It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

a reply to: twfau

As a chemist (like myself) Dr Tour should know that (a) Chemical potential (energy) is what causes these things to occur, and (b) Enzymes force those that are slow, to be faster (because thermodynamics can't trump kinetics).

I don't understand certain parts of science I'm not trained in very well either. My quantum mechanics is limited to its chemical application for example. Most Physicists will not understand micro biology, most zoologists will never go on to do scale up chemistry for industry (essentially what I do, plus some bioinformatics, and computer modelling). etc

People need to stop assuming that because a scientist has a PhD, that they understand all science. Gone are the days of Jacks of all Trades. Quite simply because we know too much, to be an expert in it all. That being said, we still don't know enough, to answer all the questions.

a reply to: Noinden

You are both wrong because you assume to know something that isn’t thought of like it once was...



But in the past few years, the tide has shifted within the field. Recent studies have revealed a wealth of new pieces of noncoding DNA that do seem to be as important to our survival as our more familiar genes. Many of them may encode molecules that help guide our development from a fertilized egg to a healthy adult, for example. If these pieces of noncoding DNA become damaged, we may suffer devastating consequences like brain damage or cancer, depending on what pieces are affected. Large-scale surveys of the genome have led a number of researchers to expect that the human genome will turn out to be even more full of activity than previously thought.


That is from new York times.com
An article called “is most of our DNA garbage?”
Perhaps you old farts need to go back to school...
Thought you know something but don’t anymore...
And on this subject as well as evolution you will only continue to be proven wrong with time...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neigbhour, you need to demonstrate that I am wrong not state it. Like I said, I work (at times) in the bioinformatic area of science. You best be able to cite all your sources. The New York times is not a peer reviewed source.

Do you know why that DNA is called non coding?

Ponder that.

a reply to: Noinden

You need to prove you are a scientist...
Saying you are does not make your words any more valuable than anyone else...
Even if you actually were a lab tech for a pharmaceutical company these guys know better than you about DNA so I’ll take their word for it everyday over yours...
Those studies were done by actual scientists leading experts in their field...

In genetics, the term junk DNA refers to regions of DNA that are noncoding.

DNA contains instructions (coding) that are used to create proteins in the cell. However, the amount of DNA contained inside each cell is vast and not all of the genetic sequences present within a DNA molecule actually code for a protein.

Some of this noncoding DNA is used to produce non-coding RNA components such as transfer RNA, regulatory RNA and ribosomal RNA. However, other DNA regions are not transcribed into proteins, nor are they used to produce RNA molecules and their function is unknown.

The proportion of coding versus noncoding DNA varies significantly between species. In the human genome for example, almost all (98%) of the DNA is noncoding, while in bacteria, only 2% of the genetic material does not code for anything.

Submitted by Ananya Mandal MD
Reviewed by Sally Robertson B.Sc.

www.vcaa.vic.edu.au...

The 2% of human DNA is obviously sufficient
DNA is a code
Has its own language
And is an instruction set
Junk DNA is not useless has numerous functions and takes its orders form the 2%

Why is everyone even discussing what he believes? Hes a biological chemist i see people trying to make an appeal to authority but he knows nothing about evolution. Why would he its not his field. Its like asking your hairdresser how to rebuild your transmission.

So why should we care what he believes? Me personally if i want to know about my car are talk to a mechanic. If i want to discuss evolution i talk to an evolutionary biologist.

I have little respect for any scientist that admits they dont know like he did. Then in the same breath said god did it. Thats not scientific principles thats faith.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
DNA is design also known as instructions
And that is it’s definition...
Ho la lee
Take a break

de·sign
noun
noun: design; plural noun: designs

1.
- a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
- the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing.
- an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.

2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

VERB
1.
- decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
- do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind.

None of that applies to DNA, it's 100% assumed.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TzarChasm

Think about that for a second or two....
That goes to show how complex it really is...
The instructions are specific and the rest ensures the instructions are carried out and that it stays true to those instructions...
By your numbers a lot goes on to ensure that can happen...

Junk DNA’s recognition was part of a bigger trend in biology at the time. A number of scientists were questioning the assumption that biological systems are invariably “well designed” by evolution. In a 1979 paper in The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, both of Harvard, groused that too many scientists indulged in breezy storytelling to explain every trait, from antlers to jealousy, as an adaptation honed by natural selection for some essential function. Gould and Lewontin refer to this habit as the Panglossian paradigm, a reference to Voltaire’s “Candide,” in which the foolish Professor Pangloss keeps insisting, in the face of death and disaster, that we live in “the best of all possible worlds.” Gould and Lewontin did not deny that natural selection was a powerful force, but they stressed that it was not the only explanation for why species are the way they are. Male nipples are not adaptations, for example; they’re just along for the ride.

Gould and Lewontin called instead for a broader vision of evolution, with room for other forces, for flukes and historical contingencies, for processes unfolding at different levels of life — what Gould often called “pluralism.”

Darwin was certainly ignorant about genomes, as scientists would continue to be for decades after his death. But Gregory argues that genomes embody the very mix of adaptation and arbitrariness that Darwin had in mind. Over millions of years, the human genome has spontaneously gotten bigger, swelling with useless copies of genes and new transposable elements. Our ancestors tolerated all that extra baggage because it wasn’t actually all that heavy. It didn’t make them inordinately sick. Copying all that extra DNA didn’t require them to draw off energy required for other tasks. They couldn’t add an infinite amount of junk to the genome, but they could accept an awful lot. To subtract junk, meanwhile, would require swarms of proteins to chop out every single dead gene or transposable element — without chopping out an essential gene. A genome evolving away its junk would lose the race to sloppier genomes, which left more resources for fighting diseases or having children.

www.nytimes.com...

a lot of the "complexity" you described before, but this is not what you would call "efficient complexity" where biology narrows down the most impact with the least exertion. the mice are a good example of how delicate and awful the genetic lottery can be. i recommend reading the full article.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I've proven it to several posters here. They also happen to be scientists. You best be asking every one of them to prove it

Its clear that you don't understand what noncoding means

a reply to: dragonridr

No he is not a biological chemist. He is a Synthetic Organic Chemist. Biological chemistry is different. Don't mistake the word Organic to equate to biological. Organic chemistry refers to "orgnaic compounds" containing Carbon, Hydrogen, oxygen and Nitrogen (and more recently phosphorous) but still made in the lab. Biological is more likely natural products, and the isolation there of, OR the study of the mechanisms of say an enzyme.

originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: whereislogic

Pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters have never been proven to exist... life has.

Life emerging from nonliving material by natural causes alone (the forces of nature, i.e. 'nature dit it') on some planet somewhere in the universe hasn't been proven to be a possibility, let alone a historical reality/fact (no matter how many planets there are, their number is not infinite, neither has the universe been around long enough for this fantasy). Neither has it been proven to be possible on earth. Nor has your statement about "perfection" been proven or even demonstrated to be a possibility (regardless as to the vagueness of what you actually mean with "perfection", I'm interpreting that as still talking about the same subject as the one you were responding to). You've got nothing (but wishful imagination, what you want to believe is possible in spite of all the evidence). Then again, to some people "nothing" is "something":

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Btw, pure RNA or RNA-based lifeforms such as the ones suggested in the so-called "RNA World Hypothesis" are also just about as mythological as pink unicorns. But I notice you refuse to be consistent in your logic or try to do as I actually suggested (you don't seem to have done as I suggested, I somewhat doubt you've given it more than 30 seconds of thought; instead you chose to read something else into my words and started attacking whatever you perceived* I was suggesting or saying there). Not that surprising really. *: well, could be on purpose, or imagined.

The chance of life spontaneously emerging from nonliving material by chance (accident) on some planet in the universe is:

no way in hell.

You can't really beat the odds "no way in hell", not even with infinite rolls of the dice*, coming back to the "by chance" suggested cause in the myth. But you don't even have infinite numbers to work with here, both the time allotted for this mythological event and the number of planets are finite numbers. Unless you want to invoke another pure myth:

the multiverse (one with an infinite number of universes that is)

But I'm worried if I get deeper into this issue you won't follow at all anymore.

*: at which point the topic of retention also becomes an issue, if the machinery of life came into existence through some gradual step-by-step means over millions of years as is claimed by those at least making an effort to make their myth sound more plausible, then this development project needs to retain whatever it's developing over millions of years before reproduction becomes a thing (otherwise it has to start from scratch again if whatever appears just disappears again after a while, that way, you won't get any closer to what can be deemed a reproducing lifeform consisting of a system of interdependent biomolecular machinery). Try to retain a string of amino acids or nucleotides in water and see how long it lasts. This video by a young earth creationist is so corny, but he still makes the relevant point about the problem of hydrolysis for the myth you believe is at least a possibility (there are more retention issues regarding the topic of oxygen in the atmosphere):

a reply to: Noinden

The majority of chemical compounds occurring in biological organisms are in fact carbon compounds, so the association between organic chemistry and biochemistry is so close that biochemistry might be regarded as in essence a branch of organic chemistry.

Also means he would know zero about evolution.

a reply to: scojak
Maybe I should just spell out what I meant for you to do using the same way of thinking regarding the subject of "pink unicorns", using partly your words and changing a few words as required for that process (so not reading into what you actually said):

Prove to me it's impossible for pink unicorns to exist and I'll believe you. But if there is even a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, then I'm completely unconvinced that they don't exist, haven't existed, cannot exist, or will not exist, or unconvinced that it's unreasonable to believe that they have existed, can exist, could have existed, exist or will or can exist one day (I'm sure I missed a few options based on the conveniently selective or general agnostic mindset somewhere in there). Instead, I will continue to believe and state as if it's a fact that:

Randomness (chance events), given enough time, will cause pink unicorns to emerge (come into existence, cause the verb "create" doesn't really apply to chance events, you had "create" in that sentence). I.e., it's inevitable. Therefore, if they don't exist right now or have existed in the past, they will exist one day in the future.
-------
Now is that a reasonable way of thinking about the supposed possible existence of pink unicorns? That it's not just possible, but even inevitable?

For those who like the term "burden of proof" (I don't), it doesn't lie with the one using inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion of creation regarding the biomolecular machinery that make up life, it lies with the one combining the words "randomly created" and "randomness, create" as if that's not a contradiction in terms or at the very least a misuse of language; and suggesting that the biomolecular machinery that makes up life can be "randomly created" of course*, that was implied with that. Something for which the actual evidence (not supposed or so-called evidence) is about as lacking as that for the existence or possible existence of pink unicorns. So that's why I swapped it out there.

*: or otherwise phrased as chance events having the capability to create machinery, which I've never seen any reasonable evidence for, more playing around with what to interpret as "random" and captializing on the ambiguity of language regarding the word "random" in lame computer simulations that are neither random nor anywhere near a realistic simulation of chance events acting on matter in a natural environment with finite parameters (that actually follows the laws of physics and chemistry and how they interact with matter and not some invented mathematics and/or drawing of lines, circles and other shapes on a screen that have no bearing on those; thinking for example about a cdk007 video on youtube called "Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker").

Looks like the OP has oped out. This is so typical. They can't respond to the evidence so they disappear into the aether.

Turns out that the OP's original premise of unbiased (not atheism, not theism) analysis is the same quackery with a different cloak and hat.

There is one thing these guys never learn and that is that science is an ongoing process of discovery and evidence. When the evidence doesn't suit their agenda, it's the same old disappearing act.

a reply to: dragonridr

NO

Speaking as a Synthetic Organic Chemist (my BSc (Hon) and PhD dissertations are best described as that) who was part of a group which did both Synthetic Organic, and Biological chemistry. They are not equated. Further more Biochemistry most certainly is not a going to have organic chemistry as a branch. As anyone who has done papers in that will attest. Biological Chemists tend to study single biological molecules (no matter how large so yes a single protien) and a Biochemist would study the entire system (mostly the Metabolic Biochemists). A synthethetic Organic chemsit would try to make the single molecule, while Physical Organic chemist would try to measure how it does certain things etc.

Dr Tour, has a career in Molecular electronics, which is certainly nothing like biological chemistry . It would be more correctly described as pure synthetic chemistry (more Physical Organic at times). He knows a lot about graphine (not biological) and fullerines (again not biological).

So no they are not the same.

a reply to: dragonridr

Also means he would know zero about evolution.

I don't know about that. But, again, he himself has stated that he is not qualified for a public discussion about the merits of the theory.

But he can preach to a choir quite well. A debate with a qualified "Darwinist", probably not so much. I'm not sure one can obtain a doctorate in that though. I haven't come across a PhD in Darwinism.

Anyone?

a reply to: Phage

People are ignoring that Dr Tour said he was not an expert. When this is mentioned they say "oh that is not what he means by that" or "that is out of context". I am awaiting "fake news" and "WRONG" in response to that.

I feel dragonridr was trying to point out, his degrees are not specializing in evolution. He may well have taken papers in genetics, I'm not going to dig up his transcript. But my BSc (Hons) and PhD were Chemistry (plus statistics), and I had to go on and do a separate qualification to incorporate biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics. Just like my MBA was a separate degree. People need to stop thinking that a Scientist knows all (no dragonridr is not saying that). Because as I keep saying, the moment a man or woman in a white coat says what they want, these people hold them up like a saint, to show science is wrong As opposed to you know, reading papers.

There would be a "PhD in Darwinism" some where in psychology, or perhaps gender studies. Since both study "social darwinism", which is the last bastion of that term

a reply to: whereislogic

Life emerging from nonliving material by natural causes alone (the forces of nature, i.e. 'nature dit it') on some planet somewhere in the universe hasn't been proven to be a possibility, let alone a historical reality/fact (no matter how many planets there are, their number is not infinite, neither has the universe been around long enough for this fantasy). Neither has it been proven to be possible on earth. Nor has your statement about "perfection" been proven or even demonstrated to be a possibility (regardless as to the vagueness of what you actually mean with "perfection", I'm interpreting that as still talking about the same subject as the one you were responding to). You've got nothing (but wishful imagination, what you want to believe is possible in spite of all the evidence). Then again, to some people "nothing" is "something":

Life emerging from nonliving material by natural causes alone (the forces of nature, i.e. 'nature dit it') on some planet somewhere in the universe hasn't been proven to be a possibility

but a sentient cosmic overlord who transcends both space and time, literally exists independent of cause or creator, and can make or break the laws of physics as he sees fit is absolutely a tried and proven concept that has been well documented and can be repeatedly tested and confirmed objectively given a simple set of household supplies and basic common sense.

okay then. back to proving evolution wrong. or trying to, anyway.

originally posted by: Barcs
" It is more likely that ordered systems were created by intelligence."

Prove it (is more likely created by intelligence).

What is more likely to create a factory - intelligent humans engineering and creating it, or random chance?
What is more likely to create a robot - intelligent humans engineering and creating it, or random chance?

It's statistically obvious that intelligent agency is more likely to create ordered systems than by random chance.

Again, you don't know that, you are dishonestly comparing the origin of the very first life to a DNA molecule that has already evolved 3.8 billion years. It's completely fallacious and dishonest.

So you know for certainty, within two significant digits, i.e. it is definitely 3.8 billion years ago, and not 3.7 or 3.9, that DNA emerged from randomness? Your fairy tale is not backed by any empirical data, just random science blogs that are trying to increase ad revenue

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
" It is more likely that ordered systems were created by intelligence."

Prove it (is more likely created by intelligence).

What is more likely to create a factory - intelligent humans engineering and creating it, or random chance?
What is more likely to create a robot - intelligent humans engineering and creating it, or random chance?

It's statistically obvious that intelligent agency is more likely to create ordered systems than by random chance.

Again, you don't know that, you are dishonestly comparing the origin of the very first life to a DNA molecule that has already evolved 3.8 billion years. It's completely fallacious and dishonest.

So you know for certainty, within two significant digits, i.e. it is definitely 3.8 billion years ago, and not 3.7 or 3.9, that DNA emerged from randomness? Your fairy tale is not backed by any empirical data, just random science blogs that are trying to increase ad revenue

Thanks for demonstrating one reason, why it's more likely that humans created god, than the other way around.

a reply to: cooperton

Once again you display your ignorance. No one has ever said that evolution was totally random - if you can find such a statement, please post it. Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)
www.livescience.com...

Nonrandom forces

In the new study, the researchers looked at all of the DNA sequences under positive selection (or those that help an organism adapt to its environment), to see whether they were near a repeated sequence. They found that 97 percent of the sites were. To find out if other DNA sequences that don't undergo positive selection also mutate in this way, Garvin identified all of the repeated sequences in the DNA of the species studied. He found that 60 percent of all mutating sites were next to a repeat. "So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said. The findings could explain why evolution occurs much faster than if mutations were, in fact, totally random, the researchers said. The repeated sequences may also be necessary for evolution, they said.

Why don't you real some read science for a change instead of spitting out Ken Ham's talking points.