Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,223 Year: 5,480/9,624 Month: 505/323 Week: 2/143 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 76 of 302 (318629)
06-07-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
06-07-2006 2:33 AM


DNA is a language for life, as an operating system is a language for a computer.
An operating system is not any kind of language at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1581 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 302 (318638)
06-07-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


As you eluded to 'swc', if evolution is true, we need evidence of an increase in genetic information. We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
That's a common misperception. Actually, quite the opposite is true - we observe that mutations cause a gain in genetic "information." New genes and novel structures develop through mutation, and are refined through natural selection.
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature?
No, because the gulf between sexuality and asexuality is not nearly as large as you think. Almost all asexual creatures still have some means of genetic exchange with their conspecifics. The first sexual organism might simply have lost the ability to recieve certain kinds of genetic "payloads", without losing the ability to transmit them.
Even assuming that is possible, I'm no geneticist, but the amount of genetic information needed to produce these organs is enormous
It isn't, actually. The major discovery of the Human Genome Project was how few genes it actually takes to "construct" a human being - less than 25,000 if I remember correctly. That's 20 times less than the number of genes in an onion, or a staggering 200 times less genes than it takes to describe an amoeba. Information-wise, our genome is not significantly more complex than the genome of Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit (or vinegar) fly.
My certainty is only proportionate to my capacity to 'reason' objectively.
Much like Aristotle, your mistake is that you believe you can simply reason your way to truth about the natural world. This idea has been discredited for centuries. Empiricism, not deduction, is the key for understanding the truth about the natural world. Until you educate yourself in the field of genetics, your conclusions about genetics - no matter your ability to "reason" objectively - will not be correct.
Dna is the most complex language in the known universe!
Like this, for instance. Absolutely wrong. DNA is a remarkably simple language. Here it is:
Four base nucleotide "letters"; three letters for every "word" in the language. Each word either stands for one of 20 amino acids used in our bodies to construct proteins, or it stands for "stop" - the end of the polypeptide sequence. It's not at all complex. I've just showed you how to read DNA. If I can do that over the internet, how complex can it really be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 8:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 78 of 302 (318644)
06-07-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
06-07-2006 8:39 AM


To be fair the codon table is not really adequate. Simply having this table wouldn't be sufficient to let you predict an ORF from a genomic sequence except in the very simplest of cases. This doesn't give the neccesary information to identify splice sites for differing isoforms for instance.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 8:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 8:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 79 of 302 (318649)
06-07-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


This whole debate is quite testable. As you eluded to 'swc', if evolution is true, we need evidence of an increase in genetic information. We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information. But faith that they don't is rampant. The moral implications are too much for some. Even regular reproduction only causes a rearrangement of pre-existing genetic info. When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature? The animal would have to find (even in the case of a hermaphrodite) the ability to find compatible sexual organs and an incubation method. All by chance and necessity?
No, actually, that is not true. You don't need an 'increase in information'. That is just a strawman that is promoted by the Dembski group. You have have a 'decrease' of information,and still have it be evoluiton. The scientific defintion of biological evolution is
'The change in alleles over time'.
One example is the evolution of the tape worm. In the past, it was a more 'complicated' organism.. but it no longer needed a lot of the
functions, because it was using those functions provided the host.
Another one is the cave dwelling species. Over the years, the 'functional eyes' were a detriment, and they lost the information to
make functional eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 80 of 302 (318652)
06-07-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:21 AM


You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first.
Other than the claims of some old old books, there is no evidence of that.
Supernaturla explainations are irrelavent to science. The evidence also shows that evolution has occured. That is a fact. The model on how and why evolution occurs is the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:05 PM ramoss has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1581 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 302 (318656)
06-07-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 8:46 AM


To be fair the codon table is not really adequate.
It's a start, though. When most people say "DNA is a complex language", what they're actually saying is "I have absolutely no idea how DNA works."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 8:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 82 of 302 (318664)
06-07-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
*snip*
When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.
Would you care to furnish any evidence to support these contentions?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:20 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:02 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 296 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 1:10 AM Wounded King has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 83 of 302 (318667)
06-07-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 2:42 AM


I can understand what your saying spiderman, and you make good points. I just don't think they're ultimately reasonable if we think about it. Please entertain an answer...
actually, that's dna's primary function. replication. it's one of the few things that DOES make itself.
Not without the rest of the cell components. DNA is not alive my friend. Even almost whole organisms are not alive. And I mean oganisms with billions of individual cells. Ever seen road kill? Or better put, know anybody who's seen DNA alive under a microscope?
I said:
quote:
If SETI reasearchers could find even a simple pattern of information coming from outer space they would jump for joy. But show them God's calling card (DNA) and as Francis Crick the nobel lauriate and geneticist said, "I can only conclude that it came in missile form from somewhere else (paraphrased)."
poor cyrptology. some combinatorists i know would be appalled. there is a difference between a string of data, and a message. now, if the human genome could be decoded into a message that contained all five books of the torah -- i'd jump right on the id bandwagon.
Me too! and a long time ago and not so relatively recently. But again, data is information. There is no data available until it is compiled by an intelligent agent. What natural laws produce data? None, because they are more data.
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it. But it's 'believers' are 'certain' it's true. It's one of the greatest origins culture myths ever constructed. No simple villiger can dare doubt it, or the tribe might burn them at the philosophical stake.
Here's a sample of quotes:
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 2:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2006 9:29 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 10:03 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 91 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 4:02 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 84 of 302 (318668)
06-07-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 9:14 AM


l'd love to... but I'm going to leave you hangin and go work 15 hrs. Be sure I'll have your answer in due course. Swallow the hook...

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 9:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 85 of 302 (318672)
06-07-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
06-07-2006 2:33 AM


Rob writes:
1. DNA is a language for life, as an operating system is a language for a computer.
Nwr objected to this, I think because the familiar analogy one sees for DNA is to computer instruction sets, not to computer operating systems. But if you're thinking of line oriented operating systems such as Linux or the Windows command interface (called cmd on Windows/XP) then I think the analogy is apt. You're saying that the instructions in DNA correspond to the commands in a line-oriented operating system where you can say "copy this" and "delete that" and "find all lines in this file containing the string 'abc' and delete them".
2. What I should have said, is that it is the most complex arrangement of instructions (contained in the information within the DNA molecule) in the known universe.
Maybe. Depends how you measure it. We certainly don't fully understand the information encoding or interpretation.
3. As such it communicates to us in a different manner as oppossed to the meaning I gave in illustration in #1. Because we know that information is a massless quantity, that is, it is not reducible to matter or energy but in fact manipulates it, tells us that information originates from an intelligent agent (i.e. Mark twain, or egyption scribes). it gives one the sense that info is 'spiritual' in origin.
Depends how you define information. Electrons all have a negative charge, so they repel one another. When two electrons approach each other, the deflection is caused by the exchange of a photon. The photon emitted from one electron is what informs the other electron of it's presence. Is this exchange of information spirtual?
The question is rhetorical. Your point 3 is just a declaration that information comes from an intelligent agent because it does not reduce to matter or energy but rather manipulates it. You provide no explanation for how one follows from the other, and my electron example contradicts your argument. The photon *does* possess energy and it *does* communicate information, and its source from an electron doesn't hint at anything spiritual or at an intelligent agent.
If SETI reasearchers could find even a simple pattern of information coming from outer space they would jump for joy. But show them God's calling card (DNA) and as Francis Crick the nobel lauriate and geneticist said, "I can only conclude that it came in missile form from somewhere else (paraphrased)."
The flaw in this argument is that SETI researchers are seeking patterns in radio signals for which there is no known natural cause, while the patterns in DNA have known natural causes. We've observed these patterns arising in the form of allele rearrangements and mutations.
SETI knows how to recognize the difference between many natural patterns and an artificial pattern, but every so often they encounter a new pattern with no known natural cause. So far, though, investigation has always revealed a previously unknown natural cause.
ID faces a problem similar to SETI. You have to make sure that the patterns observed in DNA have no known natural cause. Unfortunately for ID, all the patterns in DNA have known natural causes. And when we find new patterns, we've always been able to identify known natural causes.
Even discovery of a pattern for which we could uncover no natural cause would not be conclusive for science. Science is in the business of uncovering the way the natural universe works. There is no persuasive evidence we know of for supernatural processes operating in the natural universe.
In that case I ask, if the laws of nature and physics on earth cannot explain DNA's origin...
This is the fundamental claim of both mainstream creationism and of ID. But mainstream science does not see anything in the puzzle of DNA's origin that goes outside natural physical laws.
The origin of life is a scientific puzzle in the same way that the structure of the atom was a scientific puzzle. At one time we didn't know the atomic structure, and now we do. There was no scientific speculation that perhaps atomic structure was a mystical entity of divine origin. We still don't know very much about life's origin, but for the same reasons as for the atomic structure, scientists are not considering divine origins.
Science just is not in the business of ascribing supernatural causes to scientific mysteries. The entire history of science is one of finding natural explanations for things we previously didn't know.
So much wasted time to intellectually avoid the moral dillemma.
This is a common mistake that creationists make. They think that the scientific viewpoint was contrived in order to deny Christian faith. Suffice to say that the Christian faith does not occupy as much attention in scientific circles as you might think - in fact it occupies none. Were it not for creationist efforts to undermine science education, creationism would receive no attention from scientists at all.
Many God-believing Christians in countries all around the world accept evolution, as do Islamics, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews. And let's not forget atheists. There is no common philosophical base that unites them, certainly no anti-Christian one since many are Christians.
But getting the thousands of sub microscopic components together at the same time and place you need to create the simplest of life forms, is not at all a good bet given all eternity.
If your God requires belief in a supernatural origin for life in order to achieve salvation then that is an article of faith for you, and you are entitled to it. But for most people God's love is not conditional upon how one thinks life started or people got here. That is an article of faith for them, and they are entitled to their faith as much as you are to yours. And none of this, especially our fate in eternity, has anything to do with scientific views on life's origins or evolution.
And if that's not enough, DNA could not have evolved either, because in order to have a self replicating cycle, you need the DNA that stores the template for all of the highspeed processes that take place durring cell division (unimaginable sophistication). So as Steven Meyer of the Discovery institute has said, 'you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain.'
Steven Meyer evidently doesn't understand that natural selection does not just operate on life. It can operate anytime and anywhere, both organically and inorganically. Even just a simple kitchen colander is a selection mechanism, selecting whatever you put in it over the liquid it was contained in. A flowing river selects heavy sediment over light sediment, depositing the heavy sediment on the bottom while carrying the light sediment out to sea.
In the origin of life, pre-organic and simple-organic molecules were selected by the environment. Those most favored by the environment became numerous at the expense of those less favored, an early form of competition. Any kind of primitive replication capability, most likely only very partial and highly dependent upon other chemicals freely available in the environment, would have proven especially advantageous.
A final note. This forum, the [forum=-5] forum, is one of the science forums. Creationism and ID claim to be science, and they want to be represented in science classrooms. Yet in your message you tended to bolster your arguments with references to religious issues like "spiritual origins", "moral dilemmas" and "betting on all eternity", hardly the kind of arguments you could offer in a science class. Are you sure you're doing science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 06-07-2006 10:00 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 1:43 AM Percy has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 86 of 302 (318673)
06-07-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


There is no data available until it is compiled by an intelligent agent.
Interstellar gas clouds are intelligent now? They receive and "use" data from stars and other gas clouds, y'know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 87 of 302 (318682)
06-07-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
06-07-2006 9:25 AM


But if you're thinking of line oriented operating systems such as Linux or the Windows command interface (called cmd on Windows/XP) then I think the analogy is apt.
However, the operating system commands are not actually operating system commands. They are shell commands. The shell (the user interface program) interprets the commands.
If Rob had said that the shell command language is a language, I would not have objected.
Yes, I know, nobody knows what an operating system is any more.
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 9:25 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22695
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 88 of 302 (318685)
06-07-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


Rob writes:
Or better put, know anybody who's seen DNA alive under a microscope?
What a silly question! How do you think the replication process is studied if not by observing live DNA? I just pulled a genetics book off my shelf and found a picture of DNA replicating in a live E. coli.
I think the main point your were trying to make is that DNA does not replicate all by itself, that it requires the machinery and resources of the cell, and of course that's true if what you want is another cell. But if all you want to do is observe DNA replication then all you have to do is divide the DNA double helix into two separate but complementary strands and immerse it in a soup of nucleotides. You'll get two copies of the original strand. This simple replicative behavior of DNA is the fundamental principle behind DNA computers.
Me too! and a long time ago and not so relatively recently. But again, data is information. There is no data available until it is compiled by an intelligent agent.
This is just an unsupported declaraion claim variously made by people like Dembski and Gitt. Information has a formal definition, and that definition includes no semantic portion. In other words, information itself has no meaning. The meaning is an interpretation attached to the information by people. In the words of Shannon in his landmark paper:
Shannon writes:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
Moving on:
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it.
This is far too unspecific and clearly wrong as stated. Evolution is descent with modification filtered by natural selection, so every reproductive event is evolution. If there are specific aspects of evolutionary theory that you feel are untestable then describe them.
Here's a sample of quotes:
I'm also a moderator, and here at EvC Forum we try to discourage quote mining expeditions. They're very distracting and are often discovered to not be apropos or are taken out of contest or both. I presume it is a list of quotes from evolutionists making statements about problems with evolutionary theory or questioning it in some way. Do you really believe that evolutionary scientists don't accept their own theory? If I gave you a list of prominent Christians questioning important aspects of Christian faith, would you conclude, "Oh, I guess I was all wrong about Christianity." Or would you instead conclude, "Something's fishy here." In other words, don't trust the quotes.
If you really want to discuss those quotes, then please propose a thread and I'll promote it as soon as I can, but let's keep this thread on-topic. We usually suggest that members make their arguments in their own words and provide links or references for support. Rules 5 and 6 of the Forum Guidelines are the most applicable here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 10:17 AM Percy has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 302 (318689)
06-07-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
06-07-2006 10:03 AM


What a silly question! How do you think the replication process is studied if not by observing live DNA? I just pulled a genetics book off my shelf and found a picture of DNA replicating in a live E. coli.
I think Rob was commenting on the neccessity of many accessory proteins for DNA replication, i.e. DNA alone in solution will not replicate and therefore is not, in and of itself, 'alive'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 10:03 AM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1581 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 302 (318761)
06-07-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


Not without the rest of the cell components.
Oh, nonsense. The fact that you can get DNA to replicate itself with nothing more than some nucleotide bases and some Tac polymerase is what has made modern DNA analysis possible. If we couldn't get DNA to replicate outside of a cell, you wouldn't be able to do those genetic tests you see on CSI, or do paternity testing, or perform the kind of phylogenetics work my wife does.
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it.
More nonsense. The tests do support it.
Why don't you post exactly what tests you're referring to? What tests has evolution failed, specifically?
Here's a sample of quotes:
A bunch of quotes absent their original context don't mean anything. And it's not terribly honest. I could quote you out of context, piece together statements that you actually posted, and make it seem like you support evolution. Wouldn't be that hard, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob 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