Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Discovery Institute AND El Shamah?

Dude, you're smoking some good shit.

Did you read ONE thing I posted about how Behe sounds when he's under oath (and can thus be punished for provable perjury) versus how he promotes himself in his for-profit books?

More importantly, you obviously didn't read the article you're quoting about gene duplications clearly. I'm not going to chase down any more of your quote-mines. To make it easier for you, read the article you cited and see how many times the author says "evolution happened by..." In other words, he's saying he doesn't think there are enough examples of gene duplication causing new information without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons, not that he doubts evolution happened, or that gene duplication is not part of how evolution adds new information. He also posits that it requires a situation with little natural selection pressure (stable environment, etc) before the effect can happen at all.

Suffice to say, you're full of shit, and the people you're citing, who go through actual scientific articles without understanding what they're saying, just to pull out (or quote-mine) fragments they can pretend support Creationism, are the worst kind of scoundrels in the human race. You have been shown repeatedly that this is the case, yet you keep citing the same website's information as if the NEXT article will be true, like rounds fired from a machinegun, and you honestly expect us to keep confronting them as if there's any integrity to it?

What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. You?

It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the aim of those websites is to distort facts and misrepresent what science actually says in order to promote an agenda... which happens to be YOUR agenda, because you're a True Believer™.

It took me about 45 seconds to begin spotting those errors in your articles from El Shamah ("God is there", in English), but as I said before, it is no longer reasonable for me to engage with you on hunting down the quote-mining operations you keep referencing, in order to point it out to you. If you cannot be honest enough on your own, that's between you and your conscience. But don't bother us with it.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-07-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 10:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Discovery Institute AND El Shamah?

Dude, you're smoking some good shit.

Elshamah is my personal virtual library. Almost all my premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. So in order to refute my arguments, its not enought to point out to the sources, and argue increduility because the source is not your gusto.

Quote:More importantly, you obviously didn't read the article you're quoting about gene duplications clearly. I'm not going to chase down any more of your quote-mines. To make it easier for you, read the article you cited and see how many times the author says "evolution happened by..." In other words, he's saying he doesn't think there are enough examples of gene duplication causing new information without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons, not that he doubts evolution happened, or that gene duplication is not part of how evolution adds new information. He also posits that it requires a situation with little natural selection pressure (stable environment, etc) before the effect can happen at all.

If you think gene duplications can add information to the genome, you still live in the stone age of biology.

Gene duplication

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1490-gene-duplication


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/are...65671.html

the kind of papers which are supposed not to exist -- have increasingly been slipping through the net and finding their way into the peer-reviewed literature. One such paper, "Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?," authored by Joseph Esfandier Hannon Bozorgmeh and published online last week in the journal, Complexity, challenges the standard gene duplication/divergence model regarding the origin of evolutionary novelty.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...5/abstract

although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.

Quote:Suffice to say, you're full of shit, and the people you're citing, who go through actual scientific articles without understanding what they're saying, just to pull out (or quote-mine) fragments they can pretend support Creationism, are the worst kind of scoundrels in the human race. You have been shown repeatedly that this is the case, yet you keep citing the same website's information as if the NEXT article will be true, like rounds fired from a machinegun, and you honestly expect us to keep confronting them as if there's any integrity to it?

blabbering nonsense much ??

Beside this, if you are so smart and think you held a superior world view, how about you start and debunk my claim that DNA is IC ?

waiting.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 10:55 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 10:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  So in order to refute my arguments, its not enough to point out to the sources, and argue increduility because the source is not your gusto.

Gasp

WTF is increduility ?

WTF does "the source is not your gusto" mean ?

Facepalm

I get it. He's a poe, and on drugs. Thumbsup

Godexists ,
Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.


[

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-07-2015, 11:09 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 10:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  blabbering nonsense much ??

Yes. Yes, you are.

You've led us down enough deceptively quote-mined rabbit-holes that it's perfectly reasonable for us to decline to follow you down yet another. At some point, it's time to stop talking to the clown like he's serious. At the very least, it's time to stop letting the clown set the agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
18-07-2015, 11:14 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 10:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  More importantly, you obviously didn't read the article you're quoting about gene duplications clearly. I'm not going to chase down any more of your quote-mines. To make it easier for you, read the article you cited and see how many times the author says "evolution happened by..." In other words, he's saying he doesn't think there are enough examples of gene duplication causing new information without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons, not that he doubts evolution happened, or that gene duplication is not part of how evolution adds new information. He also posits that it requires a situation with little natural selection pressure (stable environment, etc) before the effect can happen at all.

(Previous boldface removed to provide new emphasis in current quotation of self.)

Dogdamnit, I hate having to quote myself, but apparently you have a reading comprehension problem, so there it is.

"...alone is insufficient" means "not enough by itself" and is exactly the same as (wait for it...) "without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons", as I said above.

When you say "based on" scientific papers, it does not count if you QUOTE-MINE, which means taking things and snipping them out of the larger context in order to make them say what you want them to say instead of what they say. I showed (repeatedly) that the websites you were quoting from do that; the Creation Institute in particular is notorious for it, which is why I laughed at your citation of their website as anything remotely resembling evidence.

So either you're completely dishonest, by continuing to talk the way you talk, that is, a troll, or you're so completely clueless (hampered, apparently, by your poor English comprehension skills) that you don't grasp just how awful you sound when you try to pull this bull. So I ask again:

What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. You?

I see three distinct possibilities:
1. You're a twelve-year-old somewhere, who thinks it's funny to play with the heads of adults who are educated in science.
2. You just get your rocks off getting atheists angry with deliberate inanity, a deliberate internet troll because you think this serves God somehow.
or
3. You're secretly an atheist trying to convince us that all Christards are dishonest people, and unable to face reality or understand the scientific method.

My money's on the third option, but the first one is seeming ever-more-likely at this point.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 11:45 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2015 11:51 PM by Godexists.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 11:14 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(18-07-2015 10:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  More importantly, you obviously didn't read the article you're quoting about gene duplications clearly. I'm not going to chase down any more of your quote-mines. To make it easier for you, read the article you cited and see how many times the author says "evolution happened by..." In other words, he's saying he doesn't think there are enough examples of gene duplication causing new information without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons, not that he doubts evolution happened, or that gene duplication is not part of how evolution adds new information. He also posits that it requires a situation with little natural selection pressure (stable environment, etc) before the effect can happen at all.

(Previous boldface removed to provide new emphasis in current quotation of self.)

Dogdamnit, I hate having to quote myself, but apparently you have a reading comprehension problem, so there it is.

"...alone is insufficient" means "not enough by itself" and is exactly the same as (wait for it...) "without the additional evolutionary genetic modifications that can occur in DNA replication, like frame-shifts and transposons", as I said above.

When you say "based on" scientific papers, it does not count if you QUOTE-MINE, which means taking things and snipping them out of the larger context in order to make them say what you want them to say instead of what they say. I showed (repeatedly) that the websites you were quoting from do that; the Creation Institute in particular is notorious for it, which is why I laughed at your citation of their website as anything remotely resembling evidence.

So either you're completely dishonest, by continuing to talk the way you talk, that is, a troll, or you're so completely clueless (hampered, apparently, by your poor English comprehension skills) that you don't grasp just how awful you sound when you try to pull this bull. So I ask again:

What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. You?

I see three distinct possibilities:
1. You're a twelve-year-old somewhere, who thinks it's funny to play with the heads of adults who are educated in science.
2. You just get your rocks off getting atheists angry with deliberate inanity, a deliberate internet troll because you think this serves God somehow.
or
3. You're secretly an atheist trying to convince us that all Christards are dishonest people, and unable to face reality or understand the scientific method.

My money's on the third option, but the first one is seeming ever-more-likely at this point.

HoboHobo

So not able to refute my claim that DNA is irreducibly complex ??

thought so.

and about the final remarks of the paper i cited :

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...20365/full

However, its potential for innovation is greatly inadequate as far as explaining the origination of the distinct exonic sequences that contribute to the complexity of the organism and diversity of life. Any alternative/revision to Neo-Darwinism has to consider the holistic nature and organization of information encoded in genes, which specify the interdependent and complex biochemical motifs that allow protein molecules to fold properly and function effectively.

So far, i think everything is fine with my reading capacities. Your rants are baseless Bowing Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 11:48 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
No way. NO WAY is it remotely possible that, out of all I said there, that your reply is even possibly honest.

Shame on you.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-07-2015, 11:52 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 11:48 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  No way. NO WAY is it remotely possible that, out of all I said there, that your reply is even possibly honest.

Shame on you.

i just edited my post above.

So is DNA not irreducibly complex ?? waiting for you to refute my claim......Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2015 12:22 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Oh, going back and adding stuff after your original post, eh? Okay, fine.

Yes, the paper says, consistently, that the author does not see from the examples he studied, that duplication is the source of additions to the genome, given the tendency of Natural Selection to trim novel information out of the genome (because new info is usually deleterious, damaging, rather than helpful). But he is not saying that evolution did not happen or that the genomes did not expand and add new information. That's the part you're clearly not getting. He's saying that the current model does not, in his view, sufficiently explain what is observed in nature.

(Apologies to everyone, but here comes a giant quotation from the Conclusion he quote-mined, above. I recommend you all read the full article for yourselves, if you're following the thread.)

Quote from beginning of the Conclusion of the cited article:

"Gene duplication and subsequent evolutionary divergence certainly adds to the size of the genome and in large measure to its diversity and versatility. However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information. This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present. The reason for this stabilization of function is not obvious, although the role of duplicates in compensating for deleterious loss of function mutation at paralogous sites may be an important factor. Likewise, there exists a preservation of ancestral functions through the process of a differential division of labor among duplicates, namely that of subfunctionalization. Moreover, both the possibility and opportunity for beneficial changes leading to major functional innovations was found to be not especially convincing. For example, duplicate enzyme-coding genes tend to retain the same ancestral catalytic activity and simply apply that function to different substrates, often by partial degradation of function and the loss of the precise specificity of the parent. However, these may prove to have an important adaptive value in response to environmental challenges such as with respect to temperature, drought, pathogens, and UV radiation.

Where substantive sequence evolution had occurred, it could have been because a respite in selective constraints led to significant degeneration. In the case of Sdic and Jingwei, both genes evolved from duplicates affected by significant deletions or the silencing of exonic information and were then co-opted for use in a different context..."

(Endquote. I omitted the part between elipses and his final two sentences because it was redundant and lengthy. Feel free to read it yourselves.)

To translate for the non-scientists: He's saying that because the duplicated gene is a copy of an original gene, that Natural Selection will still act on the new gene as it did on the old one, if in a less-strong fashion (since the original is still doing its job) if a new mutation occurs in the duplicate. Based on that, the most likely scenario in a Natural Selection environment is that the mutation will be damaging to its host, despite the "good" gene, and that it requires both a reduction in selection pressure on the gene and additional mechanisms (which may not yet be known) to produce evolutionary changes in the specific examples he looked at. This means, he thinks, that the gene must be "switched off" by a deletion before it can be modified in that way, without damaging the creature. He was not convinced that the current explanatory models were adequate to explain what he observed, and called for others to look at the issue (or, more likely, was setting himself up for further grant money to look into it, himself). This is not a criticism of evolution, but a researcher pointing out an area in which more research is needed...

this, in science, is called Thursday.

This is also why I said to go back to that article, stop quote-mining, and start looking at all the places he said that evolution occurred in the DNA. Several examples are highlighted, above, but there are literally dozens in the article. If your quotes were in-context, he would be saying that evolution did not happen.

Which leads us to an important question: Why do you think, as you seem to do, that showing evolution has areas still not 100% solved, in ANY WAY points to your assertion of God Magic™? If everything about evolution was known, there would be no need for anyone else to get Biology degrees, because it'd be a dead field.

That is how I know you are a dishonest person... if you were honest, you would understand how science works, and stop throwing machine-gun bullets of "GOTCHA!" at us, especially on issues you clearly don't even understand.

Edit to Add: Which is, by the way, why there's no way in fucking hell I'm gonna start to discuss DNA with you.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 12:34 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 01:55 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
You keep saying "a problem for" evolution.
...

To be fair, that's a quote from that Discovery Institute page that was posted earlier.

So GE seems to be, at least in that one example, guilty of ignorance rather than willful ignorance / deliberate dishonesty.

That 'worm' guy in the link (with a qualification in the philosophy of biology, rather than actual biology, it seems) falls at the teleological hurdle ... as do all ID-ers.

GE,
Please spend a few hours listening to these:










Refusal to spend some time to understand the opposing (and, of course, established) position will move you from the ignorance stance to that of willful ignorance and then we will know that we don't need to waste any more time trying to help you. You'll be doing us a favour.


Meanwhile...
On a side note about Behe... his ilk is essential for science imho. The incredulous semi-literate (and the more stubborn the better) challenge scientists to put some effort into temporarily setting aside their real work in order to work a little harder on communicating their discoveries to the wider (more ignorant) non-scientific community.

It's almost as though the ignoramus-gene is in competition with the intelligentsia-gene, much like the 'arms race' described by Dawkins.

Irony, much.

Cool

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: