Food for thought

[Yog^sothoth]

Here is a thought for the day, it's from me, not any sort of scholarly thingy, just making an observational wonderment:

tRNA intially transcribes a whole slew of information from DNA, sure it stops at the terminator reigons but it transcribes a lot more than it has to and as far as I have read, no one knows why. Now, what if the introns (the excess info transcribed and then discarded before protein synthesis begins) are simply inert genes or traits that exsist within all people that could be activated if or when we need them (i.e. population crisis, plague, man-made disease, nuclear winter). In all that is god, he could have forseen all things in the future and mayhap added this functionality to our DNA "just-in-case" we needed it.

Just a thought.

[Socrates]

No, tRNA is involved in translation of the mRNA into proteins. By this time it gets to this stage, the introns have already been spliced out. Transcription is the process of making a "negative" copy of RNA from the region of DNA required.

But you're right -- all the time, important functions are being found for so-called junk DNA. The very fact of complex splicing machinery, called spliceosomes, should be a hint that the introns are there for a reason.

[Berserker]

he means mRNA. Intron are believe to be best used for controling the rate of protein production and the efficiency of a protein at doing it catalyzing task.

[TenDimensions]

02-17-2003 @ 08:19 AM
Socrates:

No, tRNA is involved in translation of the mRNA into proteins. By this time it gets to this stage, the introns have already been spliced out. Transcription is the process of making a "negative" copy of RNA from the region of DNA required.

But you're right -- all the time, important functions are being found for so-called junk DNA. The very fact of complex splicing machinery, called spliceosomes, should be a hint that the introns are there for a reason.

So I suspect your argument is that "junk" DNA isn't really junk at all. It's true that we're still unraveling the mysteries of DNA and figuring out what it does and how it works - we probably know a fraction of what can be known regarding it - after all the science is barely fifty years old!

The problem though, is that Creationists will extrapolate the "unknown" into "can't be" and so continually ask for evidence of mutated "information" fully formed, when that is not what evolution is really about.

A mutation can be sufficient to just create additional genetic material (very documented) - and then through reshuffling, reordering, and selection (again very documented) you get the final product you're looking for, information. Just because we learning about purposes for the "junk" DNA doesn't necessarily mean that it's *all* going to have to have usefulness. Not only that, but to make things really complicated - some sections of DNA may have multiple uses! The entire science of genetics and bioogical evolution is incredibly complex and just beginning to grow into a fully formed, well understood science.

[The next is taken from another post of mine that I wanted to repeat here]

It's the quest of Creationists to look for "fully formed" structures from mutations which leads to their idea that evolution is impossible. The idea of "irreducible complexity" completely and utterly leaves out the possibility that the "structure" that seems to be too complex to form in steps may have formed in steps with other components that are no longer present.

Like interlacing four knives over five cups in an X formation and taking away the middle cup when you're done. Studying the four cups with the four interlaced knives - wow - how could that have evolved?

There are steps that had to be taken to get where we are today - some of those steps are known and some aren't. But in science you can't just fill in those steps with God - you need to say "I don't know" and go figure it out!

[Socrates]

10Dim wrote:
So I suspect your argument is that "junk" DNA isn't really junk at all. It's true that we're still unraveling the mysteries of DNA and figuring out what it does and how it works - we probably know a fraction of what can be known regarding it - after all the science is barely fifty years old!And there are new discoveries all the time!

The problem though, is that Creationists will extrapolate the "unknown" into "can't be" ... That's precisely what evolutionists do with "junk DNA" other "vestigial" organ claims -- we don't know the function, ergo it has none, so can't have been designed.


... and so continually ask for evidence of mutated "information" fully formed, when that is not what evolution is really about.The goo-to-you theory does require a source of new information. Bait'n'switch tactics with the word "evolution" won't work on me, so don't try the "evolution=change" furphy.

A mutation can be sufficient to just create additional genetic material (very documented)[quote]Why don't you do so rather than expect us to take your word for it?

[quote]Just because we learning about purposes for the "junk" DNA doesn't necessarily mean that it's *all* going to have to have usefulness. But it does show that the whole notion of "junkiness" should not be presumed. Rather, one should presume that complex splicing machinery is there for a reason, so the introns have some reason to exist.

Not only that, but to make things really complicated - some sections of DNA may have multiple uses! Which is further support for the creation model!


[The next is taken from another post of mine that I wanted to repeat here][/quoteIt doesn't make it any stronger, any more than gene duplication creates new information.
[quote]
It's the quest of Creationists to look for "fully formed" structures from mutations which leads to their idea that evolution is impossible. The idea of "irreducible complexity" completely and utterly leaves out the possibility that the "structure" that seems to be too complex to form in steps may have formed in steps with other components that are no longer present.Let's have some specifics rather than handwaving.

There are steps that had to be taken to get where we are today - some of those steps are known and some aren't. But in science you can't just fill in those steps with God ...No, the ID argument is based NOT on gaps in knowledge, but with what we DO know about information theory.


- you need to say "I don't know" and go figure it out!No, you already make up your mind to say "Mutations and natural selection did it", and then try to make up just-so stories to explain it.

[Stratnerd]

we don't know the function, ergo it has none, so can't have been designed. So God wouldn't create something without fiunction? Can we therefore assume that everything has function? What's the logic here?
Rather, one should presume that complex splicing machinery is there for a reason, who would assume that a "complex splicing machinery" doesn't have a function?

Which is further support for the creation model! which is what: "poof"?
No, the ID argument is based NOT on gaps in knowledge, but with what we DO know about information theory. Your presumption is that God did it so how is information theory going to give us details/mechanisms of the process?

[TenDimensions]

02-22-2003 @ 01:33 PM
Socrates:

The goo-to-you theory does require a source of new information. Bait'n'switch tactics with the word "evolution" won't work on me, so don't try the "evolution=change" furphy.


Evolution is change!! There are three components necessary for evolution to take place:

1) A "thing" that can reproduce in some imperfect manner

2) An environment which allows for only some "things" to reproduce successfully based on some component of the "thing"

3) Some mutations that allow for diversity

The principals of evolution are being applied all over the place and it only amounts to change! Ideas evolve through their reproduction in our minds and us retelling them (see Dawkins' meme idea). Evolution is being applied in the creation of circuit boards! The outcome is "selected" for, so it's not a perfect analogy to biological evolution, but nonetheless, it is the direct application of the above three principals. See Scientific American Feb. 2003 "Evolving Inventions", pg. 52. In some cases we don't even know how these things work.


But it does show that the whole notion of "junkiness" should not be presumed. Rather, one should presume that complex splicing machinery is there for a reason, so the introns have some reason to exist.

How exactly does on trade one presumption for another? How about - we presume nothing until we come up with a scientific answer?


Which is further support for the creation model!

That's precisely why I said it - because I knew you would say that and would take great joy in even more evidence. Trust me, if you read the passage on how a bat's sonar works in Dawkins' The Blindwatch Maker there is no doubt you'd see a ton of creationist evidence.

Let's have some specifics rather than handwaving.[/QUOTE

Yes, yes. You're free to call me on that stuff. But it takes time and if we can't have a gentlemen's agreement regarding evidence we'll never get anywhere. Theoretically you could ask me to cite references for nearly everything I say and we'd get no where. But don't worry, I know the idea of additional genetic material is simply too much to swallow, so check out this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and in particular look at:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

I really only need to demonstrate one instance of additional genetic material, right? Of course, there is still the idea of "downhill evolution" that I need to disprove somehow.

[QUOTE]No, the ID argument is based NOT on gaps in knowledge, but with what we DO know about information theory.

I know that's what you think and the problem isn't with information theory - it's the understanding of what evolution means. As I said, evolution doesn't require full formed information to spring out of mutation - in fact, that's probably highly unlikely. All that is really required is more genetic raw material (documented above) and natural selection to work upon it. What aspect of what I'm stating (and sharing documentation for) are you exactly disagreeing with?

No, you already make up your mind to say "Mutations and natural selection did it", and then try to make up just-so stories to explain it.

As I said, every single aspect of evolution is not fully understood. But the idea that evolutionary process can lead to the diversity of life on this planet is a much smaller leap when compared to what ID theory would have us believe. Shall we go through them?

1) Geology is way off base. How knowledge of how sedimentary rocks formed are completely wrong. (On a side note: I'd like to see one instance of a Creationist who fits the following profile: a) Is an active geologist doing field work b) works for a company that is dependent on making money based on his findings c) is a complete and utter devote to the principals laid out at AiG)

2) Plate tectonics is completely wrong

3) Physics with regards to the speed of light? Totally wrong.

4) Radiological dating? Wrong. Even half-life theories could be wrong.

5) Ideas about the Ice Age? All wrong.

There are more - my point is that if you're going to propose a theory that is going to displace so many other known scientific theories, you've got to have one airtight theory that can explain all the existing phenomena. Let me know what you think about the stuff at
Morton's (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/Cre-Ev.htm) site. This should provide plenty of evidence and citations to keep you busy for a while.

[Berserker]

Socrates,

You still trying to say mutation cannot produce "new Information" and therefore evolution is hindered greatly? Did you not comprehend my very simple examples on another thread on how mutation could in fact make more information? Do you want me to show it to you again?

[Socrates]

10D
Evolution is change!! Whoopee, then I must be an evolutionist too! When you quit baiting and switching, I might take you seriously.

1) Geology is way off base. How knowledge of how sedimentary rocks formed are completely wrong.No, just deficient because they ASSUME slow and gradual changes.

(On a side note: I'd like to see one instance of a Creationist who fits the following profile: a) Is an active geologist doing field work b) works for a company that is dependent on making money based on his findings c) is a complete and utter devote to the principals laid out at AiG)There have been a number interviewed in Creation magazine. Ex-AiG Ph.D. geologist Andrew Snelling was one who was employed as a consultant. And this charge neglects that creationists can believe in certain correlations without the age.

2) Plate tectonics is completely wrongNo, many creationists believe in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp)

3) Physics with regards to the speed of light? Totally wrong.
AiG is not dogmatic on c-decay as amply shown.4) Radiological dating? Wrong.And have been frequently shown to be in the articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp)

Even half-life theories could be wrong.Indeed there is laboratory evidence that they can change markedly—see Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp).

5) Ideas about the Ice Age? All wrong.No, just that the evidence points to a single ice age advancing and retreating rather than many. Furthermore, the Genesis Flood provides a mechanism for the cool continents and warm oceans required—see Ice Age (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.asp).

Let me know what you think about the stuff at Morton's site.Glenn Moron's just an embittered turncoat, and he has only a bachelor's degree in physics. But this doesn't stop him prattling on every topic under the sun as if he's an expert. He's basically the Farrell Till of Creation/Evolution, spitting venom on his former co-believers in a vain effort to justify his apostasy to himself.

Moron even thinks he's an expert in Hebrew, claiming that “very good” in Genesis 1:31 really means “mostly good”. What a joke, totally contrary to any lexical evidence about the meaning of tov meod—I'm sure GrayPilgrim would think that was an incredible assertion by Moron.

Moron was also misleading to the point of lying about John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (http://www.rae.org/faqark.htm). For example, he claimed that Woodmorappe suggested that animals were trained to excrete into a bucket, and naturally every ha'penny God-hater inhabiting the darker hovels on the Internet has parroted this. But Woodmorappe mentioned training only in passing, and into a gutter or dunging area. But check his book for yourself—he spent far more time discussing slatted floors (very common in sheep shearing pens in my country), sloped floors and deep bedding, and the possibility of vermicomposting to destroy manure. None of this would require any training.

No wonder all the leading creationists I know and know of advise against wasting time with this person, until he retracts at least the worst of the crass arguments he has advanced. But atheists like you love him and are only too happy to use him as a useful idiot, and he's most willing to be unequally yoked with.

[Yog^sothoth]

Socrates, while I agree with you on most points I have to point out something which bothers...me. :argh:


Glenn Moron's just an embittered turncoat, and he has only a bachelor's degree in physics. But this doesn't stop him prattling on every topic under the sun as if he's an expert. He's basically the Farrell Till of Creation/Evolution, spitting venom on his former co-believers in a vain effort to justify his apostasy to himself.


A better piece of paper than another guy does not nessecitate enhanced intelligence. Shall I consider you a moron untill you show me your credentials? I'm not saying the guy is all that but some of the most intelligent people in the world hold nothing in the way of degrees.

Working in a pharmacy day in and day out has proven to me that years and years of school does not make a man smart....or intelligent.

Ok. my $0.02

[Berserker]

Socrates

Actually it is a fallacy to say some one is wrong because of the qualities of the person rather then their argument! In philosophy it is referred to as an Ad Hominem. Actually now that I think about it is kind of funny you choose the name Socrates considering that you constantly disregard the very subject he created.

Also as for my first statement above and on the other the thread you still have not refuted it.

[TenDimensions]

02-23-2003 @ 03:59 AM
Socrates:

Glenn Moron's just an embittered turncoat, and he has only a bachelor's degree in physics. But this doesn't stop him prattling on every topic under the sun as if he's an expert. He's basically the Farrell Till of Creation/Evolution, spitting venom on his former co-believers in a vain effort to justify his apostasy to himself.

Wow, Socrates, I'm really disappointed in this response. You're entitled to your opinions, but I was hoping you would at least attempt to put forth some serious debunking of his claims.

For instance, I find this single page (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm) extremely interesting. I'd love to hear any amount of refuting on any of this information. And no fair pointing out that AiG doesn't like using the shrinking sun evidence any longer (see I actually do read AiG! :brow: ) - how about taking a look at the other evidence there as well? And that's just a single page.

As for your rant on the Ark - I'm not even arguing that at this point. All I'm asking is for you to read through that single link and explain to me how he's wrong. Just because a person may be incorrect on one statement doesn't necessarily indicate they are wrong on their other claims and I'd be very interested to hear how you feel Morton is wrong at the above mentioned link.

I also found it interesting that you basically agreed with all five of my points regarding science that needs to be either radically changed or thrown out entirely. You are familiar with the concept of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right? You're basically saying that scientists in their respective fields have it all wrong simply because you can't accept evolution as a real possibility.

[Socrates]

----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:

Glenn Moron's just an embittered turncoat, and he has only a bachelor's degree in physics. But this doesn't stop him prattling on every topic under the sun as if he's an expert. He's basically the Farrell Till of Creation/Evolution, spitting venom on his former co-believers in a vain effort to justify his apostasy to himself.
----------------------------------------------------------

10D:
Wow, Socrates, I'm really disappointed in this response.Tough. Same goes for the others who whinged about ad hominem but clearly don't understand it a bit. I never said "Moron is a pillock therefore he is automatically wrong." I merely pointed out that a pillock like him is not someone worth wasting any time with, and gave some examples of where he is wrong.

For one thing, if he had real qualifications in that on which he speaks, I might take him seriously. But as shown, he makes all sorts of absurd pronouncements outside his field. His unrepentant dishonesty about the Ark is further reason not to trust him.

I'm surprised that you would have any respect for turncoats either. For example, Benedict Arnold provided useful information to the British, but the British still despised him for the rest of his life.

You're entitled to your opinions, but I was hoping you would at least attempt to put forth some serious debunking of his claims.Why? Not only is he a nobody with a website, but either they are claims that AiG doesn't make (as you acknowledge) or else they are answered on the website.

....

I also found it interesting that you basically agreed with all five of my points regarding science that needs to be either radically changed or thrown out entirely.That's not what I said actually. And in any case, my disagreements are never with real operational science.

You are familiar with the concept of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right? You're basically saying that scientists in their respective fields have it all wrong simply because you can't accept evolution as a real possibility.And all you can do is argue from authority.

[Yog^sothoth]

Socrates, why should we believe or take anything you say with anything more than the waste of bandwidth you claim everything else to be? What are YOUR credentials? What are YOUR claims? You spend all your time driving traffic to AiG yet spend nothing in the amount of actual knowledge from your brain. Enlighten us with your knowledge. Since you hold them in such high regard, what degrees do you hold? What makes you such an expert?

I doubt you'll respond but its worth a shot

[Berserker]

Yog^sothoth

Attacking a person on a personal level is wrong! No matter how many times he does it to us... just remember he will go to his hell for his unchristian behavior!

[Yog^sothoth]

who's attacking anyone? I was just curious and making a post alla socrates style. It's all good!

this is attacking someone.

Beserker, you are a fool!

see, an attack. :brow:

Touche'!:cheers:

[Snowball]

I know this has nothing to do with this topic, but please, Berserker, do a little studying as to what Christians actually believe! Your understanding of hell and how we believe a person ends up there is severely lacking. :bawl:

Here's a tip: know your enemy BEFORE you engage them!

As far as attacking someone on a personal level, well, the truth hurts!

[Berserker]

I just feel it is wrong to question people based of who they are and yes I know what Christians believe I think it say somewhere in there to treat other as you would like them to treat you(Something like that the quotes are here somewhere) I just don't think Socrates would like being treated the why he treats others.