Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"One problem I have is that RNA and DNA encode information. A random collection of these building blocks may only encode gibberish but life doesn't exist based on gibberish. You have to have them in a certain sequence in order for them to accomplish any sort of purpose
Correct. Most of DNA doesn't code for anything but gibberish. RNA is a different story because it is copied and edited to remove gibberish.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
And this encoding of information increases the probabilities to even greater odds AND implies intelligence. These letters don't assemble themselves randomly.
No, they dont assemble randomly, the assemble based on templates. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time because you copy the wheel and make small changes/errors. If something is functional it lives if its not it dies. I dont see how there could be a more simple form of selection promoting the propagation of functional cellular machinery.
The only reason these people are so fascinated with "intelligence" is because they are too dumb to have any. it is neihter necessary nor implied at any level.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Someone or somthing has to put them in sequence.
Well, either someone f*cked up the sequence or it happened by natural selection to the point where it got good enough to work.
If your god did it, he is wasteful and dumb...but look at those created in is image and then again I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Another problem is one that Darwin called 'irreducible complexity'. If proteins are the machinery of cells, the machinery of DNA replication, untwisting, proofreading, etc; then proteins would need to exist to 'manage' the DNA.
Actually, Darwin talked little about "irriducible complexity" because thats a bullshit pseudo-science term made up by fundies. Course you dont actually address this issue here. If I cut off your arm, you'll survive just fine. Same goes with cells, organs, organ systems, even proteins. Most mutations don't have phenotypes because they're NOT so complex that changing small thing necessarily blows it all to hell. Really though, just because you and your god think you're perfect doesnt mean your ideology holds water when it comes to biology. Birds have much better vision in dark and light and can see in a broader range of colors than humans can. So much for being "perfect."
Proteins DO exist to manage DNA. There are tons of them and its a major task of cells. Then again, I guess if you are ignorant, you wouldn't know these things and think your argument is goddamn brilliant.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But DNA is what proteins are assembled from (via RNA templates, and other proteins that work to build the new protein being transcribed, carry the amino acids, catalyse the reactions, etc).
So? Humans make soap and then use it to wash themselves?
Ok? you want a kicker? DNA is a latter invention, RNA can be stable by itself if its folded and was probably the original molecule. DNA is just MORE stable and easier to replicate. The real cool part? Ribosomes, the critical machinery of the RNA>Protin step are mostly NOT composed of protein, they are composed of r(ribosomal) RNA.. There are a lot of ribosymes (enzyme like structres made of RNA) and these were likely the first biomolecular machines. So no, science is not a circular argument. You're just uninformed...as always.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is a catch-22 even at that simple level of understanding.
No, its only a catch-22 to simple people.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
And when you take into account ALL the pieces and parts of a simple cell. The myriad reactions taking place, the compartmentalization, the waste products that have to be removed, it becomes more than something you can explain with a simple roll of the dice.
OMG! So you're saying children can never learn to speak because they cant recite Hamlet on their first go?
Clearly your god did it instead.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveIf you move the questions that life started somewhere else doesn't answer the question on how it started but does disprove the Bible's version of it.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:b7753eb80d31cd79751874002e88f3fb/Fossils-hold-a-surprise"It remains possible, Kennedy noted, that animal fossils of similar or older age exist that remain to be found that are marine in origin. However, at the very least, this work suggests "that animals had already taken on the ability to deal with the environmental fluctuations one sees in lake environments," he said. "That suggests that their evolutionary response is much more rapid that I would have supposed, and that the earliest animals were far more [b]diverse
than imagined."http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070822_gm_life_origins.html
posted 15 June 2008, 11:54 am ET
critical wrote:
"One problem I have is that RNA and DNA encode information. A random collection of these building blocks may only encode gibberish but life doesn't exist based on gibberish. You have to have them in a certain sequence in order for them to accomplish any sort of purpose even accouting for the filler pieces that don't do anything but mark and fill. And this encoding of information increases the probabilities to even greater odds AND implies intelligence. These letters don't assemble themselves randomly. Someone or somthing has to put them in sequence. Even if you are able to demonstrate that life originated somewhere else, you have simply moved the location of the problem of how life originated to another planet or universe. If it didn't originate on this planet that doesn't answer the original question. And the final question then becomes, where did the matter come from in the first place from which life is based. If every action has a cause, they what was the 'cause' of matter in the first place? If matter has an age, then when was the matter 'born' and how?
Another problem is one that Darwin called 'irreducible complexity'. If proteins are the machinery of cells, the machinery of DNA replication, untwisting, proofreading, etc; then proteins would need to exist to 'manage' the DNA. But DNA is what proteins are assembled from (via RNA templates, and other proteins that work to build the new protein being transcribed, carry the amino acids, catalyse the reactions, etc). It is a catch-22 even at that simple level of understanding. And when you take into account ALL the pieces and parts of a simple cell. The myriad reactions taking place, the compartmentalization, the waste products that have to be removed, it becomes more than something you can explain with a simple roll of the dice.
I will leave any conclusions up to the individual reader but for me it is nothing short of miraculous. And that is something that science can never conclude anything about one." [/B]
"Someone or something has to put them in sequence." I would go with the something part. 😉 That something would be science not superstition.
Odds of your house being hit by a meteor - 182,138,880,000,000 to 1 and there was a guy that had his house hit 5 different times in one year so what would be the odds of that happening? 😆
Originally posted by Ordo
Actually, Darwin talked little about "irriducible complexity" because thats a bullshit pseudo-science term made up by fundies. Course you dont actually address this issue here. If I cut off your arm, you'll survive just fine. Same goes with cells, organs, organ systems, even proteins.
Not that irreducible complexity isn't without flaws, but you have no idea what its arguments and implications are do you?
Originally posted by Ordo
Proteins DO exist to manage DNA. There are tons of them and its a major task of cells. Then again, I guess if you are ignorant, you wouldn't know these things and think your argument is goddamn brilliant.
I'm pretty sure he knows that 'Proteins exist to manage DNA'. His point was that synthesis of proteins requires DNA, and DNA transcription/regulation/replication etc requires proteins. That was the core of his argument. See if you can work out what his point was...
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I have a personal question concerning my manatee anatomy. I just found out that I have a vestigial hipstructure that has hip sockets, yet I have no limbs, just flippers. Did god take my limbs (limb buds to be exact) from me while still in the womb, as a form of sacrifice?
They devolved as you went into the ocean.
Evolution and God don't have to be mutually exclusive which is what 1800's-mentality Bible Thumpers like JIA like to think.
It is true, however, that the creation account in Genesis does not prepare us for the discovery that man has about 98 percent of his DNA in common with apes. In his Descent of Man, Darwin writes that "man...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin". Our resistance to this is not religious; it is because we sense a significant chasm between ourselves and chimpanzees. Of course Darwin is not saying that man is descended from chimpanzees, only that apes and man are descended from a common ancestor. Whatever the merits of this theory, there is no reason to reject it purely on biblical grounds. Christians since medieval times have agreed with Aristotle that man is an animal--a "rational animal", but still an animal.
What makes man different, according to the Bible, is that God breathed an immaterial soul into him. Thus there is no theological problem in viewing the bodily frame of man as derived from other creatures. The Bible stresses God's resolution; "Let Us make man in Our image." Christians have always understood God as a spiritual rather than a material being. Consequently if man is created in the "likeness" of God, the resemblance is clearly not physical. When Jared Diamond in his book The Third Chimpanzee refers to humans as "little more than glorified chimpanzees", he is unwittingly making a Christian point. We may have common ancestors with the animals, but were are glorified animals.
-Dinesh D'souza, What's So Great About Christianity
Originally posted by Placidity
Not that irreducible complexity isn't without flaws, but you have no idea what its arguments and implications are do you?
Essentially that soemthing cannot evolve because all parts are interdependant to get a functioning product. If you removed one the system would collapse.
And since I've read Behe's original papers, I'm probly more informed than you.
Originally posted by Placidity I'm pretty sure he knows that 'Proteins exist to manage DNA'. His point was that synthesis of proteins requires DNA, and DNA transcription/regulation/replication etc requires proteins. That was the core of his argument. See if you can work out what his point was... [/B]
I did and addressed it. If you need further assistance reading my posts, please let me know.
Originally posted by Ordo
[B]Ok? you want a kicker? DNA is a latter invention, RNA can be stable by itself if its folded and was probably the original molecule. DNA is just MORE stable and easier to replicate. The real cool part? Ribosomes, the critical machinery of the RNA>Protin step are mostly NOT composed of protein, they are composed of r(ribosomal) RNA.. There are a lot of ribosymes (enzyme like structres made of RNA) and these were likely the first biomolecular machines. So no, science is not a circular argument. You're just uninformed...as always.
Originally posted by Ordo
Essentially that soemthing cannot evolve because all parts are interdependant to get a functioning product. If you removed one the system would collapse.And since I've read Behe's original papers, I'm probly more informed than you.
Interestingly enough, an "irreducibly complex" structure was produced in an experiment on bacteria.
Researchers created lots of cultures in a solution which was high in a substance the bacteria couldn't consume, and low in an actual food source. Samples from each generation were kept for documentation purposes.
A first mutation occured which allowed for a very slight absorbtion of the more abundant substance, then a second which provided essentially no benefit except that it allowed for a third mutation which allowed the new bacteria to consume the more abundant substance as their primary food.
Remove any piece of the puzzle, and the ability to consume the food goes as well, and there were no real benefits to some parts of the structure until the final mutation.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They devolved as you went into the ocean.Evolution and God don't have to be mutually exclusive which is what 1800's-mentality Bible Thumpers like JIA like to think.
[b]It is true, however, that the creation account in Genesis does not prepare us for the discovery that man has about 98 percent of his DNA in common with apes. In his Descent of Man, Darwin writes that "man...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin". Our resistance to this is not religious; it is because we sense a significant chasm between ourselves and chimpanzees. Of course Darwin is not saying that man is descended from chimpanzees, only that apes and man are descended from a common ancestor. Whatever the merits of this theory, there is no reason to reject it purely on biblical grounds. Christians since medieval times have agreed with Aristotle that man is an animal--a "rational animal", but still an animal.
What makes man different, according to the Bible, is that God breathed an immaterial soul into him. Thus there is no theological problem in viewing the bodily frame of man as derived from other creatures. The Bible stresses God's resolution; "Let Us make man in Our image." Christians have always understood God as a spiritual rather than a material being. Consequently if man is created in the "likeness" of God, the resemblance is clearly not physical. When Jared Diamond in his book The Third Chimpanzee refers to humans as "little more than glorified chimpanzees", he is unwittingly making a Christian point. We may have common ancestors with the animals, but were are glorified animals.
-Dinesh D'souza, What's So Great About Christianity [/B]
Evolution and God are mutually exclusive. There is no way to reconcile the two because to do so would be arrant contradiction. It's like the old cliche, "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You can't have spotaneous creation and slow, evolutionary process at the same time. For example, a person cannot be physically dead and physically alive, sitting at the computer right now or somewhere else, flying 30,000 feet in the air and walking on the sidewalk. It is one or the other.
The Bible does not in any way, shape, or form reveal that humanity is a product of evolutionary process. But the Bible does show that humankind has been created in the image and likeness of God the Creator. If a human is an animal then so is God. But God is the Creator of animals thus He could not be an animal and simultaneously the Creator of animals because this violates the law of contradiction. Besides, the Bible does not teach that humans and animals descended from a common ancestor. In fact, the Bible is indeed explicitly absolute about the distinct origin of both species.
Go back and read the book of Genesis it clearly explains the separate origins of humans and animals.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolution and God are mutually exclusive. There is no way to reconcile the two because to do so would be arrant contradiction. It's like the old cliche, "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You can't have spotaneous creation and slow, evolutionary process at the same time.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
For example, a person cannot be physically dead and physically alive,
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
sitting at the computer right now or somewhere else, flying 30,000 feet in the air and walking on the sidewalk.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
he Bible does not in any way, shape, or form reveal that humanity is a product of evolutionary process. But the Bible does show that humankind has been created in the image and likeness of God the Creator.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If a human is an animal then so is God. But God is the Creator of animals thus He could not be an animal and simultaneously the Creator of animals because this violates the law of contradiction.
Originally posted by MitzvahMan
God of Torah (YHWH) can create the names and languages and so can man, and this is how God and man are alike in image. No other entity may speak in this manner.
What? Are you saying that we have a commonality with YHWH because we both speak? But we don't speak the same language as the Hebrews. Also, animals speak in their own way, and some of those animal languages we simplistically understand.
It is a property of man that he may create names and language, as God can. This doesn't have to do with Hebrew but rather language in general. Other entities may speak but these names and languages are provided by God instead of the independent creation by free will. This is the meaning to being created in gods image within the torah.
Originally posted by MitzvahMan
It is a property of man that he may create names and language, as God can. This doesn't have to do with Hebrew but rather language in general. Other entities may speak but these names and languages are provided by God instead of the independent creation by free will. This is the meaning to being created in gods image within the torah.
I think a dolphin has names for things. They use language to corroborate their hunting. If they didn't have names, then how could they hunt?
Originally posted by MitzvahMan
I said that the difference is that some creatures have languages PROVIDED for them by God. Man has language created of himself. Many can speak but they can only speak what God allows them to.
This is a very good example of human arrogance. We believe we are special and not just another animal. We maybe an unique animal, but we have too much in common with our brother animals to be anything else other then an animal. Therefore, if animals can only speak "what God allows them to", then we can only speak "what God allows us to". Sense this statement makes no sense when applied to humans, then it makes no sense applied to other animals.