Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why the attempts to poison science by darwinism


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1751-1775 of 1907 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 5:00:13 PM PDT
Nat says:
Incorrect, First and foremost technically life is a mere concept by our egotistical brains respectively. Because no matter what everything in the Universe exists only as atoms. The atoms that held your matter together yesterday, not a single atom from yesterday is holding your matter together today. You have to put some actual effort and make time to exercise your brain. On purpose mind you. Just on accident doesn't apply

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 5:01:23 PM PDT
Nat says:
Wow, you have absolutely no idea what the sam hell you are rambling about

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:21:35 PM PDT
Hey, it's a reply from the other cell of the two that gave rise to the Brent Mortimer/Charles Dawkins chimera

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:23:18 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 3, 2012 7:23:49 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:12:58 PM PDT
Re BAM, 7-3 2:11 PM: "Natural selection is necessary for evolution but it is not sufficient." Correct: one needs a source of mutations from which selection can take place. Several such have evolved:
- Sex. Mating assures that favorable mutations can be merged, and recombination provides a randomizing force to assure that descendants will differ -- some of which will be better suited to the environment at hand.
- Mutations: copying errors in the reproductive genome. On average, each human has about thirty of these, rendering one somewhat different from either parent.

"it is possible that a higher form of intelligence exists that could design proteins, and design life." It is indeed. But this thesis is useless: it can predict nothing of any sort whatever, so cannot even be tested [1].

"We may figure out at some point how to design DNA from scratch" It is already being done: most of the US corn crop, almost all of the soybean crop, and much of the cotton crop is genetically engineered for specific useful properties. And this is, of course, being done by intelligence -- but intelligence is NOT required for evolution, and CANNOT be a factor in natural selection.

"[ID] is not a useless thesis" WRONG: because it can predict nothing, it is EXACTLY useless [2].

"I also learned to use logic and reason to analyze scientific data and come to a correct conclusion" The evidence is conclusive that this is false.

1. The relevant theorem is: The information content of any thesis derives exclusively from its refutability. It is easily proved, and the proof has been posted in these forums.
2. Ibid.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 11:30:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 12:36:58 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 1:00:09 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"No one has ever created DNA from scratch. You are wrong. "From scratch" means starting with basic elements (chemicals,) ASSEMBLING THE DNA BACKBONE OR HELIX COIL WITH SUGAR PHOSPHATE BONDS, then attaching the nucleotide sequences... or however it might be built without using preexisting DNA pieces, no one knows." (emphasis mine)

Oh dear Brent, you should really not talk about what you don't understand... How would you go about ASSEMBLING THE SUGAR PHOSPHATE BONDS BEFORE YOU HAVE THE NUCLEOTIDES????

Furthermore, indeed you can synthesize nucleosides from basic molecules such as formamide or hidrogen cyanide, and indeed you can synthesize DNA molecules by protecting these nucleosides into nucleotides.

Here, some wikis for clarification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purine#Laboratory_synthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide_synthesis

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 1:42:51 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 1:57:37 AM PDT
Nat says:
What exactly in sam's hell is stopping anyone here not to put them 2 on iggy. These back and forth defeatist tit for tat debate and is virtually a true blue absurd and a bit immature at this point. Since I dont have the rest of you on iggy I get notified email of random comebacks with two people that do not process information in anyway on any topic suggesting them 2 could likely be a bit mentally disabled for christ sakes guys, I beg you. THROW IN THE TOWEL.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 2:03:21 AM PDT
Nat says:
No, what many have also attempted to explain is that it is not about the refutation of friggin codes. Having said so, if we or other advanced EBE's never existed it would not be a code. It only exists in our language

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 2:13:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 2:16:46 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"When I said "created DNA from scratch" I was referring to the organized structure of DNA, a functioning chromosome."

Then you should have said "created a chromossome from scratch". You see, to me, a molecular biologist, "DNA" and "chromossome" are not synomyns, so it seems you are (once more) just moving the goalposts. You said:

""From scratch" means starting with basic elements (chemicals,) assembling the DNA backbone or helix coil with sugar phosphate bonds, then attaching the nucleotide sequences... or however it might be built without using preexisting DNA pieces"

Nowhere in your quote do you even imply that what you mean is a chromossome.

But EVEN IF IT WAS what you meant, it is also NOT TRUE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_artificial_chromosome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_artificial_chromosome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_artificial_chromosome

Articificial chromossomes have been used as tools in molecular biology for decades.

So Brent, since you've been shown that we can synthesize nucleosides from simples molecules such as HCN, nucleotides from nucleosides, specific DNA sequences from nucleotides and chromossomes from specific DNA sequences, do you stand corrected in your claim that "no one has ever created DNA from scratch"?

Unless, of course, you mean "no one PERSON", in which case I would say you are trivially correct (it could also be said that no one has ever created a ball pen from scratch).

Well, if you want to use the molecular structure of DNA to advance your arguments, you have to try to understand it. You have said above that, to create "DNA" from scratch, first one needs to "assemble the DNA backbone or helix coil with sugar phosphate bonds" and THEN, "attach the nucleotide sequences".

Any person familiar with biochemistry or molecular biology will immediately go "huh?" after reading that claim. It makes no (chemical) sense! Unless, of course, you mean something else too when you say "DNA backbone or helix coil with sugar phosphate bonds". So what is it, Brent? We cannot have a meaningful discussion if your terms have different meanings from mi.. err.. everybody else's.

"You are a darwinist."

No. And irrelevant unless your definition of "darwinist" is "one who understands biochemistry".

"You'll find some way to twist and contort the discussion to make it look like you are on top of it."

Really? You're the one who changed "DNA" into "chromossome" after being corrected! If you mean something other than what you write, YOU are the one contorting the discussion to make it look like you're on top of it.

"You probably know more about DNA than I do, but that doesn't mean that I can't discuss it in a fundamental way."

I do, and the evidence so far seems to indicate that you can't.

[EDITED for typos]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:00:57 AM PDT
noman says:
RE:BAM says "What does the "DNA backbone" indicate that I am talking about? Oh forget it. You are a darwinist. You'll find some way to twist and contort the discussion to make it look like you are on top of it. "

**If by "on top of it" you mean he knows the subject and you do not...then yes. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to blame someone else for misunderstandings due to your ignorance. And it's more than a little silly to claim you can discuss a subject "in a fundamental way" when you don't even understand basic terminology.

RE: "...You probably know more about DNA than I do, but that doesn't mean that I can't discuss it in a fundamental way."

**Yes it does, actually. In order to discuss something in a "fundamental way" you have to know something about the subject. I can't discuss Quantum Electro Dynamics "in a fundamental way" because I don't have the background and I've got enough sense to know I don't know. Which is simply a consequence of the enormous breadth of modern science.
****

**Your remark "created DNA from scratch" indicates you have no conception of how chemical synthesis works. For everyone else(somewhat dated, but a nice overview AND free on the web):

Gene Synthesis Machines:
DNA Chemistry and Its Uses
Marvin H. Caruthers

SCIENCE, VOL. 230
18 OCTOBER 1985

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/DNA/Gene%20synthesis%20machines%20-%20DNA%20chemistry%20and%20its%20uses%20-%201985.pdf

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:41:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 6:51:28 AM PDT
"It has yet to be demonstrated that mutations acting with natural selection can produce morphological changes which increase the complexity of an organism for example... from say a single cell organism to a multi-cellular organism with multiple internal organs. "Demonstrated" Saunders, that's the key word."

It is clear that these kinds of changes do not occur over the spans of time that we have to observe the natural world. If they did, there would be no argument and no need for a "theory" of evolution. So, to claim that absence of direct demonstration of this type of "macroevolution" is a refutation of evolution is circular reasoning, as the entire issue is that we cannot observe this directly (no more so than we can observe the formation of the solar system, etc.)

We don't need to have a scientific investigation into the number of legs possessed by most tetrapods (i.e., 4). That's observable. However, what science can show (through comparative anatomy, evo-devo studies, and the fossil record -- independently and in combinaiotn) is that tetrapod legs come from fish fins, and that forms that are now legless, or missing one pair of limbs (snakes, whales, etc) came from ancestors that had legs. It does not require breeding lizards in the lab and showing that they can be turned into snakes for scientific investigation to show that this is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, what we *do* have is a vast consilience of evidence that such events *have* happened, in the nested hierarchy of life, as shown by both morphological and molecular data. This is the notion of "common descent", and the various observable facts that together all support the notion of common descent (which is quite different from common design) is what leads to the conclusion that, over time, small genetic changes have added up to larger ones. Creationists always avoid the issue of nested hierarchies, because there is no other explanation for this pattern of life except common descent.

Edit. Nested hierarchies also explain why fruit flies in the lab aren't going to turn into butterflies or clams. Whatever they may or may not turn into over time, they are still going to be dipteran insects. Like many other organisms alive today, they now too specialized to undergo huge changes. Things like "adding new organs" obviously only occur in more generalized organisms. That's why the number of phyla has been pretty much set since the Cambrian. But large changes can still happen in more complex animals --- as the fossil record shows clearly the progression of small feathered dinosaurs giving rise to birds. (No new organs involved, though, just some modifications of the basic vertebrate blueprint.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 10:48:04 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:25:50 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"Yes these synthesized genomes are pieced together from existing DNA."

How clueless can you be? Of course it's "existing DNA", because they had to SYNTHETIZE IT FIRST! What sort of weird straw man are you trying to set up here, Brent?

So, even though the following processes are well described in the literature and are basic principles of several industries:

i) simple molecules to nucleosides (A -> B)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_nucleosides

ii) nucleosides to nucleotides (B -> C)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide_synthesis#Synthesis

iii) nucleotides to oligonucleotides(C -> D)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide_synthesis

iv) oligonucleotides to functional chromossomes (D -> E)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_artificial_chromosome

you still claim that A -> E is impossible.

Funny you should mention Venter. Here's the paper where he published his team's synthetic genome:

Gibson et al. (2008) "Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome" Science 319(5867): 1215-1220
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1215.abstract

"We have synthesized a 582,970-base pair Mycoplasma genitalium genome. This synthetic genome, named M. genitalium JCVI-1.0, contains all the genes of wild-type M. genitalium G37 except MG408, which was disrupted by an antibiotic marker to block pathogenicity and to allow for selection. To identify the genome as synthetic, we inserted "watermarks" at intergenic sites known to tolerate transposon insertions. Overlapping "cassettes" of 5 to 7 kilobases (kb), ASSEMBLED FROM CHEMICALLY SYNTHESIZED OLIGONUCLEOTIDES, were joined by in vitro recombination to produce intermediate assemblies of approximately 24 kb, 72 kb ("1/8 genome"), and 144 kb ("1/4 genome"), which were all cloned as bacterial artificial chromosomes in Escherichia coli. Most of these intermediate clones were sequenced, and clones of all four 1/4 genomes with the correct sequence were identified. The complete synthetic genome was assembled by transformation-associated recombination cloning in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, then isolated and sequenced. A clone with the correct sequence was identified. The methods described here will be generally useful for constructing large DNA molecules from chemically synthesized pieces and also from combinations of natural and synthetic DNA segments."

(CAPS mine for emphasis)

"Notice that when I say "DNA" we all understand that it's use is interchangeable with genome "

NOT when you're discussing MOLECULAR STRUCTURE and SYNTHESIS.

"DNA is the software of life, there is no question about it, that is key to evolution of life on this planet, and now the key to the future of life on this planet is understanding how to write that software." -Craig Venter, PhD

So you support Venter's claim that DNA is the key to evolution of life? If not why not?

"When Dr. Venter talks about DNA, he is using a layman's term just like I did (...) He also clearly makes reference to DNA as a code (software)"

So when Venter talks about DNA, he is using a layman's term, but when he is talking about software he is suddenly an expert. How do you discern, exactly, when Venter is speaking in layman's terms or with scientific expertise.

"DNA (a nucleotide sequence) does nothing by itself to produce life, the sequences bring forth life only when they are part of a system of RNA/DNA and proteins."

Please stop asserting things you don't understand.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:31:25 AM PDT
David Félix says:
Also, let's remember your original claim, which was NOT about chromossomes, NOT about genomes and NOT about software:

""From scratch" means starting with basic elements (chemicals,) ASSEMBLING THE DNA BACKBONE OR HELIX COIL WITH SUGAR PHOSPHATE BONDS, then attaching the nucleotide sequences... or however it might be built without using preexisting DNA pieces, no one knows."

The above is what you claimed was impossible. Keep moving those goalposts, Brent, and hope nobody notices.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 12:18:11 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>Keep moving those goalposts, Brent, and hope nobody notices.

Well he already thought that nobody would notice him using at least 2 different accounts...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 12:35:36 PM PDT
What other account does he have besides "Charles Dawkins"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 2:25:08 PM PDT
Re BAM, 7-3 11:30 PM: "Which mutations gave rise to your vision system?" The two most important ones are these:
- Duplication of the gene on the X chromosome which gives rise to red vision.
- A single-base substitution of the duplicate which changes the sensitivity from red light to green [1].

"No one has ever created DNA from scratch." True -- and irrelevant: since the chemistry of DNA is precisely known, any good chemist can produce it from scratch. It is simply cheaper to use natural sources.

Your abject ignorance of these matters is painfully evident.

1. Carlos Lopez-Larrea, ed., Sensing in Nature, chapter 10: Jacobs, The Evolution of Color Vision. Also gives earlier genetic history of the subject. My thanks to Prof. Janis for this material.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:52:21 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
Christine M. Janis asked:

>>What other account does he have besides "Charles Dawkins"?

He's also behind Brent A. Mortimer. Sometimes he even signs off his posts with "BAM aka CD":
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=50&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3SD7ANETBHFSW&cdMsgID=Mx1WNXQ7FNFO8R8#Mx1WNXQ7FNFO8R8

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 6:48:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 7:22:27 PM PDT
Robert A. Saunders's post: "True"No one has ever created DNA from scratch." "

Actually when Venter's team designed their synthetic genome they inserted novel sequences which they created. They included non-biological information (useless to the organism) which consisted of famous quotes, an email address and names of some of the scientists on the team. Learn something everyday. So 1000 years from now when someone finds this bacteria programed with this information, what would they infer? Design?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 7:20:59 PM PDT
"So 1000 years from now when someone finds this bacteria programed with this information, what would they infer? Design? "

Of course. Because there would be *evidence* of design. But there is none in DNA right now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 9:34:32 PM PDT
Re Dawkins, 7-5 6:48 PM: "They included non-biological information..." Correct; this information was "designed". Which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with whether the un-modified genome was subject to any sort of design -- other than that which was imposed on it by natural selection.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:59:23 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:20:53 AM PDT
Re Dawkins, above: "I do want to learn." You are not doing a very good job of it. Once you have come to understand how evolution works, and why the ToE is correct, you can legitimately claim to have actually learned something.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Questions for Intelligent Design Fans 4564 11 seconds ago
The US Government is UnConstitutionally Promoting Creationism. 20 2 minutes ago
Tenure their wealth--why should they risk losing it by following our advice? 10 22 minutes ago
was the moon landing real or fake, and why? 5186 46 minutes ago
97% of Climate Scientists say Global Warming is our Greatest Threat 443 1 hour ago
Creationists say a Perpetual Motion Machine IS Possible...........why dont they get a Patent? 193 1 hour ago
Hands up, all those who actually believe that the Antarctic is in danger of melting! 37 1 hour ago
1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun 138 2 hours ago
Knowledge 1545 3 hours ago
Money has got to be controlled like an idealized river/reservoir system 17 3 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 2318 4 hours ago
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes `peer review ring' 4 5 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  92
Total posts:  1907
Initial post:  Feb 25, 2011
Latest post:  Feb 19, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions