The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: Noinden

Exactly and there hasn't been a shred of evidence presented that refutes anything I'm saying and there hasn't been A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that shows some non life came out of the prebiotic goo and became a complex encoding/decoding system that the atheist Yockey says can't arise by chance or self organization because of information theory.

So I agree, you guys haven't presented a shred of evidence how the prebiotic goo can produce a system that encodes information on sequences of DNA then makes the machinery to decode this information.





When you guys have some actual evidence of how the sequence TATAAA was encoded with information and how the transcription factor decodes this information in order to regulate expression, then let's hear it.

a reply to: neoholographic

Which has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Beginning of life isn't evolution.

How life EVOLVED from life already being here is evolution.

This is why we have been laughing. You want answers about abiogenesis, but when you don't get them you say it disproves evolution.

You're arguing about 2 completely different things, but you fail to see the difference.

ETA: If you look back through the past 47 pages you'll see all the peer reviewed papers PROVING evolution.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry for you but nope.

This is about evolution which involve sequences of DNA encoded with information which also makes the machinery to decode this information like the TATA box.

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.

www.nature.com...

Sorry for you, but this has everything to do with evolution.

a reply to: neoholographic

Who said it was a formal debate? It's a debate and please stop with this nonsense. You have been here for 30 or 40 pages saying nothing and then you're upset because people are posting on the thread and then you keep posting on the thread.

Just leave or debate the issues on these 47 pages not a debate about the word debate.

how does sudden death sound? are you familiar with how that works? the end-all of debates. you want to volunteer for this role? details can be decided later (modeled, of course, after professional debate guidelines)

a reply to: neoholographic

Actually, you're only half right.

You're asking where did it come from. That's how it started. That's not evolution. But the way it is now is because of evolution. It wasn't the same as it is now, 1.5 million years ago in homo habilis.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Funny thing is that there was a formal debate offered to the religious side and they declined. I can't remember what page it is though. Somewhere between 1 and 47.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TzarChasm

Funny thing is that there was a formal debate offered to the religious side and they declined. I can't remember what page it is though. Somewhere between 1 and 47.

lets see how he responds to my suggestion.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It won't happen. There'll be some half arsed excuse of how he has already won or something.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I remember. Someone challeneged a debate at least 5 times but got to response.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

Exactly and there hasn't been a shred of evidence presented that refutes anything I'm saying and there hasn't been A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that shows some non life came out of the prebiotic goo and became a complex encoding/decoding system that the atheist Yockey says can't arise by chance or self organization because of information theory.

So I agree, you guys haven't presented a shred of evidence how the prebiotic goo can produce a system that encodes information on sequences of DNA then makes the machinery to decode this information.

When you guys have some actual evidence of how the sequence TATAAA was encoded with information and how the transcription factor decodes this information in order to regulate expression, then let's hear it.

here, have a couple shreds. but if you want the nitty gritty you might have to talk to - GASP - an actual geneticist. someone who is certified to speak on the subject with authority.

All life on Earth is powered by a process called chemiosmosis, where the chemical adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the rechargeable chemical 'battery' for life, is both broken down and re-formed during respiration to release energy used to drive the reactions of life, or metabolism. The complex enzymes required for both the creation and break down of ATP are unlikely to have existed on Earth during the period when life first developed. This led scientists to look for a more basic chemical with similar properties to ATP, but that does not require enzymes to transfer energy.

Phosphorus is the key element in ATP, and other fundamental building blocks of life like DNA, but the form it commonly takes on Earth, phosphorus (V), is largely insoluble in water and has a low chemical reactivity. The early Earth, however, was regularly bombarded by meteorites and interstellar dust rich in exotic minerals, including the far more reactive form of phosphorus, the iron-nickel-phosphorus mineral schreibersite.

The scientists simulated the impact of such a meteorite with the hot, volcanically-active, early Earth by placing samples of the Sikhote-Alin meteorite, an iron meteorite which fell in Siberia in 1947, in acid taken from the Hveradalur geothermal area in Iceland. The rock was left to react with the acidic fluid in test tubes incubated by the surrounding hot spring for four days, followed by a further 30 days at room temperature.

In their analysis of the resulting solution the scientists found the compound pyrophosphite, a molecular 'cousin' of pyrophosphate -- the part of ATP responsible for energy transfer. The scientists believe this compound could have acted as an earlier form of ATP in what they have dubbed 'chemical life'.

"Chemical life would have been the intermediary step between inorganic rock and the very first living biological cell. You could think of chemical life as a machine -a robot, for example, is capable of moving and reacting to surroundings, but it is not alive. With the aid of these primitive batteries, chemicals became organised in such a way as to be capable of more complex behaviour and would have eventually developed into the living biological structures we see today," said Dr Terry Kee.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The RNA world refers to the self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules hypothesised to have been the precursors to all current life on Earth. The hypothesis that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world is widely accepted, although alternative chemical paths to life have been proposed, and RNA-based life may not have been the first life to exist.

The RNA world would have eventually been replaced by the DNA, RNA and protein world of today, likely through an intermediate stage of ribonucleoprotein enzymes such as the ribosome and ribozymes, since it is argued that proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization. DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis.

The RNA world hypothesis is supported by many independent lines of evidence, such as the observations that RNA is central to the translation process and that small RNAs can catalyze all of the chemical group and information transfers required for life. The structure of the ribosome has been called the "smoking gun," as it showed that the ribosome is a ribozyme, with a central core of RNA and no amino acid side chains within 18 angstroms of the active site where peptide bond formation is catalyzed. Many of the most critical components of cells (those that evolve the slowest) are composed mostly or entirely of RNA. Also, many critical cofactors (ATP, Acetyl-CoA, NADH, etc.) are either nucleotides or substances clearly related to them. This would mean that the RNA and nucleotide cofactors in modern cells are an evolutionary remnant of an RNA-based enzymatic system that preceded the protein-based one seen in all extant life.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TzarChasm

I remember. Someone challeneged a debate at least 5 times but got to response.

i think it was phantom423. no, no it wasnt.

anyway, neoholographic, let me know if thats something you would like to set up. sudden death debate. seriously. if you are right, it will be nothing to shamelessly flog those pesky darwinists in front of the whole forum. got a free slot in your dance card?

a reply to: neoholographic

Once again you are ignoring the fact that you've not posted facts, evidence, etc.

The use of informational theory ignores science, and assumes that DNA (and RNA) is information. Rather DNA us not a book (say Shakespeare), rather it is a series of chemicals with the ability to copy its self. Before life, RNA, and subsequently DNA were doing this.

Thus life is not an informational one, but rather a biological one. DNA stores it’s biochemical potential, and is subject to the “laws” of chemistry and Physics, not informational theory.

So if DNA is not information, what is it? It is a very complex molecule, whose structures determine its function in living organisms. Information is just a phrase we humans use to make sense of what we are observing. When DNA (through RNA) is used to create a protein, it is reacting with the chemical (amino acids) which make up the protein in question.

Nothing in DNA resembles (say) Shakespeare (an example of information). Every copy of Shakespeare, regardless of language or edition, essentially contains the same information. While every individual in a species which relies on sexual reproduction, is unique, and a species contains countless variations.

Information does not react chemically with a brain, while DNA will react with the cell it is hosted in. We have yet to observe “information” which is able to independently copy itself, unlike DNA. Therefore life which is based on reproduction, is not informationally based.

Lastly biological life, unlike information, has no predetermined end.

a reply to: neoholographic

Now onto Professor Yockley. HE passed this year. He would not be amused with his name being used to justify Intellegent Design, and creationism. Not one iota. If you read his blog, then you would know that.

Bad form.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Once again you are ignoring the fact that you've not posted facts, evidence, etc.

The use of informational theory ignores science, and assumes that DNA (and RNA) is information. Rather DNA us not a book (say Shakespeare), rather it is a series of chemicals with the ability to copy its self. Before life, RNA, and subsequently DNA were doing this.

Thus life is not an informational one, but rather a biological one. DNA stores it’s biochemical potential, and is subject to the “laws” of chemistry and Physics, not informational theory.

So if DNA is not information, what is it? It is a very complex molecule, whose structures determine its function in living organisms. Information is just a phrase we humans use to make sense of what we are observing. When DNA (through RNA) is used to create a protein, it is reacting with the chemical (amino acids) which make up the protein in question.

Nothing in DNA resembles (say) Shakespeare (an example of information). Every copy of Shakespeare, regardless of language or edition, essentially contains the same information. While every individual in a species which relies on sexual reproduction, is unique, and a species contains countless variations.

Information does not react chemically with a brain, while DNA will react with the cell it is hosted in. We have yet to observe “information” which is able to independently copy itself, unlike DNA. Therefore life which is based on reproduction, is not informationally based.

Lastly biological life, unlike information, has no predetermined end.

Sadly for you, you haven't presented evidence for anything. This is all hyperbole and opinion and you dare ask me for evidence? Like Yockey said, DNA is information and there's a complex coding/decoding system that can't occur by chance and self organization.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

cosmicfingerprints.com...

More from Yockey:

However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

Why isn't it valid? Yockey laid it out in his book and elswhere. It's a encoding/decoding system that can't arise by chance and self organization. This is because nature can't encode sequences of DNA with INFORMATION and then make the machinery to decod this information.



As Yockey said:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Information theory can't be applied to genetics for reasons I have already posted (go ahead and search my posts) and all I see is you saying "it can't work this way". I don't see proof that it's impossible for genetic coding to cohere over millions of years. If yockey is your only source, then you may want to go back to the drawing board. Especially if you plan on doing that formal debate thing.

For the love of Anubis, Krishna and Odin, someone get an actual geneticist in here to settle this. Or are they ignoring it entirely? Ooh, that's cold.

a reply to: neoholographic

Have you read Yockey's work? No seriously. I have, He was a Physicist, and he interpreted the world through the eyes of one. The largest criticism of his work, is that he sees DNA far too simply.

Feel free to ignore what I wrote, I speak as a biochemist and chemist. DNA is NOT information.

Also stop misrepresenting his ideas! Oh yeah by Balors one eye, cite his work, not some sites which are using it for their own ends.

So as I said, did you read his blog?? He was no champion of ID or creationism!

Viz
Creationist falsehood:“Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” (Baksa) The scientific reality: If so, that is why Intelligent Design has no place in a science classroom ever, for the following reasons:

a reply to: TzarChasm

When evidence is brought they go silent, then say "no evidence has been supplied". Those holes they have their heads in, must be very dark, and muffled

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

When evidence is brought they go silent, then say "no evidence has been supplied". Those holes they have their heads in, must be very dark, and muffled

...I don't know why I'm still here. -_-''

a reply to: TzarChasm

I know why I am. It is certainly not frustration. Mind you I do like reading pulp on occasion, Howard would have loved these fora

a reply to: neoholographic

Lets try this another way then.

Explain, in your own words how information theory is able to be applied to any talk about evolution. I say IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Don't cut and paste. Type, from your own understanding.