|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2003 : 14:01:55 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Dave W.
I did notice I did not provide any supporting references for my information, so I shall add the following as a small example of the data that is there:
Example of information increase over 12 generations of evolution
The Genotypic Landscape During In Vitro Evolution of a Catalytic RNA: Implications for Phenotypic Buffering
Lehman, N; Delle Donne, M; West, M; Dewey, TG
Journal of Molecular Evolution [J. Mol. Evol.]. Vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 481-490. 2000.
The Tetrahymena group I ribozyme catalyzes the cleavage of a phosphodiester linkage in specific sequences of RNA. This phenotype can be used in an in vitro selection-amplification process to evolve variants that are capable of RNA catalysis in the presence of Ca super(2+) as the sole available cation. With sufficient genotypic characterization of the population as it evolves, we have a rare opportunity of observing how the information stored in an evolving population responds to selective pressures, such as the requisite of catalyzing RNA cleavage in the absence of Mg super(2+) or Mn super(2+). In the present work, we examine the population dynamics of this system using sequence information from previous experimental work. We focus on two issues: How does the information content of the population evolve? and Is the system evolving as an adaptive walk on a rugged landscape? To investigate these questions, information theoretical parameters are examined. The evolution of the population is visualized by mapping the genotypic frequency distribution onto a two-dimensional projection of sequence space. The projection was generated using Hamming distances from the wild-type, starting sequence and a catalytically successful, evolved sequence. The evolution of the information content of the system was measured by calculating the grammar complexity of the observed sequences, which showed a very slight increase over 12 generations. This result is consistent with the system performing a search for a local optimum. The dynamics of the population in this sequence space is consistent with an adaptive walk on an uncorrelated, or "rugged," genotypic landscape, despite the observation that the phenotypic progress of the population appears smooth. The relative insensitivity of the phenotypic landscape to the variegation of the genotypic landscape suggests that the former is buffered against variation in the latter through various epigenetic-like mechanisms.
Example on how the structure of tRNA determines what amino acids it binds to what mRNA sequences.
Conservation of a tRNA core for aminoacylation
Hou, Ya-Ming; Moteg, Hiromi; Lipman, RSA; Hamann, CS; Shiba, Kiyotaka
Nucleic Acids Research [Nucleic Acids Res.]. Vol. 27, no. 24, pp. 4743-4750. 15 Dec 1999.
The core region of Escherichia coli tRNA super(Cys) is important for aminoacylation of the tRNA. This core contains an unusual G15:G48 base pair, and three adenosine nucleotides A13, A22 and A46 that are likely to form a 46:[13:22] adenosine base triple. We recently observed that the 15:48 base pair and the proposed 46:[13:22] triple are structurally and functionally coupled to contribute to aminoacylation. Inspection of a database of tRNA sequences shows that these elements are only found in one other tRNA, the Haemophilus influenzae tRNA super(Cys). Because of the complexity of the core, conservation of sequence does not mean conservation of function. We here tested whether the conserved elements in H.influenzae tRNA super(Cys) were also important for aminoacylation of H.influenzae tRNA super(Cys). We cloned and purified a recombinant H.influenzae cysteine-tRNA synthetase and showed that it depends on 15:48 and 13, 22 and 46 in a relationship analogous to that of E.coli cysteine-tRNA synthetase. The functional conservation of the tRNA core is correlated with sequence conservation between E.coli and H.influenzae cysteine-tRNA synthetases. As the genome of H.influenzae is one of the smallest and may approximate a small autonomous entity in the development of life, the dependence of this genome on G15:G48 and its coupling with the proposed A46:[A13:A22] triple for aminoacylation with cysteine suggests an early role of these motifs in the evolution of decoding genetic information.
On the transition from RNA to DNA
Transmutation of tRNA over time
Brosius, J
Nature Genetics [Nat. Genet.]. Vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 8-9. May 1999.
Although the existence of an `RNA' world, in which RNA stored all genetic information and carried out most catalytic reactions, was proposed three decades ago, it is only in the past fifteen years or so--after the groundbreaking discovery of catalytic RNA (refs 2,3)--that the concept has taken hold. Between the `RNA' world and the world we know today (in which DNA is the primary hereditary macromolecule), an intermediate `ribonucleo-protein' (RNP) world must have existed. Triggered by the emergence of a more advanced protein biosynthesis machinery, polypeptides of increasing complexity would have assumed vital functions in the cell. Which types of RNA served as primordial messenger RNA (mRNA) during this transition period? As with many questions that concern molecular evolution, one must rely heavily on clues provided by today's genomes. mRNA contains an unexpected abundance of tRNA-like sequences, even in protein coding regions. For example, database searches have revealed many tRNA-like motifs in genes encoding proteins as diverse as elongation factor EF-Tu in Escherichia coli and a myosin heavy chain (myo-3) in Caenorhabiditis elegans. It is difficult to determine whether these motifs date back to the RNP world--which would indicate the recruitment of tRNAs or tRNA-like sequences as early mRNAs--or to more recent times. While the acquisition of tRNA elements via tRNA-derived short interspersed repetitive elements (SINEs), has certainly contributed the majority of the currently discernible tRNA motifs in the genome, the original proposal of Eigen and Winkler-Oswatitsch--that tRNAs (or adapters) doubled as mRNAs during the emergence of ribosomes in primitive cells--is one that deserves continued attention.
Self forming proteins and their evolution with hints to the origin of life
Evolutionary changes in the information content of polypeptides.
Matsuno, K
Journal of Theoretical Biology [J. THEOR. BIOL.], vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 185-199, 1983
Thermal proteins arising from the self-sequencing of amino acids satisfy the necessary conditions required for them to become a candidate of the evolutionary precursors of contemporary proteins. The source matrix of information or, equivalently, the statistical ensemble of polypetides, in reference to which the information content of each amino acid residue can be defined and determined, changes with time endogenously through the production of and the change in the mechanism of production of polypeptides. The change proceeds in the direction along which the order of autocatalysis, the number of autocatalytic polymers needed for synthesizing one such polymer, increases. The self-sequencing and the autocatalytic polymerization of amino acids are the forms of producing polypeptides. The change in the mechanism of producing polypeptides results from the incorporation of polynucleotides into the polypeptide synthesis. The earlier polymeric information translation proceeds from polypeptide to polynucleotide. The direction of translation is reversed at a later stage of evolution. All these evolutionary events are consistent with viewing thermal proteins produced by self-sequencing of amino acids as an evolutionary precursor of contemporary proteins. |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 20:59:49 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
You were asking in another thread for evidence that you lie, DA. Well, there's one right there. I never claimed that DNA "happened totally by
chance," because I don't believe that at all.
Perhaps the "W." stands for "Weasel" Dave because you seem to enjoy stating one thing then switching gears to say "I didn't mean that" .Earlier you stated in regards to my "proof" that the only evidence we have as to anything resembling a version of DNA was brought about by intelligent minds using sophisticated scientific technology to create a form of DNA(p.2) You threw your hands up in the air and tried to do a smoke and mirrors argument: quote:
To repeat: what we have is verifiable evidence
that intelligence can imitate DNA, and not that intelligence is required to create DNA in the first place. You are now equivocating the terms
"prerequisite" and "ability". Or is it the case in your world that bacteria, which create exact and not-quite-exact copies of their own DNA all
the time, are as intelligent as those German scientists?
No Dave what we have is "evidence" that in order to get the result specific information like DNA we NEED INTELLIGENCE ,now you rejected that obvious truth and stated elsewhere that you believed "I do indeed think that DNA evolved naturally, but that's it" ,now perhaps you take a different spin on what the term "evolved naturally" means than say Dawkins ect...if so you should be intellectually honest enough to make clear what you mean before you start accusing others of lying about what you seem to be saying |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 22:00:22 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps the "W." stands for "Weasel"
And maybe DA stands for dumb ass.
Why would you need intelligence for natural slection to work? We have no evidence whatsoever to even suggest it. But this has already been clearly explained several times and you are either too dim or too dishonest to admit it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 08:16:55 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Perhaps the "W." stands for "Weasel" Dave because you seem to enjoy stating one thing then switching gears to say "I didn't mean that" .
No, here's what's been happening, DA:
A) I say something,
B) You twist it to something I didn't mean,
C) I re-state my position in different words,
D) You twist that to mean something new,
E) I state my position a third time,
F) You accuse me of "switching gears."
The only gears being switched are those in your head, DA. The claim that "evolving naturally" means the same thing as "totally by chance" is a creationist strawman that's been around for ages. If I'd meant "totally by chance" I would have said, "totally by chance," and not "evolved naturally." Perhaps to you, there's no difference, but there's a big difference to me. Case in point:quote:
now perhaps you take a different spin on what the term "evolved naturally" means than say Dawkins ect...if so you should be intellectually honest enough to make clear what you mean before you start accusing others of lying about what you seem to be saying.
But you're not being intellectually honest by denying - in the first place - that the two phrases mean different things to creationists and scientists. You applied the creationist definition of "evolution" to my words, when the appropriate definition would have been the evolutionary one. Instead of telling me what I mean when situations like this arrive, try asking me, first. That would be honest and Christ-like of you.quote:
Earlier you stated in regards to my "proof" that the only evidence we have as to anything resembling a version of DNA was brought about by intelligent minds using sophisticated scientific technology to create a form of DNA(p.2) You threw your hands up in the air and tried to do a smoke and mirrors argument
No smoke and mirrors at all. By your argument, a person who carefully designed a boulder (to use someone else's example) to look and act just like a real boulder would be "proof" that all boulders require intelligent design. That's nonsense. And before you try to claim that boulders don't have "specific information," a particular boulder has quite a lot of specific information. That's what makes it different from other boulders.quote:
No Dave what we have is "evidence" that in order to get the result specific information like DNA we NEED INTELLIGENCE...
No matter how many times you make this assertion, it won't become true until you support it with argument and other evidence. Evidence that humans can create a molecule isn't evidence that only intelligent beings can create that molecule. Bacteria create their own DNA constantly. Are they intelligent?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 10:41:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
No Dave what we have is "evidence" that in order to get the result specific information like DNA we NEED INTELLIGENCE...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how many times you make this assertion, it won't become true until you support it with argument and other evidence.
Slater: quote:
Why would you need intelligence for natural slection to work? We have no evidence whatsoever to even suggest it.
jcmginn: quote:
DA,
Your your Sagan quote agrees exactly with what I am saying.
Notice I say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DNA molecule by itself (what I was talking about) is a random repeating set of chemical molecules connected in a long chain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And notice that Sagan says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear, then that the sequence of rungs on our DNA ladders represents an enormous library of information...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I stated above DNA by itself is nothing special, a molecule of random repeating redundant bases. However as I have stated now for the 2nd or 3rd or maybe 4th time, put it in a system of selection and interesting patterns begin to emerge and put it in the context of a living cell and it becomes useful with products and information.
All these statements have at least one thing in common;THEY ALL DENY THE REAL WORLD WE LIVE IN.Coupled with this brilliant observation by Antie and you can see just how far some people will sink into denial just to mantain their position: quote:
If something appears to be designed it's because it actually is.
How do you know?
(emp mine). Gee how do we know the obvious,thats a tough one? Or take Dave's "until you support it with argument and other evidence",Support the obvious blatant fact that specified information onlyis the result of an intelligent mind(by the way Dave just because you keep "denying" the fact that it took intelligent minds to duplicate the DNA,therefore, this is empirical repeatable evidence that it must have been that way for its origin,doesn't make it go away.And your dumb analogy about the "rock" only supports my position ).To jcmginn Sagan states the exact opposite of your veiw that DNA is random or redundant,what your trying to say is that a CD soft ware program,though loaded with specified information content is random redundent because it uses 000's and 111's and needs a computer in order to extract its information content(which only makes the point clearer for ID). And finally Slater's "why do we need intelligence" its obvious for your collective "fairy tail beliefs...YOU DON"T NEED INTELLIGENCE! |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/06/2003 11:16:41 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 11:17:34 [Permalink]
|
…you keep "denying" the fact that it took intelligent minds to duplicate the DNA,therefore, this is empirical repeatable evidence that it must have been that way for its origin…
But it didn't take "intelligence" to mimic nature. It took HUMAN intelligence. And it took HUMAN physiology, and it took HUMAN technology. Unless you are claiming that HUMANS originally constructed DNA you don't have a case.
The only thing you have empirical repeatable evidence for is our ability to duplicate a natural event. You show absolutely nothing about the original event being artificial. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 12:41:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All these statements have at least one thing in common;THEY ALL DENY THE REAL WORLD WE LIVE IN.Coupled with this brilliant observation by Antie and you can see just how far some people will sink into denial just to mantain their position:
DA I asked several times for direct responses to several questions in two of my posts now. You have provided nothing in response. In fact you have not responded to anything in my post. All you have done again is made another baseless assertation without any evidence. If you are not interested in a serious discussion please say so, so I can stop wasting my time and readers (who may be in doubt) will know to ignore you.
I described the exact chemical nature of DNA when it is not in a system of selection and when it is in a system of selection. This is repeatable and has been demonstrated over and over since the discovery of DNA. I have read probably over 30 articles dealing with the exact of nature of DNA (or RNA) in both environments and the observations reported in those articles all agree with my description of the molecule.
So now who is denying the real world we live in? My description agrees with numerous observations repeated over and over, yours does not. Your quote about ID ignores the observed characteristics of selection mine does not. Your replies are beginning to sound both desperate and pathetic.
I challenge you to back up your claim that my description of DNA both in selection and out of selection is not part of the real world.
I offer some more evidence to support my claims:
In vitro selection of preferred DNA pairing sequences by the Escherichia coli RecA protein
Tracy, RB; Kowalczykowski, SC*
Genes & Development [GENES DEV.], vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 1890-1903, 1996
In vitro selection and characterization of a highly efficient Zn(II)-dependent RNA-cleaving deoxyribozyme
Li, J; Zheng, W; Kwon, AH; Lu, Y
Nucleic Acids Research [Nucleic Acids Res.]. Vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 481-488. 15 Jan 2000.
In vitro selection of self-cleaving DNAs
Carmi, N; Shultz, LA; Breaker, RR*
Chemistry & Biology [Chem. Biol.], vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 1039-1046, Dec 1996
In vitro selection of optimal DNA substrates for T4 RNA ligase.
Harada, K; Orgel, LE
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA [PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. USA.], vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 1576-1579, 1993
In vitro selection of optimal AbrB-binding sites: Comparison to known in vivo sites indicates flexibility in AbrB binding and recognition of three-dimensional DNA structure
Xu, Ke; Strauch, MA*
Molecular Microbiology [MOL. MICROBIOL.], vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 145-158, 1996
Constructing High Complexity Synthetic Libraries of Long ORFs Using In Vitro Selection
Cho, G; Keefe, AD; Liu, R; Wilson, DS; Szostak, JW
Journal of Molecular Biology [J. Mol. Biol.]. Vol. 297, no. 2, pp. 309-319. 24 Mar 2000.
Molecular evolution of an arsenate detoxification pathway by DNA shuffling
Crameri, A; Dawes, G; Rodriguez, E Jr; Silver, S; Stemmer, WPC*
Nature Biotechnology [Nat. Biotechnol.], vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 436-438, May 1997
Molecular mechanisms of clarithromycin resistance in Mycobacterium avium: Observation of multiple 23S rDNA mutations in a clonal population
Meier, A; Heifets, L; Wallace, RJ Jr; Zhang, Y; Brown, BA; Sander, P; Boettger, EC
Journal of Infectious Diseases [J. INFECT. DIS.], vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 354-360, 1996
Increased Thermal Resistance and Modification of the Catalytic Properties of a beta -Glucosidase by Random Mutagenesis and in Vitro Recombination
Arrizubieta, MJ; Polaina, J
Journal of Biological Chemistry [J. Biol. Chem.]. Vol. 275, no. 37, pp. 28843-28848. 15 Sep 2000.
A simple method for randomly mutating cloned DNA fragments by using chemical mutagens and the polymerase chain reaction.
Deshler, JO
Genetic Analysis, Techniques and Applications [GENET. ANAL.: TECH. APPL.], vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 103-106, 1992
p53 Pseudogene dating: Identification of the origin of laboratory mice
Tanooka, H*; Sasaki, H; Shiroishi, T; Moriwaki, K
Gene [Gene]. Vol. 270, no. 1-2, pp. 153-159. 30 May 2001.
Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome
Petrov, DA; Hartl, DL
Journal of Heredity [J. Hered.]. Vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 221-227. May-Jun 2000.
Simulating pseudogene evolution in vitro: Determining the true number of mutations in a lineage
Vartanian, J; Henry, M; Wain-Hobson, S
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA]. Vol. 98, no. 23, pp. 13172-13176. 6 Nov 2001.
Stability and properties of double and triple helices: Dramatic effects of RNA or DNA backbone composition.
Roberts, RW; Crothers, DM
Science (Washington) [SCIENCE (WASH.).], vol. 258, no. 5087, pp. 1463-1466, 1992
I could list literally thousands more, more than I could ever have time to read, but think those above are sufficient to support my claims. If you feel otherwise please provide exact reasons as to why not and I will address those reasons.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 12:49:31 [Permalink]
|
DA,
quote:
Support the obvious blatant fact that specified information onlyis the result of an intelligent mind.
Again specified information has been observed to form when a replicating template is placed in a system of selection for specified products. DNA under natural selection fits producing proteins fits this description exactly. You can deny it all you want, but it has been observed way more than once.
quote:
Sagan states the exact opposite of your veiw that DNA
Bullshit, read what I wrote again. Sagan is referring to DNA in a living organism, I am referring to DNA by itself without a system of selection acting on it. The fact that you can't see this after me explaining it several times now has lead me to the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest in distorting what I have said (or Sagan said).
I hope you can do better than distorting my words, I expect more than simple lies that are easy to demonstrate as such. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 13:44:32 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Gee how do we know the obvious,thats a tough one?
Actually, it is, because "it just is" is often not good enough. Assumptions (the 'obvious') must be agreed upon before scientific works are taken seriously. If people don't agree on the assumptions, then what follows can be questioned in any number of ways. I'm asking you to support your assumptions. If the best you can do is, "they're obvious," then it seems to me that you haven't thought about them very much.quote:
Or take Dave's "until you support it with argument and other evidence",Support the obvious blatant fact that specified information onlyis the result of an intelligent mind
While it may be obvious to you, it certainly isn't to me. Your continued refusal to supply any good reasons why I should assume that it's true (none of the reasons you've offered so far will work, since you've just been parroting the IDers I've already read) just makes me more and more amenable to denying it as the idea of a nutcase.quote:
(by the way Dave just because you keep "denying" the fact that it took intelligent minds to duplicate the DNA,therefore, this is empirical repeatable evidence that it must have been that way for its origin,doesn't make it go away.
Hey, I think it's wonderful that some scientists have been able to do the trick. I don't have any desire to make that ability "go away" (although the ability might be turned to less-dangerous creatures than the polio virus).
What I am denying is what you think that ability is evidence of. You are continuing to equate the human ability to re-create DNA for a requirement that intelligence created DNA in the first place.
(You know, it just occured to me that I've never seen a citation for what the "German scientist" actually did who you praised so highly. What's his/her name? Got a link to share with us? I'm only a little surprised to find that nobody else asked you, either, but your use of that data point was more absurd than the data could possibly be. But now I'm interested in finding out what that scientist thinks of what he/she did. What's the title of the article?)
quote:
And your dumb analogy about the "rock" only supports my position ).
How so?
You still haven't provided an answer to the question about bacterial intelligence.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 14:47:29 [Permalink]
|
DW: quote:
You still haven't provided an answer to the question about bacterial intelligence.
All I see is you jcmginn,Slater chasing your tails like dogs when it comes to the simple obvious facts that DNA/RNA (despite repeated lies)is not random or redundant : quote:
Second, contra the classical Humean objection to design, the "DNA to Design" argument does not depend upon an analogy between the features of human artifactsand living systems, still less upon a weak or illicit one. If, as Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex, it makes sense, on
analogical grounds, to consider inferring that it too had an intelligent source.
Nevertheless, while DNA is similar to a computer program, the case for its design does not depend merely upon resemblance or analogical reasoning. Classical
design arguments in biology typically sought to draw analogies between whole organisms and machines based upon certain similar features that each held in common.
These arguments sought to reason from similar effects back to similar causes. The status of such design arguments thus turned on the degree of similarity that actually
obtained between the effects in question. Yet since even advocates of these classical arguments admitted dissimilarities as well as similarities, the status of these
arguments always appeared uncertain. Advocates would argue that the similarities between organisms and machines outweighed dissimilarities. Critics would claim
the opposite.
The design argument from the information in DNA does not depend upon such analogical reasoning since it does not depend upon claims of similarity. As noted
above, the coding regions of DNA have the very same property of "specified complexity" or "information content" that computer codes and linguistic texts do.
Though DNA does not possess all the properties of natural languages or "semantic information"--i.e., information that is subjectively "meaningful" to human agents--it
does have precisely those properties that jointly implicate an antecedent intelligence.
Now contrary to jcmginns claim that the highly specific real information inside the DNA/RNA moleclue: quote:
DNA under natural selection fits producing proteins fits this description exactly. You can deny it all you want, but it has been observed way more than once.
(emp mine). Lets see jcm did you uncover a"fossil"DNA to get that info or was this info the results again of "intellignt minds" performing experiments to get it? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 15:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All I see is you jcmginn,Slater chasing your tails like dogs when it comes to the simple obvious facts that DNA/RNA (despite repeated lies)is not random or redundant :
DA continues to
1. Ignore my (and Dave W's) request for evidence for his claims.
2. Ignore my (and Dave W's) specific questions directed to him.
3. To make unsubstantied claims.
4. To distort my (and Dave W's) posts original content in his replies.
5. To duplicate his quotes from ID advocates that I have thoroughly debunked as if they are still legitimate.
6. To ignore the evidence I have provided.
7. To show that he is not interested in any form of serious dialogue.
Perfect example:
quote:
Lets see jcm did you uncover a"fossil"DNA to get that info or was this info the results again of "intellignt minds" performing experiments to get it?
I provided numerous references to numerous experiments documenting what happens to DNA when it is exposed to a system of selection. This has been observed both in vitro and in vivo multiple times. DA ignores this information and continues to reassert his claim as if saying it more often will make it more valid. One does not have to get fossil DNA to see what it is capable of under a process of selection.
I have already posted in detail DA on page 2 why Meyer is wrong. Meyer ignores the process of selection which has been shown (as my references document) to be capable of producing information for specific products. Your reliance upoin authoratative claims and not on specific data is pathetic.
Edited to add the following:
Since DA failed to address my challenge I accept his defeat by resignation. If he ever decides to address this issue again and accept my challenge in earnest then I will glady address his answer(s).
This all goes to show that DA will say the darndest things and never try to back it up with any evidence. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 03/06/2003 15:16:55 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 18:03:45 [Permalink]
|
jmcginn: quote:
I challenge you to back up your claim that my description of DNA both in selection and out of selection is not
part of the real world.
I offer some more evidence to support my claims:
In vitro selection of preferred DNA pairing sequences by the Escherichia coli RecA protein
Tracy, RB; Kowalczykowski, SC*
Genes & Development [GENES DEV.], vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 1890-1903, 1996
Lets cut to the chase Mr.jmc,just where in the REAL WORLD do your : quote:
...to DNA by itself without a
system of selection acting on it. The fact that you can't see this after me explaining it several times now has lead me to the
fact that you are being intentionally dishonest in distorting what I have said
Now please don't say "I've told in our scinetific lab's". |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2003 : 23:44:18 [Permalink]
|
jcmginn: quote:
DA continues to
1. Ignore my (and Dave W's) request for evidence for his claims.
2. Ignore my (and Dave W's) specific questions directed to him.
3. To make unsubstantied claims.
4. To distort my (and Dave W's) posts original content in his replies.
5. To duplicate his quotes from ID advocates that I have thoroughly debunked as if they are still legitimate.
6. To ignore the evidence I have provided.
7. To show that he is not interested in any form of serious dialogue.
Let's see how the facts bear out against the accusations. [list] [*]1.If you remember my first criticism of your "evidence" was that you committed the reductionist fallacy when you stated:quote:
DA do you know what DNA is? It is not a magical structure or even a designed one. Its a chemical molecule. It is a chain of bases that
appear in random order and undergoes spontaneous random changes (mutations). Those four bases repeat themselves over and over and
over in a random/redundant pattern not much different than the patterns of a snow flake.
I pointed out you were/are in error because:quote:
For example,the
information content in your soil and rocks(and snowflakes) is like this...ME ME ME ME ME ME...."By contrast,DNA uses
what can only be described as linguistic terms code,transcribe, and translate. The genetic code is composed of
letters(nucleotides),words(condons or triplets),sentences(genes),paragraphs(operons),chapters(chromosomes),and
books(living organisms).Such talk is not anthropomorphic,it is literal[emp.mine].Living organisms do not contain only
order but information as well.By contrast to THE SIMPLE REPETITION OF ME,THE GENETIC CODE IS LIKE THE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA" (emp.mine),(J.P. Moreland,Scaling the Secular Cityp.51).
I also pointed out from Meyer( and as it is stated above also) that these discriptions of the the specific information content and comparison with language are literal(see above quote).You attempted to defuse this powerful evidence by killing us with information concerning "scientific experiments" splitting DNA from RNA from its normal "Real World" Environment(in a living cell) and that my sources were tainted.I then quoted Dr. Sagan who, like you he believed that DNA was the result of "natural selection",nonetheless, supported my view that the "rungs on our DNA represent an enormous library of information".You first claimed Sagan's qoute "agrees exactly with what [you were] saying",then latter on a diffrent post,after I pointed out your error,you claimed "Sagan is referring to DNA in a living organism, I am referring to DNA by itself without a system of selection acting on it." In otherwords in an unnatural way. This sums up my criticism in order to make your point of any type of non-specified information in DNA and to boast your unwarrented claim that there is "nothing special" to it that it is " a moleclue of random redundant repeating bases", you have to completely divorce from its "REAL WORLD ENVIRONMENT". Hence we can take your massive references and flush them down the toliet,because they don't deal with REAL WORLD.(http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i12f.htm)(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)  (ed for ref's.) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/07/2003 00:21:39 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:40:18 [Permalink]
|
DA,
DNA out of a system of selection is found both in our labs and in our cells. Non coding DNA (ala pseudogenes) acts just like the DNA we put in a test tube and becomes random redundant junk. That's the real world. You can distort this all you want, but DNA that is not under a process of selection (either in vitro or in vivo) has no specific information in it other than its length and random order of bases. Objection #1 answered fully.
quote:
I pointed out you were/are in error because:
Again your point fails to address the difference between DNA in a system of selection (e.g. coding genes in a living organism or DNA in vitro in a system of artificial selection) which does contain information vs. DNA not in a system of selection (e.g. psuedogenes or DNA in vitro with no system of selection applied) which does not and becomes a random redundant molecule of repeating bases. Objection #2 answered fully.
Your other paragraph continues your practice of item #4 in my list.
Fact #1, I said DNA not in a system of selection (occurs naturally in cells and in labs in vitro) contains no specific information and becomes a molecule of random redundant bases.
Fact #2: I said DNA in a system of selection (whether in vivo or in vitro and whether in a lab or in the wild) contains specific information for a specific product that is selected for by the system of selection.
Fact #3: Sagan says exactly what I am saying in Fact #2.
So both DNA that is nothing but a molecule of random/redundant bases and DNA that contains information if it is in a system of selection both exist in the real world. Your claims are now rendered baseless.
As far as Meyer goes like I said earlier, DNA under a system of selection also displays information and does so quite quickly, whether in vitro or in vivo. Selection has been demonstrated over and over to produce information in DNA for specific products, my references backed up my claim (and had nothing to do with taking DNA out of the natural world, since several of them referred to in vivo studies). This again is found in vitro and in vivo. Meyer ignores what selection can do (as do you) and thus his argument fails (as does yours).
My responses to reference #1:
Mentions natural selection in the introduction only and then after mentioning it, goes on to ignore it and goes on to distort the entire thinking of modern evolutionists with the typical "Information by Chance?" It repeats this falsehood over and over and even titles one of its subsections as "Information by Chance?". Just like Meyer they entirely ignore the process of natural selection. Why? Because they know that DNA under a process of natural selection does produce information and thus their entire argument fails.
My response to reference #2 (This appears to be a read herring and is off of original topic):
First confuses the differences between abiogenesis and chemical/molecular evolution with Pasteur's study that disproved spontaneous generation of flies. This is typical of creationists propaganda.
They then distort all studies on the origins of life and the fact that the oxygen in the early atmosphere when have been mostly tied up in iron and thus the atmosphere would still be heavily reducing, also they ignore other enivornments where the atmosphere does not come into play (underwater, thermal vents, space).
Their left handed argument ignores the evidence that certain clay crystals can select for specific handiness of molecules and also by limiting the motion of the molecules increase the odds of certain reactions necessary for the origin of life.
They then claim that life requires DNA, pure falsehood. Early life could have been entirely protein based or possibly even RNA based with no DNA needed.
They then give the often quoted odds of life spontaneously originating from a mix chemicals ignoring all that has been learned via chemical and molecular evolution and how systems of selection dramatically lower those odds. They rightly claim that it could not arise spontaneously, but of course no serious scientists claims such either. They understand there were processes of selection in place and chemical evolution was under way.
Next they claim that all of the bases in a bacteria are all aligned in a specific way. Another falsehood. We know that many sections of non-coding DNA is often rearranged and differs from individual to individual.
They then go on and repeat the same fallacy as your first reference and entirely ignore the process of selection. Claiming over and over the odds of pure chance are impossible. Sadly every evolutionary biologists worth his weight in salt claims the exact same thing, they all just happen to also realize that under the observed process of selection (not pure chance) the odds drop dramatically.
They even claim the following falsehood: "There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures." When natural selection (or any process of selection) has been shown to do just what they claim cannot be done.
This article is heavy with falsehoods and fallacies and like Meyer fails the even mention the "S" word.
DA all of your objections have now been answered, a courtesy your refuse to even attempt with me. Your arguments (and all of your cohorts) ignore the fact that selection acting on DNA does produce information. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
