Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

no one ever said that "genes control life". Weve had the epigenetics discussions several times that were attended by folks thousands of times smarter than you or Quahog. Experience in a craft and a science imparts a certain skill t simple discussions. Something that neither you nor he possess.
Why not enlighten us all in a discussion of what syntheses occur as a result of "coding" in DNA.
What does RNA do?
What aspects of epigenetics does Quahog understand? (Hes all about cut and paste without EVER demonstrating any comprehension).
Does he mean that Lamarck lives on ?

________________________Im still asking the question in some order to delve into what youre levels of understanding are(s opposed to some moogah Boogah fundamentalist worldview that must, by its existence, deny evolution and all its support sciences.
1Why do we not see mammal fossils in the earliest sediments? Why don't Cambrian fossils occur in recent sediments?

2How do we eplain the undisputed information gleaned from a fossil record that clearly shows the gradual appearance of more complex life-forms through time.
In other words, the simplest fossils lie on the bottom of the pile and the more complex lie at the top., why?

You do not happen to design GMO viruses, do you?
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a family of large biological molecules that perform multiple vital roles in the coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes. Together with DNA, RNA comprises the nucleic acids, which, along with proteins, constitute the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. Like DNA, RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides, but is usually single-stranded. Cellular organisms use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information (often notated using the letters G, A, U, and C for the nucleotides guanine, adenine, uracil and cytosine) that directs synthesis of specific proteins, while many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome.
Now I have some questions:
RE: coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes
How? Can you explain the processes?
RE: essential for all known forms of life
What does 'essential' mean here - as a specification?
RE: use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information
What is the process?
RE: while many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome
This goes too far and too away from the theme.


Why are you always looking for some name (to destroy him with ad hominem). Can't you simply discuss on the theme?


IMV you simply cannot say anything sensible on the question from the prior quote - if you have understood it at all.


Because they appear later ... not necessarily as a result of evolutionary processes.


You mean the lichens, fungi and microbes - some of them have survived even onto the present day. Why is this so important? You have some reinforced concrete theory (evolution for example) and you are trying to paste there as many fossils as you can find. Doesn't science work vice verse: one finds facts and evidences and hardly after than and not before starts looking to find plausible and possible theories that could explain that facts. What other theories (besides the evolution) do you have to explain the said evidences?


Because we don't have the vaguest idea of what has happened - and most probably it is still happening. From where and how has the biocode come down on the Earth ... and why? The probability for this to be stochastic evolutionary processes is far beyond the acceptable margin of possibility.

I asked you the question in a single train of thought, Its not to be "Cherry picked" so you could run to Wikipedia or some other idiot box to gather an answer.
Im done talking with you, I want to see what youre made of. Now answer my full questions dickhead.

I deal with GMO tech every day here on the farm. I don't need to be spoon fed baby crap from a web site of which you have not the slightest idea whats being said.

If you would have read series of posts I made about epigenetics several years go within a discussion some of us were having youd have learned where Quahog was coming from.(or trying to).

_______Heres a question. If We can agree that mutation and gene shuffling is random (that would be the "natural" part), then the "selection" part is not random at all, it is adaptive or it is based upon sampling errors within small populations(drift) .

Blow it out your ass . You are about as ignorant of word usage as he. Im not engaging in Ad Hominem, Im laying out direct INSULTS. Learn the obvious differences. Im not playing James McNeill Whistler on you.

What do you mean by "appear"? Be careful because now you've painted yourself into a corner of your own design.

youre now closing your own trapdoor with completely circular statements. Obviously facts and evidence don't make a bit of difference to you either.

I rest my case

My answer is that you don't have the slightest idea of what RNA 'expression of genes' is ... no matter whether I understand it or not, and at what level.


This is great news, but unfortunately it is not a proof of evolution. This over-the-counter GMO tech looks like sooner as ID, rather than Evolution.
O.K. You may have a lot of various scientific (and pseudo-scientific articles) out there ... in the library of your farm. It might start exceeding at some point of time even the Library of Alexandria, ... who knows, but the truth of the matter is that you neither can assemble any plausible inference on the grounds of that 'huge' knowledge, nor even have the vaguest idea of how to operationalize it ... in order to guarantee that it is consistent, complete, true and correct ... and to make eventually a single claim relevant to a discussion without using ad hom, of any kind.
BTW the articles in the Wikipaedia have 'dynamic peers' all the time. Why don't you try to write there some ad hom to see how long it will survive - several nanoseconds, or less?


You are not saying anything substantial on the theme. Why don't you tell us what I can't understand ... and you are so aware of?


No, I don't have the slightest intention and I am not going to read any 'series of posts'.
Do you have the mechanics and the math and any evidences that the epigenetics can improve the functionality of a cell (of some algae or s.th.) and how it can transfer that improvement to the next generation ... notwithstanding whether with, or without (as your new hobby claims) changing the DNA sequence.


The term is 'adjourn the case'. Aren't you some GMO-biased 'independent' legal adviser on GMO cases ... who is producing as a hobby GMO maize in the leisure time.

Youre using "dynamic diversion" to hide the fact that you've already admitted your Creationist worldview. All the rest of your pointless dodging has been a mere attempt to ttry not to look stupid. I suppose I have nothing more I wish to bring out about you.

BTW, if you cannot tell the difference twixt an ad hominem and a direct insult, Im not here to be your "urban" dictionary.
You ESL folks get focused on learning one phrase and then trying to incorrectly beat it to death.
You and Quahog remind me of a foreign colleague who had learned another "favorite word" early after he came To the US
He came from N India and early in his career with us he learned the word "Dildo". As a result he was using it in his daily speech until he had to be roped in about what he was saying. (He started calling our clients "dildos").

Im not here to discuss biochemistry with you, you are unarmed and heavily opinionated based upon a fundamental worldview (a bad place to be in science discussions unless youre on a Creationist discussion line)All Id be doing is reinforcing or countering whatever your looking up in Wikipedia.
I must say though, at my present age, Im certainly personally interested in the process associated with methylation in RNA/DNA.
The methodology in nucleotide and amino acid reactions goes way beyond simple processes that Im sure you've looked up,
This is not a quiz so you don't have to scurry off and run to Wikipedia and get half the story.
Might I suggest that, if you are REALLY interested. try several books on the subject ,Books on Molecular biology by Berg,Tymoczko and Styer (2010) or Wossidio NAkamura et al (2010) AND, where does the scientific understanding of the processes on nucleotide linkge and reactions actually begin? The basic textual information goes back to M Ehrlich and Gama Sosa T back in 1982. (I still have to refer back TO some older text to get a basis of "how the methylation reaction is propogated'

THERE is a really good introductory book called
"The Manga Guide of Molecular Biology."
Its geared for an introductory reader but its fairly comprehensive.

You seem to have an all absorbing issue with GMO;s . Ive stated my position as a farmer. If you wish to try to continue to insult my wife and my business (ITS NOT A HOBBY) feel free, If she gets on the line, she wont be nearly as avuncular as I.
Theres so much I can tell you about what you seem to be missing in the discussions but your close mindedness seems to ruin your entire viewpoint. SO, its not my loss.
I learn new stuff every day and much of what I learn overturns what I knew yesterday. (like the use of buterates in hay curing or to try some of the new hybrid seasonal grasses with very high protein contents in the dry forage (like 23% FOR SUDAN GRASS).

GMO actually plays a rather small part in my overall life. It doesnt have my blood up like you. I, and my other farm friends here in the rural areas, can easily drive a lot of GMO out by merely NOT buying the seed.(Its merely a profit/expense iissue). We all stay away from "Roundup Ready" anything because its just growing super weeds. I also stay away from nicotenoids like clothianidine or thiomethoxame because I have some bee hives and I have not yet been struck by Veroa or CCD , even though apiaries in the apple country over in Adams County have suffered like 25% losses.

Im done .I don't know where you wanna go from here. We can carry on for pages after pges of mutual insult. I freely admit Ill never be able to change your mind but in my own defense I must say that I can make a very good living from practicing the principles of science and using the fact of evolution to guide basin analyses.
(I think that the only "good living" a Creation "Scientist" can make is to become employed by ICR or the Discovery Institute) in which they merely try to cobble arguments AGAINST the sciences but don't do anything of original research ON the sciences.

When you said that GMO "looks more like ID" hows how little you really know. The aspects of the danger of GMOs includes the fact that "induced resistance" is an evolutionary selective mechanism.
When we use "Roundup Ready" seeds and then use a liberal rinse of Roundup to control the weeds in a field works really well at first. Maybe 99% of weeds are killed. HOWEVER, the 1% of those who didn't succumb, become the nucleus of a new strain of weeds that gradually become immune to Roundup. Then, in a Roundup urplus world, the resistant trains gradually succeed and become the "most fit"
Pure opportunistic selection (where selection actually means removing everything but a pre adapted super weed)
Wallace said it all in a letter to Darwin.

When you said that GMO "looks more like ID" hows how little you really know. The aspects of the danger of GMOs includes the fact that "induced resistance" is an evolutionary selective mechanism.
When we use "Roundup Ready" seeds and then use a liberal rinse of Roundup to control the weeds in a field works really well at first. Maybe 99% of weeds are killed. HOWEVER, the 1% of those who didn't succumb, become the nucleus of a new strain of weeds that gradually become immune to Roundup. Then, in a Roundup surplus world, the resistant strains gradually succeed and become the "most fit"
Pure opportunistic selection (where selection actually means removing everything but a pre adapted super weed)
Wallace said it all in a letter to Darwin.

This is great news - that you are unaware to use the 'urban dictionary'.
ad hominem - Def. - Latin for 'to the man'. An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person of the statement instead of the argument itself. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he may resort to attacking an opponent either through labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks, insults and (unjustified personal) anger.

[quote="farmerman"] You ESL folks get focused on learning one phrase and then trying to incorrectly beat it to death. [/quote]
No, I have seen this on the movies - a phrase that is incorrect, omitted inadvertently, to be used subsequently extensively by the attorneys to defeat the thesis of the opponent.

[quote="farmerman"] Im not here to discuss biochemistry with you, you are unarmed and heavily opinionated based upon a fundamental worldview (a bad place to be in science discussions unless youre on a Creationist discussion line). [/quote]
You are 'not here', or you are 'unaware of what you are talking' - for there is difference.
BTW besides biochemistry you will need also some basic knowledge in molecular biology, cellular biology, physiology, ecology & epigenetics and also in energy flow & metabolism of the different tissues.
Ah, I forgot - conceptualization of the above said medical knowledge, functional modeling into beautiful computer model, verification & validation tests ... and graphical simulation of the techniques.

[quote="farmerman"] Might I suggest that, if you are REALLY interested. try several books on the subject ,Books on Molecular biology by Berg,Tymoczko and Styer (2010) or Wossidio NAkamura et al (2010) AND, where does the scientific understanding of the processes on nucleotide linkge and reactions actually begin? The basic textual information goes back to M Ehrlich and Gama Sosa T back in 1982. (I still have to refer back TO some older text to get a basis of "how the methylation reaction is propagated' [/quote]
FM, do you know what is generalization of data, and what is abstraction of knowledge? Sometimes much more important is to decide what not to read instead of listening to advises of what to read.
Can you explain in not more than 50 words:
- How is the epigenetics (if exists, and if works) transcoded into DNA sequence .. and when?
- If the evolution is based on mutations creating variations:
a) there is no guarantee that the mutation in the DNA sequence would be able to be transcribed into RNA version of the gene ... at all
b) and that the translation of the RNA by the ribosome would result into 'valid, healthy, and beneficial' protein, etc. Where is the guarantee for all that?

Most of us 'old timers' on a2k know the definition of most words. It's only those few who seem oblivious to what are facts and fiction. When people engage in any discussion, it's up to the person making the challenge to provide credible source proof, and when that doesn't work, the last thing left is to attack that person as an idiot (or similar).

In your attempts to argue with farmerman about geology only proves you're way out of your league. He was a professor at university, and also owned a consulting firm based on his education and knowledge.

Also, I've known farmerman for many years, and know his expertise in this area of knowledge. He's been good enough to share his knowledge on a2k, and many of us are appreciative of learning about this topic.

I would only suggest that you need to rethink your circular arguments, or provide credible sources for your opinions.

Now youre just making up phrases and shooting them out like spitballs.

RNA is unable to do what youveannunced . Only DNA can "repair" itself. SO, announcing that youre arriving at a "goal" seems a bit , well, Creationist.
I think that starting with rRNA, youre a bit too late in the sequence cascade. Instead look up mRNA and SRP's. Theres about 4 different kinds of RNA, each with a more or less, specific task at hand.
PS, youre not exposing anything of which Im unaware, but youre exposing a lot about which YOURE unaware.

I am amused at you attempts at flip flopping. Back a few pges you ere chidingme for not having any expertise in biology , which you stated emphatically was the sole mmagister for evolution. Now you want to extol the merits of "multidisciplinary tudies. He He He.
Don't forget developmental embryology, cladistics, paleontology, isotope geochem, stratigraphy, hydraulics and stream modeling, geology, and marine chemistry and even atmospheric chemistry.

I hope you now appreciate how multidisciplinary almost any science is nowadays.

.. in GMO, perhaps.
Teaching GMO on the grounds of concealed, incomplete, incorrect, and distorted information is not a heroism of first beauty.
I was wondering whether his students have had that information:
http://www.ecopedia.com/health/how-gmo-damage-human-dna/

... or perhaps the information about the acrylamid produced from frying of starches. Fried starch of non-GMO grains and potatoes, carrots, etc. causes cancer. The starch of GMO grain, fried in technically-unchangeable oil of GMO maize, causes 'unknown' new types of cancer.
What would you say in the capacity of his faithful follower (and as a person, knowing all the definitions by birth).

Or what about that one:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gmo-insulin-causes-type-1-diabetes-type-2-diabetics-study-finds

The statement that 'some people like ... really don't know what they are doing' is closest in meaning to the objective reality.

Here's a study by MIT that doesn't agree with 'your' finding about GMO's danger to DNA or our health. Rather, their conclusion is that GMO may be necessary to feed the increasing population of humans on this planet as droughts become more common. Additionally, they have found 'natural' GMO in some animals that hasn't produced any ill effects.
http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/genetically-modified-crops

You need to find better sources for your challenges.

Well, instead of blindly liniking to a study from a university, aren't you very critical of this? e.g WHO owns the university and WHO has paid for the study and so on and so forth!
(the university is owned by the same people who wants the GMO shite on the table!)

And even a 14 year old girl can blow you away with this ...easily!!!

his sources are of the anti GMO "at all costs".
A I said before, the market is still the best way to control anything objectionable .
"The Right to Farm" bill has not gained any traction yet so farmers are like second class citizens taking crap from uninformed public or , like Herald, armed with half assed information.

I certainly have no concerns that the "Anti GMO" cowd is totally without any market agenda. Ha!. GMO corns that are grown in Pa are only those whose starches are used for feedstock for PLSTICS, but now that the Marcellus "wet gas" is being produced at amounts greater than Saudi ARabia, the farming of "polymer corns" is limited.

I call them 'extremists.' They lose all sense of facts and evidence, but continue their rant as if they have found 'truth.' They lack the where-with-all to investigate their own failings, and suffer from myopia.

I don't use any Bt GMOs but newest research has shown that the Bt corn isnt harmful to Monarch butterflies or any other of the field butterflies. Nobody around here uses any "Roundup Ready" crap. After 3 four years, the weeds develop an immunity (thanks to natural selection) just like the skeeters developed immunity to DDT.

Some of these GMO's that Quahog and Herald seem concerned about don't have much presence in the US. Most local Dept of Ags have fairly strict rules on "prove it or don't use it"
Pa Ag registration requires several steps over the USDA and EPA (although EPA has a fairly strict research criterion for registration of g chems and gene license)

I think maybe the EU has a weaker syatem since most of these things that Herald is asserting come from there.