Rejecting evolution with science...

HapticSimian said:
Of the remaining two one is behind a pay-wall, and the other seems to be a not completely serious editorial. Regardless, the principle remains: taking a given phenomenon and choosing to represent it in alphanumeric characters does not a language make.

That being said, even if DNA was to be shown to be encoded sonnets in iambic pentameter it would pose no obstacle to evolution and common descent. Perhaps it's time we hit the brakes before this freewheeling coach derails completely.
Click to expand...
Isn't the origin of DNA and the genetic code irrelevant to the ToE and associated with abiogenesis? And so what if it doesn't pose a problem/obstacle for evolution?
 
Techne said:
Isn't the origin of DNA and the genetic code irrelevant to the ToE and associated with abiogenesis? And so what if it doesn't pose a problem/obstacle for evolution?
Click to expand...

What are you saying, man? Are we in agreement or not that any discussion on DNA's status as a code or language will not go any distance towards 'rejecting evolution with science'... the topic of this thread?
 
HapticSimian said:
What are you saying, man? Are we in agreement or not that any discussion on DNA's status as a code or language will not go any distance towards 'rejecting evolution with science'... the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...
Of course. I just get the impression you were on about more than that.
 
Ekstasis said:
I think this question is in essence a huge problem for evolutionary scientists because the Darwinist theory of evolution completely falls apart because of it.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

However, the fact that it has not been explained yet does not mean we should now attribute it to some religious mumbo-jumbo. That would place us all the way back in the bronze age, where we attribute things we don't yet understand to magic.
 
Zewp said:
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

However, the fact that it has not been explained yet does not mean we should now attribute it to some religious mumbo-jumbo. That would place us all the way back in the bronze age, where we attribute things we don't yet understand to magic.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be an argument from ignorance. Of course, the classical arguments for religion do not rely on arguments from ignorance.

I have a question for you.
Do you think that evolutionary explanations imply that creation is false?
Why?
 
Techne said:
I have a question for you.
Do you think that evolutionary explanations imply that creation is false?
Why?
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't imply the need for one. Presupposing a creator in the first place is the issue...
 
DJ... said:
It certainly doesn't imply the need for one. Presupposing a creator in the first place is the issue...
Click to expand...
Do you agree that evolutionary explanations do not imply that creation is true or false?
 
Techne said:
Do you agree that evolutionary explanations do not imply that creation is true or false?
Click to expand...

That's asking me to assume merit in creation, which I don't. But to answer your strawman, no evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of creation. In the same way that it doesn't disprove alien intervention. Evolution doesn't infer the existence of aliens, nor does it infer the existence of creation.

Would you agree that the bible doesn't preclude the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
 
Techne said:
I have a question for you.
Do you think that evolutionary explanations imply that creation is false?
Why?
Click to expand...

AS DJ... said, in order to answer your question one would have to believe that the theory of creationism is anything other than bronze age superstition dragged into the 21st century by gullible people. Which I don't, because that's exactly what it is and there is not a shred of proof available to the contrary.

So no, evolution does not disprove creationism for the same reason that the bible does not disprove the existence of rainbow unicorns flying around in the clouds.
 
Zewp said:
AS DJ... said, in order to answer your question one would have to believe that the theory of creationism is anything other than bronze age superstition dragged into the 21st century by gullible people. Which I don't, because that's exactly what it is and there is not a shred of proof available to the contrary.

So no, evolution does not disprove creationism for the same reason that the bible does not disprove the existence of rainbow unicorns flying around in the clouds.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he meant. He's not talking about creationism as we've gotten used to it, i.e. nutty evangelical biblical literalists. He just means creation as a concept in general. The answer is simply 'no'. The merits of creationism are irrelevant.
 
In simple terms, a DNA-protein needs an instruction for the function it needs to carry out. What process in your mind develops/create/brings about this instruction?
 
Ekstasis said:
In simple terms, a DNA-protein needs an instruction for the function it needs to carry out. What process in your mind develops/create/brings about this instruction?
Click to expand...

WTF is a DNA protein?! :wtf: DNA is an acid base. It binds to histone proteins - it is not a protein. You're asking bullschit questions. It is the instruction manual for proteins. It doesn't receive instruction and pass it on...
 
Ekstasis said:
In simple terms, a DNA-protein needs an instruction for the function it needs to carry out. What process in your mind develops/create/brings about this instruction?
Click to expand...

WTF is a DNA protein?! :wtf: DNA is an acid base. It binds to histone proteins - it is not a protein. You're asking bullschit questions. It is the instruction manual for proteins. It doesn't receive instruction and pass it on...
 
DJ... said:
WTF is a DNA protein?! :wtf: DNA is an acid base. It binds to histone proteins - it is not a protein. You're asking bullschit questions. It is the instruction manual for proteins. It doesn't receive instruction and pass it on...
Click to expand...
Exactly, and it "tells" the protein what to do. The amino acid sequence is very specific to the protein function, right?
 
Ekstasis said:
Exactly, and it "tells" the protein what to do. The amino acid sequence is very specific to the protein function, right?
Click to expand...

Er, yes. I haven't got the foggiest what your point is. What are you going on about?

Are you trying to inject god into the DNA sequence somehow? Please, if you are, for the love of fsck, go and learn how DNA works. It requires absolutely zero external interference to do its job.

It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You think that DNA is a protein; that it receives instructions and passes them on; and that amino acid sequences imply god.

Rather just post the source of your questions. If they come from the recesses of your grey matter then rather put your grey matter to better use and learn something for a change - http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna.htm

Stop trying to inject god into science. You do not understand science. I'm unsure about your understanding of theism either...
 
DJ... said:
Er, yes. I haven't got the foggiest what your point is. What are you going on about?

Are you trying to inject god into the DNA sequence somehow? Please, if you are, for the love of fsck, go and learn how DNA works. It requires absolutely zero external interference to do its job.

It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You think that DNA is a protein; that it receives instructions and passes them on; and that amino acid sequences imply god.

Rather just post the source of your questions. If they come from the recesses of your grey matter then rather put your grey matter to better use and learn something for a change - http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna.htm

Stop trying to inject god into science. You do not understand science. I'm unsure about your understanding of theism either...
Click to expand...
I do understand the basics of DNA. The way I wrote is was to indicate in short the synthesis of protein from the DNA and RNA needs instruction and interpretation. The instruction is in the sequenced amino acids. The inference is not necessarily a god but rather an intellectual mind.

This creates a problem before evolution can start since natural selection is unguided
 
Ekstasis said:
I do understand the basics of DNA. The way I wrote is was to indicate in short the synthesis of protein from the DNA and RNA needs instruction and interpretation. The instruction is in the sequenced amino acids. The inference is not necessarily a god but rather an intellectual mind.

This creates a problem before evolution can start since natural selection is unguided
Click to expand...

What the absolute fsck?!

No, you do not understand the basics of nucleic acids, nor evolution. What interpretation? Why would a chemical reaction require mutual understanding?

If you'd just listen and read things linked to you, you'd have an actual basic understanding of how this works. Here, I'll even quote the relevant HSW page:

Building proteins is very much like building a house:
The master blueprint is DNA, which contains all of the information to build the new protein (house).
The working copy of the master blueprint is called messenger RNA (mRNA), whic*h is copied from DNA.
The construction site is either the cytoplasm in a prokaryote or the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in a eukaryote.
The building materials are amino acids.
The construction workers are ribosomes and transfer RNA molecules.
Let's look at each phase of the new construction more closely.

In a eukaryote, DNA never leaves the nucleus, so its information must be copied. This copying process is called transcription and the copy is mRNA. Transcription takes place in the cytoplasm (prokaryote) or in the nucleus (eukaryote). The transcription is performed by an enzyme called RNA polymerase.

To make mRNA, RNA polymerase:
Binds to the DNA strand at a specific sequence of the gene called a promoter
Unwinds and unlinks the two strands of DNA
Uses one of the DNA strands as a guide or template
Matches new nucleotides with their complements on the DNA strand (G with C, A with U -- remember that RNA has uracil (U) instead of thymine (T))
Binds these new RNA nucleotides together to form a complementary copy of the DNA strand (mRNA)
Stops when it encounters a termination sequence of bases (stop codon)

mRNA is happy to live in a single-stranded state (as opposed to DNA's desire to form complementary double-stranded helixes). In prokaryotes, all of the nucleotides in the mRNA are part of codons for the new protein. However, in eukaryotes only, there are extra sequences in the DNA and mRNA that don't code for proteins called introns. This mRNA is then further processed:

Introns get cut out
The coding sequences get spliced together
A special nucleotide "cap" gets added to one end
A long tail consisting of 100 to 200 adenine nucleotides is added to the other end

No one knows why this processing occurs in eukaryotes. Finally, at any one moment, many genes are being transcribed simultaneously according to the cell's needs for specific proteins.
The working copy of the blueprint (mRNA) must now go the construction site where the workers will build the new protein. If the cell is a prokaryote such as an E. coli bacterium, then the site is the cytoplasm. If the cell is a eukaryote, such as a human cell, then the mRNA leaves the nucleus through large holes in the nuclear membrane (nuclear pores) and goes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER).
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't bothered to look at these fundamental basics before, or you'd understand that your question makes no sense.

Apologies for the repetition, but:

It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You think that DNA is a protein; that it receives instructions and passes them on; and that amino acid sequences imply god.
Click to expand...

The fact that you think that DNA is a protein is a wake-up call to you to actually go and read up before attempting to involve yourself in subjects you know nothing about...
 
I just get so tired when people like Swa and Ekstasis continuously base their arguments on either absolute ignorance or simply misunderstanding. It wastes so, so much time when you're trying to have a debate and one side doesn't even know what they're talking about. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X