20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2018 03:17 pm
@farmerman,
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n629/jerlands/vertebrae_thoracicae.jpg
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2018 03:23 pm
@farmerman,
http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n629/jerlands/RESPIRATORY-SYSTEM.jpg
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2018 03:29 pm
Urban Dictionary wrote:
definition of Criminally Insane
A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right from wrong.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2018 04:56 pm
These two are just jerking each other off now.
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2018 05:00 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

These two are just jerking each other off now.

Your rub seems apparent. Who's your partner?
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2018 10:50 am
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2018 12:18 pm
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2018 02:53 pm
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 08:16 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
NOW as per mDNA, theres some logic. We name something simply by its structural function now magically its got a brain. OK, this keeps getting to be more fun.

So, are you admitting there is information being carried by mRNA or not?

Information does not require 'a brain' (books don't) so I don't know what point you are trying to make other than to confuse the issue.

But if you wish to argue, intelligence is required to recognize and put information to use. Maybe that's your point?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 08:29 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
actually we were talking of mRNA, mDNA is something else entirely.

Actually, if you go back and take a look, it was you that called it mDNA, not me.


Quote:
I looked at the definition of "Information" an the first 4 in my Am College Dictionary implies SENTIENCE, not mere data or structural component (like S in H2SO4).
Each component drives a reaction or response, but its not sentience.

But we are in total agreement that information implies sentience. Been trying to make that point for a few years now. It is implied, not because it posesses sentience, but that sentience was required to originate it.

A computer has no sentience but can certainly utilize information that was formatted in a way that the computer is programmed to use. But that programming and formatting of information absolutely requires sentience.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 09:32 am
@Leadfoot,
sentience is implicit wrt origination AND reception. Cant have it be "information" unless both are there. Information implies data that is received and processed or acted upon (At least according to a dictionary).

Quote:
A computer has no sentience but can certainly utilize information that was formatted in a way that the computer is programmed to use. But that programming and formatting of information absolutely requires sentience.
. Good try. A computer only does what you want it to. You are using the data and it becomes information at your hands. Im not gonna go on for several pages whacking off about a meaning. If you dont like ACD's version, tell me what the OED says
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 04:21 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
sentience is implicit wrt origination AND reception. Cant have it be "information" unless both are there. Information implies data that is received and processed or acted upon (At least according to a dictionary).

You have slipped off into the absurd now.

We sent Voyager off into interstellar space and only Startrek romantics believe anyone will ever receive the information on its gold record. But you maintain that there really isn’t information on it because no one will receive it. Talk about being in denial!

But you never gave me a direct answer to my question. Do you believe there is information in mRNA, DNA, proteins, etc?

Your comment about the computer only doing what you wanted was indeed applicable. Why would that not apply to the information in the cell's DNA?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 05:55 pm
@Leadfoot,
so by your logic weve sent that gilded CD with pix and some calculations just to wander the cosmos undetected eh? I was around when Voyager was sent and the whole thing was pretty much a Sagan experiment to "introduce ourselves" (Read: sentient beings or present occupants of the galaxy"
Yeh I guess in your world, I am being absurd. I really respect real things and avoid supernatural "science "

Quote:
Why would that not apply to the information in the cell's DNA?
Now you tell me Dr obvious?,
All the chemical combinations are governed by LAWS uniform throughout the galaxy (apparently because weve seen no new fancy schmancy pyridines or pyrimidines with which we can substitute some new type of bonding--Chemistry is a learned skill also)

sulfuric acid is created in gypsum caves through which rainwater percolates . Crystals have a shape governed by laws that differ only within atmospheric limits. Sulfur combines with atoms and ions with "neighborly valences, bonding types and ionic radii). No magic intelligent rules governing every reaction.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2018 10:30 pm
I know I've mentioned this in the past, although not recently. In 1973, I read an article in a number of The Scientific American from 1970 which described how organic molecules would form and replicate in aqueous clay tubes. Furthermore, it has long been shown that lipid spheres will form in the aqueous tubes of monmorillonite. Right there, no magic sky daddy, no hocus-pocus, no putative "organizing intelligence," you have the means for so-called abiogenesis. (No matter how life arose or may arise again, it's "abiogenesis," because first there is no life, and then there is life.)

Of the bullshit of the christians, there is no end. It gets tedious.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 12:07 am
@Setanta,
Interestingly the many mny hypotheses of abiogenesis seem to be hovering about the smektite/ montmorillonite models with assistance by sulfur and Phosphorus. The clays involved are commonly formed by "rotten" micas that are common in the piedmonts of mountain ranges. When we look at areas on the planet where life had tried to start out but never "took", we see clay basins surrounded by areas loaded with metal pyrite minerals (sulfur salts that oxidize from acid sulfides to sulfate salts). This is just like somma the stuff we are seeing in Australia and Greenland AND on Mars.
(Course our ID friends would say that "this is how god did it).

It kinda annoys me that science does all the heavy lifting and the Creation/ID folks just play with words. Course, they are convinced that cockroaches dont evolve so thats proof of something for them .
Graduate degrees in hand, research and industrial experience for going on 41 yars and I shoulda been smart enough to see that cockroaches and Coelocanths prove that god did it all, IN THE DARK!!

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 05:30 am
@farmerman,
That cockroaches don't evolve crap tickles me pink--there used to be a half-hour program about nature, looking at different ecosystems each week. One episode looked at New York City--the coyotes in the brush and coppices at Jamaica Bay, having arrived on cargo planes from the southwest; wild chickens from Easter chicks which had been discarded . . .

But the one I loved were the cockroaches that television repairmen found. They had become tubular, with bright colors banded on the carapaces, so that they resembled the electronic components in televisions. Of course, these days, nobody repairs televisions, they just throw them out and get new ones.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 05:34 am
Apparently, it's getting worse. (clickity-click)
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 07:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
All the chemical combinations are governed by LAWS uniform throughout the galaxy (apparently because weve seen no new fancy schmancy pyridines or pyrimidines with which we can substitute some new type of bonding--Chemistry is a learned skill also)

This is exactly where you are in denial. You are trying to pretend that the cellular DNA processes are totally governed by chemical laws. They are not.

You completely ignore/miss the multiple levels of abstraction (coded software)required to implement all those functions by a code that is unrelated to chemical laws.

Understanding software is also a learned skillset I guess.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 11:09 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
You are trying to pretend that the cellular DNA processes are totally governed by chemical laws. They are not.
Pray tell,then what are they?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2018 11:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Understanding software is also a learned skillset I guess.
when all the tools you work with are hammers, you see all the world's problems as a nail
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 10:38:35