Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
105 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,412 Year: 2,058/14,102 Month: 426/624 Week: 147/163 Day: 2/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 181 of 281 (676312)
10-21-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 4:42 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Probably the cat needs to chew and re-chew it all out for you lot.
You can see full evidence of individual life starting from other life and you see ample evidence of individual life ending. That is all. Extrapolating from this that life as such had started rather than it had been continuing as the evidence suggests, and calling that a fact is cheating. Your projection is a legitimate guess and no more. That is the scientific method you need to learn.

The stupid: it burns.

I'm done talking to a brick wall.

Edited by Larni, : More polite phase


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 4:42 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 7:01 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1790 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 182 of 281 (676322)
10-21-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 12:32 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I tried to answer you with as much irrelevancy as you are bringing to the table.

You didn't really catch it I guess.

Duration as such is an abstraction of all possible durations so may have no age

I hope you know what you mean because I have no clue what you're talking about.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 12:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 7:05 PM onifre has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2806 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 183 of 281 (676323)
10-21-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Larni
10-21-2012 5:20 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Well, Larn, I've told you what is you lot's strong suit. What you do in science is assume your opponent's proposal without reservations. After that you analyse all the logical implications and bring them into the extreme open for all to see.
That is what the ID lot often do with your proposals and they succeed to make you cut a rather poor figure.
What you lot do instead is to keep propping up your own assumptions with equivocations and vague data. How stupid is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Larni, posted 10-21-2012 5:20 PM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2012 8:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2806 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 184 of 281 (676324)
10-21-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by onifre
10-21-2012 7:00 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I translated for you the sentence the Universe is 13.7 billions years old and you agree it makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 7:00 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 7:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 185 of 281 (676325)
10-21-2012 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ICANT
10-21-2012 1:21 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
But without knowing how the simplest protein began to exist you can not say whether it is impossible or possible for the simplest protein to begin to exist guided or unguided.

That's wrong. Just because the simplest protein began one way does not mean that it is impossible to produce that same protein, or another feasible simplest protein with a completely different process.

ABE:

Let me provide an argument by analogy. I don't know how the first water molecule was formed, but I can form any number of water molecules by burning hydrogen gas.

Are you saying the information was not required before the protein could begin to exist?

I was pretty clear about what I meant. To use the chicken or egg example, the theory of evolution would suggest that the first chicken hatched from an egg laid by something that was not quite a chicken using a strict definition, even though the layer would have been only slightly different from the hatched. In that scenario, the question of what came first would be without meaning. The chicken did not precede the egg it hatched from, but the egg was not strictly speaking a chicken's egg.

Whatever that molecule was it had to have the information required to form the first protein.

So what? Information can be generated without a guided process.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 1:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:04 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1790 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 186 of 281 (676326)
10-21-2012 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ICANT
10-21-2012 1:21 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
I thought everybody knew the answer to that question.

The chicken came first.

Eggs pre-date chickens by millions of years.

Eggs came first. The question wasn't "What came first the chicekn or the chicken egg?" it just said "chicken" or "egg".

Just saying...

But without knowing how the simplest protein began to exist you can not say whether it is impossible or possible for the simplest protein to begin to exist guided or unguided.

Guided or unguided by what? Remember this is a science forum so whatever you choose to say guided it you should have evidence for.

But lets say it was guided by an unknown entity...would that change anything as far as what the evidence looks like? I mean, it would still look the same, right?

Or are you suggesting magic?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 1:21 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1790 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 187 of 281 (676327)
10-21-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 7:05 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I translated for you the sentence the Universe is 13.7 billions years old and you agree it makes no sense.

The observable universe is 13.7 billion years old makes sense to me. What you are cobbling together does not.

Anyway, this is of topic so I'm done with this.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 7:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 6:11 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1790 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 188 of 281 (676328)
10-21-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ICANT
10-21-2012 1:56 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
The question is where did the information come from?

Are they not made up of molecules, are molecules not made up of atoms (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc) found on this planet?

No one is suggesting that proteins popped up out of no where. Clearly the Earth had/has an abundance of elements on it, all of which are found in organic life.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 1:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 189 of 281 (676331)
10-21-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 7:01 PM


Speaking of lost...
What you do in science is assume your opponent's proposal without reservations. After that you analyse all the logical implications and bring them into the extreme open for all to see.

One does not assume that a proposal in science is true. What we do is say something like "If A is correct, then we must see B and will not see C." Then we look for B and C and use that data to give us some idea if A is indeed correct. This can be called modeling or hypothesis testing.

This is the exact opposite of "assuming your opponent's proposal without reservations."

That is what the ID lot often do with your proposals and they succeed to make you cut a rather poor figure.

What the ID lot do is start with a conclusion (divine creation) and cherry-pick anything they can to support that conclusion, using a liberal dose of exaggeration, wishful thinking, ignorance of science, misrepresentation, fabrication, and outright lying. The lying part includes pretending that they are not the same folks who pushed creation "science" a few years earlier.

What you lot do instead is to keep propping up your own assumptions with equivocations and vague data. How stupid is that?

More likely with data.

As a scientist what use do I have for false data and errors? Science builds on a foundation going back to our beginnings, and half of our work is rooting out and correcting past errors, or expanding on existing theories to make them more accurate.

Creation science is the exact opposite; is it any wonder scientists have little use for it?

Edited by Coyote, : Correct improper formatting.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 7:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 5:27 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6396
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 190 of 281 (676336)
10-21-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
10-21-2012 5:11 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

Copying errors during replication add information to genomes today, and in the same way copying errors would have added information to ancient replicators leading up to the first life.

Yes I understand when you have a cell and is replicates it's self that copy errors occur.

But for one error to occur you have to have a living organism that has at least one cell to replicate.

Errors are a natural part of DNA Replication.DNA

DNA has a highly sophisticated means of fixing those errors.

Immediately after replication proofreading takes place where 99% of errors are corrected.

Immediately after proofreading the mismatch repair takes place.
During the mismatch repair cycle the new strand is compared to the old strand and corrected to match the old strand.

Most mutations are bad.
Very few are good.

The only cells that can transfer mutations to the next generation are the ones in the egg or sperm cells.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-21-2012 5:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 10-22-2012 1:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6396
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 191 of 281 (676337)
10-22-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by NoNukes
10-21-2012 7:06 PM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

So what? Information can be generated without a guided process.

Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?

If you can please do.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 10-21-2012 7:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2012 12:13 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 8:50 AM ICANT has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 192 of 281 (676339)
10-22-2012 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:04 AM


New information
Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?

Snowflakes are purportedly all different. As such, the next snowflake that is examined and compared to previous ones provides information: either that snowflake is indeed different from all others on record, or it matches a previous one. Either way, this is information.

And it is not "guided" but happens according to the laws of chemistry and physics, etc.

I believe that this answers your question.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM Coyote has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6396
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 193 of 281 (676341)
10-22-2012 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Coyote
10-22-2012 12:13 AM


Re: New information
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

I believe that this answers your question.

Well a picture of a snowflake is not information.

There is no blueprint or genetic code that guides the growth of a snowflake, yet marvelously complex structures appear, quite literally out of thin air.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2012 12:13 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2012 1:00 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2012 1:12 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 196 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 3:38 AM ICANT has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 194 of 281 (676343)
10-22-2012 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:31 AM


Re: New information
There is no blueprint or genetic code that guides the growth of a snowflake, yet marvelously complex structures appear, quite literally out of thin air.

That is rather the point. We can describe the snowflake using an information stream. In other words we can provide a bit stream that corresponds exactly to the configuration of the snowflake. We know that the snowflake is not random, but is regular, so the bitstream does not represent random non-information, but has information content; content that was manufactured out of thin air.

But why am I explaining this to you? You understand information theory, right? You mentioned some back in Message 178 where you said the following:

ICANT writes:

Information theory disagrees with information increasing by modification and selection over time without outside input.

Oh, wait. That was nonsense. Information theory says no such thing. You just said that in order to further an argument, and without checking to see if it were true.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 195 of 281 (676344)
10-22-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:31 AM


Re: New information
Put the goalposts back where they were!

You asked "Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?"

I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy!

There is no blueprint or genetic code that guides the growth of a snowflake, yet marvelously complex structures appear, quite literally out of thin air.

So? There are lots of things that constitute information that are not biological.

Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air." If you see a funnel cloud ripping the ground up for a mile around and headed straight for you do you claim there's no information there or do you head in the opposite direction?

Geology is rife with examples of information that was generated without a guided process. Crystals, stalactites and stalagmites, shrinkage cracks in clay, and sand dunes all qualify. So do ripples and waves: I hear every afternoon on a local radio station reports on the height and frequency of waves. And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.

All of these are examples of information that was generated without a guided process.

They are also off-topic.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:52 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021