A Riddle For Atheists - Evolutionists Can't Handle This One

[h2whoa]

Basic biology, my friends. It gets you places.

Hi, nice to meet you

I just wanted to correct something in your post. Obviously we differ on our theistic viewpoints, but I have no axe to grind with theistic evolutionists! I'm not anti-Christian, just anti-Creationism.

Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA as you know it is the genetic code for all organisms. This is correct. This contains basic information about our bodies- what weaknesses and strengths we inherited from our parents- this ranges from illnesses to the color of your hair. For example, if one parent has brown eyes and the other has blue, the child has a very likely chance of having brown eyes. This is because blue eyes are a hereditary gene. Simple genetics lesson for anyone listening. And die hard creationists... *please* don't tell me this is "what evolutionists believe" or something like that. This is factual, as-real-as-twinkies-are-tasty information I'm giving you, and by ignoring this you're only making the entire group of creationists look ignorant.

These differ with RNA and DNA sequences.

Indeed although they are largely the same. The main difference is that position 2 of the ribose molecule is lacking an oxygen atom in DNA whereas it is not in RNA (this leads to RNA being less stable due to acid hydrolysis). The other difference is that in terms of bases, RNA uses uracil instead of thymine.

The code is defined by the amino acids within the helix

This is where you go wrong. The code is what defines the amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The nucleotide sequence (through DNA ---> pre-RNA ---> mRNA ---> tRNA ---> Amino acids) is what codes for the amino acid sequences which fold up into proteins.

These amino acids form our DNA, the very fabric that is our organic library and tell our body how to operate.

No. As explained above, DNA is not made up of amino acids. DNA is made up of (deoxy)nucleotides.

It should be noted that when people talk of DNA and nucleotide sequences they are really talking about deoxynucleotides, but it is commonly abbreviated as such. Strictly speaking nucleotides (not deoxy) are what make up RNA.

With each different genus, chromosome numbers vary.

Actually, it varies between species on the whole, not just genera.

A single flaw in one chromosome can cause major problems to a person. One chromosome! The damage of Chromosome 17 causes cystic fibrosis. That's how important it is to have all these little strands of DNA intact for these little cells.

I don't want to bog you down with too much detail, this is just for your interest really. The situation is actually even more amazing than that.

You're right that DNA is packed into chromosomes (although these only condense into the way we think of them during meiosis and mitosis). However, chromosomal rearrangements are pretty dramatic and at the large end of what normally causes genetic disease. There are 3 billion nucleotides in our genome which are packed onto 23 chromosomes (in us, obviously). Diseases tend to be on the nucleotide level rather than the chromosome level, merely because chromosomal damage tends to be lethal to any embryo. More than 50% of pregnancies auto-terminate, mainly due to chromosomal rearrangements. Down's syndrome is a classic example of non-lethal chromosomal disorders. However, sometimes (rarely) chromosomal rearrangements don't cause death, although the reasons for this are too complex for a brief summary here.

In fact, for some diseases the alteration of one nucleotide in the gene sequence can have drastic effects (see Sickle Cell Anaemia for example). The example you give of cystic fibrosis is not a chromosome-level disorder (and the responsible gene, CTFR, is on chromosome 7 not 17). In fact over 70% of CF cases are caused by three nucleotides being deleted from the gene, which results in the loss of phenylalanine (an amino acid) in position 508 of the CTFR gene product.

Hope this hasn't been information overload, and that it was interesting to you. I am a geneticist by trade, so it's sort of my passion too!

 

[h2whoa]

Comparing DNA to computer code highlights the differences even more. If one were to right computer code like DNA it wouldn't work. For instance, type in START, punch in a bunch of random symbols, and type END. Will the program work? No. Now do the same for DNA. Put in an ATG, punch in a bunch of random sequence, and then punch in a stop codon. Chances are that you will randomly produce a stop codon before you type the final stop codon, but still you will get a protein of some kind. It will work, unlike computer code.

The information found in DNA is due to natural selection which freezes beneficial sequences (and neutral code through genetic drift) within the population. Without selection DNA sequence would be nearly random. This is analogous to the Base + Acid ---->Salt example. The environmental conditions produce the result, freezing information within the system.

Exactly. So long as you have a start codon and a stop codon, something will be produced. It may be useless, it may not fold very well, but it will be a polypeptide of sorts.

 

[LittleNipper]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex. This screams GOD to me. For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

 

[TheOutsider]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex. This screams GOD to me. For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

Your personal incredulity has been noted.

 

[h2whoa]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex. This screams GOD to me. For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

Totally without merit... says you.

Arguments from incredulity are not persuasive, particularly when there are those of us who understand a bit more about the molecular world. Yes the molecular world is fascinating, wonderful, exilerating and with plenty of mysteries to be solved. That's why I love what I do (and the reason I put up with working 80 hour weeks for less pay than if I was an office jockey). But to say that there is something miraculous (i.e. couldn't work without magic) is just wrong.

Not only is it wrong but it's downright damaging. It's an intellectual laziness that could very easily hurtle us back decades or even centuries. Why's this person got cystic fibrosis? I don't know. God did it. Why does that child suffer from Down's. I don't know. Maybe it's because Adam ate an apple, so this baby has to suffer. This is the reason I get so passionate about this whole topic. If the forces of anti-science and anti-thought were to win, it would be disasterous for us as a whole. If the intellectual stagnation that Creationism and ID display were to infect the rest of us, there would be very serious ramifications.

 

[atomweaver]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex. This screams GOD to me. For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

Natural Selection acting on mutation and sexual reproduction gives vastly higher yields than mere trial and error. Have a nifty YouTube video for your troubles;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

 

[Loudmouth]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex.

It's overly complex, as are cells at the molecular level. The surest sign of design is simplicity and effeciency. Life is not simple and it is not effecient.

Perhaps one of the greatest ironies ever in the creo v. evo debate is Michael Behe's use of Rube Goldberg mechanisms, or more precisely Rube Goldberg comics. These comics get laughs because they are extremely convoluted and overly complex machines that do very mundane tasks. If you have ever watched the Looney Toons with Foghorn and the chickenhawk you have probably seen on of these comical contraptions.

Behe never got the joke. He used the overly complex and convoluted machines as examples of design when they are actually comedy. Rube Goldberg mechanisms are exactly what an intelligent designer would NOT design.

This screams GOD to me.

What doesn't scream God to you?

For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

Ridicule is not an argument. Please show us why the argument, notwithstanding the Cosmic Seed strawman, is without merit.

 

[notto]

What we are still faced with is a the enigma of a code that is simple yet complex. This screams GOD to me. For anyone to imagine that COSMIC seeds just existed and eventually developed into humanity through trial and error is totally without merit.

Trial and error is an enigma (by your logic) that can use a simple process to solve complex problems.

Evolution (by your poor definition) uses trial and error.

Therefore, by your logic, Evolution screams GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's overly complex, as are cells at the molecular level. The surest sign of design is simplicity and effeciency. Life is not simple and it is not effecient.

Perhaps one of the greatest ironies ever in the creo v. evo debate is Michael Behe's use of Rube Goldberg mechanisms, or more precisely Rube Goldberg comics. These comics get laughs because they are extremely convoluted and overly complex machines that do very mundane tasks. If you have ever watched the Looney Toons with Foghorn and the chickenhawk you have probably seen on of these comical contraptions.

Behe never got the joke. He used the overly complex and convoluted machines as examples of design when they are actually comedy. Rube Goldberg mechanisms are exactly what an intelligent designer would NOT design.



What doesn't scream God to you?



Ridicule is not an argument. Please show us why the argument, notwithstanding the Cosmic Seed strawman, is without merit.

Well, you (or another who agrees with evolution) stated that men and apes and other animals have DNA which is very close. And if there was a god, he would have had each species with entirely different DNA. That sounds more complex. So if GOD made things more complex, some people wouldn't believe. And since things are nearly the same, some people still will not believe. My educated guess is that GOD knows exactly what HE was doing and why. He wasn't trying to win votes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

--------

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

--------

If you agree with points 1 to 3 above, guess what......you are a creationist.

For more very interesting material from the author above check here:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

(1) is merely semantics; one may define 'code' such that DNA fulfills it. So let us assume DNA is a code.

(2), then, is demonstratably false: since DNA can form without concious intent, and since DNA is a code (see (1)), we therefore have an example of a code that can form without concious intent.

Ergo, the proof is refuted. QED.

 

[LittleNipper]

Trial and error is an enigma (by your logic) that can use a simple process to solve complex problems.

Evolution (by your poor definition) uses trial and error.

Therefore, by your logic, Evolution screams GOD.

Evolution suggests that trial and error forms new species and yet is unable to demonstrate that trial and error has ever produced a new species. Evolutionists cannot even produce a new species by applying logic, manipulative and clever human intervention. Their experiments all fail. The BIBLE screams GOD.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, you (or another who agrees with evolution) stated that men and apes and other animals have DNA which is very close. And if there was a god, he would have had each species with entirely different DNA. That sounds more complex.

I am talking about the complexity of a single cell. God, or any omnimax supernatural deity, could have produced millions of species with their own simple and effecient genetic system.

Instead, we see a genetic system that has increased in size like a snowball going down hill. Our genomes are as cludgy as it gets, full of unnecessary repeats, transposons, etc. What we see is a system that has passed through a trial and error process that is blind to the molecular basis of phenotype.

GOD made things more complex, some people wouldn't believe.

If GOD were visible and detectable more people would believe that GOD exists.

 

[Vene]

Well, you (or another who agrees with evolution) stated that men and apes and other animals have DNA which is very close. And if there was a god, he would have had each species with entirely different DNA. That sounds more complex. So if GOD made things more complex, some people wouldn't believe. And since things are nearly the same, some people still will not believe. My educated guess is that GOD knows exactly what HE was doing and why. He wasn't trying to win votes.

And yet, none of this drivel is against evolutionary theory. You are equating evolution with atheism. That is just wrong, many people who accept evolution are Christians. Just like most Christians accept the germ theory.

 

[FishFace]

Evolution suggests that trial and error forms new species and yet is unable to demonstrate that trial and error has ever produced a new species. Evolutionists cannot even produce a new species by applying logic, manipulative and clever human intervention. Their experiments all fail. The BIBLE screams GOD.

Uhhhh... you're wrong.

 

[FishFace]

Somehow in the mix of all this, these nifty little things divide themselves, forming a new nucleus and new cells within a split nanosecond.

Mitosis usually takes an hour or more.

Atheists will tell you that genetics didn't start with God. They'll just say it started with the mitosis of a single amoeba, which over millions of years formed into plants and animals.

No, they'll tell you it started before amoeba.

 

[notto]

Evolution suggests that trial and error forms new species and yet is unable to demonstrate that trial and error has ever produced a new species. Evolutionists cannot even produce a new species by applying logic, manipulative and clever human intervention. Their experiments all fail. The BIBLE screams GOD.

When has a creationist poofed a critter into existence or seen it happen?

By your logic evolution has as much physical evidence as creationism behind it therefor it screams GOD as well.

You keep demonstrating the weakness and illogic of your own arguments.

You are a great creationist.

 

[KathleenTheTerrible]

Mitosis usually takes an hour or more.

Really? Cause I'm damn sure I remember seeing this video where they taped cells growing in a good environment, and it sorta just went BLORT all over the place real quick. Plus, I also saw a video of two cells dividing and it didn't seem to take an hour.

Btw, to everyone, thanks for the critical response and all? But I was up at 3 by that stage and decided a little ranting would be fun. haha.

 

[elcapitan]

Really? Cause I'm damn sure I remember seeing this video where they taped cells growing in a good environment, and it sorta just went BLORT all over the place real quick. Plus, I also saw a video of two cells dividing and it didn't seem to take an hour.

Btw, to everyone, thanks for the critical response and all? But I was up at 3 by that stage and decided a little ranting would be fun. haha.

The video must have been accelerated. Even the fastest mitoses (bacterial) take 20 minutes.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-long-does-it-take-for-cells-to-divide.htm
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/chemo/activity/double.htm

 

[gamespotter10]

The following information comes from Perry Marshall:

--------

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

--------

If you agree with points 1 to 3 above, guess what......you are a creationist.

For more very interesting material from the author above check here:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

DNA is a sequence of monomers bonded together to form self-replicating polymers. its not a language

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Really? Cause I'm damn sure I remember seeing this video where they taped cells growing in a good environment, and it sorta just went BLORT all over the place real quick. Plus, I also saw a video of two cells dividing and it didn't seem to take an hour.

Yeah, that was accelerated. It's not beneficial at all for a bacterial species to breed that quickly.