Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 11:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  .. posted a different reply...

Do you understand/acknowledge that DNA is chemistry?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 11:21 AM by Chas.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 10:58 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  When there is replication, mutation, and selection, information is the result. Those that survive have the information necessary to survive. It came from the differential survival of random mutations.

the peer reviewed paper :

Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?

states :

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.

Thumbsup


The author of that paper, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, is a creationist and that paper is not peer-reviewed science.
It was published on the fringe science website ResearchGate.

There is no reason to think that it is insufficient except your personal incredulity and his.

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
22-07-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Isn't that what I just said?

And why are you quoting the Bozorgmehr article, again? I showed you before that the Journal is made-up. It's false.

What is wrong 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
22-07-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 11:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:13 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  As much as possible, given other Real Life concerns and the differences in time zones etc.


GE quotes a computer scientist/mathematician.. NOT a biologist or geneticist


GE then uses wikipedia.. Nice, but again not really on the actual topic.


Goes on to quote a Physicist... again not a biologist or geneticist.



Do not have time to go back through the entire thread, but you'd remember them if you'd have been bothered to read the links etc.

Also, why are you changing the subject and not addressing the points that I'm actually posting about? As in, how your examples are bad and perhaps you should feel bad for attempting to use them?

well, then.... how about Dawkins ??

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)


http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

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

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1281-dn...lly-a-code

The author of that code is the algorithm of evolution. I'm sorry you cannot understand this simple concept.

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
22-07-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 11:18 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Isn't that what I just said?

And why are you quoting the Bozorgmehr article, again? I showed you before that the Journal is made-up. It's false.

What is wrong with you?

Standard creationist tactics. You can utterly destroy their arguments, and they'll just wait a while and present the same arguments again as if nothing ever happened. He's just skipping the "wait a while" step.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
22-07-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 11:07 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 07:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You got one part wrong in your analogy, though.

There is no analogy here.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)


http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

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

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1281-dn...lly-a-code

Quote: It's not the letters that stick to the board, it's the letters that stick to each other. There is no board.

and how is that relevant ?

Quote:Instead of sticking 26 letters (including 2 periods) on a magnetic board, take a series of 4 letters (it's actually 64 letters, since DNA reads in groups of 3, and 4^3=64, though some code for the same letter so it's really just over 20 letters and a few punctuation marks) that stick to one another, throw a few trillion of them into a football stadium where any of them can randomly link up in as many combinations as they want, and then wade through and see if you find even one complete sentence made of your 20 letters. If you fail, try it again in one second. Then try it again, and again, and again, for about 500,000,000 years. Think you could get that sentence that way?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.

Of course the classic argument is given in response is that one shouldn't be surprised to find this extremely unlikely event on earth because otherwise, we wouldn't exist. Therefore, the fact that we exist means that it should only be expected by the mere fact of our own existence - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the extreme odds of the genetic code and irreducible system of the cell, given the hypothesis of a mindless origin, is only to be expected - in the extreme.


Quote:It's not a car engine. It's not magnets on a board. It's certainly not a 747 in a tornado or a Swiss watch. It's chemicals that stick to each other, swirling all around the globe for millions of years of constant reactions.

Guess how many self-replicators (the sentence) had to form out of those millions of years of throwing trillions of letters into a stadium? One. Because once you had it, it replicated into two. Then four. Then eight... get the picture?

Getting your picture perfectly. And its utter nonsense to the extreme. Weeping

This man is perversly ignorant.

There was/is no "agreement". None. DNA evolved secondary to atomic, chemical and molecular properties.

He has no clue what that means, or what they are.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2015, 12:31 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
time to bring in the heavy artillery



































































Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
22-07-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 03:55 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:36 PM)xieulong Wrote:  There you go again, willingly shoving god into a gap.

God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Atheists resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed observation , and logical inference and conclusion. Please point out the gap in any of my arguments.



http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/why...68151.html

" In all of our experience of cause and effect, we know that complex and sequence-specific information, when it is traced back to its source, uniformly originates with an intelligent cause. Therefore, when we find complex and sequence-specific digital information encoded in the hereditary molecules of DNA and RNA, the most plausible candidate explanation -- given what we do know about the nature of information -- is that it also originated with a source of intelligent agency.


Do you actually know what "god of the gap" is?

When was a robust case for ID ever made? Where are those clear and detailed observations? Where are the logical inferences and conclusions?

Your entire argument, this whole thread, every posts you've made on this thread can be summed up in one sentence. "It's too complex, I don't know how it happened, therefore god did it." That's it, that's your whole argument. That, is the god of the gap, it's argument from incredulity, ultimately just an argument from ignorance.
Wait... let me correct myself, the entirety of ID is argument from ignorance. Just complete and utter useless non-information, doing nothing to advance human understanding.

Why do you keep posting links to pseudoscience/ID websites? Are these your only source of information? Have you honestly examine what's on them. Don't bother, let me tell you, it's just a bunch of idiots making shit up, no experimentation, no data, and some quote mining.

Speaking of ID website, I have some unrelated questions about yours. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/
What the hell happened? Hahaha... It's a ghost town. Aside from "admin" there's a grand total of 60 posts from members... ever. Most from waaaaaaaaay back in 2010-2011. I think you're the admin of that website, correct? Really, what happened? I've been to other christians forums and there're actual discussions there. Yours.. not so much... in fact it's zero.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 09:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This is more like a self-writing computer code, or virus, that copies itself endlessly, and sometimes through errors in the copying produces new versions of itself. Over time, the copies of the virus develop completely new functions. I have yet to see anything that requires a designer in all that you assert, for this to happen.

Not only the origin of the information for new body plans needs to be explained, but also of the first living organism.

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/book...ature-cell

According to Meyer the “simplest extant cell, Mycoplasma genitalium — a tiny bacterium that inhabits the human urinary tract — requires ‘only’ 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions….” If, for the sake of argument, we assume the existence of the 20 biologically occurring amino acids, which form the building blocks for proteins, the amino acids have to congregate in a definite specified sequence in order to make something that “works.” First of all they have to form a “peptide” bond and this seems to only happen about half the time in experiments. Thus, the probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids containing only peptide links is about one chance in 10 to the 45th power.

In addition, another requirement for living things is that the amino acids must be the “left-handed” version. But in “abiotic amino-acid production” the right- and left-handed versions are equally created. Thus, to have only left-handed, only peptide bonds between amino acids in a chain of 150 would be about one chance in 10 to the 90th. Moreover, in order to create a functioning protein the “amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements.” It turns out that the probability for this is about one in 10 to the 74th. Thus, the probability of one functional protein of 150 amino acids forming by random chance is 10 to the 164th. If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power.

there are about 10 to the 80th elementary particles in our observable universe. Assuming a Big Bang about 13 billion years ago, there have been about 10 to the 16th seconds of time. Finally, if we take the time required for light to travel one Plank length we will have found “the shortest time in which any physical effect can occur.” This turns out to be 10 to the minus 43rd seconds. Or turning it around we can say that the most interactions possible in a second is 10 to the 43rd. Thus, the “probabilistic resources” of the universe would be to multiply the total number of seconds by the total number of interactions per second by the total number of particles theoretically interacting. The math turns out to be 10 to the 139th.

here a interesting article about the subject :

What Might Be a Protocell’s Minimal “Genome?”

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2110-wh...enome#3738

Quote:(And before you say some stupid shit like "but someone had to write the first virus", keep in mind that I'm only using computer code as an analogy; this is a naturally-occurring thing, the only way the analogy would work fully here is if the computer virus was something that self-assembled, say out of the fragmented data on a hard drive somewhere, and simply self-copied until it picked up additional functions.)

and you believe that ? your credulity is indeed awe inspiring..... Laugh out load Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(22-07-2015 01:28 PM)Godexists Wrote:  here a interesting article about the subject :

Nothing is interesting on your idiot site.
Stop spamming TTA for your crap site.
I say, time to ban this idiot.

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: