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

  • #91
    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.
    "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


    • #92
      Originally posted by Username

      A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory.
      true

      Originally posted by Username

      Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection.
      ALL biologists agree with natural selection. But natural selection only eliminates...sometimes.

      Originally posted by Username

      *They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence.
      No....most biologists reject the first premise... not all.[/quote]

      Originally posted by Username

      * A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA.
      Pseudoscience.Notice your words of faith?

      Originally posted by Username

      This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines).

      Lenski was unable to get satisfactory results in the lab, so he turned to the computer and algorithms. *Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.*

      "The problem, from a biological perspective, is that explaining variation as modifications to a random sequence cannot explain simultaneous variation and stasis. We can see this by looking at random mutations to an arbitrary sequence as shown below....."

      If you have time read the article but essentially you can get the results you want when you program the perameters.


      Contrary to what you may think this article is supportive of using computers to help understand DNA. Part of the conclusion to the article...
      "Because the computer program model agrees with the biblical record and forms a stronger basis for understanding biological variation than either a random sequence model or a sentence model, this paper concludes that the Bible provides a superior foundation for understanding variation within the living world. With regard to information, the Bible revealed to us over 3,500 year"

      https://answersingenesis.org/genetic...iation-in-dna/
      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by 6days View Post
        Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.
        And right after that, we'll look at quotes from Muslims about pork rib recipes. Then after that, we'll check into what fixed-earth geocentrist Christians think about NASA.

        I mean seriously 6days, who cares what creationists think about science? They are of absolutely no scientific relevance at all.....none.
        "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


        • #94
          Originally posted by 6days View Post

          Lenski was unable to get satisfactory results in the lab, so he turned to the computer and algorithms. *Here is a quote from a Biblical creationist about the Avida program.*

          "Contrary to what you may think this article is supportive of using computers to help understand DNA. Part of the conclusion to the article.
          I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

          Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

          For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

          It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
            I simply can't believe that Evolutionists continue to insist that DNA doesn't contain meaning simply because "information theory" doesn't deal with meaning.
            I agree that DNA conveys some kind of meaning, related to the sequencing of proteins. But the assumption that the existence of information implies meaning is fallacious, as is the additional assumption that the existence of meaning implies some teleological agent.

            Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
            Especially since Warner Weaver the co-creator of information theory already refuted such notions before they were even brought up.
            http://pages.uoregon.edu/felsing/virtual_asia/info.html
            My impression is that you don't understand the quote that you posted, because it doesn't say what you seem to think that it says.

            Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
            Here is another source that explains the error that most evolutionists seem to be making in clearer terms.
            http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6946
            The quote is essentially disputing the use of the word "information" in the technical sense that Information Theory uses it. The dispute that it has is not with biologists, or "evolutionists", as you call them, but with information theorists. It is literally (and somewhat ironically, given the context) a semantic argument, and of no relevance here.
            Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

            Comment


            • #96
              Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class,..
              Or any biology class in college at all, for that matter.

              he understands biology and codes better than you.
              You do know that he didn't actually have anything to do with coding DOS, right? He bought it from someone who did know coding.

              And of course, he had no idea that there are computer programs more complex than DNA.

              John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*
              Apparently, it wasn't much in the way of "advanced biology"; his beliefs have led him to reject much of modern biology, and set him at odds with every world-class biologist.

              So, apparently, he doesn't understand very much.

              Barbarian observes:
              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.
              I'd be rather surprised to look in a NASA spacecraft and see a tangle of wiring. Almost everything is in printed circuits or chips these days.

              You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same
              You still don't get it. Genomes are sloppy and redundant because they evolved instead of being designed. As engineers now realize, evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for solving complex problems.

              God is a lot smarter than creationists would like Him to be.
              This message is hidden because ...

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
                I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

                Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

                For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

                It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.
                I hope you don't spend too much time on all that, thinking that your post will have any effect on 6days (or any of the other creationists).

                You may as well be researching 4 door sedan prices for an Amish person.
                "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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by User Name View Post
                  A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Most biologists support the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. They therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Biologists therefore commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.

                  http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
                  So people build a computer program or a machine and that is reason to believe things that exhibit evidence of design do not have a creator?

                  Evolutionists.

                  Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                  I agree that DNA conveys some kind of meaning, related to the sequencing of proteins. But the assumption that the existence of information implies meaning is fallacious, as is the additional assumption that the existence of meaning implies some teleological agent.
                  Using the terms "information" and "meaning" as you have declared they should be used, nobody has claimed that information implies meaning. They have declared that meaning implies design and creator.

                  Dirt has information, but no meaning, so this argument could not be used for a creator with dirt as evidence. However, a bug has information and meaning, which does imply design and a designer.

                  It is literally (and somewhat ironically, given the context) a semantic argument, and of no relevance here.
                  Given that you raised the semantic argument, I'd say it is you who does not understand the quote that was posted.
                  Last edited by Stripe; February 24th, 2015, 09:18 PM.
                  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


                  • #99
                    "The problem, from a biological perspective, is that explaining variation as modifications to a random sequence cannot explain simultaneous variation and stasis. We can see this by looking at random mutations to an arbitrary sequence as shown below....."
                    Aside from the fact that your guy ignored natural selection, he's flat out wrong. I've taught kids as young as 7th graders to set up simulations that do both.

                    If you like, I can show you a simple dice game that will give you an increase in fitness or stasis depending on the environment.

                    Want to try it?
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Using the terms "information" and "meaning" as you have declared they should be used, nobody has claimed that information implies meaning.
                      Well, the post that I was responding to from 6days was intermixing the terms "code" "information system" and "meaning" pretty indiscriminately.

                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      They have declared that meaning implies design and creator.
                      Ok. That just doesn't follow. The meaning that DNA encodes is protein sequences, which operate without any need of intelligence. It is all messaging between chemicals which don't seem to be intelligent.

                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Dirt has information, but no meaning, so this argument could not be used for a creator with first as evidence. However, a bug has information and meaning, which does imply design and a designer.
                      Specifically, which meaning? Who or what is the message sender and the recipient?
                      Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Nope.

                        I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.

                        If squids had a system where they had billions of offspring that all introduced random changes to their RNA and the ones that survived, uh survived, to do the same, perhaps that would be understandable from an evolutionary point of view.
                        You mean like the system that is actually functioning in all species right now (natural selection)? Or how the cells of vertebrates intentionally (and randomly) mutate their own DNA to generate variation in antibodies and then select the best ones?

                        Random mutation and selection works. Humans use it for our own technological purposes, our bodies use it and it's clearly generated resistance to antibiotics and herbicides in a variety of species.

                        I think your problem is you don't understand the difference between DNA and RNA.

                        What you really wanted was for the squid to recode its own DNA so you're pretending recoding RNA is the same thing.

                        No surprise there.
                        “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 Alate_One View Post
                          Random mutation and selection works.
                          Evidence. Remember?

                          Declaring yourself correct doesn't work.
                          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 rexlunae View Post
                            Well, the post that I was responding to from 6days was intermixing the terms "code" "information system" and "meaning" pretty indiscriminately.
                            Their ideas were perfectly reasonable until you demanded they adhere strictly to your limited use of certain words.

                            Ok. That just doesn't follow. The meaning that DNA encodes is protein sequences, which operate without any need of intelligence. It is all messaging between chemicals which don't seem to be intelligent.
                            Try again. Ink on paper is not intelligence, but writing implies an author.
                            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 Stripe View Post
                              Their ideas were perfectly reasonable until you demanded they adhere strictly to your limited use of certain words.
                              I stand by what I said.

                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Ink on paper is not intelligence, but writing implies an author.
                              Prove it.
                              Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Evidence. Remember?

                                Declaring yourself correct doesn't work.
                                Indeed it doesn't, so stop attempting it and hope to pretend that others don't notice. You recall that absolute joke of a thread where for some insane reason you tried to take on TH over law? Where you didn't actually possess even a layman's understanding of due process?

                                Even you must cringe at that one.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X