Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
336 online now:
dwise1, Faith, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 332 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,749 Year: 21,785/19,786 Month: 348/1,834 Week: 348/315 Day: 26/78 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Designed Virus
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 31 of 44 (302585)
04-09-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
04-08-2006 11:21 PM



Thanks holmes. Unfortunately IDers seem to be fewer than ever ..

Since the Dover decision, ID seems to be a dying breed. Still kicking, but hopefully in it's death throws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2006 11:21 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 44 (302607)
04-09-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
04-08-2006 8:55 PM


Hi Faith,

Curious about this bug. How much of its DNA is of the sort called "junk DNA"?

Well, in the first place, I have substantial issues with the term "junk DNA". Since that discussion would be way off topic for this thread, I'll be brief. In a nutshell, IIRC some 75-80% of the genome represented non-coding sequences. I'll have to dig around to find the actual reference if you want me to. Whether "non-coding" = "non-functional" is another issue, and one that has yet to be resolved. My personal opinion is that functionality of most of what we call "junk DNA" will be determined through more study. Some, of course, represents true junk: left over bits and pieces from broken genes, viral retrotransposons, etc. Some is possibly structural, some appears to have a role in mutation/variation (eg. evolution) and some of what we used to call junk is actually implicated in early embryonic development. It's still a hot issue in genetics.

Hope that satisfies your curiosity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 8:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-09-2006 5:04 PM Quetzal has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 33 of 44 (302617)
04-09-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by MangyTiger
04-08-2006 7:25 PM


Perhaps because the unknown designer and/or implementer(s) don't want to carry out any improvements at this point in time.

At a time when global warming trends are changing habitats around the world and while human effort is causing massive habitat destruction on an equally global scale, to the point where species extinction rates have risen noticeably?

Maybe they just want to get rid of failed experiments (gets back to competence issues)?


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by MangyTiger, posted 04-08-2006 7:25 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MangyTiger, posted 04-09-2006 8:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 34 of 44 (302618)
04-09-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Omnivorous
04-08-2006 8:04 PM


... and the other designer could be a devil or a competing ...

yes, but did he publish? :laugh:


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2006 8:04 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 44 (302626)
04-09-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Omnivorous
04-08-2006 8:37 PM


Re: Eureka!
P.S. If you don't send me an address, I'll have to drink that bottle, and my surgeon says that might just kill me.

Sorry about the lack of follow-up. My computer got "virused" - a human designed one in this case - and I had to wipe the HD losing all data, files, email addresses, etc. If you could email me again, I'll send you the info. Again, thanks for the offer - and I stand ready to answer your questions so fire away...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2006 8:37 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33826
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 36 of 44 (302666)
04-09-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
04-09-2006 11:55 AM


I know there are problems understanding what junk DNA is, I did just want to know how much of this non-coding stuff this bug has, in comparison with the proportion in other genomes that have less of the coding stuff than this highly genetically endowed bug has. So if you do run across the actual number, I'd like to know. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 04-09-2006 11:55 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 04-09-2006 5:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 44 (302679)
04-09-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-09-2006 5:04 PM


in comparison with the proportion in other genomes that have less of the coding stuff than this highly genetically endowed bug has.

I'm not trying to beg the question, but the reality is that nearly every organism varies in the amount of non-coding DNA, etc, they have in their genome. For example, pufferfish and onions, which have just about as many actually coding genes as humans do, are vastly different in the amount of non-coding DNA they have in their genomes. The onion has about ten times as much as humans, pufferfish almost none. Beyond that, we'll need a thread (or two) of our own to go much deeper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-09-2006 5:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4689 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 38 of 44 (302709)
04-09-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
04-09-2006 12:30 PM


Perhaps because the unknown designer and/or implementer(s) don't want to carry out any improvements at this point in time.

At a time when global warming trends are changing habitats around the world and while human effort is causing massive habitat destruction on an equally global scale, to the point where species extinction rates have risen noticeably?

These seem to be very human (or maybe Earth) centric concerns. How do we know they are of concern to the designer? For all we know they could be the whole point of the exercise!


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2006 12:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2006 8:15 PM MangyTiger has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 39 of 44 (303050)
04-10-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by MangyTiger
04-09-2006 8:05 PM


These seem to be very human (or maybe Earth) centric concerns. How do we know they are of concern to the designer?

Well now, this may be the biggest problem in the whole concept of ID, eh?

"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine."

What is the probability that a designer would be interested in this little backwater world on the outer arm of a rather insignificant galaxy?

It's certainly not the center of the universe eh? Certainly there is no major "universety" nearby for aspiring designers to have their abilities improved, honed and tested ... refined.

Or is this where the rejects go? (which explains the incompetence ...)

Adding to the list started in Message 30 we now have:

  1. incompetent {supreme of some kind} being(s)
  2. {supreme of some kind} being(s) that no longer are involved in the minutae of daily human life (a deist position btw)
  3. {supreme of some kind} being(s) that were just never really interested in this backwater corner of existence, or
  4. the old faithful fallback - "we can't know" - as the essence of ID "scientific" input

For all we know they could be the whole point of the exercise!

Perhaps it's all some kind of "designer bingo" game - in which case it is more in line with The Silly Design Theory.

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*10*2006 08:43 PM


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MangyTiger, posted 04-09-2006 8:05 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ardent Enthusiast, posted 04-11-2006 11:29 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 42 by MangyTiger, posted 04-12-2006 9:01 PM RAZD has responded

  
Ardent Enthusiast
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 44 (303392)
04-11-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
04-10-2006 8:15 PM


Hi RAZD,
What is the probability that a designer would be interested in this little backwater world on the outer arm of a rather insignificant galaxy?

Isn't it possible that the designer singled out, as you said, "this little backwater world" in order to prove his own existence to the beings he/she/it created? If there was life existing as obviously as it does on Earth in numerous other planets, wouldn't that be very strong evidence for evolution, because it proves that the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2006 8:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2006 8:59 PM Ardent Enthusiast has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 41 of 44 (303692)
04-12-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ardent Enthusiast
04-11-2006 11:29 PM


Isn't it possible that the designer singled out, as you said, "this little backwater world" in order to prove his own existence to the beings he/she/it created?

How does that work? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just walk up and introduce yourself, and then do a few miracles?

If there was life existing as obviously as it does on Earth in numerous other planets, wouldn't that be very strong evidence for evolution, because it proves that the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth?

No.

It would just be harder for the IDests and Creatortionistas to make the silly (and invalid) probability argument. Identical life forms on planets around different stars that had no means of communication would be strong evidence of interference in natural processes (whether alien or supernatural would be the question then eh?)

I would think it would be better evidence of a creative universe if life existed on virtually every single little rock in the universe and a lot of really diverse environments (acidic atmosphere anyone?).

... the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth?

And if it's built into the way materials come together in the right environment there may be little "random chance" about it ... other than finding the right environment, eh? Look at all the organic molecules in deep space: {Building Blocks of Life} column.

It's like the difference between me winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery: one has low probability, the other has high probability.

Welcome to the fray,

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ardent Enthusiast, posted 04-11-2006 11:29 PM Ardent Enthusiast has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4689 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 42 of 44 (303693)
04-12-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
04-10-2006 8:15 PM


What is the probability that a designer would be interested in this little backwater world on the outer arm of a rather insignificant galaxy?

I don't have the foggiest idea - and neither do you or anyone else :)

Perhaps we are part of some sort of weapons development project and our isolated location away from prying tricorders is a big attraction. Then again I could have watched too much Star Trek.

It's certainly not the center of the universe eh? Certainly there is no major "universety" nearby for aspiring designers to have their abilities improved, honed and tested ... refined.

Maybe, maybe not. It would seem that if our designers/implementers can get from wherever they hang out to here they are capable of travelling at least inter-stellar distances (if we're going the alien ID route) - in which case 'nearby' may not be a meaningful concept.

Maybe I'm not getting my real point across very well.

Personally I think that ID as currently espoused has little to no scientific validity and is ultimately just a political and/or religious movement to get around the separation of Church and State in the US.

However it seems to me the sort of arguments you are advancing rely on a level of knowledge of the goals of the putative IDer that simply isn't available and as such don't hold too much water.


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2006 8:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2006 9:33 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 43 of 44 (303709)
04-12-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by MangyTiger
04-12-2006 9:01 PM


However it seems to me the sort of arguments you are advancing rely on a level of knowledge of the goals of the putative IDer that simply isn't available and as such don't hold too much water.

I think of it more as looking at the concept of ID (and the assumption of interest in life here) and seeing where the conclusions lead.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MangyTiger, posted 04-12-2006 9:01 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
waqasf 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 44 of 44 (462922)
04-10-2008 12:33 PM


Spam deleted.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019