|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 10 Categories of Evidence For ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jerry's answer to the primate broken vitamin-C gene is that we have oranges.
so now we know why oranges evolved eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
"When DNA is synthesized in the lab, the two strands are separated and new bases are added to the 3' end-thus DNA is assembled from the 5' to 3' end. DNA cannot be synthesized from scratch. A short piece of DNA, called a primer, is required for the reaction to begin. Primers are designed such that they are able to bind to the target DNA, the binding of which is the initiator for DNA synthesis." http://bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioinformatics/GenomeProjects/ Well gee. Intelligent designers in the lab have tried to synthesize these complex molecules from scratch and have not succeeded. Surely we can weigh this fact, compare it with the fact that no one has ever seen it form in nature outside an organism and draw a hypothesis from this. No one has ever seen it form inside an organism without all the neccessary accessory systems, including primers. There are a number of primases whose job it is to sythesize short strands of RNA to act as primers during DNA synthesis(del Solar, et al., 1998).
del Solar, et al., 1998 writes: Two early events in this mode of replication are the opening of the strands at specific sequences (the origin of replication) and the synthesis of RNA primers. Opening of the strands is catalyzed by specific initiators (Rep and DnaA proteins) and/or by transcription by RNAP. Initiation proteins promote, at the origin of replication, the sequential assembly of components of the replisome complex. The main replicative helicase of the cell catalyzes further unwinding of the strands. RNA primers are synthesized either by RNAP or by bacterial or plasmid primases. There are modes of replication, such as rolling circle replication, which do not require rna synthesising primases, but these still require a priming sequence, in this case derived by nicking one of the parental strands of DNA .
del Solar, et al., 1998 writes: The 3”-OH end required for initiation of replication is provided by the site-specific nicking activity of the plasmid-encoded Rep protein on one of the parental plasmid strands. The DNA substrate for the Rep-mediated nicking has to be in a single-stranded configuration. This can be achieved by Rep-facilitated extrusion of a cruciform structure encompassing the nic region of the origin, where the nick site is unpaired. There is absolutely no requirement for DNA to ever have simply jumped into existence. Can you show me somewhere in the literature where it is suggested that DNA must have suddenly appeared de novo without any genetic precursor? It is also surely significant that the current natural conditions are substantially different from many of those in which DNA is suggested to have arisen. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-12-2005 07:34 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Jerry writes: The fossil record is an accurate record of around 80% of the earth's biotic history. Could you explain what you mean by this? Some reference for the source of the number if possible would also be greatly appreciated. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Jerry also denies the existence of hotspots. So how would he explain the existence of the same mutation in differnet species ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Interesting response. Thank you. I have a few more questions.
1. How do you tell the difference between intelligent selection and natural selection? 2. How do you eliminate the possibility that a very strict environment might cause a type of natural selection that looks like intelligent selection? (i.e. an environment that only and always allows the heads side of the coin to be fixed) 3. If we somehow show intelligence, how does this refute common ancestry? Changing how things are selected does not change the paradigm that much. If you somehow show all of this is true all that means is that a different selection force is what caused evolution. I don't see how your position is in conflict with the modern theory of evolution yet you keep saying that things like the evolution of the mammalian inner ear are impossible. This seems to be a contradiction in position. Please clarify. Thanks! FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX. -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Arachnophilia writes: i've heard similar examples alot. the problem is that you're starting with a design in mind to MATCH something to. You've missed the key reason why I provided the example I did. Jerry was claiming that the programmers *must* be providing information to the program about what to design. So I completely removed this possibility from my example - the constraints are provdied by the user. Also, you say this as if it were different in principle from what happens in nature. It isn't. Just as nature provides constraints in the form of temperature, weather, water supply, food supply, predators and so forth, the program provides constraints, too. These constraints are what provides selection, which is one of the two key components of evolution: descent and with modification and natural selection.
so a better example would programming in a set of basic root words, and checking it against the rules of grammar, and let it try to tell a story. and that would clearly demonstrate how different an evolutionary product is from a designed product. Following the rules of grammar isn't going to produce a story, or even very many rational sentences. I can see a lot of sentences like, "The tinted cognition drove to the rusty iota." What would be your selection mechanism for choosing the "winners" in each generation? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Jazzns writes: How do you tell the difference between intelligent selection and natural selection? historical evidence is the only way: The NS German Shepherd Dog Club, breed history
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But by that reasoning the environment of the Earth must have been extraordinary for about half the time it has existed. 2 billion years or so of no significant atmospheric oxygen is extraordinary in terms of our modern environment after all. What is usual for us now is not really a suitable standard for measuring the ordinariness of a certain environment. So, am I right in understanding you want to make this a semantics debate? Well, given that the conditions for life only existed for a mere 2 billion years surely demonstrates how extraordinary they are? After all, in context to the current age of the universe its only a fraction, and in context with the possible total age of the universe when time ceases to pass, it is but a flash of the eye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So, am I right in understanding you want to make this a semantics debate? Well, given that the conditions for life only existed for a mere 2 billion years surely demonstrates how extraordinary they are? After all, in context to the current age of the universe its only a fraction, and in context with the possible total age of the universe when time ceases to pass, it is but a flash of the eye. You make a few major assumptions in your paragraph or commit errors based on what you seem to be trying to say. Perhaps you can expand on your reasoning so we can better understand your point of view. You seem to be saying that the 2 billion year period is brief, but then relate it to the age of the universe. How are the two related to the subject of this thread in anywaay? You then go one to talk about and in context with the possible total age of the universe when time ceases to pass, it is but a flash of the eye.
which seems to have no meaning whatsoever either to this thread or anything else? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Its real simple. I granted jdb that the conditions for life to begin were not conditions we (as human beings) would consider 'normal', or 'ordinary'. Indeed, I described these conditions as being beyond ordinary or extraordinary. I believe that based on our experience of ordinary, prebiotic earth certainly comes under the description 'extraordinary'.
Wounded King retorted that he disagrees. The conditions, he says might have been specific, but not extraordinary. I replied that Wounded King and I agreed, the only disagreement we were having was one of semantics. I made the comment that it would probably not be constructive to bicker over semantics. Wounded King then retorted that if the conditions for the origin of life were extraordinary then half the total time of earth's existance was under extraordinary conditions. My final reply, that you responded to was basically giving up and engaging Wounded King at a game of pedantic semantics. No major errors, no misunderstandings, just a pointless waste of thread space discussing one person's objection to the use of a subjective adjective. This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 12-May-2005 08:59 PM This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 12-May-2005 09:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Not really because in most situations information is matter. Can you think of information that is not matter? Boltzmann considered his atoms as information, Shannon's electrons flowing through switching stations were information, the chalk on the blackboard that communicates information is matter, the ink on the paper of a letter is matter, the information stored on computer chips that one sees on the computer monitor while typing is matter, the photons hitting the nerve behind the eyeball telling one how cute that girl is, is matter; the sound waves in the form of moving air hitting the eardrums allowing one to place information into his brain via hearing is matter. And finally, all information that has been communicated to an organism is matter in the form of neurons and the firing process of those cells as the organism processes data and stores information in the brain. How far off would I be Percy, to extrapolate Einstein's formula into I = MC^2??
quote: I'm not dissing genetic algorithms as I can see that they have their place in research (I tried to make that clear). But we cannot go so far as to think that the results actually translate into anything we see happening in nature. The people I have debated on this will normally just admit this up front. The problems these create in teaching the subject is that some people actually seem to think that the papers Adami has written using Avida simulations as in calculating entropy in the genome is also applicable to what we find in nature. This is simply nonsense as the simulations do not match real-life studies. So, we are fine here unless someone tries to extrapolate algorithms to real life. If they don't, I don't have a problem. Go for it.
quote: All of this is well and good, but you seem to be missing my point. This is intelligence. This resembles NOTHING that can be found in nature. Have fun with the programs but don't confuse this with real life. If you do, the next time you get lost in the woods, start playing the hot and cold game with the trees and see how quickly you find your car.
quote: On this, we can all agree.
quote: But all it does is to propose it. Therefore, thus far, you have an observation. Now what are you going to do experimentally to get this to the hypothesis level? You haven't even done that yet much less reached the theory level.
quote: It's still silly as there WERE no mammals on earth during that era. You cannot falsify something by proposing an impossibility as the falsification criteria. Did you know I can falsify that God is dead? The next time you are in your bedroom, just conjure up the devil and he will tell you. Can we stay in science here? Anyhow, I saw your point the first time around. But I also hope you grasped mine in that this is such a religiously biased 'science' that it wouldn't falsify anything. People would just back up, pluck a new theory out of the air to explain the mammal much as Gould and Eldredge did with punk eek and keep right on trucking as if no mammal was found there to begin with.
quote: No. Please keep my terms separate. I claimed that Darwinism isn't falsifiable.
quote: Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.
quote: Why could this intelligence not have come from another universe? We don't have to get into metaphysics if one ponders how this could occur through a singularity in a black hole. It may not be so painfully obvious if you discard norms of mundane thinking and go a bit deeper.
quote: Not simple information. But it certainly does with complex specified information as in the type found in organisms. The latter is simply mathematically impossible. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and that the probability of a chemical reaction happening is the same on the moon and at one of the hot sulfer vents at the bottom of the pacific ocean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
How far off would I be Percy, to extrapolate Einstein's formula into I = MC^2?? I would say extremely far of by almost anyone's definition of information. Take the two strings: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" and "#!/usr/bin/perlprint 'Hello World';" Both occupy the exact same amount of space in the universe but the second most certainly contains more information than the first. FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX. -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ever seen the "darwinian poetry" website?
http://www.codeasart.com/poetry/darwin.html random people select one of two "poems" at each stage. it started with purely random words.
waves sang and oh a passion they blow the lost music I mortal washed on and did in road celebrate was the first example that came up today. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
unless you're falling off a cliff
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024