Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does Complexity demonstrate Design
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 256 of 321 (134301)
08-16-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by yxifix
08-15-2004 2:17 PM


Is it a proof or not?
A scientific experiment is never proof. Scientific conclusions are always tentative.
So no, it's not proof.
You are typical ignorant.
Which is more name-calling, not an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by yxifix, posted 08-15-2004 2:17 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 10:49 AM crashfrog has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 321 (134306)
08-16-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by crashfrog
08-16-2004 10:38 AM


crashfrog writes:
A scientific experiment is never proof. Scientific conclusions are always tentative.
So no, it's not proof.
OK, so you think a spontaneous generation is possible.
Than you also think that it is possible there is a human in the world who doesn't need oxygen to stay alive.
And that means you are saying evolution is just your assertion you have no evidence for, nothing more. That means it is the same belief as a belief in God. What a paradox ! OH MAN ! You've just stuck in your own words as mark24 did... You are funny.
(do you remember 20+20=40 from discussion with mark24? Don't forget)
Thanks for a discussion. I have no need to talk with you anymore. You have just shown to everybody what kind of person you really are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 10:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 10:52 AM yxifix has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 258 of 321 (134308)
08-16-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by yxifix
08-16-2004 10:49 AM


And that means you are saying evolution is just your assertion you have no evidence for, nothing more.
No, it's a tentative conclusion supported by a weight of evidence.
Just because scientific conclusions are tenative and not definative doesn't mean they're all assumptions.
In fact, proof is the assumption - you can only have a proof by means of constructing a tautology from assumed axioms. The very reason that there is no proof in science stems from the scientific goal of making the least amount of assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 10:49 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 11:06 AM crashfrog has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 321 (134313)
08-16-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
08-16-2004 10:52 AM


crashfrog writes:
No, it's a tentative conclusion supported by a weight of evidence.
Just because scientific conclusions are tenative and not definative doesn't mean they're all assumptions.
In fact, proof is the assumption - you can only have a proof by means of constructing a tautology from assumed axioms. The very reason that there is no proof in science stems from the scientific goal of making the least amount of assumptions.
Sorry man, hopeless attempt.
You are also using stuff you have never seen to "prove" evolution is correct so clearly: A=B=C ....that means I'm talking about A, you are talking about B and C is -> assertion without evidence, no proofs (in your and mark24's terminology). Or you can apply "20+20=40" example mentioned before, doesn't matter really.
So again - according to your words Evolution is just an assertion without evidencese.
So now it is just a question of belief really (nothing more) for you and mark24 (the others to come)... God or evolution (both the same - only different way of life)... doesn't matter for you both.
Sorry you hear the truth, so my last post stands of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 10:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 11:22 AM yxifix has replied

MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 321 (134315)
08-16-2004 11:21 AM


I'm just curious, yxifix, have you presented any positive evidence of God's involvement with the creation of life?
For hypothetical sake, I'm perfectly willing to forego the evidence that has been demonstrated for different theories of abiogenisis right now, if you could present some verifiable evidence that a Divine influence began the process instead. I'd be very comfortable weighing an ID theory with evidence vs. other competing abiogenesis theories. But ATM it seems you are merely attempting to discredit those abiogenesis theories in order to support your idea without positive evidence. This continues to resemble the argument from false dilemna:
Page not found - Nizkor
So without falling into this fallacy, what positive evidence has been presented for an Intelligent Designer setting all life into motion?
This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-16-2004 10:23 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:07 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 261 of 321 (134316)
08-16-2004 11:22 AM


Trying to head back towards the topic.
Have any of you ever seen a Zen Garden?
Have any of you ever visited an old fashioned garbage dump?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 262 of 321 (134317)
08-16-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by yxifix
08-16-2004 11:06 AM


You are also using stuff you have never seen to "prove" evolution is correct so clearly
I'm "proving" nothing. I'm simply saying that the scientific consensus is correct - evolution is the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.
You, on the other hand, are putting words in my mouth that I never said.
So again - according to your words Evolution is just an assertion without evidencese.
You know I didn't say that, Y.
So now it is just a question of belief really
You've done what I told you not to do - conflated tentativity with ignorance.
Just because we don't know everything with 100%, eternal certainty, doesn't mean that everything we know is a belief. Science is tenative. It's not just making things up, like you do.
It's clear that you're unable to comprehend how science works. Maybe you shouldn't be involved in cientific discussions, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 11:06 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 263 of 321 (134402)
08-16-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by yxifix
08-16-2004 6:09 AM


Re: The universal genetic code
Yes I understand pretty well, how DNA code can be created (yes, this is what we are talking about, not how it works)
And in order to claim that the genetic code couldn't have come about by chance you have to demonstrate that you know what it is and how it works!. For somebody who was bleating so self-righteously about ignorance a few posts ago, you haven't actually shown that you understand much. To prove me otherwise all you have to do is give me a few sentences describing protein synthesis, but for some reason you are refusing to do this - if you don't have a clue about it just say so.
Now we are not talking about abiogenesis but about evolution itself, man, so think before replying
You have presented the genetic code as evidence that there was a designer and that evolution is impossible, and I would like you to clarify this position. This seems like very clear thinking to me.
... and give me evidence for your premise
What??? Let me just repeat my premise again:
I have seen no evidence to suggest that the genetic code did not arise by random mutation and selection
So you are, in effect, asking me to list all of the evidence that I have seen.
OK, if you insist: Go to your local library, get out The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, read the first few chapters and get back to me. Alternatively, you could tell me the particular aspects of the genetic code that you have a problem with, because that would save us a lot of time. There is of course a third option: you could avoid answering my questions again.
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:44 PM
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 6:09 AM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:12 PM Ooook! has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 321 (134468)
08-16-2004 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by MisterOpus1
08-16-2004 11:21 AM


MisterOpus1 writes:
So without falling into this fallacy, what positive evidence has been presented for an Intelligent Designer setting all life into motion?
Of course, I have shown an evidence !
Most important posts:
Origin of Life 425
Origin of Life 428
message 226
If it is not a proof, please show me an example what is a proof. Thank you.
But you should read more of these two discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-16-2004 11:21 AM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-17-2004 5:33 PM yxifix has replied
 Message 274 by ramoss, posted 08-17-2004 10:09 PM yxifix has replied
 Message 275 by jar, posted 08-17-2004 10:22 PM yxifix has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 321 (134469)
08-16-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by crashfrog
08-16-2004 11:22 AM


crashfrog writes:
I'm "proving" nothing. I'm simply saying that the scientific consensus is correct - evolution is the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.
You, on the other hand, are putting words in my mouth that I never said.
No. I'm not. Again, you are saying (20+20) ...I'm saying 40.
You know I didn't say that, Y.
As mentioned you did. If Pasteur's discovery is not a proof, than you are saying evolution is just an assertion, nothing more. Sorry man, the truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?
Just because we don't know everything with 100%, eternal certainty, doesn't mean that everything we know is a belief. Science is tenative. It's not just making things up, like you do.
In fact, you don't know nothing really. Everything is just your assertion.
Sorry again, as I said, I know proved truth is difficult to accept for you. But you have no other choice. You should start to think about yourself from now on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2004 11:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 321 (134472)
08-16-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Ooook!
08-16-2004 3:43 PM


Re: The universal genetic code
Ooook writes:
And in order to claim that the genetic code couldn't have come about by chance you have to demonstrate that you know what it is and how it works!. For somebody who was bleating so self-righteously about ignorance a few posts ago, you haven't actually shown that you understand much. To prove me otherwise all you have to do is give me a few sentences describing protein synthesis, but for some reason you are refusing to do this - if you don't have a clue about it just say so.
Believe me, it is not important... we can call it just information. But nevermind:
quote:
DNA - Deoxyribonucleic acid is the long molecule that holds our instructions. Two strands of DNA are twisted together into the double helix. The base-pairs between A and T and between C and G hold the two strands together. DNA is usually packaged into chromosomes. And it is the base pairs that do the important job of being the instructions. (It is information with meaning as you will read later!)
But the DNA isn't spread out like a ladder. It's tightly packaged into bundles, surrounded by protein to protect it. If we look at DNA under a microscope, we can see these bundles of protein and DNA, arranged in strips called chromosomes. The number of chromosomes in a cell depends on what species of animal it is from. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), .
DNA is a code. It is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning. (Understand this?!!! Intelligence needed! What a shame for your theory, isn't it?)
Protein - A molecule made up from amino acid building blocks, the order of which is coded in DNA. The order of amino acids is different for different proteins — the sequence determines properties of the protein. Major proteins are keratin which makes hair and nails, actin and myosin which make muscle, globin which carries oxygen and makes blood red, and antibodies which protect us from disease.
Amino acids - The building blocks of proteins. There are 20 naturally occuring amino acids. Different proteins have different numbers of amino acids in different orders. The order of amino acids is written in the DNA code.
The DNA codes for protein. In our cells, proteins are the labourforce. It is proteins that get everything done. Proteins make new cells and destroy old or diseased ones. Proteins break down our food to release energy. Proteins organise the transport of useful chemicals between cells. Often, these useful chemicals are themselves proteins. As well as doing things, proteins are the building blocks for most of the body.
The ingredients of a protein are amino acids. To build a protein we need to build a long chain of amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acids, so there are lots of different protein chains we can build.
Biologists give amino acids a code letter, as for DNA. This is much easier than writing out the whole name each time. For example, M is methionine, L is leucine, F is phenylalanine.
DNA code - is the set of instructions to build an organism. Much of the code is written in 'words' of three letters (such as ATG, CCG, TAA and so on) in DNA. This code must be 'translated' by the cell into the building blocks of proteins. Other parts of the code are 'switches' to turn genes on or off, up or down. The DNA code uses these groups of three 'letters' to make meaning. Most groups of three 'letters' codes for an amino acid. Each of these sequence of three DNA letters is called a DNA triplet, or codon - it specifies one building block of a protein. Some of the 64 codons don't code for any of the amino acids. Instead they provide the grammar of the DNA sequence. For instance, the codon TAA means 'full stop' or 'stop here'. Full stops are essential for when the cell is making protein from the DNA code , otherwise the cell wouldn't know where to stop.
Gene - Each DNA sequence that can be used by your cells to make a protein is called a gene. At the beginning of a gene, there are some codons that mean 'start making your protein here' and at the end of a gene, there are codons that mean 'stop making your protein here', or 'full stop'. Genes have different characteristics. For instance, 'a gene for eye colour'. It means it that this is the gene that codes for the protein that is the pigment in the iris of each of our eyes. Some genes come in different versions. Some people have a gene that codes for a protein that makes their eyes look blue while other people have a gene that makes a protein that makes their eyes look brown. But not all of the DNA sequence in our genome is used to make protein (perhaps less than 10%). There is a lot of DNA that is never used to make protein : we know what some of this DNA does, but not all. The bits of DNA we don't understand are often called 'junk DNA'.
Genome - One copy of all the DNA in a cell of an organism. Our genome is 3,000,000,000 base-pairs, packaged into 23 pairs of chromsomes: bacteria may have only 1,500,000 base-pairs in one chromosome.
Mutation - Sometimes, one of the DNA letters is accidentally swapped for another letter. For example the codon GCT might be changed into GCA. This mutation might have a very serious effect, or it might have no effect at all. There are other types of mutations as well. Sometimes, a bit of the DNA sequence is missed out by mistake, or a new bit added in. Sometimes, parts of the sequence are swapped over, even between different chromosomes. Each of our genes is a copy from either our mum or our dad. If there is a mutation in one of these genes, this will be passed on from parent to child along with the rest of the gene (Do you understand what does this mean?). This is why diseases often run in families.
I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY NOW.
Or should I start also with RNA?
So now I'll repeat my sentence once again: Yes I understand pretty well, how DNA code can be created (yes, this is what we are talking about, not how it works)
You have presented the genetic code as evidence that there was a designer and that evolution is impossible, and I would like you to clarify this position. This seems like very clear thinking to me.
Yes sure, creation of DNA is surely (must be) a part of evolution itself.
What??? Let me just repeat my premise again:
I have seen no evidence to suggest that the genetic code did not arise by random mutation and selection
So you are, in effect, asking me to list all of the evidence that I have seen.
clear proof (evidence) - message 226.
If it is not a proof, please show me an example of a proof. Thank you.
OK, if you insist: Go to your local library, get out The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, read the first few chapters and get back to me. Alternatively, you could tell me the particular aspects of the genetic code that you have a problem with, because that would save us a lot of time. There is of course a third option: you could avoid answering my questions again.
Oh man... stop talking like this, or you will end up like mark24....
So if my proof isn't a proof for you LETS PLAY ! ....you can start to explain how the information arised - eg DNA code... go on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Ooook!, posted 08-16-2004 3:43 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Ooook!, posted 08-17-2004 8:47 AM yxifix has replied
 Message 270 by Loudmouth, posted 08-17-2004 2:37 PM yxifix has replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 267 of 321 (134620)
08-17-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by yxifix
08-16-2004 8:12 PM


Re: The universal genetic code
I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY NOW.
We do seem to be getting somewhere now (however gradually), so yes I am happier than I was - that wasn't too hard to do was it? Your little essay did actually put forward a number of points that are the kind of things I was looking for from you, so I'll try and extrapolate.
Or should I start also with RNA?
Yes, let's do that shall we, considering one of the most popular theories about how life got started suggests that RNA molecules were the first catalysts and came before protein sythesis evolved. Different sequences of RNA have been shown to have a variety of functions, ranging from simple chemical cleavage to catalysing RNA replication. A theoretical proto-cell could be quite catalytically complex by just having a variety of different sequences of RNA. So where is the code (or information if you like) that is required for this RNA-only world to function?
Let's also have a look at what is required for protein synthesis to evolve from this kind of situation:
  • mRNA - a strand of RNA
  • tRNA - another strand of RNA which can interact with single amino acids
  • ribosomes - a complex of protein and RNA in which the protein is assembled. The presence of proteins is not required for this to evolve because it is the RNA which provides the active site.
I see no reson why the genetic code could not have evolved from the RNA-only world by random mutation. Can you point to the part which would absolutely require inteligence to get involved?
Oh man... stop talking like this, or you will end up like mark24....
If Mark and I are singing the same song it is because we are both equally unimpressed by your 'proof'. We probably have a similar patience threshold when it comes to people debating by analogy.
You're obviously very impressed with message 226, but what it really boils down to is this:
A computer cannot randomly create information without the intervention of inteligence, and therefore the DNA code couldn't have arisen by chance
This is what I mean by debating by analogy. Unless you can demonstrate that a computer is exactly analogous to the kind of situation I am describing then your position is meaningless.
If it is not a proof, please show me an example of a proof. Thank you.
As Crash has pointed out, science does not provide absolute proofs, just tentative answers. However, I suppose if you could truthfully say something like this:
"We know the exact conditions in which life is meant to have started, recreated them a great many times and we still haven't come close!"
then you would go some way to challenging my position. As none of the statement is true, then your position is not supported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:12 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by yxifix, posted 08-17-2004 9:02 AM Ooook! has replied
 Message 276 by yxifix, posted 08-18-2004 10:30 AM Ooook! has replied

yxifix
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 321 (134625)
08-17-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Ooook!
08-17-2004 8:47 AM


Re: The universal genetic code
Sorry, I have no time at the moment... I'll answer as soon as possible.
Until then please learn more about mRNA, tRNA and rRNA. You'll need to have another solution in reserve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Ooook!, posted 08-17-2004 8:47 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Ooook!, posted 08-17-2004 1:07 PM yxifix has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 269 of 321 (134691)
08-17-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by yxifix
08-17-2004 9:02 AM


Take your time. Despite initial appearances I much prefer a properly researched and structured debate to a slanging match.
Until then please learn more about mRNA, tRNA and rRNA. You'll need to have another solution in reserve.
Have no fear, I am hitting pubmed right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by yxifix, posted 08-17-2004 9:02 AM yxifix has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 321 (134713)
08-17-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by yxifix
08-16-2004 8:12 PM


Re: The universal genetic code
quote:
Yes sure, creation of DNA is surely (must be) a part of evolution itself.
No, the REPLICATION of DNA is part of evolution. How the first DNA came about is not a part of evolution. Once you have an imperfect replicating system and differential reproductive success, then you have evolution.
quote:
So if my proof isn't a proof for you LETS PLAY ! ....you can start to explain how the information arised - eg DNA code... go on!
A bacteria acquires an enzyme that is able to digest nylong through the process of random mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
an entire population of flavobacterium were then made up of this one mutant since it is able to take advantage of an environment filled with nylon derivatives at a nylong plant. Therefore, we see one beneficial mutation that is an accident that then becomes part of an entire population through the effects of selection. Hence, evolution is able to increase information (new enzyme) in a population through accidents (random mutation). The environment was able to give the mutation meaning in the absence of an intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by yxifix, posted 08-16-2004 8:12 PM yxifix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by yxifix, posted 08-18-2004 10:32 AM Loudmouth has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024