Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

Ok .. we're making progress. Your language for pages now is sooo unclear and truncated, its hard to know what you're actually citing as evidence.
Q1) How were the samples extracted? What isolation control procedures were implemented to prevent contamination?

I'm still struggling with his claim of DNA that doesn't have a sequence. It's been a while since I took Biochem but that doesn't even sound like it makes sense. Unless it was a bunch of disconnected bases...like a soup of A,G,C,T and phosphate sugars.

 

[partinobodycular]

Did you not have to buy at least a minimum set for undergraduate? Life would have been tough without them. I am guessing i HAD to buy probably 20 during the course of just the BSc course.

Sorry for the confusion. I have a 9th grade education...that's it. But even when I was in school I never read the textbooks...I didn't have to...I could always just assimilate the subject matter from what was discussed in class. I'm not the reading type, I'm more the "take it apart" or "analyze it" type.

I'm also not the take somebody at their word type. I'm an epistemological solipsist...I question everything. People and their claims are notoriously unreliable, so expect me to regard your claims with skepticism until proven otherwise. For example, you claim that your forensic experts' credentials are impeccable...I'm not buying it.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm still struggling with his claim of DNA that doesn't have a sequence.

There are natural bio-processes which destroy nuclear DNA. Eg: cornification.

 

[Opdrey]

Sorry for the confusion. I have a 9th grade education...that's it. But even when I was in school I never read the textbooks...I didn't have to...I could always just assimilate the subject matter from what was discussed in class. I'm not the reading type, I'm more the "take it apart" or "analyze it" type.

Aaaah, an ENGINEER! Rip it apart to figure it out!

In reality @Mountainmike clearly has read a lot on this subject but his summation of the topic is a bit hard to swallow and any details are immediately hand-waved away by telling us to buy the book. That's fair, though. After years of debating creation vs evolution I sometimes found myself just saying "take a geology class!" or something like that. It must be frustrating to have people not accept his "training" in this area.

But that's the best point: we don't really know much about his training in this area except he's bought a lot of books. Were they unbiased books on the topic? I'm guessing that in matters of religious miracles the answer is "probably not". But, I don't know.

I feel for Mountainmike because you can sense his frustration with us who don't necessarily know all the jots and tittles of his favorite group of miracles as well as he does. And we are left with little more than our "skepticism" of religious claims.

I'm also not the take somebody at their word type. I'm an epistemological solipsist...I question everything. People and their claims are notoriously unreliable, so expect me to regard your claims with skepticism until proven otherwise. For example, you claim that your forensic experts' credentials are impeccable...I'm not buying it.

This is the heart of the matter. We are treated to virtually nothing of substance other than claims backed up by how prominent the credentials of people unknown to us are. Not the firmest foundation.

 

[Opdrey]

There are natural bio-processes which destroy nuclear DNA. Eg: cornification.

Thanks! So if you found DNA but it was destroyed would you say you found DNA? Or would you say "we found various nucleic acids and phosphate sugars indicative of DNA? If you found DNA that was partially destroyed would you still be able to sequence parts of it?

I will freely admit to not being a biochemist so any help is much appreciated.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thanks! So if you found DNA but it was destroyed would you say you found DNA? Or would you say "we found various nucleic acids and phosphate sugars indicative of DNA? If you found DNA that was partially destroyed would you still be able to sequence parts of it?

I will freely admit to not being a biochemist so any help is much appreciated.

This is sort of the issue I have. For example, what exactly does it mean when someone says that something is inexplicable? Does it mean that it happens occasionally but we don't yet know why. Or does it mean that it never happens, and so the fact that it happened in this case is totally unprecedented.

That's what happens when you're getting things third hand, the context can get lost. We're getting our information from Mountainmike, who as far as I know is getting it from a book by Mr. Tesoriero, who's paraphrasing what the experts said or believed. In this case I don't like playing telephone with the facts.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm still struggling with his claim of DNA that doesn't have a sequence. It's been a while since I took Biochem but that doesn't even sound like it makes sense. Unless it was a bunch of disconnected bases...like a soup of A,G,C,T and phosphate sugars.

So are all the pathologists struggling with it. It is outside normal experience, But it’s been tested so many times it’s a fact.

As a miracle it is an interesting nuance to prove that they cannot be faked or substituted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm still struggling with his claim of DNA that doesn't have a sequence. It's been a while since I took Biochem but that doesn't even sound like it makes sense. Unless it was a bunch of disconnected bases...like a soup of A,G,C,T and phosphate sugars.

Quite. A bunch of disconnected bases isn't DNA, although it could be evidence that there had been DNA.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m no expert on identification.
So take the following with a pinch.

I think people identification is not a full sequence, or anything like, it involves looking at specific parts of a genome looking for repeats of specific sequences in areas that are known to be very person variable. So called tandem repeats,. The absence of an identity means lack of specific sequence repeats, not necessarily absence of bases.

So it’s the identity codes that are missing. What that means at molecular levels I do not know.( and I suspect neither do they) . They were all surprised by it. I would have to check the reports to see whether PCR screwed up completely, or they just could not find the tandem repeats. I think the latter. There was a lot of DNA.

Fair enough. I'm unlikely to in the immediate future because my backlog of reading materials is getting to be too large. Just thought there might be some good science on line.



I spent most of my adult life working with lab equipment. There's ALWAYS potential error. Even if you scan it 3 times.



So the quote from Fiori was in error? There was DNA?

Who should I believe now?



What exactly does that mean? "Would not sequence"? If it had DNA then it should be sequence-able. That is like saying "It is a dog but it lacks a snout, legs, fur, a body, teeth, eyes and a tail."

It literally makes no sense.



That they are things they are not?



The word "impossible" isn't really applicable.



How on earth would anyone know that if they couldn't sequence it?



More special pleading.



If Jesus had DNA it has a sequence by definition. There is no way DNA could exist without a SEQUENCE.

Again, this is like saying 2+2 = Litterbox. It makes no sense.

 

[Opdrey]

So are all the pathologists struggling with it. It is outside normal experience, But it’s been tested so many times it’s a fact.

But I guess my question is what does it mean that they found DNA but couldn't sequence it. Surely in the books they explain that bit, right?

Was it just a mix of nucleic acids and phosphate sugars? Or was it actual DNA? If DNA then surely PARTS of it could be sequenced.

As a miracle it is an interesting nuance to prove that they cannot be faked or substituted.

Why couldn't an admixture of nucleic acids and phosphate sugars not be faked? That's a serious question.

 

[Opdrey]

I’m no expert on identification.
So take the following with a pinch.

I think people identification is not a full sequence, or anything like, it involves looking at specific parts of a genome looking for repeats of specific sequences in areas that are known to be very person variable. So called tandem repeats,. The absence of an identity means lack of specific sequence repeats, not necessarily absence of bases.

I believe that generally speaking "sequence" is the order of the base pairs (HERE) which is actually a pretty simple concept. It just figures out what order the base pairs are in on the DNA strand.

I am still struggling to understand how one can claim to have found DNA but it can't be sequenced. It is like saying you found a chain but you can't see any links.

So it’s the identity codes that are missing. What that means at molecular levels I do not know.( and I suspect neither do they)

I don't think that is what DNA sequencing is. I don't know what "identity codes" are.

. They were all surprised by it. I would have to check the reports to see whether PCR screwed up completely, or they just could not find the tandem repeats. I think the latter. There was a lot of DNA.

A lot of DNA that didn't yield any base-pair sequences? That really is causing my brain to hurt.

Maybe what they found was just various nucleic acids and some phosphate sugars and inferred that there might have been DNA at some point but it was completely destroyed now.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Neither scientific, nor biblical.

Nor particularly coherent.

 

[SelfSim]

I think people identification is not a full sequence, or anything like, it involves looking at specific parts of a genome looking for repeats of specific sequences in areas that are known to be very person variable. So called tandem repeats,. The absence of an identity means lack of specific sequence repeats, not necessarily absence of bases.

So it’s the identity codes that are missing.

Q3) Please define 'identity codes' as you use the term in this case.

 

[SelfSim]

I am still struggling to understand how one can claim to have found DNA but it can't be sequenced. It is like saying you found a chain but you can't see any links.

White blood cells normally contain both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA.
The mitochondrial may have been readable and sequenced but the nuclear DNA was not.

 

[Opdrey]

Plant life was restarted the same way after the Flood.

All plant life? Or just land-plants? There is aquatic plant life.

 

[AV1611VET]

All plant life? Or just land-plants? There is aquatic plant life.

Hmmm ... never thought of that.

Dunno.

 

[Mountainmike]

Q3) Please define 'identity codes' as you use the term in this case.

Look it up. What happens when a lab is asked to do a DNA profile for identification. As I said, my background knowledge ( from listening to programs starting with Alec Jeffries in identifying killers)
Is that I think they sequence small areas of the Genome which are known to differ between even close family. ( which was Jeffries real breakthrough) Most of the genome is common. I also believe they actually look for the number of repeats of specific sequences not just the existence of them “ tandem repeats”, so the absence of all of them- that none of them would PCR - was a complete surprise,
It’s a standard test worldwide . Look it up.

Contrary to some popular belief they don’t sequence the entire genome, or even a small part of it. It is a set of specific markers, and I think the number of repeats of those sequences that are used for “ identity” codes.

 

[Opdrey]

Hmmm ... never thought of that.

Dunno.

Isn't it in the Bible somewhere? Can't you infer it? You seem to have a pretty strong track record of inferring amazing levels of information from the Bible. Sounds like a new research project for you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't it in the Bible somewhere? Can't you infer it? You seem to have a pretty strong track record of inferring amazing levels of information from the Bible. Sounds like a new research project for you!

Well I do find it difficult to believe aquatic plant life survived the Flood.

Especially salt water plants suddenly being surrounded by fresh water, and vice versa.

 

[Opdrey]

Well I do find it difficult to believe aquatic plant life survived the Flood.

...and thus is new exegesis created ex nihilo!