PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

I think you are missing a critical difference between DNA and computers. With a computer, the hardware and the software are different things. You can run different software on the same hardware-- Linux and Windows both run on the same physical machines. With DNA, the hardware and the software are the same thing. You can't seperate them. Change one and you automatically change the other.

---

There's a lota difference between computers and DNA, John. We all know that. You missed my point completely. Nobody's trying to say you can change or separate info in DNA. My point is that the physical cell, like the physical computer is useless without the information in it. Random process is simply incapable of producing the quality and quantity of information observed in DNA, no matter how long you give it to happen by pot luck chance. it was programmed in by God; the true god, Jehovah.

quote:

---

The arrangement of DNA isn't a code, in the sense that a code is an arbitrary arrangement of symbols and meanings. The arrangement of DNA catalyzes the formation of specific polypeptide chains. It's not information in the semiotic sense of signs, symbols, and referents.

---

They do the coding for of the thousands of proteins and the amino acids of those proteins. Maybe not your everyday symbols and signs, but information of high quality, purpose and quantity.

Like, the amount of nucleotides? Generally, the more chromosomes, the more nucleotides, I would assume. Chromosome length does vary, but as a rule of thumb I think it can be used, much as you could say that the more sentences, the more words.How else would you measure the information in a cell?Why would a human cell have to have more? Human bodies aren't doing anything a gorilla body isn't, or a dog body, or even a rat body. It's all proteins. To a large degree it's almost all the same proteins.

Nancy is wrong, I'm afraid. At least the way I see it.Random processes can generate random strings. Say, random arrangements of nucleotides, or letters, or what have you. Each random string has, by total coincidence, some amount of "information" in it. I mean, if I generate random strings of letters, eventually I'll get some words - maybe even some sentences. Natural selection weeds out the chaff from the wheat - leaving only those strings that have high information content. They still also contain a large amount of junk, of course. Just as the DNA of every living thing contains an enourmous amount of junk.I mean, it's a known mathematical truth that in an infinite string of random characters, you'll find every possible string of characters that can be imagined. Everything from Moby Dick to "My Love is like a red, red rose." It has to be there. Of course, there's a trans-astronomical amount of junk in between each "useful" segment.Natural selection just weeds out the junk, leaving that which is useful.What about that is unreasonable to you? Except for the conclusion, of course - but you can't just reject valid reasoning simply because you don't like where it leads.

You may wish to reconsider your view of DNA to be more inline with the views of actual geneticists. The majority of the DNA is non-functional "junk" DNA. Random noise. Genetic static. It'd be like an encyclopedia where, between each page of entries there's about ten pages of random characters. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And of course the whole thing's in Morse Code, too, so you can't just read it off the page, which means you don't immediately know where the junk is.Doesn't sound like any encyclopedia I want to read. Why would anyone assert that DNA is full of highly organized information?

quote:

---

Oh, I see. So the human DNA, containing three times the information contained in a thirty volumn set of the Encylopedia Brittanica, which so intricately and precisely program and control the cell, compiled (cobbled up) itself out of twisted and force fitted sources to emerge into the wonderful complex computer like substance we are observing it to be today.

​

Ok, ok.........so now I'm learning the stuff I would've learned with a PHD in physics in the schools of higher knowledge. Thanks........thanks, but no thanks, my friend.

---

So, Buz, you just can't believe it, therefore it can't be true.That's called a fallacy, m'dear. It's the Argument from Personal Incredulity.Why would you expect to understand something you have not bothered to learn about, Buz? If you have questions, why don't you go research them at sources of legitimate science and learn why nearly the entire life sciences community accepts what you will not?Oh, and the brain does not operate very much like a computer at all.

"Random process is simply incapable of producing the quality and quantity of information observed in DNA"Good thing that natural "selection" isn't just random. "Selection" is pretty different from "random", no?So the "random process" line of argument is a red herring. Or wild goose chase. Or a lame duck. I don't know, one of those zoologically-themed idioms of speech.You may not think that natural selection is up to the task either, but at least argue about natural selection, not "randomness".

What measure of "complexity" or what measure of "information" do you want to use? The fact that these terms are being used rather interchangeably, despite rather different possible meanings of both terms, creates problems.If you want to compare either the "complexity" or "information" of DNA in different species, how do you propose we measure it?

Where's Booboocruise? I'd like to hear a bit more on the abiogenesis experiment.My two cents...Why do creationists insist on connecting random occurances with evolution in that way? Evolution is not random - it depends on environmental pressures - but the mutations that lead to evolution are. It's a matter of going through them until you find the one that works, which then leads to evolution.Hey crash - thats a good explanation in message #49 The Rock Hound

quote:

---

Why do creationists insist on connecting random occurances with evolution in that way? Evolution is not random - it depends on environmental pressures - but the mutations that lead to evolution are. It's a matter of going through them until you find the one that works, which then leads to evolution.

---

Why do they make that erroneous connection? Because they have been taught an erroneous definition of evolution by religious people who either don't know better themselves or who have set out to deliberately deceive people to gain more followers. (The ends justifies the means)Or, possibly there are people who have so completely deluded themselves that whatever 'evidence' supports their views is, by definition, is true, and anything that contradicts their position is, by definition, false. The conclusion is decided upon first, then evidence is rejected or accepted based upon what they are "supposed" to find.I actually think that this is the most common occurence. Duane Gish and Henry Morris are perfect examples of people who have done this nearly their entire career at the helm of the ICR.

well, actually, nowadays IT specialists are using evolution to write revolutionary new algorithms!! chaos is more creative than you can imagine.

quote:

---

You may wish to reconsider your view of DNA to be more inline with the views of actual geneticists. The majority of the DNA is non-functional "junk" DNA. Random noise. Genetic static. It'd be like an encyclopedia where, between each page of entries there's about ten pages of random characters. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And of course the whole thing's in Morse Code, too, so you can't just read it off the page, which means you don't immediately know where the junk is.

​

Doesn't sound like any encyclopedia I want to read. Why would anyone assert that DNA is full of highly organized information?

---

According to the Washington Post scientists have been astonished to learn that the so called "junk" is actually orderly useful complex information necessary for the body to function properly. This comes under the heading of the "unknown" I've been harping about in present day scientific theory -- in this case the heretofore unknown.

quote:

---

The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as "junk DNA" actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks, researchers reported today.

​

That is the most striking finding of the first comprehensive comparison between the genetic instruction set, or genome, of human beings and that of laboratory mice, due for publication tomorrow in the journal Nature. The new results suggest that the genomes of both organisms contain at least twice as much critically important genetic material as previously believed, a finding that promises to upend decades of scientific dogma and rewrite the rule book for how nature builds complex creatures.

​

The newly discovered mother lode of genetic instructions does not, by and large, contain genes, which are templates for building the proteins that do most of the work in human or other bodies. Instead, the new material appears to consist mostly of instructions for how the body should use its genes--when and where to turn them on and off, for example, and for how long.

​

Scientists have long known that genomes contain such instructions and that these are likely to be important in understanding disease and development. But the new analyses shocked them by revealing that the instruction set is at least as big as the gene set, and probably bigger. It's the scientific equivalent, perhaps, of a consumer buying a trim new gadget and opening the box to find a 300-page instruction manual.

​

"My goodness, there's a lot more that matters in the human genome than we had realized," said Eric Lander, director of..........

---

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdnaessential120802.htm

Actually, what your article says is that there's less junk, not no junk.Anyway, saying it's "junk" isn't to say that its presence is without survival advantage - spreading out the "real" genes with junk protects them against mutation - like, not putting all your eggs in the same basket."Junk" has never meant "useless". It just means "doesn't code for proteins".Genes distributed at random, control structures all over the place - does that sound highly organized to you? It's like opening your Britannica and finding all the articles out of order.

quote:

---

Actually, what your article says is that there's less junk, not no junk.

​

Anyway, saying it's "junk" isn't to say that its presence is without survival advantage - spreading out the "real" genes with junk protects them against mutation - like, not putting all your eggs in the same basket.

---

Here's what it says:"The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as "junk DNA" actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks, researchers reported today."I don't see the word "less" in here. And even if theres other so called junk, likely it will be discovered eventually that this also contains information and is not in fact junk.It was significant enough to "upend" the DNA applecart so far as science knowledge goes and to force them to "retool" their instruction on it. Interesting that in your original comment on this "junk" that you ignored this, or were you just not aware of it? After all, we are interested in truth here, aren't we?

Note the word "contain." That is not the same as "consist entirely of." The term "junk DNA" was an unfortunate popular term for the more scientific "noncoding DNA." Someone, somewhere, is embarrassed over coining it. The fact that it has more functions than it was once thought to is just part of what science is about: finding out new stuff.