9
   

15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 08:54 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Now if only I could find evidence for your cosmic Santa on a creationist page. http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/37_zps3ae50676.gif
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 08:57 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
How did DNA evolve, when all evolution begins with DNA
Biological evolution does not stipulate DNA. All it needs is Replication, Variation and Selection. Anything which exhibits those characteristics will begin to evolve. Let's pick something at random as an example... let's say... a simple replicative molecule.

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
You do know that DNA can be used to store the bible as binary code? if not here is the proof. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11875

Irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:03 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Viruses are interesting but the cannot represent the origins of life as they are today, because they depend on more complex life forms to replicate.

Look, I am not discarding the problem of the origins of life. On the contrary I agree it is a very complex problem, perhaps the only one that i could possibly consider an arguable case of 'unreductible complexity'... It's not just about DNA/RNA. It is all about coding for proteins; ofherwise there is no life. So i guess it must have started at the level of only proteins, stuff like prions, even more bizarre and primitive than viruses, coexisting with some earlier forms of RNA. And then at some point some proteins-based systems 'domesticated' (or 'merged with') RNA-based chemistry...

It all seems very hard to fathom, I agree, but so was the genetic code less than a century ago... We'll see. Or not.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:07 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Viruses are interesting but the cannot represent the origins of life as they are today, because they depend on more complex life forms to replicate.

Look, I am not discarding the problem of the origins of life. On the contrary I agree it is a very complex problem, perhaps the only one that i could possibly consider an arguable case of 'unreductible complexity'... It's not just about DNA/RNA. It is all about coding for proteins; ofherwise there is no life. So i guess it must have started at the level of only proteins, stuff like prions, even more bizarre and primitive than viruses, coexisting with some earlier forms of RNA. And then at some point some proteins-based systems 'domesticated' (or 'merged with') RNA-based chemistry...

It all seems very hard to fathom, I agree, but so was the genetic code less than a century ago... We'll see. Or not.


That is a well-reasoned, level-headed and mature post. Now stop that. We're trying to argue here.













Wink
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:11 pm
@FBM,
Can't do that, unless I can borrow an electron microscope...... http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Fox_news_sunday.jpg
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:12 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Can't do that, unless I can borrow an electron microscope...... http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Fox_news_sunday.jpg


Link doesn't work. What sort of evidence for your Bronze Age god can you find with an electron microscope?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:24 pm
@Olivier5,
There is no evidence that proteins have the ability to code themselves, or ever did. As for the complexity of the genetic code, it is the only thing ever discovered, that gets more complex at the same time that it is unraveled and more understood. DNA is the most powerful creation in the known universe, when we can create it like we write binary code today, then it will be understood. The scary thing is that a major discovery that would enable this could be around the corner, or it might be tens of thousands of years away.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:28 pm
@FBM,
Works for the rest of us.........
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 09:31 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
I doubt it. It's a .jpg. What evidence for your celestial Santa can be found using an electron microscope?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 10:03 pm
@FBM,
Perhaps you need a real computer, as jpg. is the most common photo format. Come on, give up your web TV already.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 10:05 pm
The belief is that some molecule that could copy itself, much simpler than DNA, formed spontaneously in some ocean after hundreds of millions of years of random chemical interactions. Don't keep misstating our position. DNA would have come much, much later after a lot of evolution.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 10:06 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
.jpg is not a web address. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Fox_news_sunday

You've got nothing. You're bluffing. It's just Faux News, so I can't see how it could be evidence for your favorite invisible friend. What evidence for your invisible friend could be found with an electron microscope? I'm sure there's an English word for it you could type here.
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 10:48 pm
@Brandon9000,
Except that evolution is an advanced computer program, carried out by the information stored on the DNA hard drive.

Proof? pull out a few bits, or put in some bits of information where it should not be, and you create a computer virus, that will ruin the program.

Think.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 11:38 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY&feature=share
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 11:43 pm
Interesting:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429970.600#.VH1QezGUdz8

Quote:
Random no more: Evolution isn't down to chance alone

EVOLUTION, we have always been told, results from natural selection sifting through countless random variations over millions of years.

That's not good enough, says Andreas Wagner, a systems biologist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. Natural selection can explain which adaptations survive over time, he argues, but it falls far short of explaining where those adaptations originate.
...
Part of the secret, Wagner tells us, is that many different proteins can perform the same function, just as many different books can tell the same story in different words. That is, instead of looking for a single meaningful book in the entire library, evolution is looking for any one of many functionally equivalent ones.

That's not all: the structure of the library makes it easy for evolution to move from one meaningful book to another. When Wagner and his colleagues tried browsing adjacent "books" – proteins that differ by a single amino acid – they found that most worked just as well as the original. The same was true when they changed another amino acid, and another. In fact, you could move, step by step, from one end of the library to the other without changing the meaning.

This allows populations to accumulate a lot of genetic variation while still remaining viable. In Wagner's metaphor, readers spread into many different rooms of the library. And that's where the big pay-off comes. By wandering far afield, you come to rooms with very different sorts of books nearby. In real terms, you end up in places where changing just a few more amino acids gives you a protein with a radically different function – an evolutionary breakthrough, close at hand.

And the more hidden variation the population accumulates, the more likely that this will happen. As Wagner puts it, "while you walk along one of these trails, the innovation you are searching for will appear at some point in a small neighborhood near you". That's a big claim, and a far cry from pure, random chance.
...
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 05:29 am
@FBM,
Dude, Wagner says this. In other chapters, Wagner shows that the same principle holds for networks of metabolic and regulatory genes. Indeed, these linked pathways through diverse libraries may turn up in any sufficiently complex system, he says. In what may be the least convincing part of the book, he even speculates that we may be able to apply these principles to algorithms, letting artificial intelligence innovate faster than human inventors ever could.

So if this guy seriously unwraps the secret of life and creates an algorithm that can improve itself, then he is a brilliant man, who has created a form of life. Proving that life can be created now, as it was once created in the past. If any of this is true, then God is and was human, or at least had the same capacity to write and create as this man believes.

You are arguing in favor of a divine intelligence.

Sheesh
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 05:32 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
By all means, show us the evidence for that divine, intelligent creator that you promised earlier. All you have to do is make a stronger case than science currently does and everyone will be on your side. C'mon, dood! This is your big chance! Show us what you can do! Nobel Prize! They'll make you a pope. Whatever you want. Just cough up some evidence! Aren't you excited?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 05:41 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
Except that evolution is an advanced computer program, carried out by the information stored on the DNA hard drive.

Proof? pull out a few bits, or put in some bits of information where it should not be, and you create a computer virus, that will ruin the program.

Think.

Absolutely false. That is certainly not the theory of evolution. The DNA isn't causing evolution in the slightest, nor does evolution proceed by huge changes such as pulling out a few bits. That is not the theory.

What's causing evolution is the combination of minor accidents during reproduction and survival of the fittest. This is the precise mechanism by which bacteria acquire resistance to drugs. Most accidents during reproduction are fatal or, at least, detrimental, and only a tiny fraction are helpful. Evolution is the effect of all of these minor errors over time coupled with natural selection.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 05:48 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Your awkwardly confusing several chestnuts that you seem to have taken as fact when actually they serve more as metaphors.
Like
"The warm salty pond"--if you've read DArwin carefully, youd see his summary and conclusions were definitions of what the future discoveries may hold and the "warm little pond" was him giving an example of where life may have arisen.

or

Quote:
Except that evolution is an advanced computer program, carried out by the information stored on the DNA hard drive
Im sure Dr DEmski would agree with you, but Dr Gould has said that "DNA is merely the recordkeeping of evolution".

Once we understand a natural mechanism to then apply it, how does that automatically make ID compelling in your mind? all weve done is unravel and use a process, kinda like mining from continental drift or using hurricane prediction .

Youre like one of these people who Galileo talked about when he stated that'
"If a god gave me a brain Im sure he wouldn't want me not to use it'"
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 06:11 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
I think we can already 'create' DNA. We could write down War and Peace on it, or any other code if we wanted to. But we couldn't READ IT without sequencing the entire thing...

The trick would be to store DNA in a compact and stable way, like in a chromosome (see below), and in a way that the info is indexed, so that you know where to find it in the maze... Then we would need to copy the part we want decoded (that's the easy part: nature can do that for you with the right enzymes) and finally to amplify the signal so that we can read it. The last part (how to amplify a chemical message) seems quite a challenge. These things are really really small.

https://29lifescience.wikispaces.com/file/view/ChromosomeStructure.jpg/57692504/734x366/ChromosomeStructure.jpg
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:23:38