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

a reply to: cooperton

Both beneficial and detrimental mutations are on the rare side. The vast majority of mutations are benign. But even today's benign mutation may become beneficial in the future in conjunction with other mutations.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

No doubt you would! A scientist would ask questions, develop hypotheses, collect data, analyze the evidence and then come to one or more probable conclusions.

There isn't any other probable conclusion. We know what these systems look like thanks to Claude Shannon and information theory. There's no way some non life out of the prebiotic goo can do these things.

Operating System
Code
Redundancy
Translation
Transcriptian
Dual Coding
Error Correction
Editing
Proofreading
Words
Sentences
Regulation

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)

This is a system designed by intelligence. The only reason there's a debate is because evolution to the mind of many means there's no God. This is what they believe, so logic and reason are thrown out of the window. There's no way an atheist will admit that evolution without intelligent agency is a fantasy because they will have to give up their atheism belief. Belief is a powerful blind spot in this debate about the fantasy of evolution without intelligent agency.







Again, intelligent design can only be denied if you BELIEVE in the impossible which is evolution without intelligent agency. Throughout the scientific literature, these words are used to describe DNA.

Operating System
Code
Redundancy
Translation
Transcriptian
Dual Coding
Error Correction
Editing
Proofreading
Words
Sentences
Regulation

The suggestion that non life magically turned into an operating system that encodes and decodes information is just NONSENSE.

a reply to: neoholographic

Nice videos. Where's the data?

The suggestion that non life magically turned into an operating system that encodes and decodes information is just NONSENSE.

Well Mikey and Jimbo thought it was magic by some god. I guess you're in the same position. You believe something because it makes sense to YOU. But YOU never considered the research that CONFLICTS with your conclusion.

So why should anyone accept your position? It defies logic.

a reply to: neoholographic

Also if what you say is true, then this wouldn't be possible:

DNA nanotechnology excels at rationally designing bottom-up structures that can functionally replicate naturally occurring proteins. Here we describe the design and generation of a stable DNA-based nanopore that structurally mimics the amphiphilic nature of protein pores and inserts into bilayers to support a steady transmembrane flow of ions. The pore carries an outer hydrophobic belt comprised of small chemical alkyl groups which mask the negatively charged oligonucleotide backbone. This modification overcomes the otherwise inherent energetic mismatch to the hydrophobic environment of the membrane. By merging the fields of nanopores and DNA nanotechnology, we expect that the small membrane-spanning DNA pore will help open up the design of entirely new molecular devices for a broad range of applications including sensing, electric circuits, catalysis, and research into nanofluidics and controlled transmembrane transport.

Self-Assembled DNA Nanopores That Span Lipid Bilayers

Jonathan R. Burns†, Eugen Stulz‡, and Stefan Howorka*†
† Department of Chemistry, Institute of Structural Molecular Biology, University College London, London WC1H 0AJ, England, United Kingdom
‡ School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom


pubs.acs.org...

a reply to: Phantom423

You're not making any sense.

I don't have to believe it, I'm looking at the evidence that I listed throughout this thread that you or your friends haven't responded to. OPne of your friends went to phone a friend because they had no answers and I still haven't heard from them.

I gave you plenty of data and evidence throughout the thread and you or others haven't been able to respond.

You're the one making the claim, not me. It's not my job to find other probable conclusions when the people who believe in this fantasy can't find other probable conclusions. There isn't any other conclusions based on the evidence unless you say there's some simple something that's non living that somehow became this complex something that Scientist describe as code, operating systems and little factories.

You're the one that thinks this nonsense is a probable conclusion not me. Evolution without intelligent agency belongs in middle earth with the Hobbits.

a reply to: neoholographic

Or this:



pubs.rsc.org...#!divAbstract

a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry - you're the OP - you're the one making the claims. You're also the one who hasn't posted any CREDIBLE evidence. Videos are easy to make. The content is the key - and the content of all the vids is mostly trash.

And what haven't I answered? I don't see any "loose ends" here.

a reply to: Phantom423

I've backed up everything I said with mountains of evidence and this is why you have a 38 page thread and people running to friends trying to find answers to questions.

I've backed up everything I have said with evidence.

You just blindly copy and paste and you have no understanding of what you're saying. For instance. Explain in your own words why Self-Assembled DNA Nanopores That Span Lipid Bilayers refutes DNA sequences encoded with information and make the machinary to decode this information.

You're just blindly copying and pasting without any understanding. Do you even know what nanopore sequencing is?

a reply to: neoholographic

For instance. Explain in your own words why Self-Assembled DNA Nanopores That Span Lipid Bilayers refutes DNA sequences encoded with information and make the machinary to decode this information.

Easy. It's one of many examples that demonstrate DNA has the ability to self assemble into a unique entity, functional for whatever information it carries.

a reply to: neoholographic

I've backed up everything I said with mountains of evidence and this is why you have a 38 page thread and people running to friends trying to find answers to questions.

I don't recall any citations from scientific journals. Do you have them?

a reply to: neoholographic

Here's another example:

Molecular self-assembly strategies involve the formation of nanometer scale objects and materials in the absence of significant external control. One increasingly popular self-assembly approach makes use of the unique properties of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) including its diminutive size and high capacity for information storage. For many applications, DNA stands alone as the top choice for the programmable construction of supramolecular materials due to its specific and well-understood base-pairing interactions. In this review, we will discuss recent advances in the fabrication of materials via DNA based self-assembly.

And here's your problem: You don't READ. It's typical of people who are scared to death that they could be wrong. You want to be right so bad, that you're willing to ignore hard evidence to support your own speculative opinion.

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

Actually, this is one of the better experiments which demonstrates that the DNA molecule can self assemble in an air/water interface:



pubs.rsc.org...#!divAbstract

a reply to: Phantom423

Just what I suspected NOTHING

Like I said, I've laid out the evidence and your friends are even running to Geneticist trying to find the answers.

I remember you from earlier then you vanished because you just blindly copy and paste without any understanding. Where are you quoting this stuff from? You provide no links to what you're quoting.

You provide no context or commentary to explain why your copying and pasting has anything to do with what's being said in the thread.

You quoted this in a vacuum:

Molecular self-assembly strategies involve the formation of nanometer scale objects and materials in the absence of significant external control. One increasingly popular self-assembly approach makes use of the unique properties of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) including its diminutive size and high capacity for information storage. For many applications, DNA stands alone as the top choice for the programmable construction of supramolecular materials due to its specific and well-understood base-pairing interactions. In this review, we will discuss recent advances in the fabrication of materials via DNA based self-assembly.

You provided no link to the source material or no reason why this relates in anyway to the topic of the thread. I think this is why you vanished last time, because you were just copying and pasting without any links to source material or any commentary.

For instance it says:

One increasingly popular self-assembly approach makes use of the unique properties of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) including its diminutive size and high capacity for information storage.

Who has disputed that DNA has unique properties? In fact there so unique people throughout the Scientific community use these words to describe DNA:

Operating System
Code
Redundancy
Translation
Transcriptian
Dual Coding
Error Correction
Editing
Proofreading
Words
Sentences
Regulation

Nothing you have blindly copied and pasted refutes anything that has been said on this thread. You have no understanding this is why you can't articulate a coherent argument. You just blindly copy and paste things without any links to source material or any explanation of what you're trying to say.

a reply to: neoholographic

Where's your citations?

That you don't see the relevance is not a windfall of knowledge! If you don't 'understand that DNA can self assemble and doesn't need an intelligent entity to do it, well you didn't read the research.

a reply to: neoholographic

I remember you from earlier then you vanished because you just blindly copy and paste without any understanding. Where are you quoting this stuff from? You provide no links to what you're quoting.

How about credible research - that's where it comes from. The same stuff that you ignore.

a reply to: Phantom423

Again, this is why you copy and paste stuff without any commentary or explanation or a link to the source material. This is because you have no argument therefore you can't articulate a coherent argument. For instance, you copy and paste about self assembly

Here's why you just copy and paste in a vacuum because what you're pasting doesn't refute anything that's being said:

DNA nanotechnology is an area of current research that uses the bottom-up, self-assembly approach for nanotechnological goals. DNA nanotechnology uses the unique molecular recognition properties of DNA and other nucleic acids to create self-assembling branched DNA complexes with useful properties.[14] DNA is thus used as a structural material rather than as a carrier of biological information, to make structures such as two-dimensional periodic lattices (both tile-based as well as using the "DNA origami" method) and three-dimensional structures in the shapes of polyhedra.[15] These DNA structures have also been used as templates in the assembly of other molecules such as gold nanoparticles[16] and streptavidin proteins.[17]

en.wikipedia.org...-Seeman2003-14

So DNA has these unique properties and Scientist use these properties as a structural material instead of a carrier of biological information. This is just smart Scientist doing smart things. Nobody is saying that self assembly creates the biological information or encodes information onto sequences of DNA and makes the machinery to decode this information. Let's go deeper into some of the info that's sourced.

feature DNA in a material world

Nadrian C. Seeman

The specific bonding of DNA base pairs provides the chemical foundation for genetics. This powerful molecular recognition system can be used in nanotechnology to direct the assembly of highly structured materials with specific nanoscale features, as well as in DNA computation to process complex information. The exploitation of DNA for material purposes presents a new chapter in the history of the molecule.

www.nature.com...

THE EXPLOITATION OF DNA FOR MATERIAL PURPOSES.

Again, smart Scientist doing smart things.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with what's being discussed in this thread. This is my point. You don't have any understanding, so you copy and paste things in a vacuum without links to the source material or and explanation.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

I've backed up everything I said with mountains of evidence

Best laugh of the day.

a reply to: neoholographic

So? You just proved my point. DNA can self assemble. If it couldn't self assemble, it would be useless for these purposes.
It's a very interesting phenomenon for material scientists.

a reply to: neoholographic

P.S. Where are those citations?

originally posted by: 22theworld
Having this discussion in the context of Christianity is meaningless, because it distorts the conversation. I cannot imagine the worldview of one for whom creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Fact: life was created. Fact: life evolved. And your precious little Jesus Christ had nothing to do with it.

Actually it's more like:

Fact: Life evolves

Guess: Life was created

But I agree overall, they certainly are not mutually exclusive. One is about how the first life arose, the other is about how life changes over time. This is why I don't understand why so many ID advocates are against evolution. A designer could have created evolution or DNA that evolves and adapts. Sure, there is no evidence and it's not everybody's worldview, but I see no reason to argue against the possible mechanics of god (science) if you believe in creation. Most rational religious folk actually believe that. It's just those biblical literalists that always scream the loudest. It's like they have more faith in a book and ancient man than in god itself.