJ Trial" as an example of Science (ROTFLOL)!!

But you 'Stage 5 Cling' to that gnat...tantamount to watching your entire team getting dragged down the court by Kareem giving up a Backboard Smashing Dunk, then when they return to the bench attempting to drum up support for how clumsy he is for having one of his shoe strings undone.

Sing it: "You, House Proud Town Mouse..."


regards

Is Pummel Horse an event here?

 

[turingtest]

Well it's better than standing behind the rail bemoaning that disheveled Duece-Seven Off Suit you tried bluffing that got called ALL IN!!!

What's left?? Instead of sitting quietly contemplating the steps that led to your demise and how not to repeat the same in the future, you heckle nonsensical gibberish from the rail in a feeble attempt to divert away from your trainwreck hand when everybody and their sister knows right where your @ ...because they used the same tactic when they were on playground.

Case in point...

Still not following, eh? Getting closer with every post to "just not very bright"- one more ought to seal the deal. Go for it!

You pick a gnat out of the Grand Canyon (The QM Thread)?? That thread is a shining testimony to the absolute bankruptcy of the Materialist/Realist position.... an outright PUMMELING, that you never got within Earshot of; that had a PhD Physicist reduced to bringing up the "OJ Trial" as an example of Science (ROTFLOL)!!

But you 'Stage 5 Cling' to that gnat...tantamount to watching your entire team getting dragged down the court by Kareem giving up a Backboard Smashing Dunk, then when they return to the bench attempting to drum up support for how clumsy he is for having one of his shoe strings undone.

Sing it: "You, House Proud Town Mouse..."


regards

The "gnat" was your failure to read a source you cited, as an example of "a single phenomenon you have observed that did not occur in the past," closely enough to see that the comet you were going to observe (tonight) passed through two years ago- this indicates a systemic failure on your part. Pretty big gnat there, Daniel...

ETA- singing it, thinking about you- "ha ha, charade you are"

 

[Daniel]

I suppose Google Scholar gets an honorable mention.

Honorable Mention...for what??

I don't do King James so I guess that makes us even.

How unfortunate.

Well you weren't an expert in the field, it seemed like an appropriate resource for you to refer to for starters.

Yes, I'm not an Expert regarding People from the Future programming DNA in the Past

See post 1653.

I didn't ask to see a Comedy Routine.

The two articles I linked describing how proteins work as pre-cursor RNA wan't clear enough?

Another comedy routine. Can you start here with your Protein Thesis: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11194961&postcount=1437

No, but you can get an Amoeba and an Elephant from the basic building blocks that were here when life first EVOLVED on Earth.

Really?? SHOW....?

You are the OP that insists that the description for the Theory of Evolution is lacking even though there is plenty of scientific documentation available to you for referral.

1. I'm not the OP.

2. How about just posting the Scientific Theory of evolution and be done with it ??

Why should I spoon feed someone who has the ability to read, who came here unprepared for the debate? I'm not sure why it's a sticking point for you.

Re-Stocking Fees have more legitimacy than this.

However, I do believe in a creator also, I think it's us. I don't have a shred of evidence to prove it...

That's a Hard Argument to Refute.

I don't think a bunch of old men in prehistoric times know or experienced more with the creator than I have in my life on earth to be telling me what to think and how to live, it's as simple as that.

Well alrighty then.

If salvation is real and this is a type of prison that we are in then I'm not sure how Christ's hanging on a cross is going to pay my bail.

Oh it's real. Don't worry about "The How" it's irrelevant; it's the IS, that's Important.

Do you know how STEAKS are digested and absorbed? That doesn't stop you from eating Rib Eye's I hope

regards

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

How about just posting the Scientific Theory of evolution and be done with it ??

Sure. How about just upthread?

Daniel keeps asking for someone to post "the theory of evolution." But nobody has. This is due to one or more of the following:

1) there is no such thing as a theory of evolution. We're all liars.
2) there is one, but nobody here understands it. We're all fools.
3) there is a theory of evolution and some of us understand it, but no one gives enough of a crap to attempt to summarize an entire entire university 2-semester undergrad level class sequence into a bumper sticker for Daniel. We're all lazy.
4) we have actually posted "the theory of evolution" for him dozens of times in various sized pieces and methods of wording, but he's chosen to ignore

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME

and has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of ability to even recognize much less understand the explanations given.

Once again I'll waste the bits to ask Daniel a (loaded and leading) question about the subject of DNA and "information:"

Do you recognize and can you define the terms

Mitosis
Meiosis
Allele
Allele frequency
Differential Mortality
Differential Fertility


I'm confident this post will be utterly ignored or Ignored by Daniel because he doesn't actually want an answer to his derp question and will totally not understand that my question is an answer to his question.

Again. And again. And again.


And all this effort for someone who doesn't "believe" in the immense amount of time the planet has existed. What a waste.

 

[turingtest]

As compared to the biblical version of creation? What ruler are we using?



I suppose Google Scholar gets an honorable mention. I don't do King James so I guess that makes us even.



Well you weren't an expert in the field, it seemed like an appropriate resource for you to refer to for starters.



See post 1653.



The two articles I linked describing how proteins work as pre-cursor RNA wan't clear enough?



No, but you can get an Amoeba and an Elephant from the basic building blocks that were here when life first EVOLVED on Earth.



And I asked what was wrong with Google Scholar. You are the OP that insists that the description for the Theory of Evolution is lacking even though there is plenty of scientific documentation available to you for referral that states otherwise. Why should I spoon feed someone who has the ability to read, who came here unprepared for the debate? I'm not sure why it's a sticking point for you.

However, I do believe in a creator also, I think it's us. I don't have a shred of evidence to prove it but at least we do exist in the here and now, which is more tangible than your version of a creator. Like you, I still think I'm right, so no judgement here on my part.

That said, I don't think a bunch of old men in prehistoric times knew or experienced more with the creator than I have in my life on earth to be telling me what to think and how to live, it's as simple as that. If salvation is real and this is a type of prison that we are in then I'm not sure how Christ's hanging on a cross is going to pay my bail. I don't think there is a shortcut in evolving either physically or spiritually. In my mind the two aren't really separate things.

Well done, Jodie...

 

[Minoosh]

Admittedly, geology isn't one of my interests. Personally, I'd rather watch paint dry.

That's an interesting comparison. You could go through layers of paint and make conclusions about the history of the wall. The chemical composition of each layer would give you clues as to the era it was used in. For example, if it contained lead, or synthetic polymers, those would be clues.

Well that's the Scientific Method: "Science"...

What is your point? If you know you won't accept as "science" anything other than a controlled laboratory experiment, it's dishonest to keep asking for it. And I'm pretty sure you know that.

1. You (and your cohorts) think they are Scientists. So I use them against you.

I've avoided using the word, because of your insistence that nothing other than a controlled laboratory experiment with individually manipulated variables can ever qualify as being science.

And Most of the water came from the Fountains of the Great Deep (SEE: Genesis 7:11)

Please provide scientific validation.

Well don't "Interpolate" and then say: "According to me...". Thanks

You think Earth is 10,000 years old, you have said most dinosaurs died in the flood, that was before Jesus according to your reference book, so according to you the bones are more than 2,000 years old, fewer than 10,000 years old. Point stands.

That's not My Call.

Thank you for the display of humility. But you've already claimed that Christianity and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. It's possible that Satan is deceiving her, or maybe it's just God playing a practical joke.

Well how else do you Validate Viable Scientific Hypotheses, pray tell??

Before I answer I have a burning question: How do you decide which words to capitalize?

Moving on. I leave the dog alone with Mom and then find Tostitos in the dog's bowl. The dog is too short to reach the bag. I deduce Mom did it. Deductive reasoning is at the heart of this thread: DNA is information; information comes from intelligence; therefore God made DNA.

We don't have unlimited scope to treat the Earth as a laboratory experiment. We could test the theory of global climate change by pumping as much CO₂ as possible into the atmosphere. Not a good idea IMO. No control Earth available. I've heard God promised not to flood us again but I can't test that claim against science.

 

[Minoosh]

And Minoosh asks, quite reasonably-

Thanks for calling me reasonable but I meant 40 *days* DOH!

 

[turingtest]

Thanks for calling me reasonable but I meant 40 *days* DOH!

I actually took that for granted; it was still a reasonable question.

 

[turingtest]

I remember when I was a young teen and they pulled a TV and VCR into our Sunday school classroom and started playing some YEC videos that used science to prove God. This was actually a major turning point for me. Before I had just gone along with the YEC beliefs of that church because it didn't conflict directly with anything else. But these were direct contradictions with everything else I was learning. And this was pretty early YEC material, it was quite bad.

I'm curious if the realization would have happened much later had I been home schooled, or not been curious about science and technology and not gobbled up every single book I could find.

Sorry, I missed this a while ago- I try to respond to all responses.

Anyway...yeah, Dunning-Kruger and religious faith in combination make for a pretty invincible wall. Not a good "invincible," mind you- unless, like the truly committed YEC, you're the one who needs the protection of the wall.

 

[Daniel]

That's an interesting comparison. You could go through layers of paint and make conclusions about the history of the wall. The chemical composition of each layer would give you clues as to the era it was used in. For example, if it contained lead, or synthetic polymers, those would be clues.

Riveting. Did some of the 2nd layer become a giraffe before the 3rd coat was applied?

What is your point?

That SCIENCE is 'The Scientific Method', Hard STOP!

If you know you won't accept as "science" anything other than a controlled laboratory experiment...

"ACCEPT" has nothing to do with it. Do you ACCEPT the sun is 93 million miles away; or, if unhindered: Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!) ?? Or is this Scientifically VALIDATED ?

it's dishonest to keep asking for it. And I'm pretty sure you know that.

I would characterize it as Driving Home the Stamp on The Forehead Fact, repeatedly.

I've avoided using the word, because of your insistence that nothing other than a controlled laboratory experiment with individually manipulated variables can ever qualify as being science.

Well that's called Hypothesis TESTING, the sine qua non of "Science". If you don't like it, then head on over to: Philosophy, Cake Decorating, or Who's Favorite Color is the Best Threads.

Please provide scientific validation.

Sure, send me your Time Machine!! My word.

You think Earth is 10,000 years old, you have said most dinosaurs died in the flood, that was before Jesus according to your reference book, so according to you the bones are more than 2,000 years old, fewer than 10,000 years old. Point stands.

More than 1,000 and less than 6,000 as I said.

Thank you for the display of humility. But you've already claimed that Christianity and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive.

You're welcome and That's Correct.

It's possible that Satan is deceiving her, or maybe it's just God playing a practical joke.

Most certainly the former.

Before I answer I have a burning question: How do you decide which words to capitalize?

Abacus.

Moving on. I leave the dog alone with Mom and then find Tostitos in the dog's bowl. The dog is too short to reach the bag. I deduce Mom did it.

What's the Formal Scientific Hypothesis?? What if a neighbor came in after you left and your mother asked them to fill the bowl with Tostitos for the dog...??

Deductive Reasoning is A PART of The Scientific Method...it isn't The Scientific Method.

"A failure to isolate the controlled variables, in any experimental design, will seriously compromise the internal validity. This oversight may lead to confounding variables ruining the experiment, wasting time and resources, and damaging the researcher's reputation."
https://explorable.com/controlled-variables

Deductive reasoning is at the heart of this thread: DNA is information; information comes from intelligence; therefore God made DNA.

TRUE.

We don't have unlimited scope to treat the Earth as a laboratory experiment.

Well, The Scientific Method does have it's Limitations.

I've heard God promised not to flood us again but I can't test that claim against science.

You can TEST the "Prediction" by Historical Documentation...has the Earth been flooded IN TOTO in the last 3,000 years?? Nope...good so far.


regards

 

[Shalamar]

*SNIP*

You can TEST the "Prediction" by Historical Documentation...has the Earth been flooded IN TOTO in the last 3,000 years?? Nope...good so far.


regards

There was no vast worldwide, all encompassing flood. Ever. Not within the last few thousand years.

How do we now?

We can test for it. I imagine you aren't interested.

 

[Jodie]

Honorable Mention...for what??

If you discount Wiki then I suppose Google scholar gets an honorable mention, or not as the case might be.

How unfortunate.

I guess it depends on your perspective.

Yes, I'm not an Expert regarding People from the Future programming DNA in the Past

And you aren't an expert in theology either obviously

I didn't ask to see a Comedy Routine.

What about what was posted is any more preposterous than what's in the bible? Why is one more believable than the other for you? I'm still waiting on you to explain what your criteria is for comparison?

Another comedy routine. Can you start here with your Protein Thesis: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11194961&postcount=1437

You don't need a thesis to explain it, it's a well studied process called the Kreb's Cycle. It's carried out by pyridoxal phosphate-dependent transaminases. Transamination reactions participate in the synthesis of most amino acids.This is how the biosynthesis happens.

The reaction pathway begins with pyridoxal phosphate in a Schiff-base linkage with lysine at the transaminase active site, forming an internal aldimine. Corrin is a naturally occuring Schiff base and is the core of vitamin B12. Your most primitive anaerobes produce vitamin B12 which becomes the source for transamination. Each amino acid has it's own pathway with the non essential ones happening in one or two steps. The essential amino acids take anywhere from 5-16 steps. Basically the external aldimine forms between the PLP ( Schiff base linkage) and the amino-group donor, glutamate, which displaces the lysine residue.

When the amino group has been incorporated into pyridoxamine, the reaction pathway proceeds in reverse, and the amino group is transferred to an α-ketoacid to form an amino acid. These amino acids are then combined into the larger protein molecules via basic organic chemistry. External pressures from the environment will dictate how these protein molecules will evolve acting as precursor RNA. I might have dumbed it down a little for you so I hope the experts will forgive me on that one.

Really?? SHOW....?

as above

1. I'm not the OP.

I don't understand the vested interest in denying evolution exists when you don't understand even the basics of the different branches of science that you're trying to refute.

2. How about just posting the Scientific Theory of evolution and be done with it ??

I just posted part of it, except that it's not theory, it's reality.

Well alrighty then.

Alrighty indeed

Oh it's real. Don't worry about "The How" it's irrelevant; it's the IS, that's Important.

Of course it's real. Jesus was simply the first cognitive behavioral therapist to be documented IMO. He did say the only way out of here was through him, but he wasn't talking about the cross, he was talking about how to BE. I believe "The How" is the " IS". I seriously doubt stone age shepherds that came up with the creation story made that connection.

Do you know how STEAKS are digested and absorbed? That doesn't stop you from eating Rib Eye's I hope

I believe I'm more familiar with that process than you seem to be.

regards

My pleasure.