How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@farmerman,

Formation of puines and pyrimidines have been made in prebiotic "microdroplet" reaction sites. Weve already seen the pairs of ribonucleoside pairs AU and IC for in abiotic ground water parallels . The interesting thing in the formations of lifes chemicals (its being worked on now) is, which catalysts are needed as kickstarters of reactions. W know that CHROMIUM is one that is necessary in A and U, (and isnt it interesting that U is unique to RNA only and the concept of an"RNA world" may be actually worth considering as lif proceeded from the very early to more organized strains. Bob HAzen recently published his book about evolution of more complex minerals in the earths crust and there is a sequence of apparance of many unique minerals as free elements in the crust based on simple Eh/pH relationships from earliest melts of amphoteric metals and acid reactions of silica and alkalies. (Im only guessing here)

These are still all questions to science and nobody is concluding anything, unlike your recent "bandwagoning" of what ORFans meant for the destruction of Darwin
Believe me(or not IGAS), if there ever is any real strong evidence that ID is truly scientifically worth consideration, science will NOT try to cover it up because whoever finds it out will no doubt go down in history like NEWTON and theyd have to dig Darwin up and move him back to Down House.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Hzen's work is especially interesting to me when we consider that , were his hypotheses fact, then we can see the appearances of specific mineral and salts occuring in time related rock series. (Wea lready knew about igneous "melts" and their own partitioning as they cool, but this work adds an even greater resoursce possibility from such features as stratigraphic horizons.

This isnt so much Creation but reaction results

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You've got your work cut out for you to be convincing about an IDer, because as time and research proceeds, we find more and more data that refutes thebases by which rapid appearance and "Irreducible complexity" has rested.

This is what fascinates me about our conversation. How two intelligent men, the only two here knowledgeable enough to actually discuss molecular biology as far as I can tell, see the exact same evidence and reach so radically opposed conclusions. Even the direction that knowledge is pointing is in polar opposite directions. It's practically Biblical. The symmetry is kind of beautiful in it's own way.

But you said I was fibbing about various things, my sources, motivations, etc. That had to be based on your gut feeling because we don't know each other beyond these posts. Fair enough, a fair amount about a person can be discerned about someone just by their written words. Sometimes I get the gut feeling that you are afraid I might not be fibbing in mine.

That would also be a good way to discern whether a religion is wrong or not. Most of them have written words that document their founders ideas and ideals. Right or wrong will be found in their words.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

If youre not fibbing about your choices of phrases backing up your worldview, Im even more certain that your view is ridled with error since many of the"ID leanings"youve brought up recently (ORfans eg) are based on fraudulent assumptions , and if you and Stever Meyeres independently came up with it, Ive got no respect for anything the DI produces.

As far as the two of us being "qualified to comment" , which I assume means trained and experienced in microbio, I have an MS in applied chemistry , much of which is in organic, my terminal degree is, of course geochem. Then Ive got an additional 32 years post grad school experience both teaching and industry applied research .
I submit that we do NOT reach opposite poles based on similar data. You create assumptions that do not seem to come out of the scientific method .

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

PS, weve had three other folks that are chemists and knowledgeable about how surface reactions and ppl works

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

This isnt so much Creation but reaction results

And that idea actually sells! It blows me away every time farmer.

You are a wise man, and you transform the most idiotic statements in that much maligned Bible into impossible truths. I paraphrase, but it/He says 'your wise men will be made fools'. I can't bring myself to call you that but it is just so damn prophetic. 'All This', from a chemical reaction, or 'All This' from Nothing, in another wise man Hawking's words.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

many of the"ID leanings"youve brought up recently (ORfans eg) are based on fraudulent assumptions , and if you and Stever Meyeres independently came up with it, Ive got no respect for anything the DI produces.

I tire the "You're just wrong" method here (along with the irrelevant bio speal to convince others you know what you're talking about).

The inference you are making is that the ORFan gene is just an ID bullshit thing and it really is not any problem to be explained in the Neo Evolution argument.

I challenge you or anyone else to Google ORFans and see for themselves if ID advocates are the only ones talking about the subject. IDers didn't even invent the term. Why would they? They would tend to think they were a new design unless found elsewhere. Are most of them found? Yes, but not all. And the absolute number keeps going up as we examine new species.

But I agree, the argument is insurmountable because both sides believe in what ros calls 'poofism'.
Here's what the NCSE (not an ID group, they are in your camp or vice versa) says about ORFans. I've emphasized key parts:

Quote:

Most ORFans have relatives found for them rather rapidly as new genomes are sequenced. With the larger databases available now, old ORFans are finding relatives (e.g. in 2004 hypothetical protein Apc1120 was an ORFan, now several relatives have turned up) and fewer new ORFans are being found. Also, we know that proteins can be generated de novo, so not all proteins must be traced back to older ancestor genes.

I especially love that last line about proteins being generated 'de novo', they just pop up out of nowhere, a new creation, a molecular machine more sophisticated than anything we have conceived of. Poofism if there was such a thing. Common ancestry? **** that, we can dump it or pick it up at will.

It would be funny if it were just a sitcom.

This would be an appropriate time for you to answer my challenge of how you explain a 'de Novo' protein.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Interesting what youd try to use NCSE as "proof" of your points, because from that very post they BEGIN with my very point;

Quote:

This is not the definition of ORFans. ORFans are "open reading frames," sections of a chromosome with a start codon followed by a stretch of nucleotide triplets and ended by a stop codon and which do not match a known coding DNA sequence in other species. There is no guarantee that these sections even code for a protein, let alone that they have any function. More importantly, these merely have no currently recognized relatives. (Siew N, Fischer D. (2003) "Analysis of singleton ORFans in fully sequenced microbial genomes." Proteins. 53:241-51) Function is not a consideration in defining ORFans. Some of these proteins with no known relatives do have recognized functions (e.g. bacterial virulence factor staphostatin B (1nycA)).

In contrast, we do have many genes that are in recognizable gene families, but whose functions are not clear from their sequence alone. For example, alpha-beta barrel family proteins have a wide variety of functions, and it is difficult to deduce the function of a member from simple inspection. The incorrect definition given in Explore Evolution artificially inflates the purported number of ORFans.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Sidestepped the challenge again I see. One ******* protein, you'd think it would be easy to come up with just one all natural ORFan gene, or one without 'poofism' that is.

And no defense of common descent? How disappointing.

From your NCSE stuff:

Quote:

ORFans are "open reading frames," sections of a chromosome with a start codon followed by a stretch of nucleotide triplets and ended by a stop codon and which do not match a known coding DNA sequence in other species. There is no guarantee that these sections even code for a protein, let alone that they have any function.

How pathetic.

They are trying to imply or get you to believe that ORFans are irrelevant, not functional, i.e., meaningless junk. But there is one little detail left out. True, we don't know the function of these genes but we know from studies of them that if you take them out, the organism often ******* dies. If it needs it to live, I'd say that's functional, even if I don't know what it's doing. There are none so blind as he who will not see.

BTW, that's from the same article as the lame 'de novo' protien claim. You gonna defend that or not?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I dont know how you can tk a clearly written piece and totally screw it up.

If you recall I posted that up abve nd I guess you proved my point that you dont read anything and analyze it. Meyers piece , which apparently you agree with without any critical thought is what NCSE was writing about. He got the "function of the ORFan proteins and their lack of relatives " totally screwed up. So join him if you must.
I didnt side step anything , I opened the discussion of your "ORFans" Bullshit by posting the facts, not the Creationist take on the world.

Quote:

but we know from studies of them that if you take them out, the organism often ******* dies. If it needs it to live, I'd say that's functional, even if I don't know what it's doing

The only lethal conditions are when a "knockout gen" is removed leaving a lethal strand in a position where itd have an effect.Dont be an idiot, it doesnt men there is "function to the SNP removed.

Really straw grabbin arent you??

2 Replies

@farmerman,

TO LEADFOOT: Also, arnt you the one who has been denying the appearance of" New genes " (de novo??

I wonder why you seem to immediately jump to conclusions befoe you even have the data in hand.

Ive just gone over to a Uni source and have been reading about what we do or dont know about "new functionality" and orphan genes roles in evolution.

If you think about it even closer, what the biologists who are working and publishing about oorphans, it isnt even known whether were talking about disppearing vestigials from an anestral gene, or a pseudogene, or a false methylation (many of them show repeat amino acid triplets.
Ya know that nw genes provide the "new information" , the raw material forevolutionary innovation. to make new genes we can have

1gene transfer in early phyla 9Margulis work)
2modification of existing genes
3 new structural genetic material from noncoding DNA
This is 50 year old news.

So now you DO accept that new genes are not a rare thing. As e sequence more genomes we see many new forms on the genome of single individual organisms.

Lets see what Cold Springs has to say on this. Their papers are generally clear and complete and freee.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

If you recall I posted that up abve nd I guess you proved my point that you dont read anything and analyze it. Meyers piece , which apparently you agree with without any critical thought is what NCSE was writing about.

When you assume your opponent is ignorant, you often don't see where they're come'n from or what they are doing.

I was criticizing the NCSE critique of Meyer's piece. So **** yes, I agree with Meyer in this case..

And yes, you are still dodging where de novo proteins come from. Saying they just pop up from spare non-coding DNA does not explain the information needed to code for a new protein. It's ALL about the information.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

actually you hav no idea about surface reactions and linkages. Are you implying that mutations and substitutions are all part of the plans?? Therefore the new environments that "select for" these changes were also planned and engineered eh?

Im sorry, thats a belief system that cannot stand up to the interlacing masses of counter evidence.

Everyone I know o in stanard science thought thatMeyers sermonizing about what functions accrue to ORFans is purely his "wanna be" POV.

As I said, when youre entire "scientific viewpoints" begin with a conclusion, that aint science.

1 Reply

Coldspring Harbor research Inst is a world class bioinformatics, molecular bio, and genomics lab (They wre the ones that fired Dr Watson for his racist BS that he thought his Nobel Prize gave him license to spew).
They id'd (small id) a significant genomics study of the genetics and evolutionary relationships (Common ancestry, "mother /daughter " genotypic and phenotypic presentations, gene expressions etc) of 150+ plant species from species to family levels. They traced the associations .
Cold Spring has most of its research posted free as a service and a "idea machine" for students, other researchers and interested public.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im sorry, thats a belief system that cannot stand up to the interlacing masses of counter evidence.

Everything's a belief system/world view/whatever you want to call it.
All I was asking for was the evidence of where the information for new 'de novo' proteins come from. You seem to believe one or the other:
1. There is no information.
2. Information can come from random changes in DNA.

I'm saying neither of these are statistacally plausible given the nature of biological organisms.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

your assumptions are all based on the concept that evolution doesnt occur until theres some dorm of "instruction" right?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

your assumptions are all based on the concept that evolution doesnt occur until theres some dorm of "instruction" right?

Nothing in what we call biology happens without instructions.

The above is undisputed fact.

4 Replies

@Leadfoot,

We're living in a simulation and the aliens are doing the code! Very Happy

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

...if you don't behave farma is going to code you back to a turtle! Wink

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
your assumptions are all based on the concept that evolution doesnt occur until theres some dorm of "instruction" right?

Nothing in what we call biology happens without instructions.

The above is undisputed fact.

An axiom of fundamentalists is that nature is stupid, with the exception, perhaps, of fundamentalist Buddhists. And I'm not even sure of that.

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know