Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

[Speedwell]

LOL since you know everything you clearly bought Google, Amazon and Apple stocks right? I mean being that you know the origin of life you must know the right stock to pick as well. Or do you exist is a netherworld of nothingness and hyperbole

I know that science does not present evolution as absolute truth which denies the existence of God. I earned that at a Catholic school, which makes me wonder if you are what you claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are correct that the true functioning of DNA is not fully known, not just to some but to all. Epigenetics raises questions that indicate that random mutations are not the only sources of change as DNA appears to change itself deliberately in a living animal showing that DNA can change itself at will and with cognition.

You misrepresent epigenetics. It's a generic term for a variety of ways that the expression of genes can temporarily be affected without changing the DNA sequence. It happens to DNA, molecules bind to it change how it functions; it has nothing to with will and cognition.

 

[inquiring mind]

For example, does #7 refer to all truth? Or just "truth" within the context of scientific inquiry? In which case the former is false, the latter would be true.

The title of the thesis is 'What is Evolution?' so they're talking about the latter, which makes it a true statement.

#8 is incomplete since hypothesis testing can involve more than just experimentation.

They said "using repeatable experiments", which involves more research. I think you're too quick to discount their points.

 

[Speedwell]

The title of the thesis is 'What is Evolution?' so they're talking about the latter, which makes it a true statement.

They said "using repeatable experiments", which involves more research. I think you're too quick to discount their points.

So what is your point? That evolution really is presented in the schools as absolute truth which denies the existence of God?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There has been no discovery that accounts for the simultaneous random formation of the thousands of genes that make up even the simplest organism. DNA is like a computer operating system as any one part forming randomly is fully useless.

No; that's a spurious claim of 'irreducible complexity'. No-one who's learnt about cellular evolution thinks thousands of genes evolved simultaneously and randomly. The long history of evolutionary development has left clear indications in the genome. Evolution progresses by randomly modifying what already exists; results that don't reproduce well will tend to die out, those that reproduce well will tend to proliferate - that's 'natural selection'. So it's random variation coupled with natural selection.

Even the simplest modern organisms are the result of billions of years of evolution, but even today, looking at the increasing size and complexity of genomes from the simplest to the most complex organisms, you can see how genomes can progressively increase in complexity - and we have empirical evidence of how such changes occur.

DNA is not really like a computer operating system - that's just the closest analogy we currently have, and it's a fairly limited one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

LOL why are you quoting pedophiles as though they are relevant?

Are you trying to get yourself banned?

 

[pitabread]

The title of the thesis is 'What is Evolution?' so they're talking about the latter, which makes it a true statement.

This is a list which includes a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with evolution (insofar as biology goes) and includes a number of factually incorrect and misleading statements.

It's doesn't seem so much "what is evolution" as opposed to what the author *thinks* evolution is. Which clearly involves a number of points that are just wrong.

They said "using repeatable experiments", which involves more research. I think you're too quick to discount their points.

Again, given they have stuff on that list which is factually incorrect, I'm a bit leery of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Especially given the broader agenda of the author.

 

[Smokie]

No; that's a spurious claim of 'irreducible complexity'. No-one who's learnt about cellular evolution thinks thousands of genes evolved simultaneously and randomly. The long history of evolutionary development has left clear indications in the genome. Evolution progresses by randomly modifying what already exists; results that don't reproduce well will tend to die out, those that reproduce well will tend to proliferate - that's 'natural selection'. So it's random variation coupled with natural selection.

Even the simplest modern organisms are the result of billions of years of evolution, but even today, looking at the increasing size and complexity of genomes from the simplest to the most complex organisms, you can see how genomes can progressively increase in complexity - and we have empirical evidence of how such changes occur.

DNA is not really like a computer operating system - that's just the closest analogy we currently have, and it's a fairly limited one.

LOL, can you explain how you "learnt" about cellular evolution?

Jesus Christ

 

[pitabread]

LOL, 2+2=4 in mathematical science. However in gravitational science 2+2=170 so in order to make 2+2=170 they just invent fictional dark matter that makes the equation correct.

Try that with the IRS and see how you make out

Your posts don't make a lot of sense, you know that right?

 

[Smokie]

Are you trying to get yourself banned?

Are you denying that this has and is happening?

 

[inquiring mind]

So what is your point? That evolution really is presented in the schools as absolute truth which denies the existence of God?

Nope, not at all… just giving weight to creationism in this and every other discussion in this forum, and saying the thesis makes some good points, while pointing out that it stresses in the opening statement “there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes,…”

 

[pitabread]

Sure it does, or would if you understood computer code.

Given you're talking to someone with a degree in the subject and a couple decades of experience with it, I think it's safe to say I know a little bit about programming.

It's simple really, any line of an operating system is irrelevant unless the rest of the parts are there, and the operating system even if complete is meaningless without a computer to load and process the info logically. DNA functions exactly like this with the addition that the code builds the computer before running it.

DNA doesn't really function like computer code though. The function of any given DNA sequence is not contingent on the function of other DNA sequences.

However I understand that this is nonsense to those who do not comprehend even basic computing

Oh, I understand how computers work. And have somewhat of an understanding of DNA works (I also took genetics in University), enough to know where the similarities end.

We're basically getting to the point I said earlier in the thread about "information" in DNA and the use of arguments via analogy.

In absence of any analogy, could you explain how DNA itself works?

 

[Smokie]

Your posts don't make a lot of sense, you know that right?

They would if you understood that universal gravitational motion is happening at a rate that determines that there is 85 percent too little mass and energy to allow for current expansion rates, and that as a result dark matter was invented to correct for the inconsistencies in the cosmological constant.

It is not my fault if you can not comprehend the theories and or equations implications. In fact some physicist are now claiming that because the mathematics does not add up that the universe is a computer simulation and not real at all, and this includes you and I as well

 

[pitabread]

They would if you understood that universal gravitational motion is happening at a rate that determines that there is 85 percent too little mass and energy to allow for current expansion rates, and that as a result dark matter was invented to correct for the inconsistencies in the cosmological constant.

Oh, I know what you're referring to. It's more the specific nature of your posts and the odd editorializing you engage in. You seem to jump around a lot when you're talking about things and it results in posts that aren't coming across as particularly coherent.

 

[Smokie]

Given you're talking to someone with a degree in the subject and a couple decades of experience with it, I think it's safe to say I know a little bit about programming.



DNA doesn't really function like computer code though. The function of any given DNA sequence is not contingent on the function of other DNA sequences.



Oh, I understand how computers work. And have somewhat of an understanding of DNA works (I also took genetics in University), enough to know where the similarities end.

We're basically getting to the point I said earlier in the thread about "information" in DNA and the use of arguments via analogy.

In absence of any analogy, could you explain how DNA itself works?

LOL a degree in fictional and opinionated beliefs like Darwin's magical pond is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

LOL again, Bill Gates could have earned his degree, but he chose to dropout.

I am also reminded of this

 

[Speedwell]

They would if you understood that universal gravitational motion is happening at a rate that determines that there is 85 percent too little mass and energy to allow for current expansion rates, and that as a result dark matter was invented to correct for the inconsistencies in the cosmological constant.

They hypothesize dark matter. But so what?

 

[Smokie]

Oh, I know what you're referring to. It's more the specific nature of your posts and the odd editorializing you engage in. You seem to jump around a lot when you're talking about things and it results in posts that aren't coming across as particularly coherent.

Then explain to the group why science allows for the creation of invisible matter and energy

 

[Smokie]

They hypothesize dark matter. But so what?

Others hypothesize God, but you disallow this.

Yawn

 

[pitabread]

LOL a degree in fictional and opinionated beliefs like Darwin's magical pond is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

LOL again, Bill Gates could have earned his degree, but he chose to dropout.

Huh?

First you try to criticize me on the basis of not understanding how computer code works. Then when I point out I have a degree in the subject, you try to claim it's "not worth the paper it is printed on"?

You just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and contradicting yourself in the process.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL a degree in fictional and opinionated beliefs like Darwin's magical pond is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

What's your alternative to "Darwin's magical pond?" If you are arrogant enough to reduce all scientific investigation into abiogenesis down to a silly aphorism. you must have a really great explanation for us.