Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 166 of 292 (230286)
08-05-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Here are 3 examples...
Post #158 :- since the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC.
Post #142 :- I was saying that in the DNA molecule and the machinery of life molecules there are essentially no working real, as we find it, examples of such that do not make exclusive use of either L forms of the four amino acids of the code or D form of same or other necessary molecules such as sugars.
(emphasis mine)
Post #96 :- Or you could just just substitute dextro forms of amino acids into the dna strands and since it is absolutely provably true that they are chemically and entropically absolutely indistinguishable by Chemical means then the DNA RNA ribozome process will work just fine I mean since its purely chemical and enzymatic and such.
I see AdminAsgara has also brought this up, but when you say something three times and then deny you ever said it, it stands out a mile.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 3:30 PM Evopeach has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 167 of 292 (230289)
08-05-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Er........you did, actually and I read it exactly the same way as WK and Asgara. I suggest you go back and re-read your posts and you'll see where you made this erroneous claim.
You also seem to be mixing up the replication of DNA and protein synthesis. DNA replication doesn't involve transcription of DNA to messenger RNA - it's protein synthesis that requires that.
I really would advise you to do a bit of reading on this before making such statements. That way your arguments might be a bit more informed and a bit less dependent on your erroneous comprehension of the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 3:30 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 PM Trixie has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 168 of 292 (230306)
08-05-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Trixie
08-05-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Actually I was attempting to make the valid point concerning the separation of D and L forms by functional type of molecule in the entire replication process of the dna molecule,the human genome by using hyperbolic language.
That is, when I have responses such as "I am confused as to what replication you am referring to" when I discuss error rates, speed, reliability, size and so on as 6 billion base pairs in seven hours and reference the bBook Exons, Introns and Talking Genes by Wills in that same post.... one wonders.
As to whether there is transcription of the bases after the division of DNA into two strands, sense and antisense, by a protein (RNA polymerase)which uncoils the helix. The RNA polymerase is also acting on the sense strand and spining out a strand of mrna, note mrna. It is transferring information from the DNA to the ribosome so that a particular protein called helicase can be made it being absolutely vital to the replication of DNA. Helicase of course is that enzyme which separates the DNA strands for replication and along with DNA polymerase asists in the formation of a new DNA strand from free floating bases. Topoisomerase another enzyme/protein is holding tension on the yet to be unwound DNA a mechanical chore if you will.
Now where do the helicase and topoisomerase come from...I know the protein building process and so could not occur without that also happening.
Now for the kicker... there is in life the linear sequential way of thinking and then there is the systematics way of thinking about mutiprocessing activities occuring simultaneously with materials being produced transported, produced, tagged repaired and in the case of a healthy human cell it numbers in the oodles (technical term)as all of these events in a sense separate and ordered yet simultaneous and related in time and in space all within the cell.
So when you say DNA copying is not dependent on mrna transscription and protein synthesis via ribosomes ... that is the linear model.
Remember my Masters following my BS in Engr Physics was in ... you guessed it... Systems Engineering. Thats the thinking method which views the entirety of the cellular mitosos, replication and all those internal processes as a coordinated multiprocessed unitized activity.
So it rerally makes no sense to say this part doesn't involve that part or activity; see they all depend on each other in a closed loop feedback sense if you will.
I recommend "Systems Engineering by Chesnutt" its the oldie but goodie and will I think really assist your thinking on these more complex planes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Trixie, posted 08-05-2005 4:57 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 6:39 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2005 10:51 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 179 by Admin, posted 08-06-2005 12:00 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 183 by Trixie, posted 08-06-2005 4:32 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 169 of 292 (230310)
08-05-2005 6:19 PM


Critical Mass
Since 1973 I have supported the principal people involved in bringing to America's attention the obvious and dramatic chasm between Neo-Darwinianism and scientific reality on nealy every plane. After some 33 years and a few hundred dollars, a lot of reading of the related scientific literature, discussions with technically trained people of reputation, biblical scholars of international reputation, attending several debates and spending time evaluating the various evolutionary strongholds on the web since 1988; I at last see overwhelming evidence that the labor of those so involved and their support bearing fruit.
I am encouraged and elated to have seen the growth of the Discovery Institute and the overwhelming acceptance and financial support of the organization.
One has only to review their board, fellows, senior fellows and the list of 400 scientists and technically trained people of reputation who support in principle their deep concern about the credibility of the Neo-Darwinian school of thought. Not just any 400 people but people who perform teaching in many many major universities and research there and then publish in peer reviewed journals.
It is especially encouraging to see names like Microsoft in the credentials of those in positions of influence and support for this scholarly organization.
Of course, given the emphasis on the informational aspects of biology and life as we see it and experience it this is not surprising.
At long last, the critical mass has arrived.
Evopeach

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2005 10:59 AM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 170 of 292 (230313)
08-05-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Modulous
08-05-2005 4:55 PM


Re: abiogenesis/evolution conflation
So long as you define science in your terms to fit the result you want and exclude allother ideas contrary to your own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2005 4:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2005 1:30 PM Evopeach has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 171 of 292 (230318)
08-05-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 6:14 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
using hyperbolic language.
Is the the engineering term for word salad?
Now where do the helicase and topoisomerase come from...I know the protein building process and so could not occur without that also happening.
So in fact you are basically claiming that the cycle of production of the machinery for dna replication and protein synthesis form an irreducibly complex loop. Is that right?
Why do you need 1000 extra words to do it?
And how do the amino acids substitute for bases in DNA again?
Why, oh why, didn't you just listen when I suggested that if you knew what you were talking about you spent the time writing your thoughts clearly. Clearly enough at least that someone without a degree from the Brad McFall school of language could understand you. Of course the main reason appears to be that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 10:24 AM Wounded King has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 172 of 292 (230405)
08-06-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Wounded King
08-05-2005 6:39 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
For you its the Dick, Jane and Spot school of reading.
If systematics and such are over your head just say so and I'll attempt to think in terms of abcdefg.
Do you also prefer CPM on an 8080 from 1978 for your operating system... much easier to understand.. no nasty multiprocessing or multitasking to even worry about.
The cell of course is multitasking and multiprocessing and involves message based coordination of same

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 6:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by CK, posted 08-06-2005 10:41 AM Evopeach has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 173 of 292 (230407)
08-06-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Evopeach
08-06-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Actually the 8080 was from @1974, the 8086 is what you might be thinking of.
No need to thank me for the correction.
I think the problem is that you are using lots and lots of long words but nobody is convinced that you are actual know what you are on about.
Maybe if you demonstrate that you know something about the basics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 10:24 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 11:05 AM CK has not replied

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


Message 174 of 292 (230409)
08-06-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 6:14 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Remember my Masters following my BS in Engr Physics was in ... you guessed it... Systems Engineering.
You know, I did guess it. It's been my theory for several years now that engineers are much, much more likely to be creationists, indoctrinated as they are in a mindset that demands that every design have a designer, and every successful outcome be the result of a detailed plan.
Engineers don't think like scientists, especially not like biologists. It's been my experience that engineers largely have a mindset that precludes them from the proper practice of biology. Exceptions abound, of course, but you don't appear to be one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 1:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 175 of 292 (230411)
08-06-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 6:19 PM


Re: Critical Mass
I at last see overwhelming evidence that the labor of those so involved and their support bearing fruit.
What fruit is that, exactly? I'm not familiar with a single successful predicition or effective model of creationism, Biblical or otherwise; on the other hand my wife's research, firmly grounded as it is in evolutionary models, is poised within a year or two to eventually save America's farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. (Perhaps I exaggerate from enthusiasm and affection, but she's definately getting results, results that will have a definate practical value for agriculture.)
Why is that, exactly? Why is it that there are no creationist agronomists? You'd think America's midwest farmers, who are generally a very Christian sort, would flock to the idea of employing the Bible to increase their yields.
But even farmers who I know are ardent creationists consult agronomists who base their expertise on evolution. Could it be because, as Christian as farmers are, they're also very skilled at the detection of chicanery and flim-flam, and that they'll go where the results are?
Creationism is a fruitless as always. Evolution gets results and creationism never has. The "chasm" that you speak of exists only in your own mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:19 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2005 12:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 176 of 292 (230412)
08-06-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by CK
08-06-2005 10:41 AM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
In 1981 I purchased an interest in a franchised PC store and the most mfgt. were still running CPM on the 8080 platform.
The 8086 was later and introduced by Altos running a couple of the only multiuser operating systems that were spinoffs from Dick Pick's work "Pick". None were multiprocessing but could multitask.
CPM and MPM were about finished by 1983 what with Apple and Microsoft emerging as the players.
Oh and you're a CPM linear thinker from the evo world with his head up his butt so far you can't see daylight.
We'll just call you NorthStar from the bancrupt PC Co from the late 70's and very early 80's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by CK, posted 08-06-2005 10:41 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by AdminNosy, posted 08-06-2005 11:24 AM Evopeach has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 177 of 292 (230415)
08-06-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Evopeach
08-06-2005 11:05 AM


A waste of time
Since this has nothing to do with the topic and appears to be simply a way of continuing to be insulting I think it is time for a 24 hour time out for EvoPeach.
It is time for you drop the attitude, take the time to clarify what you are trying to say and support your views. You can try that in 24 hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 11:05 AM Evopeach has not replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 178 of 292 (230420)
08-06-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
08-04-2005 2:26 PM


OK (way off topic)
Thanks, honey, and I'll help you learn a thing or two as well. Are you a native of Oklahoma? The head of the department where I teach and I were just having a conversation about the very poor quality of education in the public schools here in Oklahoma.
There was a hand-lettered sign in a restaurant in that town where you teach ("Del Rancho" I think--is it still there?) that stated there was to be "No Profound Language" spoken. I loved it.
Cheers Doc.
This message has been edited by short attention sp, 08-06-2005 11:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 2:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 179 of 292 (230422)
08-06-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 6:14 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
I'm replying in Admin mode because I'm not sure the discussion about the relationship of mrna to DNA replication is on-topic. If it is on-topic, then this portion of your reply seems a good beginning to addressing Trixie's challenge that mrna isn't involved in DNA replication:
Evopeach writes:
As to whether there is transcription of the bases after the division of DNA into two strands, sense and antisense, by a protein (RNA polymerase) which uncoils the helix. The RNA polymerase is also acting on the sense strand and spining out a strand of mrna, note mrna. It is transferring information from the DNA to the ribosome so that a particular protein called helicase can be made it being absolutely vital to the replication of DNA. Helicase of course is that enzyme which separates the DNA strands for replication and along with DNA polymerase asists in the formation of a new DNA strand from free floating bases. Topoisomerase another enzyme/protein is holding tension on the yet to be unwound DNA a mechanical chore if you will.
If I understand you, you're saying that helicase is produced as a byproduct of the replication process. The question this raises is that since helicase is essential to splitting the DNA helix, at least some helicase must have been present before the splitting process began. Is your point that some of the helicase produced during replication is fed back to the process to help it continue?
If your main reason for being in this thread is to discuss the scientific nature of ID, then after your short suspension please continue, by all means. But you may want to peruse the Forum Guidelines and take them to heart if you'd like your participation here to continue uninterrupted. Requests to clarify what you're saying should not be interpreted as opportunities to cast insults. I know it takes two to tango, and it appears possible that others may have began casting snide questions first (unraveling cross-accusations of "He did it first" takes too much time and is pointless anyway), but what often happens in such cases is that several parties find themselves temporarily suspended.
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-06-2005 12:04 PM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Trixie, posted 08-06-2005 4:53 PM Admin has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 292 (230428)
08-06-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
08-06-2005 10:59 AM


And oil companies!
Most oil companies (including the ones located here in Texas and Oklahoma) use evolutionary models to locate the most likely places for exploitable oil fields. Are there any that use a creationist model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2005 10:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024