Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Trying this again ... Information ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I appreciate your confirmation of my hypothesis. It is a Jorge-worthy response.
    To your uncalled for Jorge-worthy insult.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      To your uncalled for Jorge-worthy insult.
      I wasn't intending to insult you, just expressing my opinion. I figured you'd take it as an insult, but there it is.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        I wasn't intending to insult you, just expressing my opinion. I figured you'd take it as an insult, but there it is.
        Gee, I was just expressing my opinion also. I figured you'd be thin skinned and whiny, someone who can't take in reply what they dished out, and there it is.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Gee, I was just expressing my opinion also. I figured you'd be thin skinned and whiny, someone who can't take in reply what they dished out, and there it is.
          Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.

          You may have the last word.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            And if you knew a bit of history you would know that one of the main reasons that the Puritans emigrated to America was that they were not comfortable remaining in a church whose leader was widely reported to be homosexual. This leader was King James, the head of the Church of England and the patron of your own favorite Bible translation, the KJV.
            I know my history well-enough, thank you. For instance, I seem to recall that King David committed acts of murder and adultery. Yet, strangely, God regarded David as "a man after Mine own heart".

            You just don't get what Christianity - the REAL Christianity - is all about, do you. That is easily understood - you've been surrounded by and immersed in a distorted, perverted version of "Christianity" for so long that you wouldn't recognize the genuine article if it kicked you in the groin. Those are the fruits of post-modern religiousness.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              YEC believe their view is fully Biblical. Or they would not hold that part of their view.

              Do you or do you agree or disagree that death existed prior to the fall of man? A key issue.

              Death of what? Of humans? Nope, not of humans. Insects, bacteria, plants - yeah, they "died" but that's not the relevant "death". None of those are spirit-filled flesh (only humans are).

              Jorge

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Jorge readily tosses the KJV under the bus in favor of what he deems inferior versions whenever the latter can be better used to support his YEC beliefs. After all, for Jorge, it is YEC that matters most of all.
                Edited by a Moderator

                Jorge

                Moderated By: Littlejoe

                Jorge, you KNOW better than that! You just got points last month for the same thing

                ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                Last edited by Littlejoe; 08-04-2017, 12:16 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I am fairly agnostic on the age of the earth. I tend to believe the universe is 15 Billion years old and the earth is 4 Billion but I would not be surprised to be wrong. I also believe in the literal story of Genesis although I don't know if the "days" are 24 hour periods or not, saying "there was evening and morning, the x day" seems to say it was. I don't believe in evolution, but again I am not opposed to being wrong. My and Jorge's beliefs on the topic are fairly close, I am just not dogmatic about it.

                  Yet according to him, I am not a Christian because I dare question his tactics and dogmatism.
                  Ignorance, if it is GENUINE ignorance, is forgiven. But never forget that you can fool others and even fool yourself but you cannot ever fool God. God knows what is in your heart.

                  As for the term "Agnostic" - there is no such thing, only pretenders to be. Consider the fact that while people claim to be "Agnostic" they will live out their lives under some position. For example, a person will say, "I am Agnostic on the issue of abortion" yet if a day comes when they must make a decision -- abort the baby or not OR vote for or against legal abortions -- they will take a stand and either abort or not OR vote for or against. At that moment their "doubt" must be tossed out the window and they make a Pro-Life or Pro-Death decision.

                  Life doesn't allow Agnostics because life forces decisions to be made. The "Agnostic" will sometimes say, "I made my decision based on gut or on faith, not on knowing." That is cop-out BS. The same faith or gut used to exercise the decision may be used to take a stand. In short, "Agnostics" are intellectual cowards - opting to tell themselves that they are "on the fence" when in fact they are living out their lives planted in one or the other position.

                  As for whether or not you are a Christian, that's not my call -- never has been, never will be. As I wrote at the start, we may fool others and even ourselves but we will never fool God. One of my guiding principles is this: if I know for certain or strongly suspect that I am compromising or distorting what I know in my heart to be the Truth then that cannot be right before God.

                  We will never have complete, perfect knowledge and so at some point faith must bridge the gap. The rest is Divine Revelation.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                    As for whether or not you are a Christian, that's not my call -- never has been, never will be.
                    Jorge

                    ahem:
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Here is my position ONE MORE TIME for those of you with a reading comprehension handicap:
                    "What I actually think is that only Biblical Creationists (aka, "YECs") are orthodox biblical Christians."
                    Let there be no more confusion or misrepresentations. Thanks.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • ''Mutations only degrade specificity''. Is there an actual rebuttal to such an statement?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                        ''Mutations only degrade specificity''. Is there an actual rebuttal to such an statement?
                        First you'd have to expand on what degradation and specificity mean in this context. Are we discussing sequence specificity, or enzyme specificity?
                        Does degradation mean enzymes etc become more specific, or less specific?

                        Anyway, here are extracts from two creationist articles that show nylonase evolution mutations both decreased then increased specificity:

                        The mutational changes of EII (6-aminohexanoatedimer hydrolase) have been characterized in detail. This analysis suggests that point mutations in a carboxyesterase gene lead to amino acid substitutions in the enzyme’s catalytic cleft. This altered the enzyme’s substrate specificity sufficiently that it could also hydrolyze linear nylon oligomers.Yet, the EII enzyme still possesses the esterase function of the parent esterase. Thus, the mutational alteration results in a reduction of the parent enzyme’s specificity . This enables it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon oligomers.

                        This is not the story of a highly improbable frame-shift producing a new functional enzyme. This is the story of a pre-existing enzyme with a low level of promiscuous nylonase activity, which improved its activity toward nylon by first one, then another selectable mutation. In other words this is a completely plausible case of gene duplication, mutation, and selection operating on a pre-existing enzyme to improve a pre-existing low-level activity, exactly the kind of event that Meyer and Axe specifically acknowledge as a possibility, given the time and probabilistic resources available.


                        So mutations first reduced specificity of an enzyme so that it had some activity on nylon. then increased specificity again as it became better tuned to nylon.

                        According to the creationists, anyway. Personally I don't trust anything they write, but since you're asking about one of their claims, citing their own work seems appropriate.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • P.S. If a point mutation results in production of an enzyme with degraded specificity, then obviously a reversal of that point mutation will subsequently improve the enzyme's specificity again. So this claim, like all others that claim "mutations only ..." is complete bollocks because whatever one point mutation does, a subsequent point mutation can do the opposite.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            P.S. If a point mutation results in production of an enzyme with degraded specificity, then obviously a reversal of that point mutation will subsequently improve the enzyme's specificity again. So this claim, like all others that claim "mutations only ..." is complete bollocks because whatever one point mutation does, a subsequent point mutation can do the opposite.
                            I know of this response, but... then the specificity only returned to its original state, it did not increase. This is know as a 'reverse mutation', is it not? To quote one creationist: ‘Back mutations’, replacing a letter in the DNA sequence which was faulty back to what it originally should have been, are not unknown. They certainly do not show us how significant information can arise de novo, as they merely (accidentally) ‘restore’ what should have been there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              First you'd have to expand on what degradation and specificity mean in this context. Are we discussing sequence specificity, or enzyme specificity?
                              Does degradation mean enzymes etc become more specific, or less specific?

                              Anyway, here are extracts from two creationist articles that show nylonase evolution mutations both decreased then increased specificity:

                              The mutational changes of EII (6-aminohexanoatedimer hydrolase) have been characterized in detail. This analysis suggests that point mutations in a carboxyesterase gene lead to amino acid substitutions in the enzyme’s catalytic cleft. This altered the enzyme’s substrate specificity sufficiently that it could also hydrolyze linear nylon oligomers.Yet, the EII enzyme still possesses the esterase function of the parent esterase. Thus, the mutational alteration results in a reduction of the parent enzyme’s specificity . This enables it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon oligomers.

                              This is not the story of a highly improbable frame-shift producing a new functional enzyme. This is the story of a pre-existing enzyme with a low level of promiscuous nylonase activity, which improved its activity toward nylon by first one, then another selectable mutation. In other words this is a completely plausible case of gene duplication, mutation, and selection operating on a pre-existing enzyme to improve a pre-existing low-level activity, exactly the kind of event that Meyer and Axe specifically acknowledge as a possibility, given the time and probabilistic resources available.


                              So mutations first reduced specificity of an enzyme so that it had some activity on nylon. then increased specificity again as it became better tuned to nylon.

                              According to the creationists, anyway. Personally I don't trust anything they write, but since you're asking about one of their claims, citing their own work seems appropriate.
                              IIRC, a point mutation generally leads to an altered product specificity and from there increased specificity can occur.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Are we discussing sequence specificity, or enzyme specificity?
                                Enzyme specificity.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X