Rejecting evolution with science...

[Swa]

Swa, you don't even understand the Theory of Evolution, so please go educate yourself before you think to argue things you have no idea about.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you and for the fact that you can't even see how much damage you're doing to your argument and religion. If the best means of 'disproving' evolution for you is to discredit the research and the supporters, then I'm sorry, but your arguments hold no grounds as that is a logical fallacy. Come back when you can disprove evolution with facts, not insults.

You have no idea what I understand or not. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU might be the one who doesn't understand it? Your argument is completely illogical. I can assure you I am not the one doing any damage. The way you're going it is your side doing that as the numbers reflect. I say it again I was completely willing to argue logically with you but if you're going to behave like the rest and use the same false arguments I will treat you like them.

A logical fallacy? You must be kidding. If you consider that a fallacy you have no idea what a fallacy is.

ABIOGENESIS ISN'T PART OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

It's the very basis your theory is built on. Only a complete moron would claim it isn't part of it. Sheesh how many times must that be explained. And if it wasn't part of the theory then explain why the text books on evolution include it UNDER evolution.

Of course I don't understand your answer. I asked for your evidence that science disproves evolution and you replied by stating that you're glad I don't beat my wife any longer.

Fsck you! Really! Fsck you!

If you had even the smallest comprehension of the schit I've been through you'd probably think twice before posting such bullschit.

Seriously. Fsck you. You'd better hope [edited out]...

We both know that isn't what happened. I pointed out your entirely different fallacious statement to which you responded to by asking to define the question. It's a standard response (I'm sure you've seen it before) which I rephrased to illustrate it doesn't have to be a question. Nothing to take literally and be offended about. Jeez man you have some serious issues which is quite evident already from your attitude towards religion.

DNA functions according to natural processes determined by its physical properties; it is not a code or a language.

It's not? Better tell all those scientists trying to decipher this code then that their wasting their time.

When your core defence breaks down to cries of conspiracy you have to question the merits of your position. Claims like those you and Swa make aren't being suppressed; they get torn apart because they are scientifically unsound.

Who mentioned conspiracy? Oh yes it was you here thinking that playing the conspiracy card can shut down the argument because it is in fact your defense that broke down.

It doesn't 'act like' code - it resembles code when mapped. It doesn't satisfy any of the metrics apparent in language, and thus cannot be considered as such; papers have been written about this. When DNA is said to be coding, it is not meant to infer that there is some underlying language being used.

Yes much has been written. Try to do some general reading and not the limited crap that only supports your view. Here is a starting point: http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The problem is the inference of originating intelligence carried by the words 'code' and 'language' when used as they are being used here. I'm pretty sure you don't actually need this being spelled out for you...

That's a BS argument. Nobody is inferring intelligence on the sole fact it is a code. You can call it ping-pong, smurfs or whatever you want but it doesn't change the fact it is there. The problem for Darwinian evolution is that it can't explain how it got there. It can't even start until there's thousands of these correct codes together in the right order. Address the issue or admit your house is built on shaky ground.

 

[Zewp]

You have no idea what I understand or not. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU might be the one who doesn't understand it? Your argument is completely illogical. I can assure you I am not the one doing any damage. The way you're going it is your side doing that as the numbers reflect. I say it again I was completely willing to argue logically with you but if you're going to behave like the rest and use the same false arguments I will treat you like them.

A logical fallacy? You must be kidding. If you consider that a fallacy you have no idea what a fallacy is.

Swa, don't you find it curious how everyone who argues with you comes to the conclusion that you're a moron?

As for logical fallacies; if you cannot attack a person's arguments head on and instead have to resort to deflection attempts at discrediting their research and the people supporting it, then that, my dear Swa, is a logical fallacy.

You do not even understand evolution, made clear in the arguments you present, yet you want to argue that it is false. You cry when we say you argue things you do not understand, but if you understand evolution, why is it not reflected in your arguments? Why do your arguments continue to give the impression you have no idea what you're talking about?

Swa, I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible. Please don't procreate.

 

[Ekstasis]

1 - you never asked that question.
2 - please learn about the very basics of genetics

That your final answer to a very rational and valid question?

 

[DJ...]

That your final answer to a very rational and valid question?

I answered your question. Genetics. Learn how it works. Additionally, with every post you have changed the questions you're asking. If you don't realise this then I can only assume that you're simply sock-puppetting for someone else, as you clearly do not understand the subject matter at all...

 

[DJ...]

Swa, your explanation of what transpired is fruity and is a lie. You are a disgusting little specimen. Consider yourself on ignore moving forward...

 

[Ekstasis]

I answered your question. Genetics. Learn how it works. Additionally, with every post you have changed the questions you're asking. If you don't realise this then I can only assume that you're simply sock-puppetting for someone else, as you clearly do not understand the subject matter at all...

So you cannot explain it then? Stop side stepping the question? Common behavior amongst evolutionists

 

[DJ...]

So you cannot explain it then? Stop side stepping the question? Common behavior amongst evolutionists

Allow me to explain this in bullet format because drawing a picture is too much effort:

1 - you asked "how encoded information in DNA gets there"
2 - I responded "genetics"

That is the answer to your question. It really and truly does not get any simpler than that...

 

[Ekstasis]

Allow me to explain this in bullet format because drawing a picture is too much effort:

1 - you asked "how encoded information in DNA gets there"
2 - I responded "genetics"

That is the answer to your question. It really and truly does not get any simpler than that...

My goodness DJ. Genetics is a discipline of biology. It's a broad area in itself. All you've showed me, the ignorant uneducated forumite, is that you yourself don't have the foggiest idea. I'm not looking for DNA replication here, that's after the fact. I want to know how it started, the first DNA with the first instructions in genetic code (pls note genetic code is scientific terminology used within the discipline of Genetics )

Can you tell me in your own words or refer me to a link where it shortly describes what scientists thought happened?

 

[DJ...]

My goodness DJ. Genetics is a discipline of biology. It's a broad area in itself. All you've showed me, the ignorant uneducated forumite, is that you yourself don't have the foggiest idea. I'm not looking for DNA replication here, I want to know how it started..

Can you tell me in your own words or refer me to a link where it shortly describes what scientists thought happened?

Once again you are changing the question. Allow me to illustrate once again how your questions have changed with every post and subsequent rebuttal of mine (and I'm going to paraphrase):

1 - you asked where instructions for DNA proteins come from
2 - I pointed out that DNA is not a protein and your question makes no sense
3 - you then asked if amino acid sequences are specific to each protein
4 - I replied yes, but I don't know what this has to do with anything
5 - you then made a statement about DNA transcoding being an interpreting issue and claimed that instructions are contained within the amino acids (note, no question posed)
6 - I pointed out that you are talking schit
7 - You then said that I haven't answered how information got into the DNA in the first place
8 - I pointed out that you never asked that, and answered 'genetics' which is the answer
9 - you claim I am side-stepping the issue
10 - I repeat 'genetics' as it is the answer to your question
11 - you change the question to "how did the first piece of information become encoded?"

Allow me to answer again for you - genetics. It is a well researched field. One you claim to know well, by the looks of your posts.

If you want a slightly more detailed answer, because you struggle to understand the basics of genetics as well, the answer is simple. Sex. We are made up of chromosones, 46 of them in somatic cells, 23 of which are passed on by each of our parents. Sex is our form of replication. For others it is external fertilisation. For some it is pollination. For others it they undergo a completely asexual reproduction, like some plants. Now we can go back, and back, and back in time until we come to the critical aspect of your question, which is how did inorganic life spurn organic life.

Information is duplicated, replicated and modified in the DNA through various aspects of genetics - there is no single, one-liner explanation for you. If you take issue with something about genetics, then feel free to ask, but I don't think I need to be justifying your misgivings with a 200 page abstract on the fundamentals of genetics. Regardless, I'm not qualified to do so. I do however understand how and why information is passed through offspring. I certainly hope you do too or this conversation is going to take an awkward turn.

So your real question here is actually about abiogenesis, and not about genetics, or DNA encoding, or your sublimely ridiculous DNA protein nonsense. You want to know what was the first bit if information transcoded into DNA, and the mechanisms involved. All that I can tell you is that I do not know, nor does anyone. Your answer is "the supernatural". My answer is "we do not fully understand it yet, but I have no doubt we will some day".

So all this time you have been trying to use fancy concepts, fscking them up royally, and asking nonsensical questions, in the hopes of finding a slip-up in evolution or in the vain despair of trying to inject god into DNA, when in actual fact your entire point of contention has nothing to do with evolution. It has been explained to you countless times before: evolution does not answer, nor does it in any way try to answer the beginning of life as we know it. Never has; probably never will unless abiogenesis turns out to be related to fields of existing evolution biology.

So we've now had a back and forth about this for I don't know how long, again, because you do not understand your own bloody questions...

 

[Ekstasis]

Once again you are changing the question. Allow me to illustrate once again how your questions have changed with every post and subsequent rebuttal of mine (and I'm going to paraphrase):

1 - you asked where instructions for DNA proteins come from
2 - I pointed out that DNA is not a protein and your question makes no sense
3 - you then asked if amino acid sequences are specific to each protein
4 - I replied yes, but I don't know what this has to do with anything
5 - you then made a statement about DNA transcoding being an interpreting issue and claimed that instructions are contained within the amino acids (note, no question posed)
6 - I pointed out that you are talking schit
7 - You then said that I haven't answered how information got into the DNA in the first place
8 - I pointed out that you never asked that, and answered 'genetics' which is the answer
9 - you claim I am side-stepping the issue
10 - I repeat 'genetics' as it is the answer to your question
11 - you change the question to "how did the first piece of information become encoded?"

Allow me to answer again for you - genetics. It is a well researched field. One you claim to know well, by the looks of your posts.

If you want a slightly more detailed answer, because you struggle to understand the basics of genetics as well, the answer is simple. Sex. We are made up of chromosones, 46 of them in somatic cells, 23 of which are passed on by each of our parents. Sex is our form of replication. For others it is external fertilisation. For some it is pollination. For others it they undergo a completely asexual reproduction, like some plants. Now we can go back, and back, and back in time until we come to the critical aspect of your question, which is how did inorganic life spurn organic life.

Information is duplicated, replicated and modified in the DNA through various aspects of genetics - there is no single, one-liner explanation for you. If you take issue with something about genetics, then feel free to ask, but I don't think I need to be justifying your misgivings with a 200 page abstract on the fundamentals of genetics. Regardless, I'm not qualified to do so. I do however understand how and why information is passed through offspring. I certainly hope you do too or this conversation is going to take an awkward turn.

So your real question here is actually about abiogenesis, and not about genetics, or DNA encoding, or your sublimely ridiculous DNA protein nonsense. You want to know what was the first bit if information transcoded into DNA, and the mechanisms involved. All that I can tell you is that I do not know, nor does anyone. Your answer is "the supernatural". My answer is "we do not fully understand it yet, but I have no doubt we will some day".

So all this time you have been trying to use fancy concepts, fscking them up royally, and asking nonsensical questions, in the hopes of finding a slip-up in evolution or in the vain despair of trying to inject god into DNA, when in actual fact your entire point of contention has nothing to do with evolution. It has been explained to you countless times before: evolution does not answer, nor does it in any way try to answer the beginning of life as we know it. Never has; probably never will unless abiogenesis turns out to be related to fields of existing evolution biology.

So we've now had a back and forth about this for I don't know how long, again, because you do not understand your own bloody questions...

Thank you

 

[porchrat]

I didn't say or indicate that abiogenesis forms part of evolution. If you have limited comprehension don't blame me. Let me try explain again:

The organized information found in DNA has not been satisfactory explained by science. What caused the specific "code"? This pose a problem for the theory of evolution. Because if an intelligent agent had an input, natural selection falls flat thereafter.

The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis if it's not acquired through materialistic processes used by evolutionary scientists.

It isn't that my ability to comprehend is limited, it is that you aren't making an awful lot of sense.

Even if your deity magicked up the first unit of reproducing life that means sweet fsck all to the theory of evolution. To be more specific it also means sweet fsck all to the concept of natural selection. It most certainly isn't "a huge problem for evolutionary scientists" and it most certainly doesn't mean that "the Darwinist theory of evolution completely falls apart because of it". That sort of thing looks a lot like the barely coherent ramblings of a person that doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject matter he is attempting to discuss.

Perhaps go and do some more reading. Not reading from creationist literature mind you, that is the garbage that got you into this anti-science mess in the first place. I mean reading about things like how mutations come about, what sort of mutations we have observed and how they manifest. That sort of thing will help you to understand why it really doesn't matter whether your deity created the first bit of life or not, evolution can still happen regardless.

 

[Ekstasis]

It isn't that my ability to comprehend is limited, it is that you aren't making an awful lot of sense.

Even if your deity magicked up the first unit of reproducing life that means sweet fsck all to the theory of evolution. To be more specific it also means sweet fsck all to the concept of natural selection. It most certainly isn't "a huge problem for evolutionary scientists" and it most certainly doesn't mean that "the Darwinist theory of evolution completely falls apart because of it". That sort of thing looks a lot like the barely coherent ramblings of a person that doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject matter he is attempting to discuss.

Perhaps go and do some more reading. Not reading from creationist literature mind you, that is the garbage that got you into this anti-science mess in the first place. I mean reading about things like how mutations come about, what sort of mutations we have observed and how they manifest. That sort of thing will help you to understand why it really doesn't matter whether your deity created the first bit of life or not, evolution can still happen regardless.

It does have an implication on evolution. It would mean that natural selection wouldn't exist and neither would evolution,wait for it....,from a common ancestor.

The huge gaps in the evolutionary tree, acknowledge by people like Dawkins, the unguided process of NS etc. provides points for discussion.

 

[DJ...]

It does have an implication on evolution. It would mean that natural selection wouldn't exist and neither would evolution,wait for it....,from a common ancestor.

You must be joking?!

 

[Ekstasis]

You must be joking?!

No I'm not. What it actually would mean is that life was created in it's various forms

 

[Ekstasis]

@DJ, the complexity of life on molecular level especially in DNA and the various RNA structures makes the idea of NS preposterous. This "process"/"force" cannot possibly have forward knowledge of how to handle these complex machinery in order to bring about precise results.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski worked out that it's impossible for NS to be a sufficient agent for this.

 

[porchrat]

It does have an implication on evolution. It would mean that natural selection wouldn't exist and neither would evolution,wait for it....,from a common ancestor.

The huge gaps in the evolutionary tree, acknowledge by people like Dawkins, the unguided process of NS etc. provides points for discussion.

This makes no sense I'm afraid.

Why do you think natural selection would be affected simply because your deity created the first reproducible unit of life? It would still need to survive and, thanks to the nature of DNA and its regulatory mechanisms, be shaped by its environment. Same goes for evolution from a common ancestor. Again I say you simply aren't talking sense here.


Even if people give you that your deity created the first unit of life capable of reproducing that doesn't suddenly mean that natural selection doesn't happen... what exactly do you think natural selection is?

 

[HapticSimian]

It's not? Better tell all those scientists trying to decipher this code then that their wasting their time.

Not in the sense of the word you're ascribing to it, no. To wit, a genome is mapped or sequenced, and very much no 'deciphered', because it isn't a code in the sense that you are implying.

Who mentioned conspiracy? Oh yes it was you here thinking that playing the conspiracy card can shut down the argument because it is in fact your defense that broke down.

"The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis..." - there's your nutbag conspiracy. Kooky conspiracies are obvious to all except for their proponents.

Yes much has been written. Try to do some general reading and not the limited crap that only supports your view. Here is a starting point: http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

Wait, peer-reviewed, published research is 'limited crap', but the musings of some dude - by his own admission "not a molecular geneticist" - categorically isn't? Are you for reals?

Not to mention that the author seems to be a fan of the notion of panspermia, and that his list of suggested further reading is hardly indicative of someone you'd find much support from.

That's a BS argument. Nobody is inferring intelligence on the sole fact it is a code. You can call it ping-pong, smurfs or whatever you want but it doesn't change the fact it is there. The problem for Darwinian evolution is that it can't explain how it got there. It can't even start until there's thousands of these correct codes together in the right order. Address the issue or admit your house is built on shaky ground.

The problem for you is that evolutionary theory doesn't need to explain how it got there. No matter how many times you make the demand, this will remain a strawman.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

@DJ, the complexity of life on molecular level especially in DNA and the various RNA structures makes the idea of NS preposterous. This "process"/"force" cannot possibly have forward knowledge of how to handle these complex machinery in order to bring about precise results.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski worked out that it's impossible for NS to be a sufficient agent for this.

Ekstasis, you are regurgitating arguments that have been debunked over and over again and not just recently but many years ago.

Here is a video on a debate from 1997 where this David Berlinski fellow gets answers for all his questions then bases arguments on these topics again knowing very well he has already received answers for them. Sounds a lot like somebody here. This whole debate happened again in 2005 where ID was once again completely torn apart.

[video=youtube_share;_ianvdg1_Yk]http://youtu.be/_ianvdg1_Yk[/video]

He should stick to Mathematics as it appears he has no handle on biological evolution.

 

[HapticSimian]

@DJ, the complexity of life on molecular level especially in DNA and the various RNA structures makes the idea of NS preposterous. This "process"/"force" cannot possibly have forward knowledge of how to handle these complex machinery in order to bring about precise results.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski worked out that it's impossible for NS to be a sufficient agent for this.

Cart before horse bull****. Imperfect replication + heredity + selection pressures = natural selection, and evolution as consequence. It really is, at its most basic, as simple as that.

Also, David Berlinski is good for the lulz.

 

[Swa]

Swa, don't you find it curious how everyone who argues with you comes to the conclusion that you're a moron?

Only because those that agree are silent and those that respond are closed minded. What closed minded people think of me doesn't phase me.

As for logical fallacies; if you cannot attack a person's arguments head on and instead have to resort to deflection attempts at discrediting their research and the people supporting it, then that, my dear Swa, is a logical fallacy.

Discrediting research is not a fallacy. It IS attacking an argument head on. Seems you need to learn what a fallacy is.

You do not even understand evolution, made clear in the arguments you present, yet you want to argue that it is false. You cry when we say you argue things you do not understand, but if you understand evolution, why is it not reflected in your arguments? Why do your arguments continue to give the impression you have no idea what you're talking about?

Swa, I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible. Please don't procreate.

That is simply your own biased closed minded view. You have no idea what my understanding is. To you everyone who doesn't believe evolution doesn't understand it. THAT is a true fallacy.

Swa, your explanation of what transpired is fruity and is a lie. You are a disgusting little specimen. Consider yourself on ignore moving forward...

Post #33 in response to #31. #34 in response to #33. #37 (which you had deleted) in response to #33.

So you cannot explain it then? Stop side stepping the question? Common behavior amongst evolutionists

They always do just like they close their eyes to any counter evidence and pretend it doesn't exist.

has nothing to do with evolution. It has been explained to you countless times before: evolution does not answer, nor does it in any way try to answer the beginning of life as we know it. Never has; probably never will unless abiogenesis turns out to be related to fields of existing evolution biology.

So we've now had a back and forth about this for I don't know how long, again, because you do not understand your own bloody questions...

BS. It's the very basis of your "theory." Without it there could be a starting organism with all the genes of today already present, or 10, or 100, or millions, or even all life in its present forms. You see how it's very much related as your entire argument falls flat without explaining it. That evolution doesn't have to address it is hogwash. It does and you can bet your a$$ it would if scientists had even a slightest clue but as it turns out the "evidence" is even less than for the rest of the fairytale, it's nothing at all.

This makes no sense I'm afraid.

Why do you think natural selection would be affected simply because your deity created the first reproducible unit of life? It would still need to survive and, thanks to the nature of DNA and its regulatory mechanisms, be shaped by its environment. Again I say you simply aren't talking sense here.


Even if people give you that your deity created the first unit of life capable of reproducing that doesn't suddenly mean that natural selection doesn't happen... what exactly do you think natural selection is?

You don't make any sense. If the first organism didn't arise naturally there is no reason to assume evolution occurred naturally. In fact there's every reason to assume it didn't because a natural process degrades things over time. And as has also be pointed out why only once? Why not many times? Why not go the full way and create everything in its current forms? Seems you're putting limits on what He can and can't do. I can't wait for the day God creates that monkey out of nothing when it's too late for you to change your minds.

Not in the sense of the word you're ascribing to it, no. To wit, a genome is mapped or sequenced, and very much no 'deciphered', because it isn't a code in the sense that you are implying.

In what sense is that? DNA is very much a real code whether you want to believe it's created or not. There's "no-op" sequences to slow down encoding and align genes. Sequences to start and stop encoding. Sequences (previously thought to be dead) to control what sections are read. The only reason you don't want to acknowledge its complexity is because your natural process is only capable of simplicity.

"The scientific community are suppressing any other hypothesis..." - there's your nutbag conspiracy. Kooky conspiracies are obvious to all except for their proponents.

So they're openly encouraging it and not banning its teaching, giving it poor and biased reviews, ridiculing, censoring? http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution Yeah it would be a nutbag conspiracy if it wasn't so open and obvious.

Wait, peer-reviewed, published research is 'limited crap', but the musings of some dude - by his own admission "not a molecular geneticist" - categorically isn't? Are you for reals?

Yet you have been given peer-reviewed research saying the same things. The issue here isn't whether it's peer-reviewed or not or credible or not but only whether it conforms to your own views.

Not to mention that the author seems to be a fan of the notion of panspermia, and that his list of suggested further reading is hardly indicative of someone you'd find much support from.

I can see when someone makes a good point or two and don't need to discount it based on their other ideas, that's only your M.O.

The problem for you is that evolutionary theory doesn't need to explain how it got there. No matter how many times you make the demand, this will remain a strawman.

Then the hole will forever remain in your "theory." That is a problem for YOU.

Here is a video on a debate from 1997 where this David Berlinski fellow gets answers for all his questions then bases arguments on these topics again knowing very well he has already received answers for them. Sounds a lot like somebody here. This whole debate happened again in 2005 where ID was once again completely torn apart.

Evolutionist: "You can't say it's impossible"

Yeah some "answers" alright. A lot like the "answers" we get here.