Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.
    RNA being the reactive of DNA cannot seek anything; it is always random.

    There is no intelligent design, which is a priori in itself. All genetics are the creation of God.
    So, what?

    believe it!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
      Put me down as well.
      Jose has been provided with definitions before.*

      You can read books on the topic trying to define it so its difficult in a sentence....But how about* information is smbollically encoded instructions that expect a specific response...or that will carry out a specifc task. The information is represented by symbols or grammar having meaning. The symbols or grammar also expect some type of action or results.
      (My rendition of part of Gitts definition)
      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
        after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
        Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
        Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
        for reference here is the full statement by wiki


        Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
        http://creation.com/what-happened-wh...charles-darwin
        now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)

        So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above

        Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
        http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

        So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


        conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?
        Good research Mr Blue
        Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Well jeffblue, perhaps you can be the one creationist at ToL who can tell us what "information" means in terms of genetics, and how you measure it. Is it just nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes?

          Help a brother out.
          Sure, Warren weaver already explains why there is no or will unlikely to be a official "semantic information theory" that calculates or measures meaning
          http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arun...er/weaver.html
          Before closing this section on information, it should be noted that the real reason that Level A( how accurately can the symbols of communication be transmitted) analysis deals with a concept of information which characterizes the whole statistical nature of the information source, and is not concerned with the individual messages (and not at all directly concerned with the meaning of the individual messages) is that from the point of view of engineering, a communication system must face the problem of handling any message that the source can produce. If it is not possible or practicable to design a system which can handle everything perfectly, then the system should be designed to handle well the jobs it is most likely to be asked to do, and should resign itself to be less efficient for the rare task. This sort of consideration leads at once to the necessity of characterizing the statistical nature of the whole ensemble of messages which a given kind of source can and will produce. And information, as used in communication theory, does just this.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 6days View Post
            So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?
            Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even Answers in Genesis begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.
            > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


            "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 6days View Post
              Jose has been provided with definitions before.*
              And there we have it....the standard creationist tactic of ignoring questions, waiting a while, then lying by saying you've already answered.

              It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

              information is smbollically encoded instructions that expect a specific response...or that will carry out a specifc task. The information is represented by symbols or grammar having meaning. The symbols or grammar also expect some type of action or results.
              (My rendition of part of Gitts definition)
              How does that apply to genetics? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which has more "information"?
              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
                Sure, Warren weaver already explains why there is no or will unlikely to be a official "semantic information theory" that calculates or measures meaning
                http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arun...er/weaver.html
                So then "information" is a meaningless terms when it comes to genetics. Thanks for clearing that up.
                "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                  So then "information" is a meaningless terms when it comes to genetics. Thanks for clearing that up.
                  ??? what now you're denying that DNA doesn't contain encoded information for the development of proteins.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
                    ??? what now you're denying that DNA doesn't contain encoded information for the development of proteins.
                    No, I'm saying that when you creationists make claims about "genetic information", you have no idea what you're talking about, as evidenced by your total inability to say what "genetic information" even is, or how we should be measuring it.

                    Until you give a specific, useful definition for "genetic information", all your arguments centering on it are obviously meaningless.
                    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Evidence, remember?
                      Did you respond coherently to any of the evidence I posted? No.

                      We have an organism that recodes its RNA. The challenge you face is to provide evidence that this ability arose by random mutations and natural selection.
                      Again, why shouldn't it? We have evidence mutation and selection allowed for placental mammal pregnancy along with a variety of other new features. Recoding RNA is just a way of responding to the environment. Other organisms do the same thing in different ways (gene expression, exon shuffling, post translational modification, etc.). It's called phenotypic plasticity. Basically every organism has it, but it's accomplished in different ways. This paper was news because this type of recoding is only really common in squid.

                      Why would the creator, going from scratch, give this ability only to squid? If it's so cool, why don't humans do it?

                      However, given that it is nigh on impossible that any evidence might remain, we will accept a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately for your side, though, explanations aren't evidence, which leaves our side in the advantage, as there is extant evidence on the side of design.
                      You're still arguing "I don't know, therefore God" that was Newton's explanation of large scale gravity. It wasn't a satisfactory explanation then and it isn't now.
                      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
                        RNA being the reactive of DNA cannot seek anything; it is always random.
                        Nobody has claimed that RNA is seeking anything. And I think "random" is a poor choice of words given that RNA is dependent on the DNA.

                        There is no intelligent design, which is a priori in itself. All genetics are the creation of God.
                        "Intelligent design" is a concept that includes the idea that God designed genomes.

                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Did you respond coherently to any of the evidence I posted? No.
                        Did any of it show how squids evolved the ability to recode their RNA? No.

                        Why shouldn't it?
                        Begging the questin is not very convincing.

                        Why would the creator, going from scratch, give this ability only to squid? If it's so cool, why don't humans do it?
                        Flying is "cool" too. Is this your argument?

                        You're still arguing "I don't know, therefore God.
                        Nope.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                          And there we have it....the standard creationist tactic of ignoring questions, waiting a while, then lying by saying you've already answered.

                          It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
                          Pretty sure we have had this conversation a couple times and I've offered definitions such as 'complex specificity'

                          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                          How does that apply to genetics? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which has more "information"?
                          Fallacy of moving the goal posts. You asked for a definition. You now have one...or more.
                          Last edited by JudgeRightly; June 20th, 2019, 04:07 AM.
                          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                            Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even Answers in Genesis begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.
                            What changed? Genesis in the 19th century, or the 'fixity' or immutability of species?
                            So, what?

                            believe it!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun

                              Originally posted by 6DAYS

                              So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?*Actually both have existed in some form for a couple thousand years.


                              Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even*Answers in Genesis*begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.
                              Excellent article!

                              In the 19th century people had all kinds of ideas which science has proven wrong. For example evolutionists had a long history of belief in the inheritance of aquired traits.*
                              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                                That is not generally observable. Organisms often will adapt and become *'fit' to specific envioronments, but are often now less fit when the environment changes.*
                                The fact that some organisms get so specialized to stable environments is strong evidence for evolution. As you would expect, after such specialization these species often do go extinct when faced with a drastic and sudden change in habitat.

                                Except in artificial selection, it is rare that an overall decline in fitness is seen. Mutations that are harmful make an organism less fit, and when it cannot survive and produce as many offspring as rivals, this bad mutation is likely to die out within a few generations.

                                Mutations that increase fitness allow an organism to survive longer and reproduce more, and its offspring that receive the helpful mutation will also live longer and have more progeny of their own. Over time, due to this mutation allowing those with it to be fitter and produce more offspring than those without it, the good mutation becomes part of the general genome of the entire species. That is how evolution works.

                                Example: which of the three will likely survive longest?
                                1. Normal deer
                                2. Deer with larger ears (better detect predators)
                                3. Deer with smaller ears (opposite effect)

                                Obviously it's 2. And because of that it will have more babies, some of whom will also inherit the big ear gene. The cycle continues until the whole species has larger ears

                                Originally posted by 6days View Post
                                You should have read the peer reviewed article I linked to yesterday discussing that very thing.*
                                Where did you get the notion it was peer reviewed? And by who?

                                The author did not understand how mutations could lead to an increase in fitness. I explain that above. It was based on a false premise

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X