Prove it or remove it challenge

[lasthero]

Doesn't actually prove anything, and it surely doesn't diminish my skepticism concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods. If anything it only supports my conclusion that man is far from being able to discern such a difficult mystery.

So let me get this straight..

You pretty much claim that there's no such thing as Junk DNA, and that it's all nescessary.

Dogma references a study that shows mice operate just fine without 22 milion of their base pairs.

You're response to this, which essentially demolishes your contention is 'So what? Scientists could be wrong!'

Really?

Okay.

By the way, though, I'm curious - what purpose do chickens have for the DNA to make teeth? Why do whales have the DNA to make legs? What purpose is that serving in them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let me get this straight..

You pretty much claim that there's no such thing as Junk DNA, and that it's all nescessary.

Dogma references a study that shows mice operate just fine without 22 milion of their base pairs.

You're response to this, which essentially demolishes your contention is 'So what? Scientists could be wrong!'

Really?

Okay.

By the way, though, I'm curious - what purpose do chickens have for the DNA to make teeth? Why do whales have the DNA to make legs? What purpose is that serving in them?

And in answer to the question that he is afraid to answer why do amoebas have up to 200 times the size of the genome that people do?

I love it when creationists try to say that DNA has to be "information" without defining it and then to make it worse they claim that there is no "Junk DNA". Of course Junk DNA is something that is inexplicable from a creationist point of view, but so is a simple one celled creature that has 200 times our DNA inexplicable from that belief.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are some pretty serious issues with your theory.

And one good thing about science is the scientists. The way the cycle goes is that if you discover something new that repudiates previous discoveries, you get to be famous and they give you a prize, keeping in mind that Ptolemy is still fighting Copernicus in some people's minds.

And most scientists do want the truth to prevail, although it's counter-intuitive that Chinese paleontologists can look at the Cambrian period and say "Darwin might have been wrong" while western paleontologists look at the same evidence and do backflips to try to shoehorn the data into their extant paradigm.

In this case, however, the lack of simplicity at the fundamental level of life is a serious, serious obstacle to your theory.

This^^^. Says all I need to know about your understanding of real science, and betrays the fact all you've ever looked at are theocreationist sites.

You really do have nothing to offer, which is why you resorted to bluff and bluster so soon.

A bit like playing chess with pigeons, eh.

 

[Lulav]

MOD HAT
CLOSED FOR REVIEW

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up to remove a lot of Flaming/Goading posts. The Flaming and Goading rules state:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

You can find those listed within the Board Rules

You are to treat ALL members with courtesty and respect through CIVIL dialogue. That was not happening here. You are also supposed to address the content of a post NOT the poster personally. If someone is breaking the rules report them and DO NOT REPLY to their post(s). Let staff handle it.

Now this thread will be reopened but if you all continue to post like you were this thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Paterfamilia]

This^^^. Says all I need to know about your understanding of real science, and betrays the fact all you've ever looked at are theocreationist sites.

You really do have nothing to offer, which is why you resorted to bluff and bluster so soon.

A bit like playing chess with pigeons, eh.

Chess with pigeons???

Anyway, as I said earlier, the fact is that the more science proves about cell biology, the more complex we find that to be.

Irreducible complexity as a concept is understood to refer to multi-part structures or processes that lose capacity to function if any discrete part is removed.

But what if we take the concept and apply it a bit differently. The smallest, simplest, single-celled organism is irreducibly complex with regard to its essential life functions. We know of other, simpler cells (viruses, etc) but they can't live without some symbiosis or other outside help.

Is it at all troublesome to evolutionists that the essential life structures and processes add up to a number in the many hundreds?

In other words, we should be able to have at least one feasible hypothesis of how all of those essential elements came together and processes got started shouldn't we?

We can talk about how that small dash of LIFE got thrown in later. One thing at a time.

This is a fascinating article (not from theocreationist website) that describes computer cell modeling.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/computer-model-organism-071812.html

 

[Armoured]

Chess with pigeons???

Anyway, as I said earlier, the fact that the more science proves about cell biology, the more complex we find that to be.

Irreducible complexity as a concept is understood to refer to multi-part structures or processes that lose capacity to function if any discrete part is removed.

But what if we take the concept and apply it a bit differently. The smallest simplest single-called organism is irreducibly complex with regard to its essential life functions. We know of other, simpler cells (viruses, etc) but they can't live without some symbiosis or other outside help.

Is it at all troublesome that the essential life structures and processes add up to a number in the many hundreds?

In other words, we should be able to have at least one feasible hypothesis of how all of those essential elements came together and processes got started shouldn't we?

We can talk about how that small dash of LIFE got thrown in later. One thing at a time.

This is a fascinating article (not from theocreationist website) that describes computer cell modeling.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/computer-model-organism-071812.html

Irreducible complexity is a failed argument. Yes, removing any given vital component of a cell as it exists currently would kill it, that doesn't mean that it's precursors required the same component.

Best analogy I've seen for this sort of thing;

Take the Army (or the large complex organisation of your choice). The modern Army cannot, simply can NOT exist without its complex pay structure and network. Simply couldn't exist, at all.

So does this make the Army an example of irreducible complexity? Of course not. The pay structure of the modern Army developed from nothing and evolved along with the rest of the organisation. The modern Army is directly traceable back to roving Viking war bands and feudal fyrds, which didn't even have a pay structure. But as the Army became larger and more complex, structures that facilitated the growth of complexity were adopted, and in their own turn, became increasingly complex.

Modern cells are kinda like that.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Irreducible complexity is a failed argument. Yes, removing any given vital component of a cell as it exists currently would kill it, that doesn't mean that it's precursors required the same component.

Best analogy I've seen for this sort of thing;

Take the Army (or the large complex organisation of your choice). The modern Army cannot, simply can NOT exist without its complex pay structure and network. Simply couldn't exist, at all.

So does this make the Army an example of irreducible complexity? Of course not. The pay structure of the modern Army developed from nothing and evolved along with the rest of the organisation. The modern Army is directly traceable back to roving Viking war bands and feudal fyrds, which didn't even have a pay structure. But as the Army became larger and more complex, structures that facilitated the growth of complexity were adopted, and in their own turn, became increasingly complex.

Modern cells are kinda like that.

Okay. Irreducible complexity is not a failed argument, and there are quite a few examples at this point.

Your "best" analogy fails on several points. First, if the complex pay structure disappeared, the army would generate a different pay structure. The army wouldn't die.

Second, modern cells differ very little from ancient cells. They had all the same components.

 

[Armoured]

Okay. Irreducible complexity is not a failed argument, and there are quite a few examples at this point.

name three?

Your "best" analogy fails on several points. First, if the complex pay structure disappeared, the army would generate a different pay structure. The army wouldn't die.

Obviously never been a soldier, then.

Second, modern cells differ very little from ancient cells. They had all the same components.

Nonsense.

 

[Paterfamilia]

When a term such as "information" is used colloquially, as it was in your quotes, that does not support your use of the term "information", Paterfamilia.

Again, you are making an equivocation error. If you want to claim that it is "information" in the sense that it had to be written by an intelligence you are going to need a lot more evidence than that.

This is from a paper "Quantitative linguistic study of DNA sequences" published in "Science Direct" that was mentioned on a physics forum that I frequent.

"ABSTRACT
A new family of compound Poisson distribution functions from quantitative linguistics is used to study the linguistic features of DNA sequences that go beyond the Zipf's law. The relative frequency distribution of n-tuples and the compositional segmentation study can be fit reasonably well using this new family of distribution functions. On the other hand, the absolute values of the relative frequency come out naturally from the linguistic model without ambiguity. It is suggesting that DNA sequences have features that resemble natural language and it may be modeled by linguistic methodology."

Please let me know if you want me to translate any of it for you, or explain the ramifications.

 

[Paterfamilia]

name three?Obviously never been a soldier, then.Nonsense.

Yeah, listen I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you. Sorry about that but your answers don't make any sense.

I served in the US Air Force.

Cyanobacteria are the oldest fossils (3.5 billion years old) and are nearly identical to Cyanobacteria alive today.

 

[Armoured]

Yeah, listen I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you. Sorry about that but your answers don't make any sense.

I served in the US Air Force.

Cyanobacteria are the oldest fossils (3.5 billion years old) and are nearly identical to Cyanobacteria alive today.

And you think the airfarce would show up to work without pay??

Cyanobacteria might be the oldest fossils, that doesn't mean they are the earliest life form.

 

[Nithavela]

Chess with pigeons???

It's a description of someones experience while debating someone. Basically, the explanation is that no matter how well you play against the pidgeon, no matter how well thought out your stratagems and moves are, the pidgeon will swipe the pieces from the board, defecate on it and fly away to claim victory in front of it's pals.

 

[Paterfamilia]

It's a description of someones experience while debating someone. Basically, the explanation is that no matter how well you play against the pidgeon, no matter how well thought out your stratagems and moves are, the pidgeon will swipe the pieces from the board, defecate on it and fly away to claim victory in front of it's pals.

Ha ha I would have gotten it if he had said seagull!

 

[Paterfamilia]

And you think the airfarce would show up to work without pay??

Cyanobacteria might be the oldest fossils, that doesn't mean they are the earliest life form.

I think the US Air Force could work out a different pay system. It wouldn't die.

If evolution is true, Cyanobacteria could not be the earliest life form. Thats your problem, not mine.

This is what I meant about your answers. Please wait a few minutes before you answer again. I want to see how this "ignore" feature works.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha that's awesome!

 

[Armoured]

I think the US Air Force could work out a different pay system. It wouldn't die.

If evolution is true, Cyanobacteria could not be the earliest life form. Thats your problem, not mine.

This is what I meant about your answers. Please wait a few minutes before you answer again. I want to see how this "ignore" feature works.

No one says cyanobacteria is the earliest life form, so why is that a problem for anyone?

wait, you accept science when it says "cyanobacteria is the earliest fossil" but not when science says "evolution is the best explanation for biodiversity we have"?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Good grief...

Please take your dog and find a different thread, or at least someone else to question.

 

[Armoured]

Good grief...

Please take your dog and find a different thread, or at least someone else to question.

Yeah, good argument.

 

[Gene2memE]

If evolution is true, Cyanobacteria could not be the earliest life form.

Why would this possibly be true? Cyanobacteria emerged somewhere around 1.6-2 billion years later than the earliest life we have evidence for, certainly no earlier than 1 billion years:

The Evolutionary Diversification of Cyanobacteria: Molecular- Phylogenetic and Paleontological Perspectives

"Time Calibration for the Tree of Life. Integrating molecular phylo-genetic, physiological, paleontological, and geochemical data, we
propose that the clade of cyanobacteria marked by heterocyst and akinete differentiation evolved once between 2,450 and 2,100 Ma." [Ma = million years ago]​

Are you aware of just how diverse cyanobacteria are? Or that their genetic diversity provides another strong layer of evidence for evolution?

Phenotypic and genetic diversification of Pseudanabaena spp. (cyanobacteria).

"Our preliminary results on population genetic analyses of the PC genes suggest an evolutionary diversification of Pseudanabaena through purifying selection"​

Cyanobacteria are unusually morphologically and genetically diverse. We know of 60 plus basic morphotypes that we can trace genetically back to cyanobacteria in the 1.5-2 Ma period alone.

There are entire TEXT BOOKS written about them and their evolutionary history. Clearly geneticists and biologists have no issues with cyanobacteria and evolution, otherwise they wouldn't be using it as a teaching example.