or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Science & Technology/Evolution
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Where did the biotic code come from? |
peddler7118 |
08/28/06 |
If evolution is true the first cell somehow formed with not only the biotic code but the software to interpret it. How did that happen? There are around 3 billion more base pairs in a human that in a protazoa, where did that come from? Please give an example of one documented mutation that added new information to the genome? |
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/28/06 2:44 pm:
Can you please rephrase your question so that it's actually an honest question rather than a bullying challenge?
So far as I know, the origins of the genetic code are a subject for scientific speculation but no particular theory of how it developed has widespread support.Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/28/06 2:47 pm:
No reason that it should be considered bullying to ask for evidence of one mutation that can be shown to increase information. It is easy enough to document fatal ones, nuetral ones, harmful ones , and although exceedingly rare ,even beneficial ones.
There has to be billions of mutations that increase information in the genome. Why is it unfair to ask you to document just one?
Could it be one does not exist?
Is there another possible source?
Science usually requires evidence that is observable, testable, measureable , and repeatable to some extent, don't you agree?
Otherwise it is just a blind religious belief.
If the origin of the code is not known how can you say evolution occurred?
Can you document one mutation that increased information from say a protazoa to meta zoa? Would that be bullying to ask?
Is asking for any evidence unfair?
Or should I just convert to evolution? Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/28/06 8:57 pm:
I am not ignorant of the fact that evolutionist pick a choose the definition d'jour for the word evolution.
"Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time. "
That means nothing at all. It is saying any change is one animal turning into another kind of animal. Nonsense. Please describe a change that does not take place over time?
There are thousands of biologist who disagree with evolution. And regardless science is not a one man one vote democracy, if it has any value it seeks truthful explanations.
If a reptile becomes a bird it needs lots of new genetic information not only new to the lizard but to the biosphere. Where did it come from?
ª) That decent with modification and natural selection is the explanation for origin of species. no other agency is required."
Even evolutionist try to pass off mutations and natural selection or punctuated equilibrrium you are giving me Darwins theory, that was passe in the 30's! You need new genwtic information to turn fish into amphibians etc. Show me some.
Unless you can give me one example of one mutation that can be shown to increase information then this is your religion. Science deals with evidence. Shannon's random noise will not help.
This is the 21st century we can identify lots of mutations and their effects. If evolution is true you could produce one out of the billions that must occur.
Referencing atheist .com won't help.
If you can't answer my question you are just a false prophet, not a science buff.
Tell me how a code system arose from matter.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/28/06 10:04 pm:
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
Monty Python's Argument Sketch
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/28/06 10:33 pm:
Apparently it is the religious dogma not to be questioned room.
Evolution is true! Name calling and jumping on soap boxes is all I see. No logical argument.
Not all arguments are bad. Here they seem to be.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/28/06 10:40 pm:
Actually, I was poking fun at the way you responded to Scott's answer. M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
If evolution is true, ....
Otherwise it is ....
If you can't answer my question ....
These sentences have the form of argument, but the result is not a question at all, not even a valid argument.
As Scott pointed out, in order to argue about evolution, you need to argue against claims that biologists make, not made-up claims.
As it happens, your question is exactly the one that caused Richard Dawkins to realize he'd been suckered into giving an interview to a creationist. He stopped the filming at that point, so it is claimed that he had no answer. It's a great Gotcha! moment.
Scott's answer is about as good as I could expect to see. Your points are addressed, as well as they can be.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/28/06 11:25 pm:
One additional correction: at least a few protozoans have enormous genomes, 100 or 200 times as many base pairs as humans. Bullfrogs' genome size is more than twice as large as that of humans. Genome size appears to have no particular correlation with the number of genes nor any overall correlation with how "advanced" an organism is on the evolutionary "tree of life". Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 5:35 am:
Hi Jim:
A few poins I would like to make.
One is about your statement:
"As Scott pointed out, in order to argue about evolution, you need to argue against claims that biologists make, not made-up claims."
This is certainly not valid as it assumes the claims biologists you agree with are the only ones that count and that claims made by biologist you disagree with are made up. This is not an argument at all but a political/religious statement.
It also ignores the fact that evolution , the G.T.E., is built on cosmological,chemical,social, as well as biological evolution. Whenever one has to personally attack those he disagrees with it is because he has no defense. My experiance with evolutionists is there is always a polite person who tries to influence the "confused" creationist by being much more polite than one such as Scott. Until he gets frustrated . Of course I can't predict the future only look at past experiance.
Secondly Richard Dawkins never did answer the question that he got "suckerd" into as as you say. He got suckerd the day he bought the fairy tale of evolution to give him a supposed intellectual basis for his atheism.It is a reasonable question . If you disagree then please explain where the biotic code came from and how it expanded. A theory without a method is no theory at all
There are thousands of biologist who would answer the question that evolution is an impossible process and an intelligence beyond our understanding created the code in the first creature of that kind.
Dr. Werner Gitt ,the famous German Information Scientist, has asked that question to evolutionary biologist and those in other fields for years. No evolutionist has ever answered it. It is their theory they should be able to defend it. Calling it a "sucker' question is a losers limp.
Your quote:
"Scott's answer is about as good as I could expect to see. Your points are addressed, as well as they can be. "
I certainly agree with the first part. What more could you expect than personal attacks ,semantics gymnastics , I am right you are wrong , creationists are not scientist etc.? The only thing truly missing from Scott's argument is he has not called me a flat earther yet. Give him time.
The second I must disagree, I am better than average but I am still an amateur.
One does not have to be brilliant to realize that dogs bear dogs and cats bear cats, ask any vet.
Your follow up statement is illogical. It is a vague way of saying you are smarter than me so I should believe you. It assumes, incorrectly , that I think that the size of the genome determines the complexity of an organism.
That has nothing to do with the argument and actually is rather silly if you stop and think.
I was comparing the first {supposed}protozoa to a human. If it was much more complex then it would make your case that much more absurd.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 7:15 am:
When I find an argument where the two sides are at loggerheads, I try to look into the background to discover if there are any goals the two parties have in common. So far, we've determined that you are some sort of creationist, a non-believer in the theory of evolution as it is developed in modern biology. Instead of asking questions about evolution, you hector us with supposed arguments about what biologists must believe. The beliefs you attribute to them are, on their face, absurd, since you frame your questions in a worldview constructed to be consistent with a pre-existing text telling how the world must be.
Not being interested in what the other side has to say and being unwilling to enter their worldview, you continue to engage them, but not very successfully - usually, the discussion reduces to name-calling and vituperation about logic, definitions and semantics. (This description may apply to both sides.) It's either that or, since in polite society we don't find it fruitful to argue about religion, we say something equivalent to "that's a nice religion you've got there, but I don't believe it", agreeing to disagree.
What is your purpose here? Is there some common ground we can agree on?Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 7:25 am:
"Instead of asking questions about evolution, you hector us with supposed arguments about what biologists must believe. "
What does that mean? If you want to discuss evolution then define what it is. Is it a change in organisms over time? Then what affects this change? Or does it mean there must be an explanation that excludes God and this is the best we can come up with? Are we talking about natural selection or transmutation? It is you that keeps making the assumption that all biologists believe in evolution. That is simply a false assumption based on your religious beliefs, not the facts.
"The beliefs you attribute to them are, on their face, absurd, since you frame your questions in a worldview constructed to be consistent with a pre-existing text telling how the world must be."
So your worldview has nothing to do with your beliefs? That is absurd. The difference between you and me is I do not hide my beliefs, you can't even admit yours to yourself. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the proof of things hoped for.
You believe in spontaneous generation and transmutation by faith alone. You cannot accept any evidence against pets to people or the age of the earth or it destroys your religion. Many Christians believe in evolution, not I of course, on the other hand all atheists are evolutionists, they have no choice.
Yes I am a creationist. As far as me being a non-believer in evolution please describe what evolution means to you? I believe that animals adapt to their environment and that natural selection is a scientific observation. I do not believe that lizards jumped out of trees and became birds over millions of years . It appears you do not want anyone challenging the entire concept of pets to people evolution. Deal with it.
How is demanding a common definition name calling? Scott called me an idiot and Tom a liar. How do you compare that ? the fact you defend means you agree with that behavior and yet you accuse me. Scott says micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. If you decide what the definition of a word is, based on how it helps you in a particular argument that is most dishonest, don't you agree?
Religion is what you believe about how the world came to be, why we are here , and what happens to us when we die. If you take the religion out of the G.T.E. there is nothing left but variations within the kind.
Science cannot even imagine how the first cell formed or the source of the ever increasing information in the genome. Why is it "polite" to discuss your religious belief, evolution is true, and not mine?
Stalin's society was polite, no mention of religion there, other than the state religion, atheism. Same way in academia today, it is becoming totally atheistic, secular humanism has become the state religion. It is always polite to discuss atheism but never Christianity, why is that?
As far as common ground that would limit itself to natural selection, speciation etc.
Why don't you give some scientific evidence for your beliefs?
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 8:15 am:
This doesn't feel to me like a search for common ground. Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 12:59 pm:
I am sorry you feel hat way Jim.
Maybe you could try your hand at finding common ground.
We already agree on the scientific aspects of evolution. The religious ones, origin of life, the universe etc. I hope we agree on some day.
In the mean time Scott is spreading his religious beliefs by calling creationist liars and such so I feel someone needs to present the opposing view, don't you agree?
What can you learn if everybody agrees with you?
Why don't you give me some evidence for your beliefs? It seems you have thrown in the towel without a fight.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 1:59 pm:
It seems you have thrown in the towel without a fight. Perhaps that's the difference: I don't see this as a fight.Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 2:05 pm:
Maybe you have no basis to argue with , no evidence to present? Perhaps it does not exist and fish to philosopher evolution is exactly what I say it is an ancient anti-God religion?
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 2:23 pm:
"that's a nice religion you've got there, but I don't believe it"Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 2:50 pm:
There is nothing Darwin taught the ancient Greeks did not. It was a religion then. Unless you have evidence it is a religion now.
Give me an example of an animal bearing a different kind of animal?
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 3:12 pm:
Maybe we can work with that....
Are you saying that the only thing you could count as a speciation event is the equivalent of a dog giving birth to a cat? Or a bird, complete with feathers, hatching from an egg laid by a scaly reptile? Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 3:24 pm:
No , but the only relevant one to frogs to fishermen evolution.
At some point the animal has to become a different animal. A frog an amphibian, a reptile a bird etc.
All speciation means in evolutionary terms is that a group of animals that were formerly able to breed can no longer do so because of geographical or anatomical reasons. How is that supportive of the G.T.E.?
Regardless of how much you avoid the question I am sure you are aware that it takes new information for an animal to transmutate into another.
Speciation is a loss of information; it fits fine with the creation model. Somewhere there is a limit. This eventually happens with mules, tiger, lion mixes etc.
No new creature is formed.
They are still the same kind of animal, big cat, horse like etc.
Of course you have an admitted aversion to creationists insisting on a consistent definition of terms but what do you consider a species?
Are wolves and coyote's different species, the Galapagos finches etc. They are listed as separate species but they are interfertile.
If you have a scientific explanation for your belief in transmutation I would be most interested in hearing it.
Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/29/06 4:59 pm:
Continuing...
How do you fit the phenomenon of "ring species" into your worldview?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Clarification/Follow-up by scott1328 on 08/29/06 9:46 pm:
It is inappropriate to argue in this manner. If you want to discuss this then use the forum and post a topic.
You asked a question and you were answered. Others have chosen not to answer. My answer did not satisfy you and you rated it accordingly.
Now either pose a question or start a discussion topic in the forum. Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 10:25 pm:
It would be approriate to apologize for calling people liars and idiots, don't you agree? Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/29/06 10:25 pm:
It would be approriate to apologize for calling people liars and idiots, don't you agree?
Clarification/Follow-up by scott1328 on 08/30/06 4:51 pm:
If someone had called you a liar or an idiot then you would deserve an apology if such were not the case.
I, in fact, have made no such statement, I merely noted that your question demonstrated your ignorance of the claims of biologists.
You may in fact not be an idiot, but I require more evidence to reach a conclusion.
As for your deceptive propensities... I will let your most recent allegation speak for itself. Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/30/06 5:14 pm:
You most certainly called Tom a liar.
No mind.
Perhaps it is frusrtating when you try to sell religion as science and I am not buying.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
