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

In the Beginning was Information.

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I am not sure what would be worse. They are different, but come to the same 'worse' conclusion. Gitt is more a belief simply by assertion that God is the source of information and the Bible is the record of God's information. Spetner makes more of an effort to 'prove' erroneously evolution cannot come about by 'chance,' which is more in line with the Discovery Institute's goal s and efforts to support ID.
    Ok, so I take it you see Spetner as slightly more 'scientific' in his arguments. Ok, I can accept that.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by DaveB View Post
      And if several ribonucleotide bases are joined together into a single polymeric ribonucleic acid molecule, which is what happens during transcription, that would also be a chemical reaction.
      No, it is not a chemical reaction. And I don't even know what you mean by bases joining together. The bases along a strand of DNA or RNA doesn't even come into contact with each other.
      I was going to write a technical response here, but I can't see the point. You know perfectly well that RNA is formed by linking the ribose of one ribonucleotide to the phosphate group of another, and the net effect is a strand in which ribonucleotide bases are strung together like diamonds on a bracelet - joined together but not necessarily directly touching.

      Yet you claim these strands are formed without a chemical reaction. How do you think the ribonucleotides get joined? Magnetism? Elastic bands? Rivets?

      Oh, wait. There's no reason to care what you think.
      Last edited by Roy; 07-12-2019, 02:37 PM.
      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by DaveB View Post
        "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
        No, that's creationism.

        You could Google it if you wanted to.
        No, that's the definition of "Intelligent design" from Of Pandas and People. I'd suggest you try Googling it yourself, but I suspect you already know this and are trying to pretend otherwise.
        Last edited by Roy; 07-12-2019, 02:38 PM.
        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


        • #94
          Originally posted by DaveB View Post
          As a software engineer, you should realize that genetic algorithms, while great for harnessing the power of a computer to solve specific problems, are lousy as an example of evolution.

          A genetic algorithm combines artificial selection (selection based on a pre-specified goal) with artificial "breeding" (breeding only those that are artificially selected). Evolution has no such goal.
          Most genetic algorithms have no pre-specified goal either - there wouldn't be much point in using them if they did - only a means of deciding which artificial organisms survive in competition.
          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


          • #95
            Originally posted by Roy View Post


            from Of Pandas and people.
            "cdesign proponentsists"

            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


            • #96
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I mistyped the previous pot.
              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


              • #97
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                No, that's the definition of "Intelligent design" from Of Pandas and People. I'd suggest you try Googling it yourself, but I suspect you already know this and are trying to pretend otherwise.
                We need to give DaveB credit for what's known as an "own goal".

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  Differential reproductive success. Individuals with reproductive advantage tend to reproduce more and spread their genes through the population. More Evolution 101 for you to learn.
                  A feedback mechanism feeds information about the output of a system back to something that controls the input. For example, the O2 sensor in a car's exhaust system feeds information about the exhaust gases back to the fuel system which can then adjust the fuel injection if necessary.

                  There are many feedback loops in the body, even at the cellular level. But, for evolution, the input is a random mutation and the output is an increase in fitness.

                  Correct?

                  Is there really a mechanism that feeds the fitness advantage of a mutation back to something that controls random mutations? (I don't think so).


                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  These sort of pre-biotic self replicators
                  Proteins were the first self replicators? Interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Intelligent Design is just rebranded Creationism. That was made clear over a decade ago when the IDiots face planted at Kitzmiller v. Dover.
                    You're half right. The ID textbook in the Dover case was a rebranded creationist textbook. And the school board members were creationists (young earth, I believe). But it wasn't the ID community that was pushing for the school policy.

                    If you want to say the ID implies a Creator, then I agree with you, but I think that ID can stand on its own in the question of whether something was designed or not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Hi, biologist here to tell you you have no idea of what you're talking about, and should probably learn some biology before claiming to be able to say anything about evolution.

                      DNA and RNA are a polymer with a backbone where sugars are linked through phosphodiester bonds. Creating these phosphodiester bonds involves a chemical reaction, typically catalyzed by an enzyme in cells. Pretty much all of biology can be distilled down to chemistry (reactions, charged/van der Waals interactions, etc.) if you look in enough detail.
                      You are aren't responding to what I said.

                      Here is what I was responding to.
                      And if several ribonucleotide bases are joined together into a single polymeric ribonucleic acid molecule, which is what happens during transcription, that would also be a chemical reaction.

                      Aside from the fact that saying bases are joined together is clearly wrong, my response was actually aimed at the bolded part of the post.

                      I'm saying that it isn't a (single) reaction. I'm not saying that there are no chemical reactions involved anywhere with transcription or translation (or biology in general),

                      But you saying that there are reactions involved at the lowest level is no different than an electrical engineer describing how the transistors and capacitors of computer memory work. So what? What is the importance of your argument?

                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Bases on a single strand of DNA and RNA also most certainly make contact with each other. They're hydrophobic, and typically stack on top of each other, as that's chemically favorable in an aqueous environment. In addition, the DNA/RNA strand can loop back and base pair with itself, forming what are called hairpin structures.
                      I admit that "don't come into contact with each other" was a poor choice of words. What I should have said is that the bases are not connected by a bond along a strand of DNA or mRNA.

                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      I care what informed people think, as i can often learn from them. But you've just demonstrated that, when it comes to biology, the opposite of what you say is likely to be true.
                      I might care about your comments if you had also corrected the errors of your cohort.
                      Last edited by DaveB; 07-16-2019, 12:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                        A feedback mechanism feeds information about the output of a system back to something that controls the input. For example, the O2 sensor in a car's exhaust system feeds information about the exhaust gases back to the fuel system which can then adjust the fuel injection if necessary.

                        There are many feedback loops in the body, even at the cellular level. But, for evolution, the input is a random mutation and the output is an increase in fitness.

                        Correct?

                        Is there really a mechanism that feeds the fitness advantage of a mutation back to something that controls random mutations? (I don't think so).
                        Repeated misuse and misrepresentation of 'randomness.' Only the timing of a mutation or any other event, is random. The processes and outcome of the chain of events involving evolution are not random. They are determined by the LAws of NAture and the environment.

                        The randomness of the timing of individual events cannot cause something to happen or not in a series of cause and effect outcomes.


                        Proteins were the first self replicators? Interesting.
                        Too simplistic a statement. The primitive RNA were the first replicators.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-16-2019, 12:48 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                          A feedback mechanism feeds information about the output of a system back to something that controls the input. For example, the O2 sensor in a car's exhaust system feeds information about the exhaust gases back to the fuel system which can then adjust the fuel injection if necessary.

                          There are many feedback loops in the body, even at the cellular level. But, for evolution, the input is a random mutation and the output is an increase in fitness.

                          Correct?

                          Is there really a mechanism that feeds the fitness advantage of a mutation back to something that controls random mutations? (I don't think so).
                          You're wrong as usual. The mechanism is differential reproductive success. I just explained to you how it works but apparently you just don't have the ability to understand even such a simple concept.

                          Proteins were the first self replicators? Interesting.
                          The paper was discussing pre-biotic self replicators, not proteins. You're making willful ignorance into an art form.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;650087]Repeated misuse and misrepresentation of 'randomness.' Only the timing of a mutation or any other event, is random. The processes and outcome of the chain of events involving evolution are not random. They are determined by the LAws of NAture and the environment.

                            I don't know where you're getting your definition of random, but if a mutation is random, not only is the "when" random, but also the "where" (where in the genome) and the "what" (what type of mutation).

                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Too simplistic a statement. The primitive RNA were the first replicators.
                            Not according to HMS_Beagle.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                              You're half right. The ID textbook in the Dover case was a rebranded creationist textbook. And the school board members were creationists (young earth, I believe). But it wasn't the ID community that was pushing for the school policy.
                              So Behe isn't a member of the ID community? Steve Fuller isn't a member of the ID community? Scott Minnich isn't a member of the ID community? Of course head ID spokeman at the time Bill Dembski was scheduled to testify but he chickened out.

                              Once again you have no idea what you're blithering about.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Repeated misuse and misrepresentation of 'randomness.' Only the timing of a mutation or any other event, is random. The processes and outcome of the chain of events involving evolution are not random. They are determined by the LAws of NAture and the environment.
                                I don't know where you're getting your definition of random, but if a mutation is random, not only is the "when" random, but also the "where" (where in the genome) and the "what" (what type of mutation).
                                The processes and outcomes of the chain of events aren't the mutation, they're the result of the natural selection process which isn't random. Your ignorance of basic biology is staggering.

                                Not according to HMS_Beagle.
                                I'll thank you to not lie and misrepresent what I've said.

                                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
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X