Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-07-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:47 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 04:48 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm a former professional biologist, and I don't recall mentioning it except where directly relevant, but okay whatever.

Stop trying to drum up traffic for your blog.

And what part of "according to the National Institutes of Health" (and its National Center for Biotechnology Information) is "irrelevant!?!"

Do you not know what those are, perhaps?

Are they specialized in philosophical questions of origins ?? Laugh out load Laugh out load

Well you are specialized in nothing.
Origins is not a question for Philosophy. It's a scientific question. But thanks for telling us you don't REALLY care about the science, after all. ID is not "philosophy".

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
20-07-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:49 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 05:34 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Yep.

30 plus pages of argument from personal incredulity.

Can't explain it or understand it, must be magic.

Nothing more to see here. Move along.

[Image: meme_g15.png]

[Image: meme_g12.jpg]

[Image: that_s10.png]

Repeating your memes...boring.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:17 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um... it's already been pointed out to you that it's basically just chemistry.

which is false. Facepalm

[Image: the_ge11.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 05:17 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um... it's already been pointed out to you that it's basically just chemistry.

which is false. Facepalm

[Image: the_ge11.png]

And you are the expert on meaningless sentences.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
20-07-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  "I can't understand the mechanism -- therefore it must have happened by magic."

Show me ONE post where i applied that kind of reasoning. JUST ONE.

[Image: freeth10.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 05:57 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 05:17 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um... it's already been pointed out to you that it's basically just chemistry.

which is false. Facepalm

[Image: the_ge11.png]

False analogy. He knows NO real science. The base pairs ARE constrained by a number of things. He doesn't know any chemistry,or how DNA and RNA actually work, so he can spout that tripe.

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
20-07-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 04:39 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you actually read what Dawkins and others have written, the "designer" of that code is natural selection.

How can nature select without replication ??

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1405-th...-selection

natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life.

[Image: scratc10.png]

There were replicating molecules before there was RNA or DNA. DNA evolved from earlier molecules.

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, 06:37 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
There are replication errors all the time. They're called "mutations". If the system were to have been "designed' by yer boy Jebus, goddoesnotexist, then he royally screwed up making the "code". It's very very flawed, from a design stand-point. It's chemistry. Saying it's a "true code' is meaningless, because goddoesnotexist did not define those terms, coherently.

However if a system (a changeable one) that permits evolution, and selection that promotes advantage in a given environment, then DNA is your system. Jebus had nothing to do with any of it.

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
20-07-2015, 06:45 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  There were replicating molecules before there was RNA or DNA. DNA evolved from earlier molecules.

[Image: my_mem12.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 07:14 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
I've been trying to explain, jackass, and you keep ignoring it.

The National Institutes of Health do (allow me to re-emphasize that... they DO) deal with what you call "philosophical questions of origins".

They deal with it not because they're interested in philosophy, but because these aren't just philosophical questions. Understanding our origins and evolution are critical to understanding exactly how DNA works, and that is the basis for the scientific knowledge we apply to maintaining and improving our health. Almost all medicine today focuses on DNA and our understanding of it. There is no group in this country that would have more to lose by picking a bogus theoretical model to operate from! The NIH represents the top scientists/researchers in the field of medicine.

I'm not citing some random, private organization in Seattle, or Phoenix, or whatever. I'm citing the top guys in the field. Does that make their articles automatically valid? Of course not. But it means you should probably pay more attention than you are.

As Anjele said, you can't just plug your ears and keep repeating yourself simply because you don't like what I'm saying.

By the way, you make a good point about the current flaws in the peer-review process. (See? I read what you write, and I don't just skim it for parts I can make "laugh-y" cartoon images about. Common courtesy and basic humanity.) But we're not talking about whether the process itself is operating at 100% in catching publications instantly that have errors... it's the fact that a proper scientist submits his paper to locales where others can, when they are able, take a look at it and try to disprove the claims.

Right now, if I opened an article published by Albert Einstein 75 years ago, and I thought to myself, "I don't see anyone who has reviewed this claim. Let me see if I can duplicate his results," and then did it, got something else, and published my results showing that Einstein was wrong, I'd be famous tomorrow. But I am able to do that because Einstein submitted properly-formatted, fully-documented works to the Journals to BE peer-reviewed, even by peers who hadn't been born yet.

What the study you cited found was that it was possible to slip good sounding but bogus material past the editorial boards of Journals, who should have been paying better attention and cross-checking sources, etc, but weren't. Not a fault of science, but of people. Had those articles been left in the journal, eventually someone would have reviewed the paper and said, "wait a minute, this is wrong". It happens literally every day; the bulk of any scientific article on anything other than a totally-new experiment is to report a confirmation or denial of other scientists' work, along with why the other guy's results were wrong, if so.

You can see it in the discussion over redshift fluctuation, in the video a few pages back, if you need proof of how that works.

But you can only see it if you stop with the Christard stuff and start opening your eyes. (No, I'm not saying give up religion; many honest scientists are also Christian. Just not YOUR type of Christard.)

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: