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

  • #46
    Yet another "magic bullet" that ricocheted and hit Stipe in the wallet pocket. I don't know whether he's really careless and doesn't read the research thoroughly, or whether he's trying to pull a fast one.

    Doesn't matter, I guess.
    This message is hidden because ...

    Comment


    • #47
      CAN A SQUID CHANGE ITS RNA ?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqA_BKFQeL0

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        How could random mutations and natural selection produce a system by which squids can recode their own RNA?
        Originally posted by User Name View Post
        The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Or it might have been designed.

        It pays to address a challenge without assuming the truth of your belief.


        A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another.
        > 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
          A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another.
          A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists.
          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


          • #50
            As far as I can tell, the question was asked and answered.
            > 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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists.
              Or that design exists?

              > 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


              • #52
                Let's not pretend that you have the scientific literacy to apprehend even the terminology of the processes involved, but knock yourself out.

                > 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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by User Name View Post
                  How can something be part of a "biblical model" if it isn't in the Bible?
                  I think you are just asking for scripture support? Science models are created by men to explain what we see in the world as true.
                  Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
                  Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
                  Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.
                  My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                  Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                  Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                  Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                  No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                  Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                  ? Yep

                  Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                  ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                  Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Lon View Post
                    I think you are just asking for scripture support? Science models are created by men to explain what we see in the world as true.

                    Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.
                    That's how science works: You declare a worldview, propose a theory and test your ideas against the blowtorch of evidence. Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.

                    However, evolutionists do not follow the scientific method. Instead of explaining the evidence, they simply assert the truth of their idea.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Lon View Post

                      Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.
                      History has shown that is 100% false. If the Bible and science were equivalent as sources, then all science would come from a papyrus scroll written by an unknown author with unknown credentials from 2000 years ago.

                      According to your theory, Homer's Theogany, which we can date accurately and correctly ascribe to said famous writer of Greek epic poetry, is the way more credible of the the three sources. Better hit up Delphi and see the Oracle, quick.

                      Science needs evidence you can see, measure, and test.

                      Door number 3 please

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.
                        That's interesting. Your source that was pro-evolution didn't either.

                        Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
                        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...d.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
                        I am never letting you forget this thread

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Bill Gates doesn't know much about biology (he dropped out of college and never took any biology)
                          Does that mean Darwin didn't understand biology since he dropped out of medicine and took theology?

                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          So it's probably a surprise to him that many computer programs are more complex than most DNA molecules.
                          Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.
                          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Barbarian observes:
                            Bill Gates doesn't know much about biology (he dropped out of college and never took any biology)

                            Does that mean Darwin didn't understand biology
                            No. Uncle Bill's failure to study biology, has nothing to do with Darwin's life-long studies in biology. His father grumped at him frequently about neglecting his studies in theology to study living things.

                            since he dropped out of medicine and took theology?
                            See above. Darwin, before he got his degree was a highly respected naturalist. And he continued to grow in knowlege and respect of his fellow scientists. If he had not discovered natural selection's role in evolution, he would still be known for clearing up the classification of cirripedes and for solving the mystery of coral atolls.

                            Barbarian observes:
                            So it's probably a surprise to Gates that many computer programs are more complex than most DNA molecules.

                            Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.
                            The molecule is the code. I thought you knew. There's no external magic going on. It's all chemistry.

                            And it's not nearly as complicated as many computer programs.

                            At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.

                            But not one designed by an omnipotent God.

                            He's a lot smarter than creationists are willing for him to be.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              And now, Nick's trying to protect Stipe by lobbing negative rep from his bunker. Why don't you come on out and take part in the discussion, Nick?

                              C'mon, it'll be fun.
                              This message is hidden because ...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Barbarian

                                Originally posted by 6days

                                Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.
                                The molecule is the code. I thought you knew.
                                Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class, he understands biology and codes better than you.
                                "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
                                Bill Gates

                                John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*
                                "The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"
                                Dr. Sanford, geneticist


                                Originally posted by Barbarian

                                At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.
                                If you looked at the wiring in the control box of a NASA rocket, I believe you are arrogant enough to tell the engineering dept. that it looks sloppy and redundant. You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same, even though you clearly don't understand the genome.
                                Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X