Answering any questions on Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

The simple fact is what we see today is that information always comes from intelligence so the logical conclusion is that information originated from intelligence which is God. Saying God did it is not taking the easy way out, that is simply where the evidence points too. You say keep the creationists paying money, the atheists do this too with all their schools and to be able to pay to push this evolution theory onto everyone.
Lets face it Evolution and Christianity are both religious. You have to believe in one or the other. No one was around when the earth was made so explaining origins of the earth and universe is not observable therefore it is not science it is religious.

 

[bjt2024]

Hello there, I saw that you study DNA. I will admit I have a lot to learn in that area but I did have a question for you. Today what we see about information is it always comes from intelligence. If that is true how would you explain the origin of information and the origin of DNA? Why does there seem to be specified complexity in the genetic code?

Information does not always have to come from intelligence. The sun fuses hydrogen to make helium in Nuclear Fusion. This is information, however it didn't come from intelligence. No-one told the Sun do to nuclear fusion.

The RNA world hypothesis is a proposition that before DNA, the first forms of life were dependent upon RNA molecules. RNA can store genetic information, can act as an enzyme and can self-replicate. Some RNA can catalyse the bonding of amino acids to make proteins. A change of uracil to thymine in the RNA would make for a more stable molecule that could self-adhere to form a double helix. This is all still a hypothesis though. It is based upon evidence at present with logical and rational thinking and is subject to development and change. Scientists do not know 100% how DNA originated however, we work towards trying to find the answers.

The specified complexity in the genetic code is not wholely complex and as for high order life has not always been so complex. Not all life has a huge amount of DNA bases, for example Carsonella ruddi has only 160,000 base pairs in it's genome compared to our 3 billion.

Over time genomes change, they contain new genes for encoding new proteins or the lose redunant genes. Or simple base mutations, additions or deletions. DNA will have started very simple, coding for a few essential proteins needed for the most basic of life, not very complex.

It's a system of trial and error.

 

[Zaius137]

Information does not always have to come from intelligence. The sun fuses hydrogen to make helium in Nuclear Fusion. This is information, however it didn't come from intelligence. No-one told the Sun do to nuclear fusion.

The RNA world hypothesis is a proposition that before DNA, the first forms of life were dependent upon RNA molecules. RNA can store genetic information, can act as an enzyme and can self-replicate. Some RNA can catalyse the bonding of amino acids to make proteins. A change of uracil to thymine in the RNA would make for a more stable molecule that could self-adhere to form a double helix. This is all still a hypothesis though. It is based upon evidence at present with logical and rational thinking and is subject to development and change. Scientists do not know 100% how DNA originated however, we work towards trying to find the answers.

The specified complexity in the genetic code is not wholely complex and as for high order life has not always been so complex. Not all life has a huge amount of DNA bases, for example Carsonella ruddi has only 160,000 base pairs in it's genome compared to our 3 billion.

Over time genomes change, they contain new genes for encoding new proteins or the lose redunant genes. Or simple base mutations, additions or deletions. DNA will have started very simple, coding for a few essential proteins needed for the most basic of life, not very complex.

It's a system of trial and error.

You are really upside down on your information concept. An increase in entropy is not an increase in information. In a closed system entropy will always increase. According to Shannon more information is then needed to describe the resulting increase in disorder (not an increase in information just information needed to describe it). The rest of your assertions are as nonsensical as your first.


"In hydrogen fusion ... entropy increases (you're sending photons out of a finite box into space while nuclei go into a lower energy state)."

EBTX - The Definition of Entropy


If you want to talk about the RNA world view I have a few things to say; primarily in the end the RNA world view makes more problems than it solves.




First life would have to emulate a Von Neumann machine; more complex than any invention by man to date.

 

[renewed21]

I'm lazy and am not going to read through 285+ post.

First step: Where or how Genesis (i.e. Miller and Urey) or introduction of amino acids. These are two theories I am aware of. Your person opinion on the matter sir.

Thanks for availing yourself to our questions.

 

[Jazer]

people who have been completely indoctrinated into creationism.

So creationists are able to get the job done, wonderful.
Looks like evos are not able to get the job of indoctrination done.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So creationists are able to get the job done, wonderful.
Looks like evos are not able to get the job of indoctrination done.

You make it sound as if you think indoctrination is a good thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

First step: Where or how Genesis (i.e. Miller and Urey) or introduction of amino acids. These are two theories I am aware of. Your person opinion on the matter sir.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a joke.

It uses a trap to trap ingredients that would fail the experiment.

Nature, on the other hand, had no such trap.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just one or two points.... you are a creationists which tells everyone other than creationists that you do not think for yourself,

Are you kidding me?

I've been called 'backwater' or its various synonyms, more times than you have threads, newbie.

If anyone around here 'thinks for himself,' it's I.

You want some of my better examples?

• Adam & Eve spoke English.
• Noah lived in [what is now called] New Jersey.
• Flood waters were taken to Neptune.
• The King James Bible is 'the books' mentioned in Revelation 20:12.

You don't know me very well, do you? but you sure like to act like you do.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Are you kidding me?

I've been called 'backwater' or its various synonyms, more times than you have threads, newbie.

If anyone around here 'thinks for himself,' it's I.

You want some of my better examples?

• Adam & Eve spoke English.
• Noah lived in [what is now called] New Jersey.
• Flood waters were taken to Neptune.
• The King James Bible is 'the books' mentioned in Revelation 20:12.

You don't know me very well, do you? but you sure like to act like you do.

Why are you proud of these inanities? I don't see what you think you have proved to yourself or anyone else by saying such silly things. Do you genuinely imagine anyone, anyone at all, is going to read them and conclude anything other than the author is off his trolley? Who are you trying to impress by saying such things?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you proud of these inanities? I don't see what you think you have proved to yourself or anyone else by saying such silly things. Do you genuinely imagine anyone, anyone at all, is going to read them and conclude anything other than the author is off his trolley? Who are you trying to impress by saying such things?

Ya -- either way, I get it, don't I?

Well, one consolation -- it keeps you guys from calling me 'brainwashed.'

Although I've been called that many times, too.

If I quote the Bible or quote basic doctrine, I'm 'brainwashed'; and if I think for myself, I'm 'backwater.'

So either 'brainwashed' or 'backwater', the point remains:

It's not what I say that counts, it's what I am.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you call those demented juvenile ramblings 'thinking for yourself'?

Your assessment aside, yes.

Soooo what now? I think I'll leave...

My apologies AV1611VET I will leave you to 'think for yourself' because it's obvious you have enough problems of your own without me adding to them.

God bless you.

Either way ... you'll whine about it, won't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

you are a creationists which tells everyone other than creationists that you do not think for yourself,

I will leave you to 'think for yourself' because it's obvious you have enough problems of your own without me adding to them.

Not anymore.

So which way are you going to pout, then?

Over those who don't think for themselves, or those that do?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Ya -- either way, I get it, don't I?

Well, one consolation -- it keeps you guys from calling me 'brainwashed.'

Although I've been called that many times, too.

If I quote the Bible or quote basic doctrine, I'm 'brainwashed'; and if I think for myself, I'm 'backwater.'

So either 'brainwashed' or 'backwater', the point remains:

It's not what I say that counts, it's what I am.

And why in response to a query about why you say such silly things do you then reply that it's not what you say but what you are? WRONG. IT IS WHAT YOU SAY.

So, I'll try again. Why do you say such silly things?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, I'll try again. Why do you say such silly things?

What isn't silly to you guys?

If you don't think Jesus walking on water is silly, but God taking the flood waters to Neptune is silly -- then I'd say you have a problem, in my opinion.

Although I'll admit; I don't think like you guys -- thank God.

Where's the dividing line with you guys?

 

[selfinflikted]

If you don't think Jesus walking on water is silly, but God taking the flood waters to Neptune is silly -- then I'd say you have a problem, in my opinion.

Both are equally silly to me. The only difference is a crap-ton of people actually believe Jesus walked on water, but you are the only one who thinks flood waters are on Neptune.

But trust me when I say, AV, you get picked on strictly for the things you say. It has nothing to do with you being a Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

But trust me when I say, AV, you get picked on strictly for the things you say. It has nothing to do with you being a Christian.

Thanks, SI, but I find that very hard to believe.

I know some other Christians who talk very scientifically here (albeit any talk is 'very scientific' to me) -- but I do know that some other Christians who talk scientifically aren't 'picked on', but in my opinion, it's because they've sold their souls to science.

Don't get me wrong -- they're born-again and on their way to Heaven -- but they've prostituted themselves out to science to the point where they blaspheme God and don't even know it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What isn't silly to you guys?

If you don't think Jesus walking on water is silly, but God taking the flood waters to Neptune is silly -- then I'd say you have a problem, in my opinion.

Although I'll admit; I don't think like you guys -- thank God.

Where's the dividing line with you guys?

You can be forgiven for arguing that the myths of a recognised religion are true, but why do you make up complete nonsense off the top of your head that can't possibly be true? What is the point? Who are you hoping to impress by saying that the floodwaters went to Neptune. Anybody who may have been with you up until that point, however credulous, is going to to roll their eyes and shake their heads. Why do you do it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you do it?

Isn't it obvious? I prefer 'backwater' to 'brainwashed.'

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Isn't it obvious? I prefer 'backwater' to 'brainwashed.'

Or perhaps you don't actually think very hard about what you are saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or perhaps you don't actually think very hard about what you are saying.

I think hard enough.

Why do you think I'm called 'backwater'?