Answering any questions on Evolution

[Mr Strawberry]

I think hard enough.

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

Stop self-mythologising.

How exactly are you not brainwashed when you feel compelled to say loony things like the floodwaters went to Neptune in order to try and defend a completely hopeless fantasy? There is some sort of reality gap involved here, as if what you post is more of an abstract game to do with wish fulfilment and reality avoidance than a genuine attempt to engage with any sort of truth. Winning a semantic point is far more important to you than whether what you say is barmy or not, and that very disregard for the barminess of what you post indicates it that truth isn't a priority for you. It is not why you are here. You are more pleased with yourself than anything when you say something utterly ludicrous to protect your faith. Well, if that's the use you're putting your faith to then it must be worth less to you than your own self-regard.

 

[AV1611VET]

How exactly are you not brainwashed when you feel compelled to say loony things like the floodwaters went to Neptune...

Do you know the difference between 'brainwashed' and 'backwater'?

Water to Neptune is 'backwater' -- not 'brainwashed.'

Lest we stray too far from the original point:

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.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Do you know the difference between 'brainwashed' and 'backwater'?

Water to Neptune is 'backwater' -- not 'brainwashed.'

Lest we stray too far from the original point:

If you are not brainwashed why do you have to defend literalism with loony ideas? If you are not brainwashed why don't you just accept what is clearly the case: that the flood story in the Bible isn't accurate? In what way is your insistence that something is true when it quite obviously isn't true, not evidence of brainwashing? Insisting something is so when it quite plainly isn't so is about as sure a symptom as you can get.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are not brainwashed why do you have to defend literalism with loony ideas? If you are not brainwashed why don't you just accept what is clearly the case: that the flood story in the Bible isn't accurate? In what way is your insistence that something is true when it quite obviously isn't true, not evidence of brainwashing? Insisting something is so when it quite plainly isn't so is about as sure a symptom as you can get.

If I stood in front of God right now, and He asked me where I thought the flood waters went, and warned me that my answer would determine my status in Heaven, I'd say 'Neptune.'

So I'm taking your point with a grain of salt.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If I stood in front of God right now, and He asked me where I thought the flood waters went, and warned me that my answer would determine my status in Heaven, I'd say 'Neptune.'

So I'm taking your point with a grain of salt.

This is why I get the impression that your faith is rather like a cartoon world into which you escape from reality.

And the salt gag needs revising, it's just become an admission that you're position is untenable.

 

[bjt2024]

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)."




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.

Oxford Dictionary: Information: Facts provided or learned about something or someone.

randyman54321 is implying that information comes from things designed by intelligence.

What I said what that the sun underwent nuclear fusion. This is a fact and therefore it is information. It is information recorded from the activities of the sun. The sun was not designed by intelligence but yet still produces data and facts that can be said to be information.

 

[bjt2024]

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.

It uses a trap to trap ingredients that would fail the experiment? Explain?

The Miller-Urey experiment was not perfect, however many experiments which are derivitives of this experiment have shown that organic compounds can be produced by placing simple molecules in high thermal/energy conditions or in the presence of clay as a catalyst.

 

[Naraoia]

I talk to a lot of professionals in microbiology and related disciplines and have come to the conclusion that the majority of professionals don’t know what evolution is.

If your talking to them is in any way similar to your talking to sfs here... I'll take your conclusion with a grain of salt.

(Oh my, I'm channelling AV now...)

I believe it is a chameleon changing its strips to try and explain what it cannot. You for instance cannot separate a molecular mechanism form genetic drift.

Well, what do you mean by a molecular mechanism?

Actually evolutionists spouted many unscientific speculations on the origin of life but recently gave up the claim because it is untenable.

Citation needed.

No, the differences in the DNA have been observed and there are not enough intergenerational mutations to account for a divergence. As I have demonstrated to my friend (sfs). Similarity in the DNA is explained by a possible null hypothesis of common design.

Right, a question then. Why does "similarity of DNA" put together so many seemingly dissimilar creatures? Pigs and whales, hyraxes and elephants, the list could go on. Echinoderms (starfish etc.) and hemichordates (acorn worms and these guys) are now generally accepted as each other's closest relatives based on molecular data, yet a starfish looks like... nothing else, pretty much.

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?

I have maintained for a while that "information" is a total red herring in evolution. Any random piece of DNA, RNA, peptide chain, what have you, contains "information".

What you are interested in is function. Now - when it comes to polymers like RNA or proteins, there are probably a lot of relatively small molecules that have "functions" of some sort or another. For the smallest example that I know of, this cute little RNA molecule is made of just five nucleotides, yet it can attach amino acids to other RNA molecules (something that is done by monstrous big proteins in modern cells). The smallest functional hammerhead ribozyme (which is an RNA that cuts itself apart) is about a dozen nucleotides. This pair of RNA molecules that replicate each other from smaller pieces of RNA is about 80 nucleotides each.

I don't think we have a good idea of just what proportion of all possible sequences of a given length does something cool, but it's certainly true that they don't have to be very big to be functional.

(Also, as a side note, you don't necessarily need any sort of function to replicate a molecule like DNA or RNA. Under the right circumstances, a lone strand of nucleic acid can automatically induce the formation of its complementary strand.)

If you genuinely want to learn about the origin of genomes and genetic codes, I'd strongly recommend that you check out ckd007's Origins series, the first two videos in particular. Although they are based on hardcore technical literature, the videos are very nice and, I think, easy to understand if you aren't a specialist.

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.

Thymine makes for more stable double-strandedness? *blinks* I thought that replacement was all about error avoidance.

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.

By the way, this is a pet peeve of mine. People, the genetic code has a technical meaning, and that is this:

It does not mean "genome", "information in the genome", "DNA sequence", or any such thing. It is the mapping from nucleotide triplets to amino acids, no more, no less.

I know I'm on a one woman crusade against this. I blame journalists.

</terminology nazi>

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.

Nicely put.

 

[Naraoia]

It uses a trap to trap ingredients that would fail the experiment? Explain?

The Miller-Urey experiment was not perfect, however many experiments which are derivitives of this experiment have shown that organic compounds can be produced by placing simple molecules in high thermal/energy conditions or in the presence of clay as a catalyst.

It really annoys me that people keep bringing up Miller & Urey as if that proved something.

Why aren't we all talking about more recent experiments to synthesise prebiotic amino acids or nucleobases, Jack Szostak's protocells, ribozymes, any of the intriguing (and mostly non-RNA world) ideas discussed in Life Ascending, carbonaceous chondrites... I don't know, so much STUFF happened since 1953, and people are still stuck on that one experiment.

Creationists once again show how up to date they are.

This is the one place I have to give credit to Zaius. He at least harps on research that postdates the fifties...

 

[NailsII]

Actually, I have a question.

I have two pet rabbits, (my daughters really) and they only breathe through their noses.
You can see this quite clearly when you pick them up and they get a little scared.

So why do they open their mouths and yawn?

 

[Trogool]

It really annoys me that people keep bringing up Miller & Urey as if that proved something.

Why aren't we all talking about more recent experiments to synthesise prebiotic amino acids or nucleobases, Jack Szostak's protocells, ribozymes, any of the intriguing (and mostly non-RNA world) ideas discussed in Life Ascending, carbonaceous chondrites... I don't know, so much STUFF happened since 1953, and people are still stuck on that one experiment.

Creationists once again show how up to date they are.

This is the one place I have to give credit to Zaius. He at least harps on research that postdates the fifties...

Because most people on this forum don't read PNAS, Science, Nature or Cell, and literally don't learn of the studies until they've been published,ADR it into textbooks and trickled down through national geographic and word of mouth to popular science books for the masses, literally years after scientists read it in the journal.

It's sad, I know.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, I have a question.

I have two pet rabbits, (my daughters really) and they only breathe through their noses.
You can see this quite clearly when you pick them up and they get a little scared.

So why do they open their mouths and yawn?

Because you're boring them?

[Just kidding -- ]

 

[bjt2024]

Actually, I have a question.

I have two pet rabbits, (my daughters really) and they only breathe through their noses.
You can see this quite clearly when you pick them up and they get a little scared.

So why do they open their mouths and yawn?

Haha, I'm sorry but I have no idea :') You best ask a Rabbitologist. However it might be because breathing through the nose is quieter, or warms the air up more which might be advantages.

 

[renewed21]

Hi again thompsonb24,

Just wanted to know your personal opinion as to how amino acids first came into existence on Earth.
Thanks

 

[Zaius137]

Right, a question then. Why does "similarity of DNA" put together so many seemingly dissimilar creatures? Pigs and whales, hyraxes and elephants, the list could go on. Echinoderms (starfish etc.) and hemichordates (acorn worms and these guys) are now generally accepted as each other's closest relatives based on molecular data, yet a starfish looks like... nothing else, pretty much.

Evolution claims that genetic similarities among all life are from common ancestry. Creationism claims genetic similarities between all life are form common design. The problem in particular with chimps and humans being of common decent is the lack of mutations available to accomplish it. The same problem most likely exists between say whales and the supposed land ancestor of whales. It is unfortunate that type of comparison is beyond human means.

It does not mean "genome", "information in the genome", "DNA sequence", or any such thing. It is the mapping from nucleotide triplets to amino acids, no more, no less.

I know I'm on a one woman crusade against this. I blame journalists.

Some scientists disagree&#8230;

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis,&#8221; according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of &#8220;sequence specificity&#8221; that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, &#8220;DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.&#8221;

Stephen C Meyer PhD

I think your understanding is a throwback to Darwin&#8230; please enter the twenty-first century.

 

[Zaius137]

Oxford Dictionary: Information: Facts provided or learned about something or someone.

randyman54321 is implying that information comes from things designed by intelligence.

I think I agree&#8230;

&#8220;DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information&#8212;whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal&#8212;always arises from an intelligent source. So, the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren&#8217;t there to observe the system coming into existence.&#8221; (my emphasis)

Stephen C Meyer PhD

What I said what that the sun underwent nuclear fusion. This is a fact and therefore it is information. It is information recorded from the activities of the sun. The sun was not designed by intelligence but yet still produces data and facts that can be said to be information.

The sun in its essence is not an information system. The sun and the physics guiding nuclear fusion are indeed a case of reduced entropy but the energy produced by the sun follows the second law of thermodynamics. Excuse me but you do not know that in fact the sun was not produced by intelligence. The sun produces no data only energy in line with the physics.

Let me explain a simple illustration of reduced entropy&#8230;

The English alphabet is a case of reduced entropy (each letter) but the alphabet exhibits no innate information. Now you arrange the alphabet in words and sentences you can convey information (to someone who understands English). Same thing with elements forged in the nuclear furnace; they are but letters of an alphabet we call chemistry.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just read a bit about Stuart Kauffman who apparently - if I remember right - thinks that a lot biological ontological order came from naturally occurring self organisation produced by genertic networks rather than the classic of natural selection acting on mutations.

Is he someone you would know of?

 

[Naraoia]

Because most people on this forum don't read PNAS, Science, Nature or Cell, and literally don't learn of the studies until they've been published,ADR it into textbooks and trickled down through national geographic and word of mouth to popular science books for the masses, literally years after scientists read it in the journal.

It's sad, I know.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Fair enough... though one would think that if you want to argue against something, you would try to make sure you know what it says...

Or at least try to get your arguments from a creationist website that isn't stuck in the fifties.

Evolution claims that genetic similarities among all life are from common ancestry. Creationism claims genetic similarities between all life are form common design. The problem in particular with chimps and humans being of common decent is the lack of mutations available to accomplish it. The same problem most likely exists between say whales and the supposed land ancestor of whales. It is unfortunate that type of comparison is beyond human means.

You didn't answer my question.

By the way, everyone have a video. Argument by Youtube is so convenient sometimes...

Why Common Design Common Designer = FAIL - YouTube

Some scientists disagree&#8230;

With what? The technical definition of the genetic code?

I did say it was a personal annoyance of mine. Most people don't seem to give a fig about the informal use of the term.

I think your understanding is a throwback to Darwin&#8230; please enter the twenty-first century.

This statement is quite a hoot considering that DNA was only identified as the substance of heredity in the early 20th century, and the genetic code was only deciphered in the sixties. The nineteen-sixties.

 

[Zaius137]

Evolution claims that genetic similarities among all life are from common ancestry. Creationism claims genetic similarities between all life are form common design. The problem in particular with chimps and humans being of common decent is the lack of mutations available to accomplish it. The same problem most likely exists between say whales and the supposed land ancestor of whales. It is unfortunate that type of comparison is beyond human means.

You didn't answer my question.

Maybe I confused you here&#8230; you expect affirmation of the consequent by assuming again that common descent is real. Common descent is untenable because it is contrary to evolutionist&#8217;s own evidence. The postulate that God created the diversity of life is the only acceptable conclusion.

Some scientists disagree&#8230;

With what? The technical definition of the genetic code?

I did say it was a personal annoyance of mine. Most people don't seem to give a fig about the informal use of the term.

I think your understanding is throwback to Darwin&#8230; please enter the twenty-first century.

This statement is quite a hoot considering that DNA was only identified as the substance of heredity in the early 20th century, and the genetic code was only deciphered in the sixties. The nineteen-sixties.

I don&#8217;t know if you intentionally obscuring the fact that the &#8220;genetic code&#8221; (even you use the term) can be considered information. Hiding behind the mechanics of the DNA does not help your unsupportable position. < staff edit >

 

[NailsII]

Haha, I'm sorry but I have no idea :') You best ask a Rabbitologist. However it might be because breathing through the nose is quieter, or warms the air up more which might be advantages.

Simple question really, but i do know why.
Rabbits are obligate nasal breathes, like horses and rodents (as lagomorphs are very closely related to rodents).
Ther epiglotis actually seals the mouth from the lungs, so they can sniff and eat at the same time.
This doesn't mean that they can't breath through their mouths, just that they tend not to.
All mamamls yawn.
So a better question would be - why do animals which don't breath through their mouths yawn?
Would an intelligent designer be so.... stupid?

Just wanted to know your personal opinion as to how amino acids first came into existence on Earth.

Amino acids are naturally occuring chemicals, and are found throughout the universe.
Regardless of what anyone actually thinks of the interpretation of the results, the Miller-Urey experiment conclusively demonstrates that amino acids will form given the correct conditions; which is pretty much the same for most chemicals.
The key would appear to be a reducing atmosphere.

There is the possibility that organic chemicals, including amino acids, were first 'seeded' onto the earth by some kind of extra-terrestrial 'dirty snowball'.