Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 02:56 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  If he could show us the designer, he might have something. But he can't. "He's ... uhhh ... an invisible man in the sky ... and he did all this with magic." Right. That's about as scientific as a fairy tale. Come to think of it, it is a fairy tale.

[Image: meme_g14.png]

No, once again you are making a straw man argument. This is also called "lying". Drinking Beverage

There is evidence of the natural world. Science works.

There is no evidence for any gods. Religious faith gives us no knowledge.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-07-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 02:55 PM)Godexists Wrote:  The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine ©, and thymine (T).

For the ones that deny that DNA carries literally coded information, but argue that its just metaphorically a code
. Look what Richard Dawkins has to say on the issue : See after the seventh minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg

If you actually read what Dawkins and others have written, the "designer" of that code is natural selection.

Potential information is constantly created by mutations and recombinations. If those have phenotypic effects, they become part of the information.
It is utterly mechanical and algorithmic - no minds are needed in the process.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 02:59 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 01:35 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Your bible says the cosmos was created in a day, after the Earth was created.

haha. where does the bible say so ??

[Image: screen10.jpg]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Day 1 god creates light and darkness

Day 2 god divided the Earth from dry land

Day 3 god creates plants (before he made the sun)


I doubt you'll really consider this, but the creation myth of Genesis is a derived Babylonian myth from the Enuma Elish

In fact every one of the three major myths in Genesis, the creation, the flood and the Tower of Babel of myths are all derived from Babylonian/Sumerian myths that predate all of written Hebrew myths by hundreds of years.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 02:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not an argument, it is a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions.

"How is that better explained ? Through natural processes, or intentional design ?"

"The right properties of deoxyribose and ribose are in my view far better explained through a designer, than random natural processes."

It is an argument from incredulity.

[Image: ignora10.png]

So you have run out of arguments and are reduced to posting superficial memes. And you can't even get the spelling and grammar right on the memes. A real intellectual giant you are. Not.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 01:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  By the way, the peer-review process is how we make sure science is unbiased...

haha, thats comedy gold.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1290-pe...light=peer

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

The evidence on whether there is bias in peer review against certain sorts of authors is conflicting, but there is strong evidence of bias against women in the process of awarding grants.5 The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci.6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions.

http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2...y-brenner/

all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean. I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals. Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organisations making money out of it.



Quote: yes I know you think scientists just conspire to edge out Creationists, in one big global atheist conspiracy... but if you actually knew anything about science you'd know that not only are individual scientists in competition with one another to tear down any bad ideas

A Good Reason to Include Design

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1928-hi...l-sciences

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/152main.htm

There is, however, at least one good reason to include design as a proper explanation. Meyer's own research in the philosophy of science was on the methods of the historical sciences. "There is more than one scientific method," he said. "In fact there are at least two." The inductive sciences (by which we might understand physics, chemistry, and the other primarily experimental sciences) are motivated by the question "How does nature normally operate?" The historical sciences (by which we might understand cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolutionary theory and biological systematics), on the other hand, are motivated primarily by the question "How did this system or object come to be?" These are logically distinct questions. In the latter case, when we ask how something came to be, we explain by invoking causal narratives or patterns of events -- employing methods often termed "abductive" or "retroductive" -- to find that set of events that best accounts for the features of what we observe in the present.

This is "detective-style reasoning," said Meyer, and while such reasoning certainly employs natural laws (the bread-and-butter of the inductive or experimental sciences), those laws are insufficient tools for answering the questions posed in the historical sciences. The point has been appreciated well by evolutionary theorists defending their domain against the skepticism of their more experimentally-minded colleagues. In evolutionary theory, says Stephen Jay Gould, "we infer history from its results."

This means that testing, or theory evaluation more generally, will also differ in important ways between the inductive and historical sciences. As Darwin often argued to his correspondents, the theory of common descent by natural selection had to be weighed comparatively, "vis-a-vis its competitors." Explanations are judged by their relative power, and by their consistency with what we know from the present.

"Can a theory of design be formulated to meet these standards?" asked Meyer. Yes: the theory is attempting to answer a "What happened?" question, and does so by postulating the past action of an intelligent agent. "That's a perfectly appropriate answer," he said, "to a perfectly appropriate historical question." Starting with distinctive features of living systems (as discussed by Michael Behe, for instance), design attempts to account for those features by referring them to a sufficient cause, namely, an intelligence. In every respect, argued Meyer, design as a theory is logically fully consonant with the types of answers, and methods of evaluation, common to the historical sciences.

Quote:Do you seriously even understand the size of the questions you're asking?

Ok, since i see you are that overwhelmed by my questions, and are unable to follow my rationale on ic of the presented examples, how about you answer a more simple question ?

what emerge first, the heart, or the blood ?

and since we are at it. The same example i provided to you in regard of chlorophyll, goes also for heme, and its biosynthesis pathway, to make hemoglobin :

The heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1322-th...ecule#1859

Heme biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 8 highly specific steps, of which 6 steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.
The pathway must go all the way through, otherwise heme is not synthesized.
Therefore, the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.


Questions:
What good would there be, if the pathway would go only up to the 7th step ? none
What good would there be, if the pathway would go all the way through the 8th step ? Heme would be produced , BUT :
What good for survival would there be for Heme by its own, if not fully embedded in the globin proteins? none.
What good would there be for red bloodcells without hemoglobin, transporting oxygen to the cells in the body ? none, transporting oxygen is essential for the whole process. I conclude therefore that the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex, and could not have evolved upon mutation and natural selection.

I mentioned that some enzymes have to be imported into the mitochondrion. These enzymes contain special protein sequences called targeting signals that direct them to the right place. So the next question: is globin targeted to the mitochondrion? No - it is synthesised on ribosomes, attached to the Golgi apparatus in the cytoplasm and it stays there. Some of the haem made in the mitochondrion is used by mitochondrial proteins called cytochromes, but the rest is exported back outside where it can attach to the globin protein. Have a look at these Wikipedia pages: heme and porphyrin, for some more details. Porphyrins, by the way, are intermediates in haem synthesis that also have the tetrapyrrole structure.

Researchers have done experiments in which they synthesised globin protein chains to see at what point the haem attached. It can attach when about 80-90 amino acids have emerged from the ribosome - in other words, it attaches to the "nascent chain" as the protein is being synthesised. One of the mysteries that we don't fully understand is how the haemoglobin assembles itself properly - so as it has 2 alpha chains and 2 beta chains each with a haemoglobin attached.

Question : for what reason would evolution try to assemble the heme to the globin ? what survival advantage would there be provided by a globin without the heme ? and what advantage of the heme without the globin ?

Quote:You're actually employing a weak metaphor, not only because there's not a metaphorically similarity between a metal machine and a biological system that works by the physics of chemical bonds, as Simon pointed out, above, but because the biological systems are significantly more complex than the machine to which you were referring...

thats correct. As if complexity would not be a argument FOR design, LOL....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#gaps_god

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.

(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.

© Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI and IC, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.

(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,” we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.

(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC. Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

In sum, ID is indeed a legitimate scientific endeavor: the science that studies signs of intelligence.

Quote:and yet we observe the parts forming by themselves, once we set up the right physical conditions for them to do so.

that is why abiogenesis has been such a successful hypothesis ??

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Oooooooooooh I see the problem, now. He doesn't understand that a word can have more than one meaning.

Yeah, we call information in the DNA "codons", no less.

That doesn't make it the same as a human code, as in, "I want to say this, but I want it disguised, therefore I will scramble my letters in a predictable pattern that my targeted recipient will be able to unlock".

Here you go, GodExists. The Google results for "Origin of DNA" (ignoring ads and spam). Ready?

Result 1: From the National Institutes of Health's sub-department, the National Center for Biotechnology Information:
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries by Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Result 2: Ubiquitous Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

Results 3-5: More Wiki...

Result 6: Commercial website for DNA paternity testing, with brief history of its discover. Meh. Useless.
http://dna-structure.com/history.htm

Result 7: More of same, but with better (if still useless for this purpose) timeline of DNA knowledge.
http://www.prophase-genetics.com/history...rnity.html

Result 8: Annenberg-Lerner teacher's resource on the history of DNA, with good, interactive site.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/dna/history.html

(Skipping a few more commercial sites that are equally pointless toward this discussion)

Result 13: Oh, what do you know, it's those nutsos over at the National Institutes of Health again.
It's in PDF format, but it's a useful-enough paper I felt like sharing it anyway... I thought it'd be useful for him to see what an actual scientific paper looks like, unless altered for web-publication in snazzy format, perhaps by the official website of a credible Journal of science.
http://dnareplication.cshl.edu/content/f...philis.pdf

And finally, around Result 18 or so, I get to this useful gem:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

Quoting article:
Quote: "How could RNA trigger changes in ancient cells without all the proteins present in modern cells? Well, in this case, no proteins, no problem," said Breaker, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

Breaker's lab solved a decades-old mystery by describing how tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-GMP are able to turn genes on and off. This process determines whether the bacterium swims or stays stationary, and whether it remains solitary or joins with other bacteria to form organic masses called biofilms. For example, in Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera, cyclic di-GMP turns off production of a protein the bacterium needs to attach to human intestines.

The tiny RNA molecule, comprised of only two nucleotides, activates a larger RNA structure called a riboswitch. Breaker's lab discovered riboswitches in bacteria six years ago and has since shown that they can regulate a surprising amount of biological activity. Riboswitches, located within single strands of messenger RNA that transmit a copy of DNA's genetic instructions, can independently "decide'' which genes in the cell to activate, an ability once thought to rest exclusively with proteins.

(Bold emphasis, as always, my own. Highly, highly recommend the rest of the article to the rest of yooz.)

"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
20-07-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
GE - if you're traveling 80 miles per hour, how long will it take you to travel 80 miles ?

I just know you're going to get this wrong, because I doubt you understand the question.
Granted this only my opinion of your intellect, but it should be known that my opinions are often spot on.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 03:08 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 02:59 PM)Godexists Wrote:  haha. where does the bible say so ??

[Image: screen10.jpg]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Day 1 god creates light and darkness

Day 2 god divided the Earth from dry land

Day 3 god creates plants (before he made the sun)


I doubt you'll really consider this, but the creation myth of Genesis is a derived Babylonian myth from the Enuma Elish

In fact every one of the three major myths in Genesis, the creation, the flood and the Tower of Babel of myths are all derived from Babylonian/Sumerian myths that predate all of written Hebrew myths by hundreds of years.

Actually the Babble is silent with respect to the creation of the "universe". They had no concept of a "universe". Genesis starts with the deity moving over the face of the deep. The "deep" (as you pointed out, the vast primordial waters), which is a Babylonian concept, (where all the important primordial Babylonian mythical actions happen), is assumed, and nothing in Genesis can be understood with out a knowledge of Babylonian mythology. Reality is "a priori" assumed, and the very small local universe that all ancient Near Easterners were aware of, is ALL it talks about. (There is NOTHING "inspired about that sort of limited knowledge and ignorance).

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
20-07-2015, 04:07 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 03:15 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

No. That's how science works.

You are a hypocrite.
If YOU were ill, YOU would avail yourself of everything modern medicine has to offer, and not just pray to your Jebus. If YOU were in prison, and could get out by use of DNA, YOU would use it to get out. Both are instances where progress is in the state it is in, ONLY because of the way science works, ... including peer-review.
You are the very definition if ignorance and hypocrisy.

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
20-07-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 03:24 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oooooooooooh I see the problem, now. He doesn't understand that a word can have more than one meaning.

Yeah, we call information in the DNA "codons", no less.

That doesn't make it the same as a human code, as in, "I want to say this, but I want it disguised, therefore I will scramble my letters in a predictable pattern that my targeted recipient will be able to unlock".

Here you go, GodExists. The Google results for "Origin of DNA" (ignoring ads and spam). Ready?

Result 1: From the National Institutes of Health's sub-department, the National Center for Biotechnology Information:
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries by Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Result 2: Ubiquitous Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

Results 3-5: More Wiki...

Result 6: Commercial website for DNA paternity testing, with brief history of its discover. Meh. Useless.
http://dna-structure.com/history.htm

Result 7: More of same, but with better (if still useless for this purpose) timeline of DNA knowledge.
http://www.prophase-genetics.com/history...rnity.html

Result 8: Annenberg-Lerner teacher's resource on the history of DNA, with good, interactive site.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/dna/history.html

(Skipping a few more commercial sites that are equally pointless toward this discussion)

Result 13: Oh, what do you know, it's those nutsos over at the National Institutes of Health again.
It's in PDF format, but it's a useful-enough paper I felt like sharing it anyway... I thought it'd be useful for him to see what an actual scientific paper looks like, unless altered for web-publication in snazzy format, perhaps by the official website of a credible Journal of science.
http://dnareplication.cshl.edu/content/f...philis.pdf

And finally, around Result 18 or so, I get to this useful gem:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

Quoting article:
Quote: "How could RNA trigger changes in ancient cells without all the proteins present in modern cells? Well, in this case, no proteins, no problem," said Breaker, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

Breaker's lab solved a decades-old mystery by describing how tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-GMP are able to turn genes on and off. This process determines whether the bacterium swims or stays stationary, and whether it remains solitary or joins with other bacteria to form organic masses called biofilms. For example, in Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera, cyclic di-GMP turns off production of a protein the bacterium needs to attach to human intestines.

The tiny RNA molecule, comprised of only two nucleotides, activates a larger RNA structure called a riboswitch. Breaker's lab discovered riboswitches in bacteria six years ago and has since shown that they can regulate a surprising amount of biological activity. Riboswitches, located within single strands of messenger RNA that transmit a copy of DNA's genetic instructions, can independently "decide'' which genes in the cell to activate, an ability once thought to rest exclusively with proteins.

(Bold emphasis, as always, my own. Highly, highly recommend the rest of the article to the rest of yooz.)

your post is entirely irrelevant. I am providing a wealth of information at my virtual library about the origin of DNA. Feel free to address any of my comments , highlighted in green, where i provide reasons why i believe design explains best the origin of the molecule in question. If you are a professional biologist, as you remark almost in every second post of yours, you should be able to refute my claims and provide better explanations, if you think a natural origin fits better the evidence.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-or...uble-helix

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: