quote:Each DNA strand is actually a single (very large) molecule. While the bases, when found individually, are molecules, once they join together they really don't have distinct separate-molecule status.
I had the impression that DNA is held together by van der Waals forces, rather than interatomic bonds; this would make it a crystal rather than a molecule. No? DNA does come apart in mitosis and in protein production; do biological processes really require energies on the electron-volt level of atomic bonds?
Thinking about it, do you perhaps mean that each of the two ribbons is a single molecule, and then the ribbons slot together by van der Waals attraction of the matching bases?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] swbarnes2
(1) You need to get over yourself.
(2) There you go again, accusing me of being dishonest without any valid cause.
Being wrong doesn't make you dishonest. Repeating points which you have been informed are false is what makes you dishonest.
quote:(3) Each DNA step is formed of adenine, cytosine, thyamine, and guanine. (And uracil in RNA.) Those are what I was counting. Sorry if you feel it is somehow "dishonest" and "dishonorable" for me to call them proteins.
ACGT and U are not proteins. Middle schoolers know this.
And you are still wrong, because the vast majority of life on earth does not have "billions" of bases. The vast majority of life on earth has a few million. E. coli, for instance, has a genome of about 4.6 million bases. Most bacteria are within a few factors of this. You have made the same error before, and I have corrected you before. Repeating information you know to be false is dishonest. It's also rather stupid, but stupidity is sometimes entertaining. Dishonesty is not.
quote:(4) Your complaint about me being off by orders of magnitude is untrue by your own calculation,
Being off by a factor of 1000 is being off by 3 magnitudes.
quote:and saying this has been true in the past is only your opinion--I have disputed logically and with cited evidence the common assumptions behind the "magnitudes" commonly assumed for the age of the universe.
I have said nothing about the age of the universe. I was talking about how many proteins you claimed organisms possess, and how many we have evidence they actually possess. Humans have 140,000. You claimed billions. That's about 4 magnitudes. Most life has several thousand proteins. That's even more magnitudes.
I'll be happy to admit that I am wrong if you can cite a source demonstrating that some organism exists with a proteome of 1,000,000,000 proteins. The link I posted yesterday is one click away from Ensembl's count of 140,000 proteins for humans. Where's your evidence?
quote:You cannot correct me on this, because I am not wrong.
Ah yes, that humility and recognition of ignorance that you were touting in yourself only yesterday.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Thinking about it, do you perhaps mean that each of the two ribbons is a single molecule, and then the ribbons slot together by van der Waals attraction of the matching bases?
Yup. That's what I meant by strand.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Alcon, thank you for attempting to put together logical arguments, instead of resorting to the personal attacks so many here seem to depend upon as their only way to express themselves.
If you find seven stones in the woods arranged in a perfect arrow, there may be one chance in a million that it "just happened." But if you are trying to follow the trail of someone who told you he would mark it for you, is it reasonable for you to dismiss it as something that "just is"? Is it sensible to use such reasoning to deny the obviously heavy weight of evidence that the universe was designed, and that such high level of design does demand an Intelligent Designer?
You're saying that I'm ignoring the fact that God has told us through his prophet Jesus that it was he who placed the order in the universe. And that therefor to ignore this order is ignoring an overwhelming weight of evidence in his favor.
The problem with that argument is that the Jews (for, that's really who made the claim that the one true god placed the order in the Universe, Jesus and his followers simply built on and modified an existing framework) are not the only one to claim that their god, gods, goddess, etc are responsible for the universe's order. And certainly not the first. So who's right? Who's trail do we follow? There isn't really much evidence to support one over the other. And there's a whole ton of internal contradiction with in each faith. The internal contradiction and wide variety of faiths in and of itself is a fairly heavy weight of evidence against the truth of any particular faith. They can't all be right.
And Christianity is far from the biggest or oldest. Or even the most well thought out logically. Or the one that seems to truck best with the observable universe.
quote:God has not removed every possible hook upon which you may choose to hang your doubts, if that is what you want to do. That is how much He respects your free will. But it is sensible, as most people would surely agree, to go with what the vast preponderance of the evidence indicates.
But I would argue that the vast preponderance of evidence actually weighs against the Christian god of which you speak. Historical and observable. The evidence seems to suggest that, while there may be some sort of supernatural force or forces we haven't yet come to understand - and it may even be a single intelligent one, no human faith has exactly nailed down what it may or may not be.
quote:Evolutionists know that the idea of actually increasing the order of genetic code through the random operation of natural processes is highly improbable--that is why in order to make their theory seem credible to anyone, they need to invoke like a magic incantation the prospect of billions of years for it all to take place. They seem to suppose that if our brains are suffiently numbed by appeals to an incomprehensible billions of years, we will be willing to agree that anything is possible. The problem is that actual attempts to computer model the likelihood of evolution have always failed, even when all the parameters are increased by orders of magnitude over what evolutionists try to invoke. Evolutionists tend to avoid mathematicians, because the latter blow their cover.
Actually it's been shown to be highly probably. And to take place in a very short span of time.
And it's not that hard an idea to grasp. A different ordering of the genetic code - though created randomly - will be reproduced if it makes its bearer more successful. As it becomes reproduced more it becomes more common until the genetic sequence has a high level of ordering. And disorderings of the genetic code make their bearer less successful. Thus making reproducing unlikely. Those two simple rules make for a powerful force for order over any time period.
quote:Yes, maybe there is one chance in a quintillian that the universe just created itself, with no Intelligent Designer involved. That it "just is." But what kind of a gambler would bet on such odds? Let me clue you, the odds are in favor of "the House."
I don't know what the chances are for the universe to create itself with or with out order and structure. We know literally nothing about what came before the universe's creation. And at the moment we can't really know. We can make fairly wild guesses, but as far as I know there is no information to tell us about what came before. We can see (very nearly literally) back to the universes beginning. But anything before that is beyond the veil. And with out knowing the rules that governed the before, I can't tell you the likelihood of the event - with or with out an intelligent creator.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Thinking about it, do you perhaps mean that each of the two ribbons is a single molecule, and then the ribbons slot together by van der Waals attraction of the matching bases?
Yes. Hydrogen bonds, to be specific.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, in computer modeling, everything depends upon how you set up your parameters, and what you are willing to call significant changes or supposed improvements. These are the same kind of tricks evolutionists have always played when trying to claim something demonstrates evolution.
I was thinking of a report by a mathematician I read about a couple of decades ago, of a computer model he had done of e. coli, where he assumed the entire surface of the earth was covered with it to a depth of four feet, and assumed all known causes of mutation and how much they can potentially accomplish. He found that even in a trillion years, e. coli would not give rise to another relatively simple related species that was clearly different. Had something to do with a Wisteria conference of mathematicians.
Regrettably, I cannot locate it now. I am sure it has all been explained away by the defenders of evolution dogma, or buried in the sort of recent cases of computer modelling where of course the results have been carefully limited. And yes, I know some of them claim to have successfully predicted evolution--but close analysis shows that it was not evolution, just some changes they were calling beneficial. E. coli, when taken through about 35,000 generations, is said to exhibit a certain kind of mutation or change that really only involves a breakdown in a previous method of utilization of a certain nutrient, not a real evolutionary increase in order and complexity. And that only occurs when it is exposed to a certain kind of environment.
OK, maybe the evolutionists have finally co-opted many of the mathematicians. That wasn't the case a couple of decades ago. Some people will do anything for grant money. But look at what they are really saying, look at the actual nature of the changes they are claiming constitute evolution.
I challenge you or anyone else to come up with a computer model that has been done of the actual likelihood of evolutionary change from one species to another distinctly different species. I maintain that evolutionists still avoid considering this, and never even speak of it, because no computer model has ever demonstrated that it is possible for one basic life form to evolve from another different basic species.
[ January 08, 2010, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, a genius scientist like you should have no problem giving the correct answer to this simple probability question.
I walked into a convenience store and hurriedly bought a new pack of cards. Then I played a bit of blackjack with a friend. We were both dealt two cards totalling 20. We shuffled, redealt two cards each, and again, the totaled 20.
What are the odds of this happening?
Or, to make a simpler question, what are the odds of me playing 10 games of Mah-jong with my grandmother-in-law and never drawing a single flower or season tile?
If you get this question unambiguously correct, we will have a great deal more respect for your ability to understand matters of probability. If you get it wrong, or refuse to answer, we'll know that you have absolutely no idea how to calculate any kind of real-life probability question.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I challenge you or anyone else to come up with a computer model that has been done of the actual likelihood of evolutionary change from one species to another distinctly different species. I maintain that evolutionists still avoid considering this, and never even speak of it, because no computer model has ever demonstrated that it is possible for one basic life form to evolve from another different basic species.
What definition of species are you working from?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, I am not familiar with card games. I have not studies probability and statistics, but I can understand as well as anyone what odds of one out of trillions imply in practical terms. Are you trying to pretend otherwise?
Alcon, I already referred to the case of certain bacteria having a mutation that may affect the specific site where a particular antibiotic utilizes, a mutation that actually damages an operational component of the bacteria so it less efficient, but can survive and persist as long as the antibiotic continues to be a part of the environment. (Remove the antibiotic, and the mutant will no longer have an advantage, and will not persist.) This is not evolution. Evolution means one life form turning into another. It means increasing complexity and order, not damaging the organism, which is what mutations almost always do.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that I would have some difficulty with the Mah-jong question just on the grounds that I have no idea how that game works. I suggest you stick to card games commonly used in the West. But in any case, why are you arguing with someone you believe dishonest? Once honesty is at question, there can be no profit in discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon, I already referred to the case of certain bacteria having a mutation that may affect the specific site where a particular antibiotic utilizes, a mutation that actually damages an operational component of the bacteria so it less efficient, but can survive and persist as long as the antibiotic continues to be a part of the environment. This is not evolution. Evolution means one life form turning into another. It means increasing complexity and order, not damaging the organism, which is what mutations almost always do.
Actually Ron, that is evolution. It's microevolution. And if enough microevolutions build up over a long enough time they result in one form of life very gradually turning into another.
Also I'd love to hear your response to my post that preceded that.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, I realize it's a bit off topic, but any comments on my points regarding free will? Or did I make an assumption on what you were trying to say?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] swbarnes2, I am not familiar with card games. I have not studies probability and statistics, but I can understand as well as anyone what odds of one out of trillions imply in practical terms. Are you trying to pretend otherwise?
Just answer the simple question, please. I assume you, it's highly germaine.
Just lay out the first few steps, that'll be a start.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, the idea that something that absolutely is not evolution at all--coincidental mutation--can accummulate over time so that this so-called "microevolution" can eventually become "macroevolution" is completely invalid. I reject it utterly.
Of course mutation exists. That is all that has ever been proven. No one has proven that this can turn a turnip into a cabbage. Ever. No matter how many "microevolutionary" steps you allow.
As for your previous, previous post, I would maintain that:
(1) Intelligent Design is the most obviously likely explanation for the existence of the order we observe in the universe.
(2) One clearly reasonable expectation that goes with the idea of an Intelligent Designer is that he would care enough about us--His creatures--to tell us what He did; thus we should expect to find an account like we find in the book of Genesis.
(3) Perfectly fulfilled Bible prophecy, interpreted consistently so that all symbols are defined by the Bible text itself, testifies to the genuineness of the Bible as indeed being inspired by God. I have in the past provided a summary of some representative Bible prophecies in Daniel, and shown how every point is exactly fulfilled in later history.
quote:Alcon, I realize it's a bit off topic, but any comments on my points regarding free will? Or did I make an assumption on what you were trying to say?
Sorry Strider, still processing your post and trying to compile and answer (and not get in trouble at work by posting too much).
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:The universe does not appear to be deterministic. And if it was, there would be no free will.
Alcon, lets say I agree with you that if the universe was deterministic, there would be no free will. The universe not being deterministic does NOT then necessitate the existence of free will. A chaotic universe, particularly at the quantum level, tells us nothing about the existence, or lack there of, of free will. Or, more accurately, I don't think any definitive statements can be made about free will solely due to quantum indeterminacy.
And anyway, is that the kind of free will you'd want? What about the unpredictability of quantum measurements makes you free?
Actually I didn't mean to imply that a non-deterministic universe necesitated free will, merely that it allowed for it where a deterministic one does not. In a deterministic universe if we knew the exact state of the universe for any particular moment we could predict everything that would follow after that state exactly. In that universe, there is no free will because there is an exactly set sequence of events that will happen just so.
In a quantum universe if you know the exact state of the universe at any particular moment, the best you can do is predict what the probability is of any sequence of events following that moment is. You cannot predict anything with certainty. In such a universe, free will can exist. It doesn't have to, but it can.
I pointed that out because Ron believes (I think - correct me if I'm wrong Ron) God gave people free will while created the universe such that it was order. I felt it was relevant to point out free will can only exist in a universe that is, at its base chaotic and not ordered.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But in any case, why are you arguing with someone you believe dishonest? Once honesty is at question, there can be no profit in discussion.
Extra evidence never hurts. I remain open to the possibilty that falsifying evidence will come to light. You don't need to know anything about how to play blackjack or Mahjong to see the point of the question.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, in computer modeling, everything depends upon how you set up your parameters, and what you are willing to call significant changes or supposed improvements.
Bioinformatics != computer modelling From what I understand of your reasoning, "computer modelling" is only a small part of bioinformatics since much of it is already much more applied rather than theoretical as what you're describing.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... OK, maybe the evolutionists have finally co-opted many of the mathematicians.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But in any case, why are you arguing with someone you believe dishonest? Once honesty is at question, there can be no profit in discussion.
Extra evidence never hurts. I remain open to the possibilty that falsifying evidence will come to light. You don't need to know anything about how to play blackjack or Mahjong to see the point of the question.
But you cannot get falsifying evidence from a source you believe to be untrustworthy!
As for Mah-jong, I don't have to know how to win, but I would need to know how many tiles of each kind are in a set and how many draws in a game. Perhaps Ron would find your question easier if you told him how many cards there are of each kind?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry Strider, still processing your post and trying to compile and answer (and not get in trouble at work by posting too much).
Ha, no problem, there was just a flurry of posting and I thought it might have been missed!
okay, I got you. I wasn't sure if you were implying that indeterminism necessitated free will...which I would've had a problem with!
It's worth noting though that I'm not sure that a deterministic universe does in fact rule out free will. Our ability to predict or not predict events doesn't really address the issue of free will. Defining free will in the first place is probably important though too.
Mind you, this is all coming from someone that doesn't believe we have free will, though I think the idea is a useful fiction.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, cabbage and broccoli may be variations within the same basic species. At least, Brussels Sprouts and Cabbage would seem to be. Every basic species has a library of alternative characteristics that may be selected for. They were created this way. Every time selective breeders come up with a sweeter corn, or a different colored rose, or a tame doglike animal from a fox progenitor, they confirm the Creationist theory of speciation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Every time selective breeders come up with a sweeter corn, or a different colored rose, or a tame doglike animal from a fox progenitor, they confirm the Creationist theory of speciation.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But in any case, why are you arguing with someone you believe dishonest? Once honesty is at question, there can be no profit in discussion.
Extra evidence never hurts. I remain open to the possibilty that falsifying evidence will come to light. You don't need to know anything about how to play blackjack or Mahjong to see the point of the question.
But you cannot get falsifying evidence from a source you believe to be untrustworthy!
No, evidence that he's not dishonest. Evidence like him saying "You are right, no organism has billions of proteins, I was wrong to claim that, and I will never do so again, now that I know better". Of course, even better would be "I'm going to rethink my reliance on sources that made such elementary mistakes, and eschew some altogether, so that in the future, I won't make such painfully wrong claims, because I don't want to belive, let alone publically claim, wrong things". But that's a pipe dream.
quote:Perhaps Ron would find your question easier if you told him how many cards there are of each kind?
When I was in sixth grade, I did just about what I described with the deck of cards. I bought a new pack of cards, shuffled them well, and started dealing pairs to myself and a friend. Almost every pair turned up totaling 19, 20, or 21. 20 most frequently. Mostly face cards. Would I have been correct to conclude from those observations that an intelligent agent had fixed the deck? This is exactly the same kind of conclusion Ron is drawing about the 'order' in the universe.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I was in sixth grade, I did just about what I described with the deck of cards. I bought a new pack of cards, shuffled them well, and started dealing pairs to myself and a friend. Almost every pair turned up totaling 19, 20, or 21. 20 most frequently. Mostly face cards. Would I have been correct to conclude from those observations that an intelligent agent had fixed the deck? This is exactly the same kind of conclusion Ron is drawing about the 'order' in the universe.
Dude! I understand this! Don't argue with me, argue with him! The point I'm making is that he claims not to know enough about cards to answer your question. That is at least within the realm of possibility for a member of a fundie Christian sect; they're often down on card games even without gambling. So, you should give him a chance to prove he's honest in this matter by explaining the parameters of the problem to him.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You can't keep claiming it exists without showing it to us. If you don't know, and you can't cite a single person who has any idea, and you can't name a single Creationist scientist even trying to find one, then say so plainly. If you are capable of such honesty. I hypothesize that you are not, but I'd love to have that hypothesis falsified by evidence.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: had the impression that DNA is held together by van der Waals forces, rather than interatomic bonds; this would make it a crystal rather than a molecule. No?
No! THe two strands of DNA in a double helix are held together by Van der Waals interactions but the bases within each strand are held together by covalent bonds. Each strand of DNA is a polymer. This is actually very important for preservation and replication of the of the genetic material.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: I pointed that out because Ron believes (I think - correct me if I'm wrong Ron) God gave people free will while created the universe such that it was order. I felt it was relevant to point out free will can only exist in a universe that is, at its base chaotic and not ordered.
This actually works for LDS theology. In the LDS church, it is believed that we had free will already before we came to the Earth, and it was Satan's plan to remove free will from everyone. You could argue that God's plan WAS chaos, and Satan's was order. It is also believed that everything is made of matter, including our "spirits." A matter more refined and not able to be seen by our eyes, but matter nonetheless. Matter is also seen to be eternal. Who knows? Maybe all of those noetic "scientists" are actually on to something. (Sorry, just read Dan Brown's last novel...It was horrible) What I am trying to get at is that in some religions, it is possible to believe in both evolution and creation. Who is to say God is not a being who has reached a state of evolution that allows him to create? A better question: Does anyone know the end result of human evolution? Have humans reached their evolutionary potential already?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (3) Perfectly fulfilled Bible prophecy, interpreted consistently so that all symbols are defined by the Bible text itself, testifies to the genuineness of the Bible as indeed being inspired by God. I have in the past provided a summary of some representative Bible prophecies in Daniel, and shown how every point is exactly fulfilled in later history.
Ron, you do get that the folks who wrote the NT also were familiar with past prophecies. Right?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: I pointed that out because Ron believes (I think - correct me if I'm wrong Ron) God gave people free will while created the universe such that it was order. I felt it was relevant to point out free will can only exist in a universe that is, at its base chaotic and not ordered.
This actually works for LDS theology. In the LDS church, it is believed that we had free will already before we came to the Earth, and it was Satan's plan to remove free will from everyone. You could argue that God's plan WAS chaos, and Satan's was order. It is also believed that everything is made of matter, including our "spirits." A matter more refined and not able to be seen by our eyes, but matter nonetheless. Matter is also seen to be eternal. Who knows? Maybe all of those noetic "scientists" are actually on to something. (Sorry, just read Dan Brown's last novel...It was horrible) What I am trying to get at is that in some religions, it is possible to believe in both evolution and creation. Who is to say God is not a being who has reached a state of evolution that allows him to create? A better question: Does anyone know the end result of human evolution? Have humans reached their evolutionary potential already?
Re: a better question:
Evolution isn't really goal oriented, as species evolve, not individuals.
If humans are going to be around in the next million years, and also be different (somewhat) from the the current crop, what will get passed on are the traits of people who breed early and/or often. So really evolution is the end path of who has the babies, and how these people's ancestors make up a larger portion of the population millions of years down the line.
So think about how many kids an individual is likely to have. When are they likely to start? What will cause someone to die before they have children? What will make it more difficult for someone to get laid today? In this society, what makes a woman and a man attractive? If people meet spouses on the intarwebs, will people who know the difference between you're and your get more dates? Will the population of humans be more education-focused or less because people who are innately smart like school lots more than people who are not? Or do people who work on computers all day forget to breed?
Usually such discussions degenerate into "stupid people have more kids, can we stop that?". Let's not go there.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you in that individuals do not evolve, but the species. That isn't what I was referring to. I do not believe God is the only one of his kind. I believe He may be our creator, but I believe that there are others like him.
I was asking whether or not one day the human species may evolve to the point where we have the knowledge and power to "create." Not in the strict sense of creating something out of nothing, but in the sense of organizing or molding unorganized matter into another form.
It begs the question: If there was a species that never died out, would evolution ever stop? If a being evolved to the point in which they became all knowing and all powerful, how would that being evolve or progress from that point?
Edit: I understand evolution requires conflict to occur, however at what point does a species surpass the point in which there is conflict? Is this even theoretically possible?
posted
Both of you are pretty wrong about how evolution works, but since I'm on my phone I can't really post a refutation right now.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, are you contending that the entire genome for human beings can be expressed in only 140,000 individual code parts? What I have heard virtually everyone who knows what they are talking about say, is that it would take shelves full of encyclopedias to convey all the information that the human genome contains. Has gene mapping suddenly become a lot easier than ever before?
Notice I am not impugning your honor or denouncing you as dishonest. I am merely pointing out some facts you seem to have wrong, or that perhaps we have not been communicating on the same level. What I have been saying, and have been from the beginning, as you should know from the context of my remarks, is that the human genome is extremely complicated, with such information density that had it been understood in the days of Charles Darwin, he never would have even preposed his preposterous theory.
quote:there are more than 10^84 possible alternative code tables if each of the 20 amino acids and the stop signal are assigned to at leasts one codon....
posted
Notice that 3 billion base pairs is less than a single gigabyte's worth of information. And not all of them encode proteins.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, all variations we have ever seen in species have resulted from characteristics already present in the genome of the original progenitor being selected. This is why selective breeding works in only a few generations, so you can get a blue potato from a white one--rather than having to wait billions of years for the new traits to "evolve."
Creationists maintain that when the Creator designed each basic species, he placed in the genome of that species a whole library of alternate characterists that are "turned off," but can be turned on and thus selected for to enable the species to adapt to meet changing environments. This is what all selective breeders confirm. There is no micro-evolution. There is only selection of pre-programed alternative characteristics.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, if each information digit in the human genome were represented by one letter in a book, how many books would be required to convey all the information in one human cell nucleus? It would be a lot more than a mere gigabyte! Otherwise computers would be sentient by now.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] swbarnes2, are you contending that the entire genome for human beings can be expressed in only 140,000 individual code parts?
What the heck is a "code part"? Use your big boy words, Ron. Do you mean genes? Proteins? transcripts? Exons? Conservons? Chromosomes? Bases?
I am pointing to a reputable source that at present, has identified about 140,000 gene transcripts, so that means not a whole lot more than 140,000 proteins, maybe a lot less (I don't think miRNAs and such are included in that transcript count). Obvously, I am not claiming that this is the exact number, but you claimed that this was about 4 magnitudes too small a figure, and organisms in fact had billions of proteins. So where do you claim the other billion proteins are in the human genome?
quote:What I have heard virtually everyone who knows what they are talking about say, is that it would take shelves full of encyclopedias to convey all the information that the human genome contains.
Are those the same people who told you that proteins and nucleotides are the same thing?
The human genome is about 3 billion bases. Add some mark-up info to represent epigenetic information, and that's several billion bits. Less, since lots of it is compressible.
Microbial genomes, of course, are a lot smaller. A few million bases, and I don't think they have much in the way of epigeneic mechanisms at work. E.coli zips down to about 1.2 kb, and there may be smarter algorithms than 7-zip that are more suited to genetic data. How many encyclopedia books is that?
This data was all out there. I know I've perosnally pointed you to it a dozen times. A person who cared about beleiving true things and claiming true things would have looked for himself. You have demonstrated over and over again that you are not such a person.
quote:Has gene mapping suddenly become a lot easier than ever before?
The short answer is, yes. As of this year, you can do a decent human genome in a few months. The baseline human genome has been done for 8 years, E.coli for longer. I've told you all this before too, so don't pretend that you didn't know.
quote:Notice I am not impugning your honor or denouncing you as dishonest.
I have not lied on this board, so it would be stupid of you to claim that I had. You have lied. You have repeated facts which you have been informed were false.
Frankly, you can impugn my honor all you like, if you deal with the empirical facts I present. But you will not do so, and I predict you never will.
quote:I am merely pointing out some facts you seem to have wrong
What fact have I presented which is wrong?
Quote me, then cite your proof that I am incorrect.
I have provided links to proof that my claims are accurate.
quote:What I have been saying, and have been from the beginning, as you should know from the context of my remarks, is that the human genome is extremely complicated, with such information density that had it been understood in the days of Charles Darwin, he never would have even preposed his preposterous theory.
No, you did not just say that the human genome is complicated. That is yet another outright lie, and rather stupid since we can all read what you wrote. You claimed that it had "billions of proteins". That claim is false. It is crazy false, outlandishly, magnitudes away from reality false. But you will not admit it. You will not admit that the source which lead you to believe such a stupid thing was brazenly lying to you. That is why I call you dishonest.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, if you wish to communicate with me, you may do so through seconds. You do not understand how to measure quantities of information; get someone to explain it to you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Alcon, all variations we have ever seen in species have resulted from characteristics already present in the genome of the original progenitor being selected.
Ron, there are a number of cases in the human genome where a recent mutation randomly shows up out of nowhere. Some of the more recent ones are EXTREMELY easy to track, like lactose tolerance in adults. Here's an article about lactose tolerance in some human populations.
What's the story with cases like that, Ron? Are the scientists who study this liars?
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, aside from all the factual data that other posters have presented, the big problem I see with arguments that begin with "what are the chances" is that we know the end point*. What are the chances that whatever would turn out like x if it were left to chance. We know what x is. If it hadn't hit that bazillion to one chance to turn out x and instead turned out q, we would be asking what are the chances that whatever would have turned out like q. Again, bazillion to one, but it doesn't matter.
*Not so much the end as where we are now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon, all variations we have ever seen in species have resulted from characteristics already present in the genome of the original progenitor being selected.
False. There are numerous experiments in bacteria and plants that conclusively disprove this.
Ron: no, it is considerably less than that. How about you propose a translation mechanism between the genetic information in nucleic acids and information, and we'll calculate it for you (or you can do the basic multiplication yourself).
For instance, if you represent the base pairs minimally (00, 01, 10, or 11, for the different combinations), you can fit all the information in about 750 megabytes.
As for computers being sentient by now, I can only assume you aren't aware that many organisms have large genomes than we do, yet aren't sentient. Sentience seems to have very little to do with amount of information in a genome.
Btw, your quotation is about the number of possible ways to organize the amino acids among all the different possible codons. It isn't the size of the genome in a person (or anything else). To give an equivalent measurement, since a computer can store 2 values in each bit, even a mere 336 bits (42 bytes, or a small fraction of the bytes in this message board post) could organize themselves in more different ways than that (since 2^336 is greater than 10^84).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Creationists maintain that when the Creator designed each basic species,
Seriously- you are saying that creationists make a specific claim regarding species. What do creationists mean when they make this claim? It need not match the most recent definitions used in the scientific literature, but you should be able to provide some criteria by which to partition the animal kingdom. Could you paraphrase the quoted sentence without using the term 'species'?
I hope you will answer as some might suspect the lack of rigor to reflect the desire to leave room so as to move the goal posts in light of new scientific evidence....
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, if you represent the base pairs minimally (00, 01, 10, or 11, for the different combinations), you can fit all the information in about 750 megabytes.
That's what I said!
In fact it looks like we did exactly the same calculation, but I feel that my "less than a gigabyte" is a much better presentation than the spurious accuracy of your two significant digits.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It begs the question: If there was a species that never died out, would evolution ever stop? If a being evolved to the point in which they became all knowing and all powerful, how would that being evolve or progress from that point?
Edit: I understand evolution requires conflict to occur, however at what point does a species surpass the point in which there is conflict? Is this even theoretically possible?
You're thinking of evolution as though it has some far reaching goal it's trying to achieve (all powerful, all knowing); it doesn't. It only reacts to selection pressures. A species that is further advanced in intelligence, for example, is not "more evolved" than any other species that has been evolving for the same amount of time. In fact, evolution is not measured in years; it is measured in generations. So technically, the most "evolved" organism on the planet is bacteria.
As an analogy (which I admit is imperfect), I think of natural selection like a chess player that only looks one move ahead. He makes that particular move for a reason at that time (it is not random), but he has no long terms goals. (The analogy is imperfect because of course, even if he has no strategy, a chess player does have a long term goal - checkmating the enemy's king.)
It seems to me that a species would only stop evolving if it stopped experiencing selection pressure. And I don't see how that could happen.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just pointing out that observations and predictions are the basis of science. Earth centered models of the universe were based upon observations and did provide testable predictions. We know the Earth isn't the center of the universe, but the Earth centered scientific model could and did predict stellar movements quite accurately. You don't have to go back very far to find examples of scientists being way off base. The true beauty of science is that in the real sciences, the science is never settled. The scientist that says, "the debate is over, the science is settled"...isn't a scientist. Good science is fed by doubt and absolutes are reserved for faiths.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
