RNA synthesised in a lab (1 Viewer)

[Drifter]

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

Both of you please drop this or take it somewhere else. Thanks.J

Hahahahaha,Ya all got yelled at by dad.

Wow another Pickles alias. You started at the same date again.Group: MembersJoined: 14-April 03

I see you like to jump to conclusions based on very cursory evidence. Explains a lot.

 

[Konotay]

I would have a difficult time doing a better job of pointing out the flaws in your argument than Shining Path and RWS. They keep bringing up facts that you don't seem to be able to answer in any constructive way, other than denying it. The most obvious example is that you continue to compare evolution to intelligent design, claiming that neither one is testable. Yet Shining Path and RWS keep demonstrating how evolution is testable and is tested every day, and you don't seem to have any answer for this.

The question of finding a rabbit in Cambrian was asked and I answered it one way earlier. If the question is about finding something where it doesn’t belong then I will answer the question differently. Fossils have been characterized for over a 150 years. So the question somewhat ad hoc: We we pretty much know what we are going to find in a layer. The question is disingenuous on many levels:1. We have found many credible fossils out of phase: For example

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

Evolution predicts that no flowering plant will ever be found below the Cretaceous

link

Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds. Chatterjee (1991) believes it to be a Triassic bird, older than Archaeopteryx. Only fragments have been found, but its discoverer considers it to have many features associated with flight, for example a keel-like sternum indicating that it would have been a better flyer than Archaeopteryx. Its skull was lightly built and pneumatised, with a temporal region similar to modern birds. It also had a relatively large brain with an avian brain architecture similar to modern birds with neurosensory specialisations associated with balance, coordination, flight, agility and high metabolic activity. Claw morphology suggests that Protoavis could climb trees, yet the development of a supracoracoideus (the principal muscles that lift the wing) pulley indicates that it was able to fly.

2. The question is even being debated by atheist now. I clear cut test would not be debated this late in the game.3. Many fossils are found out of phase and are called hoaxes. In other words, if does not support evolution it is not really evidence. Because there is no evidence that can go outside the established rules of how evolution must work. To do is just a fluke and therefore should "always" be ignored. You can not fail a test were the rules are that failure is not allowed. So if a rabbit found in Cambrian would be called a hoax.

4. Another trick is to put fossils in we don’t know what to do with into a category called transitional. They have no clue what it transitioned from or what it transitioned into other than it makes the resume look better.

To sum it up, we find out of phase fossil all the time that Darwinian evolution does not predict out of phase fossils when they appear. Evolutionary theory changes ad hoc to adapt the evidence. If a rabbit were found in Cambrian, evolution theory would just change the time line and move on. This after the fact accountability makes evolution impossible to disprove.

So if you want a real test looks as something like Koons test.:

Stage 1. An alternative mechanism is proposed, random variation culled by natural selection, and preliminary evidence in favor of the new hypothesis is gathered and systematized.

Stage 2. In several paradigmatic cases, hypothetical Darwinistic pathways leading to actual adaptive forms are described in sufficient detail and with sufficient understanding of the underlying genetic and developmental processes that it seems virtually certain that these pathways represent genuine possibilities. These pathways must be possible, not only in the sense of involving no violation of physical or chemical laws, but also in the sense that every step in the path can be assigned an estimated probability that is sufficiently high for the joint probability of the entire pathway to be consistent with a reasonable belief that such a thing might really have happened.

Stage 3. For a significant number of hypothetical pathways of the kind described in stage two, we are able to verify that the pathway was probably actualized in history. New evidence from fossils and homologies is found that conforms to our specific expectations, based on the hypothetical pathways, and few if any instances of evidence are found that cannot readily be explained in terms of these pathways. Each hypothetical pathway describes a large number of intermediate steps, leading from some known ancestral form lacking the adaptation in question to some known form possessing it. Each step should be fully described at both the genetic and the morphological level: that is we should be specific about what mutations, lateral gene transfers, or other processes have occurred, and how the new genotype is expressed in morphology. For each step a hypothetical environment needs to be specified, and the tools of population genetics employed to show that the hypothetical new genotype would in fact be selected over its rivals in the hypothetical environment.

Stage 4. If nearly every case of apparent design has been successfully explained in Darwinian terms, and in each case we have found an overwhelming body of specific, confirming evidence, we are justified in treating Darwinism as established beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a real standard to evaluate evolution on. So based on this test would you say Darwins theory is a scientific law or a work in progress?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

So you're saying that evolution is testable?

 

[Konotay]

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

So you're saying that evolution is testable?

No.The challenge was if you could "find a rabbit in Cambrian that would falsify evolution". This is a rabbit: Something found far earlier than expected. Something that defies current evolution predictions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

So you're saying that evolution is testable?

No.The challenge was if you could "find a rabbit in Cambrian that would falsify evolution". This is a rabbit: Something found far earlier than expected. Something that defies current evolution predictions.

So your position is that evolutionary theory makes predictions that can potentially be false, but it is not testable?

 

[Konotay]

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

So you're saying that evolution is testable?

No.The challenge was if you could "find a rabbit in Cambrian that would falsify evolution". This is a rabbit: Something found far earlier than expected. Something that defies current evolution predictions.

So your position is that evolutionary theory makes predictions that can potentially be false, but it is not testable?

Evolution has not been testable. It is not a predictive science because it based on what happened- or past history.There are things that can be tested using gene sequencing and chromosome painting. The TOL (tree of life) has been destroyed by gene sequencing. Link if interested.

His summary of the first section describes how evolution can never be defeated because it evolves and adapts when contra information if found. The first section was about gene sequencing.

To sum up this section, Darwinian evolutionary theory failed, in this author’s view, to anticipate several key discoveries about genetics, inheritance, and gene expression and development. In each case, evolutionary theory should have guided researchers to make these discoveries, but in fact the opposite seems true: changes were made in evolutionary theory after the fact to account, for example, for the significance of horizontal gene transfer or to explain the complexities of regulation of gene expression.

 

[Claydon]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

 

[shining path]

We're all Pickles aliases on one level or another.

 

[Konotay]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

 

[Mopap]

You are so right.

Evolution is not testable. It's a descriptive phrase about what's happened, change.

Evolution is NOT a theory. It's an observable fact.

There are many theories about what drives evolution.

God coming down and zapping the dinosaurs is not one of them I think.

This interesting animal was discovered recently.

debunks evolution

 

[FatMax]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

I'm just another pickles alias, along with shining path, drifter, and about 3000 other posters that signed up on the same day, so take what I say with a grain of salt.There are guys that take shots. I'm not above it either. But I haven't taken one at you in this thread. If you feel slighted, I'm not sure what to tell you. Report me, I guess.The real problem is that we (and by we, I mean all of my aliases) can't debunk evidence if you don't produce any. You have also demonstrated that you don't understand that material very well. That isn't an insult. I don't either. But I don't pretend to.

 

[Claydon]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

Except you arguing against evolution is like me arguing the earth is flat.It's just stupid.

 

[Konotay]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.

2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

I'm just another pickles alias, along with shining path, drifter, and about 3000 other posters that signed up on the same day, so take what I say with a grain of salt.There are guys that take shots. I'm not above it either. But I haven't taken one at you in this thread. If you feel slighted, I'm not sure what to tell you. Report me, I guess.

The real problem is that we (and by we, I mean all of my aliases) can't debunk evidence if you don't produce any. You have also demonstrated that you don't understand that material very well. That isn't an insult. I don't either. But I don't pretend to.

First off I want to apologize. I was dead wrong. I thought so many people with same start date doing the same thing was too much of a coincidence. It turns out that start date was a big day for this forum. I am genuinely sorry.I am not sure what evidence you want me to produce. Evolution is equated with the theory of gravity as a fact or a scientific law. In all other sciences questioning the science is part of the process. Those who make the questions don't have to come up and say I have a better solution. The reason, a scientific law has to stand on its own two feet and be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny. The criteria that a theory can't be questioned until you have a better one is not done in any other science except evolution: In fact I find that attitude to be very unscientific. All I.D. is doing is using science to challenge evolution.

OTOH I can see how you can be frustrated on someone gets up and says that God did it. That can't be tested or verified. The nature of science is look for solutions of natural phenomena. I.D. does try to demonstrate intelligence was required for life to exists on earth. One way is that use a term called information. Shannon and iinformation theory has been around for a long time. This is quick and dirty but here is a quick overview:

1. RNA/DNA is not just chemistry it is information. Similarly a book, a blue print or a computer code is not just chemistry. DNA is like a computer program and it provides instructions that are carried out. With this in mind, making RNA or DNA is not enough - it has to do something. Writing a book with gibberish does nothing.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Things I find interesting with the hypothesis:

1) DNA has an alphabet.

2) DNA code has syntax and exact rules that are followed.

3) DNA is read by a third party (ribosomes) which understands the instructions and has the ability to carry them out.

So lets leave that to random chance. Say I splatter ink on a page. It turns out that the splattered ink is in perfect Japanese with no spelling or syntax errors. If I gave it to you read you probably couldn't do it because you don't read Japanese: you don't understand its rules or syntax. So for the splattered ink to be any good it probably has to be in English. The writer has to be witting to some who understands the rules and conventions and has the ability to something with the information. This screams on intelligence IMO.

 

[SKribbles]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.

2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

I'm just another pickles alias, along with shining path, drifter, and about 3000 other posters that signed up on the same day, so take what I say with a grain of salt.There are guys that take shots. I'm not above it either. But I haven't taken one at you in this thread. If you feel slighted, I'm not sure what to tell you. Report me, I guess.

The real problem is that we (and by we, I mean all of my aliases) can't debunk evidence if you don't produce any. You have also demonstrated that you don't understand that material very well. That isn't an insult. I don't either. But I don't pretend to.

First off I want to apologize. I was dead wrong. I thought so many people with same start date doing the same thing was too much of a coincidence. It turns out that start date was a big day for this forum. I am genuinely sorry.I am not sure what evidence you want me to produce. Evolution is equated with the theory of gravity as a fact or a scientific law. In all other sciences questioning the science is part of the process. Those who make the questions don't have to come up and say I have a better solution. The reason, a scientific law has to stand on its own two feet and be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny. The criteria that a theory can't be questioned until you have a better one is not done in any other science except evolution: In fact I find that attitude to be very unscientific. All I.D. is doing is using science to challenge evolution.

OTOH I can see how you can be frustrated on someone gets up and says that God did it. That can't be tested or verified. The nature of science is look for solutions of natural phenomena. I.D. does try to demonstrate intelligence was required for life to exists on earth. One way is that use a term called information. Shannon and iinformation theory has been around for a long time. This is quick and dirty but here is a quick overview:

1. RNA/DNA is not just chemistry it is information. Similarly a book, a blue print or a computer code is not just chemistry. DNA is like a computer program and it provides instructions that are carried out. With this in mind, making RNA or DNA is not enough - it has to do something. Writing a book with gibberish does nothing.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Things I find interesting with the hypothesis:

1) DNA has alphabet.

2) DNA code has syntax and exact rules that are followed.

3) DNA is read by a third party (ribosomes) which understands the instructions and has the ability to carry them out.



So lets leave that to random chance. Say I splatter ink on a page. It turns out that the splattered ink is in perfect Japanese with no spelling or syntax errors. If I gave it to you read you probably couldn't do it because you don't read Japanese: you don't understand its rules or syntax. So for the splattered ink to be any good it probably has to be in English. The writer has to be witting to some who understands the rules and conventions and has the ability to something with the information. This screams on intelligence random chance IMO.

Are you familiar with the term infinite?

 

[Konotay]

There is no point in debating with creotards. Trust me, they don't care how much solid evidence you throw at them.

t's the same game lawyers play in the court room all the time.1) If you cannot debunk the evidence, then you discredit the messenger of the evidence.

2) If you cannot debunk the evidence, stereotype it into a group that by association, makes it not creditable.

I'm just another pickles alias, along with shining path, drifter, and about 3000 other posters that signed up on the same day, so take what I say with a grain of salt.There are guys that take shots. I'm not above it either. But I haven't taken one at you in this thread. If you feel slighted, I'm not sure what to tell you. Report me, I guess.

The real problem is that we (and by we, I mean all of my aliases) can't debunk evidence if you don't produce any. You have also demonstrated that you don't understand that material very well. That isn't an insult. I don't either. But I don't pretend to.

First off I want to apologize. I was dead wrong. I thought so many people with same start date doing the same thing was too much of a coincidence. It turns out that start date was a big day for this forum. I am genuinely sorry.I am not sure what evidence you want me to produce. Evolution is equated with the theory of gravity as a fact or a scientific law. In all other sciences questioning the science is part of the process. Those who make the questions don't have to come up and say I have a better solution. The reason, a scientific law has to stand on its own two feet and be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny. The criteria that a theory can't be questioned until you have a better one is not done in any other science except evolution: In fact I find that attitude to be very unscientific. All I.D. is doing is using science to challenge evolution.

OTOH I can see how you can be frustrated on someone gets up and says that God did it. That can't be tested or verified. The nature of science is look for solutions of natural phenomena. I.D. does try to demonstrate intelligence was required for life to exists on earth. One way is that use a term called information. Shannon and iinformation theory has been around for a long time. This is quick and dirty but here is a quick overview:

1. RNA/DNA is not just chemistry it is information. Similarly a book, a blue print or a computer code is not just chemistry. DNA is like a computer program and it provides instructions that are carried out. With this in mind, making RNA or DNA is not enough - it has to do something. Writing a book with gibberish does nothing.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Things I find interesting with the hypothesis:

1) DNA has alphabet.

2) DNA code has syntax and exact rules that are followed.

3) DNA is read by a third party (ribosomes) which understands the instructions and has the ability to carry them out.



So lets leave that to random chance. Say I splatter ink on a page. It turns out that the splattered ink is in perfect Japanese with no spelling or syntax errors. If I gave it to you read you probably couldn't do it because you don't read Japanese: you don't understand its rules or syntax. So for the splattered ink to be any good it probably has to be in English. The writer has to be witting to some who understands the rules and conventions and has the ability to something with the information. This screams on intelligence random chance IMO.

Are you familiar with the term infinite?

Some things are impossible. No amount of opportunity will make it happen. Life generating from non-life is one of those things.Question back: Is the universe infinite?

 

[SKribbles]

First off I want to apologize. I was dead wrong. I thought so many people with same start date doing the same thing was too much of a coincidence. It turns out that start date was a big day for this forum. I am genuinely sorry.

I am not sure what evidence you want me to produce. Evolution is equated with the theory of gravity as a fact or a scientific law. In all other sciences questioning the science is part of the process. Those who make the questions don't have to come up and say I have a better solution. The reason, a scientific law has to stand on its own two feet and be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny. The criteria that a theory can't be questioned until you have a better one is not done in any other science except evolution: In fact I find that attitude to be very unscientific. All I.D. is doing is using science to challenge evolution.

OTOH I can see how you can be frustrated on someone gets up and says that God did it. That can't be tested or verified. The nature of science is look for solutions of natural phenomena. I.D. does try to demonstrate intelligence was required for life to exists on earth. One way is that use a term called information. Shannon and iinformation theory has been around for a long time. This is quick and dirty but here is a quick overview:

1. RNA/DNA is not just chemistry it is information. Similarly a book, a blue print or a computer code is not just chemistry. DNA is like a computer program and it provides instructions that are carried out. With this in mind, making RNA or DNA is not enough - it has to do something. Writing a book with gibberish does nothing.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Things I find interesting with the hypothesis:

1) DNA has alphabet.

2) DNA code has syntax and exact rules that are followed.

3) DNA is read by a third party (ribosomes) which understands the instructions and has the ability to carry them out.



So lets leave that to random chance. Say I splatter ink on a page. It turns out that the splattered ink is in perfect Japanese with no spelling or syntax errors. If I gave it to you read you probably couldn't do it because you don't read Japanese: you don't understand its rules or syntax. So for the splattered ink to be any good it probably has to be in English. The writer has to be witting to some who understands the rules and conventions and has the ability to something with the information. This screams on intelligence random chance IMO.

Are you familiar with the term infinite?

Some things are impossible. No amount of opportunity will make it happen. Life generating from non-life is one of those things.Question back: Is the universe infinite?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Running with scissors]

Oof. It's really too bad I don't have time for this today. The whole information theory and molecular chemistry canard and infinite monkeys? It would have been fun.

I just want to say entropy before anyone else does. Have fun folks.

 

[gianmarco]

So how is this recent discovery different than this?