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

a reply to: neoholographic

Here we go again. Equating information theory and genetic code. Sorry, information theory doesn't really apply to anything other than computer programming. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Valiant effort, but still no response to the evidence. Romanticizing DNA complexity as well as how certain DNA features formed does not prove intelligence created it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

Here we go again. Equating information theory and genetic code. Sorry, information theory doesn't really apply to anything other than computer programming. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Valiant effort, but still no response to the evidence. Romanticizing DNA complexity as well as how certain DNA features formed does not prove intelligence created it.

This is just a silly statement. This is why throughout scientific literature people use the language of information theory to talk about DNA. Of course, people like yourself want to deny this because you realize how silly it sounds to say these things occurred naturally.

So a code isn't really a code. Error correction isn't really error correction. Transcription isn't really transcription. LOL. People don't realize how silly they sound when they make these arguments.

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)

I understand why this occurs. It's because the more we learn about DNA the more the language of information theory is needed to describe things we see with DNA. The reason why up is down and left is right for those who blindly follow this fantasy is because saying a code and the machinery that reads these codes came from some simple magical non life sounds ASININE. So of course, code doesn't really mean code and transcription doesn't really mean transcription.

I also suspect your phone a friend Geneticist couldn't answer the questions either

a reply to: neoholographic
Instead of talking about what we don't know, why not talk about what we DO know?

Evolution happens, regardless of how DNA features first emerged. Not knowing the answer to that doesn't change anything. Evolution (speciation namely) has been observed in a lab. Evolution is basically the increase in frequency of certain traits in a population. It's undeniable.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.rochester.edu...

Explain these observations if evolution is a lie as you claim. I don't care if you believe in ID, there's just no reason to think a designer would prove evolution wrong. It wouldn't. I've been trying to explain this from the beginning. It could be both creation and evolution.

Don't worry I'm sure the geneticist will get back to me soon and confirm what I said earlier that the emergence of DNA features is completely separate from genetic mutations affecting a population over time.

If DNA code was an actual computer code, we could copy it to a computer. Unfortunately it's nothing like that. It's a physical system, not a data system. The code is just human representation of the nucleotides.

a reply to: Barcs

Excellent response. We don't know everything. But what we do know gives us some basis for a model.

a reply to: Barcs

Typical nonsene. You said:

Instead of talking about what we don't know, why not talk about what we DO know?

I have to laugh here This is because you have done what people who can't debate the issue typically do. You tried to change the debate. The fact is, you have no answers to the central questions of the debate and you even had to phone a Geneticist to try and find some answers.

So, you couldn't stop there because it would look like you don't know anything, so you try to switch the debate to speciation. Again, this is a typical debate tactic used when people are stumped and they have no answers. They obfuscate as a way of changing the subject.

Don't say WE, say YOU. You're the one that has to phone a friend to try to answer these questions.

Let's talk about speciation while you wait for your Geneticist friend to come to the rescue.

First off, I never said speciation doesn't occur. I never said change over time doesn't occur. I said, evolution without intelligent agency can't occur and this is exactly why you're phoning a friend and trying to switch the subject. You have no answers.

I said natural selection or random mutations can't encode information on sequences of DNA and also make the machinary to decode this information.

Evolution is meaningless without intelligent agency. Maybe you should wait for your geneticist friend to come to the rescue instead of trying to debate things you don't understand. You just have a BELIEF in this stuff and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with belief. People have all kinds of illogical beliefs.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Typical nonsene. You said:

Instead of talking about what we don't know, why not talk about what we DO know?

I have to laugh here

This is because you have done what people who can't debate the issue typically do. You tried to change the debate. The fact is, you have no answers to the central questions of the debate and you even had to phone a Geneticist to try and find some answers.

This reply is hilarious. Like you didn't pull a bait and switch between titling the thread and your first post right? Is it funny like that? I think so. See, your title states that the, and I quote,

The primary axiom of evolution is a lie

But you either have no clue what MES states or you're a willfully ignorant troll because once made this entire thread focus on how,when and why DNA arose. Meanwhile the "primary axiom of evolution" is Descent with Modification. The origins of life and DNA play no part in evolutionary theory no matter how much you protest. This thread is as big of a joke as your actual knowledge of the subject matter.

So, you couldn't stop there because it would look like you don't know anything, so you try to switch the debate to speciation. Again, this is a typical debate tactic used when people are stumped and they have no answers. They obfuscate as a way of changing the subject.

The BALLS on that guy right? Actually admitting they don't have all the answers and instead of playing dress up with
You they actually attempt to get an appropriate answer from someone with the appropriate background in the topic. The gonads these evolutionists have being honest...

Don't say WE, say YOU. You're the one that has to phone a friend to try to answer these questions.

Right... But you don't actually know the answer either. Your just peacocking for the rest of the willfully ignorant who haven't got a clue either

Let's talk about speciation while you wait for your Geneticist friend to come to the rescue.

First off, I never said speciation doesn't occur. I never said change over time doesn't occur.

This statement right here disproves the thesis statement of your entire OP. Good job sparky!

I said, evolution without intelligent agency can't occur and this is exactly why you're phoning a friend and trying to switch the subject. You have no answers.

And you start with the answer you like and then quote mine and phone in YouTube videos that you feel support your ill informed understanding of evolutionary theory. The difference here is that you stand there strutting back and forth pretending to know everything while refusing the admit If or week you don't know while others are willing I concede they don't know a particular topic well enough to respond but are willing t take the time to find out. You're just sitting here at your fluff n' buff cafe preening in ignorance.

The bottom line is that you can say that evolution can't occur without intelligent design as often as you like but you haven't demonstrated a lick of repeatable data to support your myopic Abrahamic worldview.

I said natural selection or random mutations can't encode information on sequences of DNA and also make the machinary to decode this information.

And you were shown repeatedly that you're completely incorrect. You simply refuse to acknowledge such because... Jesus

Evolution is meaningless without intelligent agency. Maybe you should wait for your geneticist friend to come to the rescue instead of trying to debate things you don't understand. You just have a BELIEF in this stuff and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with belief. People have all kinds of illogical beliefs.

You seem well versed in holding illogical beliefs. Why don't you tell us more about yours? This entire conversation is the equivalent of trying to play chess against someone who thinks they're playing checkers and gets mad when their opponent tries to bring a chess master in to explain the game to the
Checkers player.

a reply to: peter vlar

This whole post can be summed up with this silly ending.

You seem well versed in holding illogical beliefs. Why don't you tell us more about yours? This entire conversation is the equivalent of trying to play chess against someone who thinks they're playing checkers and gets mad when their opponent tries to bring a chess master in to explain the game to the Checkers player.

Most of it was just blather about nothing pertaining to the thread.

This is just gobbledy-gook.

The problem you and "phone a friend" Barcs have, is your illogical belief in evolution without intelligent agency. You have to show that nature can encode sequences of DNA with information and then make the machinery to decode this information. I don't have to prove that nature can't do this because there's not a shred of evidence that it can. This is exactly why your friend is running to a Geneticist to answer simple questions.

This makes evolution without intelligent agency a house of cards.

My evidence is self evident. The only thing that can encode sequences with information and then make the machinery to decode this information is a intelligent mind. We see this everyday with technology. The intelligent mind has created thousands of systems like these.

You have a different burden and this is why you're constantly trying to show a simple something out of the magic goo can magically become more complex than a supercomputer.

There is enough data stored in DNA molecules of every life-form alive to occupy capacity of a billion trillion supercomputers, say scientists

This staggering quantity of DNA, however, almost pales into insignificance compared to the amount of genetic information it contains in the form of the combined genetic codes of every living animal, plant, bacterium, fungus and virus.

The scientists estimated that there is enough data stored in the DNA molecules of every life-form alive today to occupy the processing capacity of a billion trillion of the most powerful supercomputers.

Furthermore, it would require a supercomputer working at a processing rate of a trillion trillion operations every second to match the speed at which this DNA code is being continuously decoded into the living proteins of cells, the scientists said.

“The reason why this is important is that DNA is the fundamental molecule of life and by extent all biological processes that take place in the world are encoded in this molecule,” Ms Landenmark said.

www.independent.co.uk...< br />
There goes those words again. Encoded and decoded. Again, evolution without intelligent agency is impossible. Nature can't encode DNA sequences with information and then make the machinery to decode this information. Nature can give us a snowflake but that snowflake isn't encoded with information to build other snowflakes or to make the machinery for a snowflake making factory.

a reply to: neoholographic

I have to laugh here This is because you have done what people who can't debate the issue typically do. You tried to change the debate.

And you're debating? Without evidence? Bringing nothing to the table? Where's your citations? Where's the research? How do you draw a conclusion without a single test?

You have a nasty habit of not answering the substance of the posts opposing your view. You've done it enough times to declare you a fraud. I'm surprised the mods don't throw you off the board for trolling.

a reply to: neoholographic

Just to be clear, here are a few graphics from posts which I have made which you have ignored:

a reply to: Phantom423

Look, your posts are meaningless. I responded but again, you just copy and paste without any commentary or context. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. So until you present a coherent argument instead of just copying and pasting with no commentary or context, your posts should be ignored.

This isn't go fish.

You posted all of these same things before and they have nothing to do with the thread and this is why you just copy and paste without a coherent sentence.

There is only one tree of life on this planet, and everything on it shares a relationship to everything else. That is the true proof that there is such a thing as evolution, however, that tree could also be seeded from elsewhere, as the theory of panspermia would certainly dictate. Evolution is most likely a universal propagation.

In Addendum: I guess you could say that the apparent evidence of Intelligent Design, is really a milestone in a much larger prime mover for life. That would be to continually evolve where the only inherent "design" goal is to contemplate your existence and interact with what surrounds you.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not changing the debate, I'm directly countering your claim that evolution is a lie by posting evidence and showing why your questions are irrelevant to evolution itself. Sorry that you don't like actually debating the topic of evolution. Maybe next time you learn about what you are attacking before ranting online to folks about it.

Sorry, but it's downright laughable to pretend my post is off topic, when it directly counters one of your claims in the OP that has also been repeated many times in this thread. The process of evolution happens, it's confirmed, there's no debate AT ALL in academia or from any leading scientists on the validity. That's all I'm saying. You won't even acknowledge the evidence, yet you keep saying there is none. I'm just trying to keep you honest. Clearly that's an issue for you.

I say we should talk about what we know, because all you are doing is appealing to unknowns and inserting your intelligent designer into the equation with no evidence for this designer. That's not how things work. Just because somebody online can't/won't answer a question, doesn't make your claims true or an entire field of science false.

Can you answer my question about where the designer came from? If not, by your logic, it invalidates all of your claims and completely debunks ID, creationism, and all versions of god. LOL if only the real world worked like that. It's like asking somebody to prove you wrong or your claim holds true. It's terrible logic.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oy vey you and your refusal to read evidence and claim this is not "go fish"! Repeatedly we have established evolution is not a big lie. Repeatedly you refused to acknowledge the evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Just to be clear, here are a few graphics from posts which I have made which you have ignored:

Gobbledygook! Meaningless banter! I don't understand science, therefor it's automatically wrong! I said so, and I'm right! You proved nothing even though you cited actual studies that show how DNA can self assemble. But that's irrelevant unless you can list step by step how every single advanced DNA feature emerged only though mutations, evolution is wrong, even though we observe it right in front of our face. Answer my questions or young earth creationism, intelligent design and flat earth theory are the TRUTH!!!

If you can't answer my questions about nuclear fusion, it proves cell theory wrong! I knows it!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Phantom423
Just to be clear, here are a few graphics from posts which I have made which you have ignored:

Gobbledygook! Meaningless banter! I don't understand science, therefor it's automatically wrong! I said so, and I'm right! You proved nothing even though you cited actual studies that show how DNA can self assemble. But that's irrelevant unless you can list step by step how every single advanced DNA feature emerged only though mutations, evolution is wrong, even though we observe it right in front of our face. Answer my questions or young earth creationism, intelligent design and flat earth theory are the TRUTH!!!

If you can't answer my questions about nuclear fusion, it proves cell theory wrong! I knows it!

Answer my questions or young earth creationism, intelligent design and flat earth theory are the TRUTH!!!

He can't handle the truth! The scary part is avoidance of new knowledge - has absolutely no curiosity. Doesn't understand evidence, doesn't care about evidence. His questions have been answered multiple times from several different perspectives - but always has the same response - "he" might be a bot!

That said, I still learn a lot doing the literature research - so I engage.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

Here we go again. Equating information theory and genetic code. Sorry, information theory doesn't really apply to anything other than computer programming. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Valiant effort, but still no response to the evidence. Romanticizing DNA complexity as well as how certain DNA features formed does not prove intelligence created it.

This is just a silly statement. This is why throughout scientific literature people use the language of information theory to talk about DNA. Of course, people like yourself want to deny this because you realize how silly it sounds to say these things occurred naturally.

So a code isn't really a code. Error correction isn't really error correction. Transcription isn't really transcription. LOL. People don't realize how silly they sound when they make these arguments.

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)

I understand why this occurs. It's because the more we learn about DNA the more the language of information theory is needed to describe things we see with DNA. The reason why up is down and left is right for those who blindly follow this fantasy is because saying a code and the machinery that reads these codes came from some simple magical non life sounds ASININE. So of course, code doesn't really mean code and transcription doesn't really mean transcription.

I also suspect your phone a friend Geneticist couldn't answer the questions either

In biology the term information is used with two very different meanings. The first is in reference to the fact that the sequence of bases in DNA codes for the sequence of amino acids in proteins. In this restricted sense, DNA contains information, namely about the primary structure of proteins. The second use of the term information is an extrapolation: it signifies the belief or expectation that the genome somehow also codes for the higher or more complex properties of living things. It is clear that the second type of information, if it exists, must be very different from the simple one-to-one cryptography of the genetic code. This extrapolation is based, loosely, on information theory. But to apply information theory in a proper and useful way it is necessary to identify the manner in which information is to be measured (the units in which it is to be expressed in both sender and receiver, and the total amount of information in the system and in a message), and it is necessary to identify the sender, the receiver and the information channel (or means by which information is transmitted). As it is, there exists no generally accepted method for measuring the amount of information in a biological system, nor even agreement of what the units of information are (atoms, molecules, cells?) and how to encode information about their number, their diversity, and their arrangement in space and time.

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: Phantom423
He can't handle the truth! The scary part is avoidance of new knowledge - has absolutely no curiosity. Doesn't understand evidence, doesn't care about evidence. His questions have been answered multiple times from several different perspectives - but always has the same response - "he" might be a bot!

OP has a bit of a reputation for making threads with grandiose claims about some new bit of science news, only to double down and getting aggressive and insulting when people with relevant expertise chime in and attempt to correct him. It comes as no surprise to me that OP is a creationist, the persistent pattern of willful ignorance and hubris is only all too common from them in this forum. It really is pointless in attempting to engage in an evidence-based debate, as you have witnessed for the last 39 pages.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Phantom423
He can't handle the truth! The scary part is avoidance of new knowledge - has absolutely no curiosity. Doesn't understand evidence, doesn't care about evidence. His questions have been answered multiple times from several different perspectives - but always has the same response - "he" might be a bot!

OP has a bit of a reputation for making threads with grandiose claims about some new bit of science news, only to double down and getting aggressive and insulting when people with relevant expertise chime in and attempt to correct him. It comes as no surprise to me that OP is a creationist, the persistent pattern of willful ignorance and hubris is only all too common from them in this forum. It really is pointless in attempting to engage in an evidence-based debate, as you have witnessed for the last 39 pages.

and yet, you are still here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh I'm here for entertainment value, nothing else.

When things descend into a farce, you just sit back and enjoy the ride.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh I'm here for entertainment value, nothing else.

slow day huh?