Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fact Theory Falacy
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 77 of 136 (4009)
02-10-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by mark24
02-10-2002 1:33 PM


how much do you think the ransom would be worth? id say at least a billion dollars. (laughs evily) ill own you all very soon.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 1:33 PM mark24 has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 136 (4082)
02-11-2002 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 12:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
According to what you said you can do this:
Take a Chain that is this long:, etc., etc.

No, TrueCreation. You are misunderstanding the role of the gene in the development of the organism. To use your format, what I am saying (and it's not even controversial or new) is that:
Take a chain this long (chain = string of genes)
-----------------------------
Take away some links so it looks like this
-----------------------
And you can get new features in the organism that is formed by those genes. It's got nothing to do with forming a new chain of whatever length: the outcome is the new features in the organism, not a 'longer chain'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 7:36 AM toff has replied
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 5:06 PM toff has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 79 of 136 (4096)
02-11-2002 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by toff
02-11-2002 3:29 AM


Not sure how all this is related to the thread title, but
in terms of the information content of the genetics underlying
an organism surely one needs to look at the organism as a whole.
As a somewhat limited analagy the difference between FRIEND and
FIEND is only one letter, but the informational content carried
by those two words is extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 3:29 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:12 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 136 (4109)
02-11-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peter
02-11-2002 7:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Not sure how all this is related to the thread title, but
in terms of the information content of the genetics underlying
an organism surely one needs to look at the organism as a whole.
As a somewhat limited analagy the difference between FRIEND and
FIEND is only one letter, but the informational content carried
by those two words is extreme.

Well put; apparently KingPenguin has missed (or doesn't understand) this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 7:36 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:13 AM toff has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 136 (4110)
02-11-2002 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by toff
02-11-2002 9:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:

Well put; apparently KingPenguin has missed (or doesn't understand) this point.

Sorry, my mistake - I MEANT TrueCreation, not KingPenguin. My apologies, KingPenguin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:12 AM toff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:22 AM toff has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 82 of 136 (4349)
02-13-2002 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by toff
02-11-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
quote:
Originally posted by toff:

Well put; apparently KingPenguin has missed (or doesn't understand) this point.

Sorry, my mistake - I MEANT TrueCreation, not KingPenguin. My apologies, KingPenguin.

thank you so much
heh, but can chains get longer and more diverse? meaning can new amino acids be added or completely removed rather than just being made dormant?
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:13 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 2:37 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 5:41 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 136 (4363)
02-13-2002 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thank you so much
heh, but can chains get longer and more diverse? meaning can new amino acids be added or completely removed rather than just being made dormant?

Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:22 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 136 (4371)
02-13-2002 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thank you so much
heh, but can chains get longer and more diverse? meaning can new amino acids be added or completely removed rather than just being made dormant?

Yes
Firstly, how does an amino acid become dormant?
Secondly, from this very thread.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
"Now, let's get back to Biology, and the case of the bacterium which has evolved the capability of ingesting nylon waste. This case is most interesting. Nylon didn't exist before 1937, and neither did this organism. Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced."
So, the addition of a single Thymine caused a longer nucleotide chain, & new function.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:22 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 12:34 AM mark24 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 136 (4428)
02-13-2002 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by toff
02-11-2002 3:29 AM


"And you can get new features in the organism that is formed by those genes. It's got nothing to do with forming a new chain of whatever length: the outcome is the new features in the organism, not a 'longer chain'."
--Yes I realize that,this wasn't my argument though, it was a simplified form of can you expand the length of the strand and add new nucleotides in the chain, thus changing it in this way. If so, then I think I need to read my bio book, I don't think I am equipt enough to debate this argument, with my very little biological knowledge on molecular levels. After I am done with Marine Geology if I don't put my face in another book I will read my biology book, its quite thick and seems to have good information. My interest is in too many fields, g whiz.
--I believe that the nylon digesting bacteria was an example of this, I must say, I find it as one of the best examples I have been able to find and even ask for, it seems all of the other ones were debunked by logic. I applaud its inquiry.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 3:29 AM toff has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 86 of 136 (4469)
02-14-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mark24
02-13-2002 5:41 AM


by dormant i meant ignored by the mRNA.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 5:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 02-14-2002 4:08 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 88 by Quetzal, posted 02-14-2002 5:34 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 136 (4480)
02-14-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by KingPenguin
02-14-2002 12:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
by dormant i meant ignored by the mRNA.

Still not sure what you mean, how does mRNA ignore amino acids? If you explain the process a bit, I'll be able to pinpoint your exact meaning.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 12:34 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 88 of 136 (4483)
02-14-2002 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by KingPenguin
02-14-2002 12:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
by dormant i meant ignored by the mRNA.
KingPenguin: I don’t know if this answers your question, but I think I know what you're referring to.
mRNA is the translator for genetic information. All it does is copy (transcribe) relevant portions of a DNA strand. Then it cuts out the introns and splices the exons into a single chain that allows tRNA to copy the relevant triplets. It’s the tRNA that actually codes (translates) the amino acids that form the protein. Here’s what I mean:
This is followed by the tRNA translation into proteins:
The three translation steps shown are Initiation, Elongation, and Termination. The Met-Ala-Trp chain you see forming is the new protein. Any good biology book can give you a much more detailed description.
mRNA cannot be dormant. It can, however, be damaged by mutation (splice-site mutation). If a mutation alters one of the nucleotide signals that tell pre-mRNA what to cut out, then the intron is not removed and remains as part of the final mRNA molecule. The translation of the mRNA sequence alters the sequence of the final protein product.
Hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 12:34 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 3:26 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 136 (4493)
02-14-2002 9:31 AM


Riddle me this
Why is it that all the greatest thinkers on this planet belive in things that directly contradict the word of god?
Are they possessed?
Are they stupid?
Are they missing something that you highly educated creationists know?
What is it that made Einstein and Steven Hawking believe in evolution?
Riddle me this
riddle me that
can you pull a rabbit, out of your hat (yeah, you, the creationists! Can you answer that one without metioning Satan?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 11:31 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 91 by lbhandli, posted 02-14-2002 3:04 PM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 136 (4498)
02-14-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by quicksink
02-14-2002 9:31 AM


"Riddle me this
Why is it that all the greatest thinkers on this planet belive in things that directly contradict the word of god?"
--Unfortunatelly you can't even support your accusation.
"Are they possessed?"
--Nope.
"Are they stupid?"
--No, but someone that posted this message could be, ignorant mabye?
"Are they missing something that you highly educated creationists know?"
--Mabye its more of, what you don't know? Support your accusations.
"What is it that made Einstein and Steven Hawking believe in evolution?"
--I'm not sure, but what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?
"Riddle me this
riddle me that"
--Your in a new debate now, find a new style, it seems to have the wrong stamp all over it.
"can you pull a rabbit, out of your hat (yeah, you, the creationists! Can you answer that one without metioning Satan?)"
--Who mentioned Satan? Could it possibly be ignorance? You seriously need to quickly adjust to an 'intelligent' conversational debate and discussion, as I think your experience comes from something more along the lines of a yahoo chatroom.
-----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by quicksink, posted 02-14-2002 9:31 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by toff, posted 02-15-2002 3:17 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 136 (4505)
02-14-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by quicksink
02-14-2002 9:31 AM


Quicksink
You are welcome to post in the forum, but there are some basic rules you need to be aware of:
http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided.
Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Participating as more than one ID is extremely strongly discouraged
Now, you are pretty clearly in violation of Rule #1 and Rule #2. This Board is a bit different than others. Please attempt to keep comments limited to the topic of the thread and taunting posts such as this should be avoided. IOW, discuss the relevant evidence in relation to evolution and creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by quicksink, posted 02-14-2002 9:31 AM quicksink 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