Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:11 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,634 Year: 3,671/19,786 Month: 666/1,087 Week: 35/221 Day: 6/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Not enough room in DNA
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 61 of 139 (556035)
04-16-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2010 1:03 PM


Re: Prankster God
quote:
Perhaps you could tell us what you're talking about. This would require some sort of link to a reputable source, not just your vague memory of something you think you read about somewhere which turns out to be about bacteria.

What I am talking about is very elementary, I'm surprised that you do not comprehend the simple statement.
There are many reputable sources that reference to peer reviewed papers on the subject. A simple but concise description on a Creation site may be informative to you.
Have a read at http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp#b91

To assume that the DNA code is the only information system used to specify the construction and operation of a human being is taking a great leap of faith.
It is very likely that there are other mechanisms as well as DNA that perform a similar information storage task that have not been discovered.
Time and future research results will in all likelihood bear this out.

All the best.
CT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2010 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:49 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:59 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 82 by Dr Jack, posted 04-18-2010 5:03 AM Calibrated Thinker has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 62 of 139 (556075)
04-17-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Calibrated Thinker
04-16-2010 7:29 PM


Re: Prankster God
What I am talking about is very elementary, I'm surprised that you do not comprehend the simple statement.

I do comprehend what you're trying to say. I should just like you to provide some evidence for it. It actually sounds kind of interesting, and for some creationist to say something that was both interesting and true ... well, it's been a few months since that happened round here. I'm rooting for you. Really.

There are many reputable sources that reference to peer reviewed papers on the subject.

"Many"? Then could you produce one? Just one?

A simple but concise description on a Creation site may be informative to you.
Have a read at http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp#b91

Nothing on a creationist website is informative, and you are also lying about it being simple and concise.

I asked you for a reputable source.

To assume that the DNA code is the only information system used to specify the construction and operation of a human being is taking a great leap of faith.

Yeah, it's like assuming that my legs are the only things that help me stand upright. It's a great leap of faith. It excludes the operation of invisible magical pixies for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Oh, wait, that's not what "faith" means, is it? "Faith" means kind of the exact opposite, doesn't it?

Time and future research results will in all likelihood bear this out.

Ah ... that's faith. Hope, and indeed lunatic self-confidence, that you will one day be proved right --- without a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of evidence suggesting that this might ever happen. Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-16-2010 7:29 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 5:08 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 63 of 139 (556076)
04-17-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Calibrated Thinker
04-16-2010 7:29 PM


Heh
Well, this is funny. On the one hand it seems that DNA is one of the glories of creation:

The sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design.

On the other hand, it's insufficient:

To assume that the DNA code is the only information system used to specify the construction and operation of a human being is taking a great leap of faith.

This is one and the same creationist. We are meant at the same time to think that DNA is so wonderful that we can only attribute it to fiat creation, and to think that it's so pathetic that some other mechanism must surely be involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-16-2010 7:29 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 5:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 64 of 139 (556080)
04-17-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2010 2:49 AM


Re: Prankster God
Your comments are not worthy of a reply.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:49 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 65 of 139 (556083)
04-17-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2010 2:59 AM


Re: Heh
quote:
Well, this is funny. On the one hand it seems that DNA is one of the glories of creation:

The sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design. No problem here. You know it is possible to have brilliant design without making assumptions that at the present time we understand all there is to know about the way organisms code genetic information.

quote:
This is one and the same creationist. We are meant at the same time to think that DNA is so wonderful that we can only attribute it to fiat creation, and to think that it's so pathetic that some other mechanism must surely be involved.

Resorting to childish ridicule, does not do your position any credit nor is the debate advanced.
If you read what I actually said, you will hopefully see that I made no such statement. Let me spell it out, DNA coding is extremely brilliant in it's design and compactness and far surpasses any information storage system that we humans have come up with or are ever likely to come up with in the near fuyure. That is not to say that we humans can arrogantly claim to know all there is to know about biological information systems. It is extremely likely that other brilliant information systems exist that we haven't a clue about at the moment that may or may not be discovered in the coming years. This statement does not in any way detract from the sheer brilliance of design in the DNA information coding system. To make that inference from my few posts is dishonest on your part rather than the other way around as you would have us believe.

Your out of hand assumption in your previous post that:

quote:
Nothing on a creationist website is informative

Is an unscientific and verifiably false statement.
Again your tendency to rapidly resort to ridicule is demonstrated here. It is a quite common reaction, disappointing, but common nonetheless with many otherwise calm, nice and rational people who have put their trust in Darwin and their faith in evolutionary theory, though many would not admit to that in those words.

I wish you well and hope that you can progress past the urge to reduce these forums to ridicule and tit for tat squabbles.

Kind Regards,

CT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2010 2:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 04-17-2010 6:18 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2010 10:05 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 66 of 139 (556084)
04-17-2010 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 5:57 AM


Creationist websites
Welcome to EvC! Hope you like learning

It's a sad but true fact that creation sites are often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts.

The call for evidence you have received simply helps people know why you make the assertions you do.

If you can provide some evidence for your claims we can get on with the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 5:57 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 9:57 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 67 of 139 (556106)
04-17-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Larni
04-17-2010 6:18 AM


Re: Creationist websites
Thanks for your warm welcome, it's much appreciated.

Evidence examples abound, but to keep my reply brief, here are just a few that many will already be familiar with:-

You have no doubt heard of the ENCODE Project that was initially conducted a few years ago.
A good as any summary of some key initial findings of that project can be found at:-

http://creation.com/...nishing-dna-complexity-update#txtRef3

If you would like a more technical example see:-
http://creation.com/...a-evolutionary-discards-or-gods-tools
OR
http://creation.com/meta-information

In relation to credible sources, of which there are many, Ian Macreadie is as good as any, he is currently Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute in Australia with CSIRO a mainstream scientific organisation well respected worldwide. Ian has an impressive record:- see:- http://creation.com/dr-ian-macreadie

Regards,
CT

P.S. It is my experience that the Website Creation.com quoted above publishes material that is entirely consistent with empirical scientific method in an accurate manner. Perhaps you could point out some instances where Creation.com is:-

quote:
.... often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts".

as I have found the opposite to be true.

Edited by Calibrated Thinker, : Minor Typo Error__Left the word found out of the last sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 04-17-2010 6:18 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 04-17-2010 5:46 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2010 11:17 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 68 of 139 (556108)
04-17-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 5:57 AM


Re: Heh
HI CT,

The sheer brilliance, complexity and compactness of information in the DNA is a very strong argument for brilliant design.

It's apparent brilliance may argue that it is very impressive, but it does not follow that it is designed.

You know it is possible to have brilliant design without making assumptions that at the present time we understand all there is to know about the way organisms code genetic information.

No-one is making this assumption. The fact that the science of genetics is ongoing gives the lie to this rather odd idea.

Also, if you had actually read the thread so far, you would know that no-one is claiming this. You are attacking a straw-man.

Resorting to childish ridicule, does not do your position any credit nor is the debate advanced.

Yeah. It's a laugh though, innit?

Let me spell it out, DNA coding is extremely brilliant in it's design and compactness and far surpasses any information storage system that we humans have come up with or are ever likely to come up with in the near fuyure.

Yes. DNA exceeds the capabilities of any known designer. I fail to see how this constitutes evidence that it is designed.

That is not to say that we humans can arrogantly claim to know all there is to know about biological information systems.

No-one is claiming that. If that is what scientists thought, the whole of biology could just shut up shop.

It is extremely likely that other brilliant information systems exist that we haven't a clue about at the moment that may or may not be discovered in the coming years.

If you "haven't a clue" about them, you can't possibly know how likely they might be.

This statement does not in any way detract from the sheer brilliance of design in the DNA information coding system.

But you haven't demonstrated any design. Saying over and over how amazing DNA is does not demonstrate design.

Your out of hand assumption in your previous post that "Nothing on a creationist website is informative" Is an unscientific and verifiably false statement.

Yeah. Works pretty well as a rule of thumb though.

Look, the way I see it is like this; you say that there is not enough "room" in DNA to describe an organism in its entirety. This is true. We agree with you. DNA does not describe an organism in its entirety. Various posters have addressed this, yet you have neglected to answer them. If you cannot or will not address this, you don't even have an argument.

The position you are attacking exists only in your imagination, or perhaps in the minds of those with a naive conception of how DNA functions. If you do not address this, you are merely attacking a straw-man. I suggest that you go back and read the post again, paying particular attention to what people have been saying to you about DNA and development. If you won't meet our arguments head-on, you are wasting everyone's time.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 5:57 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 12:02 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 69 of 139 (556113)
04-17-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Granny Magda
04-17-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Heh
Hi Granny Magda,

quote:
No-one is making this assumption. The fact that the science of genetics is ongoing gives the lie to this rather odd idea. Also, if you had actually read the thread so far, you would know that no-one is claiming this. You are attacking a straw-man.

I wasn't attacking anyone, I was respoding to Dr Adequate's incorrect inference.

quote:
. DNA exceeds the capabilities of any known designer. I fail to see how this constitutes evidence that it is designed.

The two are a pretty good fit you must admit.
i.e. if the complexity is so great that it looks like it has been designed, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that it was in fact designed.
Lets look at another poor analogy:-
If I found a fully functioning 2010 latest design Top of the range Laptop Computer with 200,000 fully operational advanced software programs it would be reasonable to assume that the Laptop and software had been designed.
Now as we all know, biological information systems are staggeringly MORE complex than a modern Laptop computer. Therefore, if it's logical to state that the Laptop was obviously designed then it is many orders of magnitude more likely that the DNA information coding system is also designed.

quote:
, the way I see it is like this; you say that there is not enough "room" in DNA to describe an organism in its entirety. This is true. We agree with you.

I haven't said that there IS or there ISN'T enough room on the DNA, that's your assumption, not mine.

quote:
DNA does not describe an organism in its entirety. Various posters have addressed this, yet you have neglected to answer them. If you cannot or will not address this, you don't even have an argument.

I haven't neglected to answer anyone, I joined this thread last night, to respond to the person that started this thread. As you haven't addressed every participants post in this thread, in all fairness, I don't see how you can state that I have "neglected to answer them".

quote:
The position you are attacking exists only in your imagination, or perhaps in the minds of those with a naive conception of how DNA functions. If you do not address this, you are merely attacking a straw-man..

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what position it is that you say I am attacking?

Many Thanks,

CT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-17-2010 10:05 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 5:11 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 2:13 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded
 Message 84 by Granny Magda, posted 04-18-2010 2:26 PM Calibrated Thinker has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 70 of 139 (556151)
04-17-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 12:02 PM


Refuting William Paley for the umpteenth time
If I found a fully functioning 2010 latest design Top of the range Laptop Computer with 200,000 fully operational advanced software programs it would be reasonable to assume that the Laptop and software had been designed.
Now as we all know, biological information systems are staggeringly MORE complex than a modern Laptop computer. Therefore, if it's logical to state that the Laptop was obviously designed then it is many orders of magnitude more likely that the DNA information coding system is also designed.

Only if you completely ignore that one is made of biological components that self replicate imperfectly and have been doing so on this planet for billions of years. But yeah, other than that they're pretty much the same.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 12:02 PM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 7:09 PM subbie has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2174 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 71 of 139 (556154)
04-17-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Creationist websites
You have no doubt heard of the ENCODE Project that was initially conducted a few years ago.
A good as any summary of some key initial findings of that project can be found at:-

http://creation.com/...nishing-dna-complexity-update#txtRef3

Or you could instead read the paper from the ENCODE project themselves that I referenced in Message 59, where I also showed my usual fantastic prescience.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 9:57 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 7:35 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 72 of 139 (556164)
04-17-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by subbie
04-17-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Refuting William Paley for the umpteenth time
Hi Subbie,

quote:
Only if you completely ignore that one is made of biological components that self replicate imperfectly and have been doing so on this planet for billions of years. But yeah, other than that they're pretty much the same.

Thanks for your opinion.

We will have to agree to disagree on that particular point because there is no difference in principle between a biological system and a non biological system if what you are looking for is Evidence of Design.

Obvious design IS obvious design, irrespective of the type of object that is being examined to ascertain whether it has been designed or not.

The fact that biological systems self replicate is actually stronger evidence of design than the evidence that a merely man-made non-self replicating object displays.

Regards,

CT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 5:11 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 04-17-2010 11:19 PM Calibrated Thinker has not yet responded
 Message 76 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-18-2010 12:50 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

    
Calibrated Thinker
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-16-2010


Message 73 of 139 (556166)
04-17-2010 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
04-17-2010 5:46 PM


Re: ENCODE Project
Hi Wounded King,

Yes, well done.

Cheers,

CT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 04-17-2010 5:46 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 74 of 139 (556187)
04-17-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Creationist websites
P.S. It is my experience that the Website Creation.com quoted above publishes material that is entirely consistent with empirical scientific method in an accurate manner. Perhaps you could point out some instances where Creation.com is:-

quote:.... often very wrong when it comes to representing actual facts".

Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page:

Radiometric dating

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another.

If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong.

So much for creation.com, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 9:57 AM Calibrated Thinker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-18-2010 2:16 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 75 of 139 (556188)
04-17-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Calibrated Thinker
04-17-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Refuting William Paley for the umpteenth time
In other words, "nuh uh!"

I think you need recalibration.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Calibrated Thinker, posted 04-17-2010 7:09 PM Calibrated Thinker has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019