Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Stripe]

:mock: kdhall :loser:

Researchers at Tel Aviv University were not planning on shaking a pillar of Darwinism when they found something interesting: an animal that can recode its own protein library "on the fly" to adapt to its surroundings... The question that should immediately come to mind is this: Is RNA editing an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose? After all, some human diseases are known to result from abnormal RNA editing. But if the edits were random, how could an animal survive at all..? Finding that RNA editing in squid was the rule, not the exception, led [researchers] to suspect a purpose behind it... "It was astonishing to find that 60 percent of the squid RNA transcripts were edited," said Dr. Eisenberg... Finding RNA editing at such a large extent raises lots of questions. For one thing, it casts another strong blow at ... the idea that DNA is the master control of the cell.

— source.​

 

[Truster]

I was watching a lecture on quantum mechanics a few months ago and the lecturer was wearing a t shirt with the slogan:

Everything around me is ruled by science.

I sent him an email, I'm still waiting for a reply, stating:

Science proves that everything around me is ruled.

Your post add's to what I'm aware of..thanks.

 

[Dennyg1]

Researchers at Tel Aviv University were not planning on shaking a pillar of Darwinism when they found something interesting: an animal that can recode its own protein library "on the fly" to adapt to its surroundings... The question that should immediately come to mind is this: Is RNA editing an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose? After all, some human diseases are known to result from abnormal RNA editing. But if the edits were random, how could an animal survive at all..? Finding that RNA editing in squid was the rule, not the exception, led [researchers] to suspect a purpose behind it... "It was astonishing to find that 60 percent of the squid RNA transcripts were edited," said Dr. Eisenberg... Finding RNA editing at such a large extent raises lots of questions. For one thing, it casts another strong blow at ... the idea that DNA is the master control of the cell.

— source.​

A problem for evolution? You sure about that? It's pretty low to carefully pick and choose words of a source to make it seem like you may be right. Lying is a sin. Smh

Here's just two of the things you 'forgot to include' Professor Stripe:
"We have demonstrated that RNA editing is a major player in genetic information processing rather than an exception to the rule," said Dr. Eisenberg. "By showing that the squid's RNA-editing dramatically reshaped its entire proteome -- the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time -- we proved that an organism's self-editing of mRNA is a critical evolutionary and adaptive force."

"The principle of adaptation -- the gradual modification of a species' structures and features -- is one of the pillars of evolution. While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions. (Emphasis added.)"

So the scientists were expecting to find animals like this at some point, the study doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest [It actually credits this new discovery with proving mRNA editing as crucial to evolution in the bold font above], and the study says that both evolution and adaptation (STRIPE BELIEVES IN NEITHER) are supported by "ample evidence."

Congratulations Stripe! You just disproved everything you have been saying on other related threads.

Everyone click on the link to see the unbelievable hypocrisy and lies of Stripe for yourself. Or you can go to the twin thread where he posted the article in its entirety (HERE: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108258) before realizing that he was proving the title of his own thread to be a lie and made this one.

I mean this is stooping to a whole new level of disgrace. You just ensured that nobody will trust a thing you say on here ever again

 

[Stripe]

A problem for evolution? You sure about that? It's pretty low to carefully pick and choose words of a source to make it seem like you may be right. Lying is a sin. Smh

Did you have something rational to contribute, or are you just here to be a troll? :troll:

Here's just two of the things you 'forgot to include' Professor Stripe:

I did not forget anything. I gave the gist of what is contained in the link, as per the rules of this Web site. :up:

So the scientists were expecting to find animals like this at some point.

:darwinsm:

Where did you get that notion from?

the study doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest [It actually credits this new discovery with proving mRNA editing as crucial to evolution in the bold font above], and the study says that both evolution and adaptation are supported by "ample evidence."

STRIPE BELIEVES IN NEITHER.

Really? Where did you get that from?

Congratulations Stripe! You just disproved everything you and 6 have been saying on other related threads.

Because you've assumed something? I don't think so. :nono:

I mean this is stooping to a whole new level of disgrace. You just ensured that nobody will trust a thing you say on here ever again

:darwinsm:

Anytime you have something relevant to contribute, let us know. :up:

Meanwhile, RNA recoding is still a necessarily purposed attribute that the squid possesses, proving problematic to the idea that the ability arose through random mutations and natural selection.

 

[Dennyg1]

Did you have something rational to contribute, or are you just here to be a troll? :troll:

I did not forget anything. I gave the gist of what is contained in the link, as per the rules of this Web site. :up:

:darwinsm:

Where did you get that notion from?



Really? Where did you get that from?

Because you've assumed something? I don't think so. :nono:


:darwinsm:

Anytime you have something relevant to contribute, let us know. :up:

Meanwhile, RNA recoding is still a necessarily purposed attribute that the squid possesses, proving problematic to the idea that the ability arose through random mutations and natural selection.

Answers in order:

Trolling =/= making an obvious attempt at deception even more evident

Sure. That's why you made a thread originally with the entire article, then had to cut out all the things that made your thread title an obvious lie and put the 'accurate and unbiased' result here

That 'notion' is in my first quote above. You really don't read anything do you?

If I'm wrong about your denial of evolution please correct me. But judging from your literal belief of the Noah's Ark story I don't think so

I assumed something? No. YOU are the guy who made an assumption that turned out to be just a straight up lie

Ha yes, my facts and ability to read are very irrelevant I know. Almost as irrelevant as the reality that natural selection, by promoting changes that better adapt an animal to its environment, has and eventually will always produce seemingly 'perfect' organisms in a stable environment. The only reason that these perfect beasties are so rare is that the environment isn't normally stable

 

[Stripe]

That 'notion' is in my first quote above.

Nope. There is nothing in that quote that says the scientists were expecting to find such levels of RNA recoding.

I assumed something?

Yip. You've read the article with the assumption that evolution is true. That's not how theories are evaluated, sorry.

 

[6days]

Here's just two of the things you 'forgot to include' Professor Stripe:
"We have demonstrated that RNA editing is a major player in genetic information processing rather than an exception to the rule," said Dr. Eisenberg. "By showing that the squid's RNA-editing dramatically reshaped its entire proteome -- the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time -- we proved that an organism's self-editing of mRNA is a critical evolutionary and adaptive force."

"The principle of adaptation -- the gradual modification of a species' structures and features -- is one of the pillars of evolution.

Adaptation is a 'piller' of Biblical creation also.
We know who programmed the code allowing adaptation.
Problem for evolutionists is they believe in gradual modification. There are numerous examples of rapid change...rapid adaptation.
Evidence supports... "In the beginning, God created..."

 

[Dennyg1]

Nope. There is nothing in that quote that says the scientists were expecting to find such levels of RNA recoding.

You're right. It was in the quote right below it. Sorry I guess I should know your limitations by now. Here it is:
"The principle of adaptation -- the gradual modification of a species' structures and features -- is one of the pillars of evolution. While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions. (Emphasis added.)"

6 that quote also answers you. That and the well known RNA only viruses that adapt and evolve through high mutation rates every year. No surprises at all

Yip. You've read the article with the assumption that evolution is true. That's not how theories are evaluated, sorry.

Lol yes I'm the one with the agenda and doesn't know how science works. I'll let you wallow in the shame of this thread until some others see it and blow it up

 

[User Name]

Everyone click on the link to see the unbelievable hypocrisy and lies of Stripe for yourself. Or you can go to the twin thread where he posted the article in its entirety (HERE: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108258) before realizing that he was proving the title of his own thread to be a lie and made this one.

Seems the thread has been deleted. :think:

 

[User Name]

Adaptation is a 'piller' of Biblical creation also.
We know who programmed the code allowing adaptation.

Where is adaptation discussed in the Bible? Can you give me chapter and verse?

 

[6days]

6 that quote also answers you. That and the well known RNA only viruses that adapt and evolve through high mutation rates every year. No surprises at all

We agree it is not a surprise that many viruses adapt and change through mutation every year.

 

[6days]

Where is adaptation discussed in the Bible? Can you give me chapter and verse?

Strawman fallacy. Who claimed adaptation is in the Bible?
I think someone did say though that adaptation is part of the the Biblical creation model?

 

[Stripe]

"The principle of adaptation -- the gradual modification of a species' structures and features -- is one of the pillars of evolution. While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions."

There's nothing in that quote that shows scientists were expecting to find creatures with such levels of ability to recode their RNA.

I'm the one with the agenda and doesn't know how science works.

Yip.

Assuming the truth about evolution is no way to approach an issue presented as a challenge to the theory.

 

[User Name]

Who claimed adaptation is in the Bible? I think someone did say though that adaptation is part of the the Biblical creation model?

How can something be part of a "biblical model" if it isn't in the Bible?

 

[6days]

How can something be part of a "biblical model" if it isn't in the Bible?

Quite simple. There is also a Biblical flood model. Evolutionists also model how they think things happened.

 

[User Name]

There's nothing in that quote that shows scientists were expecting to find creatures with such levels of ability to recode their RNA.

The original source for this story (American Friends of Tel Aviv University) states the following:

While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions.​

Link to source: https://www.aftau.org/news-page-biology--evolution?=&storyid4700=2163&ncs4700=3

Interesting to note that the original source for this story did not consider this finding to be a problem for "Darwinism."

 

[User Name]

Assuming the truth about evolution is no way to approach an issue presented as a challenge to the theory.

Do you assume the truth about YE creationism when you approach an issue presented as a challenge to that belief?

 

[Stripe]

The original source for this story (American Friends of Tel Aviv University) states the following:

While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions.​

Yeah, my link used that quote as well.

Your quote does not show that scientists were expecting to find creatures that could recode so much of their RNA.

It looks very much like a weasel sentence to make it look like such a prediction was made.

Interesting to note that the original source for this story did not consider this finding to be a problem for "Darwinism."

Which is similar to what evolutionists always trumpet when they face evidence that challenges what they believe. A quote showing that belief in Darwinism has not changed does not answer the evidence.

The challenge to evolution cannot be answered by assuming the truth of evolution.

The challenge remains unanswered. Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

 

[Stripe]

Do you assume the truth about YE creationism when you approach an issue presented as a challenge to that belief?

No. I know how to approach science as a scientist rather than as a devotee to one belief or another.

 

[Jonahdog]

No. I know how to approach science as a scientist rather than as a devotee to one belief or another.

Really, in my time here I have never seen that. But since you are a Christian you must be telling the truth.