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

originally posted by: peter vlar

When you climb a mountain to an altitude where the air is thinner and slowly acclimate to it is not adaptation.

It is adaptation. Changes in my biochemistry occur which allow me to adapt to a varying climate 2,3-BPG. I have no idea how you would argue that this is not adaptation.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

NO try again: In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. (1)

(1) Huxley, Julian (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. p. 449

Regardless of where/how you think it spawned from unintelligence, it is present... and it intelligently responds to changes in altitude: 2,3-BPG again

a reply to: Noinden

The reason DNA is NOT information in the sense of information theory, is there is no predetermined outcome (like say a book, or a program). So yeah it's information of a sort, but far more than that, what alphabet, or language do you know that self replicates, all on it's lonesome?

I prefer to describe DNA as DATA if it has any analogy to the information sciences.

"43" is a number. It is, by itself meaningless until you know that it is a thermometer reading. Then it is an observation.

"43 degrees Celsius" is an OBSERVATION. It is, by itself meaningless until you know that it is the high temperature for Alice Springs on the 15th of November. Then it is DATA - a collection of observations.

"The high today was 43 degrees in Alice Springs" is just a weather report until you know that it is the tenth day in a row above 40, then it is INFORMATION - data with context.

When INFORMATION is compared to other similar information, and analysed via experience and world view, it becomes [B]KNOWLEDGE. "Such high temperatures in Alice Springs, while not uncommon, have been increasing in frequency in recent years, and this is in line with the predictions of climate change models"

So to stretch the analogy, in my view, a gene is an Observation, DNA is Data, a collection of observations. The proteins that are built from the Data is the information, the context the data supports. The biological function the proteins support are the Knowledge.

I repeat this is a very stretched analogy, but it would model what is going on much better that trying to squeeze the idea of a program onto the structure of DNA.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Could I say then that you have a bias toward more of a chemical view of DNA. But you are also in bioinformatics, right? Doesn't that involve the analysis of raw biological data?

What other view is there? DNA is made up of chemicals. Those chemicals obey the 'laws' of physics.

Codons are biological data, meaning they are a base for a chemical reaction to take place. They are not information and cannot be identified with data or information in computer science. As I said above even calling them data is a stretched metaphor.

A gene is a set of related codons which could be compared to a dataset in our stretched analogy. It is not information either.

A DNA strand is a set of of genes which could be compared to a database containing many datasets. It is not information either.

NoInden is free to correct me, but BioInformatics doesn't try applying the metaphors from information systems onto biological systems. Rather it uses information processing tools to study biological systems, specifically nucleotide sequences, codons, genes, etc. (I assume I'm being quite simplistic here).

a reply to: cooperton

I have no idea how you would argue that this is not adaptation.

Because you are using the word 'adaptation' in a general usage form.

Biology has a very specific use of the word.

You are discussing biology, so you need to understand and use the words as they are used in biology.

Your body is 'acclimating' not 'adapting'. When you leave the high mountains, your body will re-acclimatize to the lower altitude.

Individuals acclimatize, populations adapt.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

I have no idea how you would argue that this is not adaptation.

Because you are using the word 'adaptation' in a general usage form.

Biology has a very specific use of the word.

You are discussing biology, so you need to understand and use the words as they are used in biology.

Your body is 'acclimating' not 'adapting'. When you leave the high mountains, your body will re-acclimatize to the lower altitude.

Individuals acclimatize, populations adapt.

Swimming in semantic soup. I'm not excluding myself when I say Everyone does it when discussing the theory of evolution. It's like trying to eat soup with a fork - sure you're bound to get some chunks out of there, but most of it remains irretrievable.

Adaptation: "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment."

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

I have no idea how you would argue that this is not adaptation.

Because you are using the word 'adaptation' in a general usage form.

Biology has a very specific use of the word.

You are discussing biology, so you need to understand and use the words as they are used in biology.

Your body is 'acclimating' not 'adapting'. When you leave the high mountains, your body will re-acclimatize to the lower altitude.

Individuals acclimatize, populations adapt.

Swimming in semantic soup. I'm not excluding myself when I say Everyone does it when discussing the theory of evolution. It's like trying to eat soup with a fork - sure you're bound to get some chunks out of there, but most of it remains irretrievable.

Adaptation: "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment."

Exactly!!

You know they have lost the debate when they have to pull a Bill Clinton and talk about what is, is.

This whole debate is filled with this nonsense by those who BELIEVE in this fantasy. They have to destroy language and definitions because it's the only way they can logically accept something that's so illogical. It's like Yockey said:

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...

So up is dow, down is up, left is right and right is left with these Darwinist who cling to and BELIEVE in this theory. It's clear evidence that this isn't about science but belief. When every word used to describe DNA has to be no that's not what it really means. Throughout science, you see the language of information and technology used to describe DNA.

You hear from Darwinist, that INFORMATION isn't information. This is just NONSENSE. DNA is encoded with information in sequences of DNA and this information can even be moved to other mediums because we know the CODE.

Words have meaning and you always hear language of information theory and technology used with DNA. Are all these people stupid? Why don't they use different words if these words have nothing to do with DNA?

Again, whenever someone has to butcher the english language in order to support their belief, move in the opposite direction. They're pulling a Clinton is, is.

Just the other day, I was reading an article where Scientist called Junk DNA an operating system. Again, when you talk about operating system, those words have meaning. Windows, Ubuntu and Mac OS are operating systems.

The atheist Craig Venter said this:

Venter said the cell is a "biological machine," full of "protein robots" which are "not simple robots." DNA is "software" that contains "digital information" or "digital code." He pointedly stated, "Life is a DNA software system," and asked, "How do we boot up a synthetic chromosome?"

www.evolutionnews.org...

Here's Venter in an interview:

So you view DNA as the software of life?

All the information needed to make a living, self-replicating cell is locked up within the spirals of DNA's double helix. As we read and interpret that software of life, we should be able to completely understand how cells work, then change and improve them by writing new cellular software.

The software defines the manufacture of proteins that can be viewed as its hardware, the robots and chemical machines that run a cell. The software is vital because the cell's hardware wears out. Cells will die in minutes to days if they lack their genetic-information system. They will not evolve, they will not replicate, and they will not live.

www.wired.co.uk...

Here's another article about Microsoft and DNA information storage:

Microsoft is turning DNA into the ultimate storage device

This week, Microsoft has announced a partnership that could fundamentally transform our relationship with our past and the future.

Twist Bioscience has handed Microsoft 10 million long oligonucleotides of DNA molecules (quite a lot), so it can start testing the use of this “prehistoric information technology” for long-term, secure data storage.

Like computers, DNA molecules encode information into discrete units. DNA is made up of four of these, called nucelotides and referred to as A, C, G and T, rather than zeroes and ones. Long strands of DNA are made up of a sequence of these, with a particular order representing a specific piece of information.

thenextweb.com...

The point is, when you have to play the semantics game, you have already lost the debate. Why do they keep using this language to describe DNA? Darwinist want to convince people that information doesn't mean information, code doesn't mean code and software doesn't mean software.

Hears some of the language you hear associated with DNA.

Information
Code
Transcription
Translation
Error Correction
Redundandcy
Operating System
Software
Words
Instruction
Factory
Computer
Language
Robots
Machine
Editing
Proofreading

Darwinist will tell you that none of these things mean what they actually mean. Again, when you have to play a semantics game, you have already lost the debate and it's more about your belief than Science because you can't logically believe that nature can make a complex encoding/decoding system that encodes information and makes the machinery to decode this information. So you have to butcher language and definitions to accept this fantasy.

maybe relevant if your looking for
" a complex encoding/decoding system " or " genetic-information system "

www.jwmt.org...

These base pairs form "words" that are instructions to build an amino acid compound. There are 64 such "words" and one or more of these words represent the instruction and information necessary to create one of the 22 amino acids used to create the protein structure of a living body. The sum of all these code words and amino acid sentences forms the blueprint for a specific entity, including elements that determine the individual's fate. And the strands with all this information are present in every undifferentiated cell nucleus, a script or book with significance, expression, meaning, all the hallmarks of life itself.[8]

In 1968, Marie-Louise von Franz, a disciple of Carl Jung, published an essay in an anthology of psychology articles entitled "Symbol des Unus Mundus". As an aside in her essay about alchemical symbolism, Dr. von Franz speculated that there might be some structural link between the I Ching and the recently discovered DNA code.[9] A year later, a physician, Dr. Martin Schonberger published a small article in an obscure German medical magazine, Zeitschrift fur Allgemeinmedizin - Der Landarzt, No. 16/1969, in which he presented "the astonishing parallels between the natural science of the I Ching and the latest discoveries of nuclear genetics."

Dr. Schonberger's comparisons can be summarized as: 1) Both the DNA and the I Ching are based on polarity, yin and yang in the case of the I Ching, up and down symmetry in the case of DNA's double helix; 2) Four "letters" are available, A,T,C,G in the case of DNA, resting yin, moving yin, resting yang and moving yang in the I Ching, which are grouped in pairs; 3) Three of these words form either a code for protein synthesis or a trigram; 4) The direction in which the codes are read is strictly determined in both; 5) There are 64 of these triplets or double trigrams, from which all creation, in the case of DNA, and fate in the case of the I Ching, are derived; 6) Two of these triplets have names, beginning and end. In the DNA they serve as punctuation between code sequences. In the I Ching, we have hexagrams # 63 and # 64, which serve the same purpose.

Dr. von Franz, a Jungian psychoanalyst, was the first to notice the similarity, 64 units made of three out of four possible components, between the two but it took the practical mysticism of a working physician to elaborate the essential question: "Is there only one spirit whose manifestation (= information) must of necessity find its expression in the 64 words of the genetic code on one hand and the 64 possible states and developments of the I Ching on the other?"[10]

Soon after Dr. Schonberger's article was published, Fritz Albert Popp began his groundbreaking work on bio-photon emission and communication by the DNA. As soon as Dr. Schonberger learned of Dr. Popp's early work, he wrote to him and asked his opinion. "Since information and matter cross in the genetic code, it may be expected that evolution has selected the most favorable, i.e. the surest, and at the same time most economical, principle," Dr. Popp wrote back. "The only solution to the problem is to seek understanding of DNA… as you have done, from the information theory angle."[11]

Following this advice, Schonberger elaborated his article into a small book, The I Ching and The Genetic Code: The Hidden Key to Life, published in Germany in 1973. For the second edition in 1977, Popp himself added a short afterward in which he restated the essential question: "Is there a connection between this substantiated reflection of biological evolution and the purpose, the indication and the meaning of Life?" This question, as Popp notes, "focuses our curiosity on the phase-border between the syntax and semantics of the DNA structure."

originally posted by: cooperton
If a genetic code and the information encoded in such does not suffice for you to indicate a coder, what could possibly demonstrate to you that there was an intelligent designer that designed this intelligent code?

Objective evidence of this intelligent designer would suffice. In fact, any tangible verifiable evidence that shows the existence of this creator or the ability to create works as well.

Looking at DNA complexity alone is not enough, because a designer or creation process outside of human creativity and ingenuity has never been observed, so there is nothing to compare to. Answering the question with an intelligent designer only raises more questions. How does one determine whether or not the ability of DNA to encode emerged naturally over time or was suddenly created? You can't answer the question without intelligence, but you also can't answer it WITH intelligence. There is simply too much that is still unknown to make an accurate guess, either way, and the lack of evidence for any designer or version of god speaks volumes.

Without something to compare it to (something proven to be created by an external entity or godlike creator), how do you know for sure? It is basically judging a book by its cover. There are several natural processes that can mimic the appearance of intelligent design despite being proven to be natural erosion. You are judging based on appearance alone and assuming that the first DNA molecule was exactly the same as modern day DNA when life itself has changed drastically since 4 billion years ago (give or take).

And yes, if god appeared to me today, I would believe instantly. Doesn't god love us? Why wouldn't he want to save my soul from hell, when convincing me would be so easy? If god gave me an intelligent brain that understands science and follows evidence, then surely he understands why I am skeptical and knows how to convince me easily. But he chooses not to, so this means he either doesn't care what I believe or doesn't exist.

If god exists, it would be truly amazing and would make me happy. If he doesn't, then no big deal, I could care less.

It's interesting how the OP has to keep repeating himself over and over again. This is why there is no debate here.

1. Post a question or claim from religious website.

2. Question gets answered or claim gets debunked.

3. OP repeats original argument and ignores the answer/evidence provided.

This cycle has been repeating since the beginning. I couldn't believe how many times he repeated the "he had to go to his geneticist friend to answer a simple question". For his next 20 replies he repeated that statement over and over as if it was a bad thing. Then with the 47 pages claim, he said that literally 5-6 times in every post for the next 5 pages. Then the cosmic fingerprints "source". He must have posted that like 10 times. Then his quote about the TATA box he posted at least 30 times, probably more.

I'm in a good place right now, I'm not going to argue about this anymore or even be bothered by it. There are far too many real problems with the world, that debating fairy tales and what ifs does not matter in the grand scheme of things. I hope the OP finds some closure in his beliefs, although it seems he is searching hard for reasonable doubts or even justification for the faith.

I will leave you all with a couple links that may help the OP and others better understand genetics and information theory.

DNA is not like a computer

Junk DNA and Creationist Lies

Good luck to everyone. I hope you find what you are looking for.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TREESNAKE1111
The argument is about bio-Genesis , not evolution per-se . Without data dna is just a string of molecules stuck together incapable of doing anything .

... certain people try to seperate the subject of what they refer to as "evolution" from "abiogenesis" but when a thread like this pops up the arguments against some of the conclusions involving the word "design", "designer", etc. are remarkably similar to those arguing in favor of what they sometimes refer to as "biological evolution"...
In essence:

'nature did it'
...
Perhaps it has something to do with the famous and prominent evolutionary philosophers Haldane and Oparin referring to what Huxley referred to as "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" as "the chemical evolution theory of life". Which is one of the many fancy ways of saying:

'Mother Nature did it' ('Gaia did it')

There's a lot of stuff in that video that you don't need to watch making it much shorter than it appears (some of it may even be misleading), it'll cost you less time (around 15 minutes) than reading through this thread or making most types of comments if you watch:

1:30 - 4:03 (with the caveat that the definition at 3:35 is slightly confusing, remember what I said about Haldane & Oparin and chemical evolution?)
6:04 - 12:30 (I cut this one off just at the most crucial point cause he won't adress it anyway, see link below why)
16:28 - 22:30
29:14 - 31:06
33:20 - 33:40
36:15 - 36:58 (with the caveat that he doesn't really get to the bottom of it and I know why)

For more details (around 5 minutes):

5:03 - 5:58
15:12 - 15:52
22:30 - 24:00
28:13 - 28:49
31:34 - 32:49

a reply to: Barcs

I will leave you all with a couple links that may help the OP and others better understand genetics and information theory.

DNA is not like a computer

Junk DNA and Creationist Lies

Great links.

Thanks

a reply to: Noinden

I'd have to read his thoughts of DNA to be able to make a judgement on how oversimplified a view he may have had.

And I'm in no way of accusing him of supporting ID or what have you. Nor of refuting evolution for that matter.

originally posted by: Noinden
It is chemical potential. The problem with analogies (and Watson and Crick forced this analogy by using the word "code" (still used in "codon")) is they are not very good beyond the basic level.

It's not just at the basic level we see these metaphors/analogies being used. They're fairly pervasive in many scientific papers and studies.

How would a chemist explain what DNA is and how it works? vs a biochemist, vs a molecular biologist, vs a bioinformatician? Everything is chemical reactions, so where do we draw the line on how to describe things - for instance do we describe how a brain functions based on its chemical potential?

originally posted by: Noinden
The reason DNA is NOT information in the sense of information theory, is there is no predetermined outcome (like say a book, or a program). So yeah it's information of a sort, but far more than that, what alphabet, or language do you know that self replicates, all on it's lonesome?

I've never heard of DNA being described as an alphabet or a language so I think your point is moot. It's not either of those things or can't be compared to them really. Information comes in many different forms. It seems the question hear is if the "code" or information within DNA is symbolic in nature, with meaning. Regardless of this, it's near impossible to read about DNA or genes and its functions without seeing the words: flow of information.

You seem to be suggesting that information need not apply to any of it... that it's just a word we use to help us understand it all... Well if it's not really information that flows from DNA all the way up to the living organism, then what is it? If how an organism is built is not genetic information, or how it behaves instinctively is not based on genetic information, then what is it based on? Chemical reactions?

Is it common practice to describe chemical reactions as information?

a reply to: cooperton

Good point. Few have realized or meditated on this concept.

Thank you. Yes it is extremely disconcerting to have to explain the 'birds and the bees' to people who are at least pretending to be adults. Mind-bogglingly disconcerting in fact.

If an opportunity for a beneficial mutation only occurs once every generation,

The mutation rate in humans varies according to what it is you measure.

The range of rates for different genetic types of mutations

Human mutation rates - what's the right number?

One kind of rate is the error rate of DNA replication. This is close to 1.0 × 10-8 for replication complexes that are capable of proofreading. Many errors are repaired by repair enzymes and this process is about 99% efficient. Thus, the overall error rate is close to 1.0 × 10-10 per bp.

Given that the human genome is 3.2 × 109 bp, this means that there are on average 0.32 new substitutions every time the complete genome is replicated. In humans there are about 30 cell generations between zygote and egg cells and about 400 cell divisions between zygote and mature sperm. Thus, in males, the sperm cells have about 128 new mutations and the haploid egg genome has about 10 new mutations for a total of 138 new mutations in every new zygote. Let's round this down to 130 mutations per generation.1 I call this the "biochemical method" of calculating mutation rate

OK, so a lot more than 1 opportunity per generation according to the first method.

The second method is something I call the "phylogenetic method" [Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Phylogenetic Method]. It's based on the idea that the vast majority of mutations in primate genomes are in junk DNA. That means they are neutral. If we compare the genomes of different primate species, we can calculate a mutation rate based on population genetics, which postulates that the rate of fixation of neutral alleles is the same as the mutation rate.

This gives mutation rates of 112-160 mutations per generation. That value depends on knowing the time of divergence of different lineages (e.g. humans and chimpanzees) and the generation times. Both of these values are subject to uncertainty but they can't be off by very much. Certainly not by a factor of two or more.

The second method is in pretty good agreement with the first. Cool.

The third method is the "direct method" [Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Direct Method]. This is where you sequence the genomes of parents and their offspring or you sequence the genomes of two individuals who descend from a common ancestor. All you need to do is count the number of new mutations and you get the mutation rate directly.

These experiments yield a range of values from a low of 56 mutations per generation to a high of 103 mutations per generation. Most of the values cluster around 75 mutations per generation and that's what gives rise to the controversy. The direct method gives mutation rates the are about half the rate of other methods.

Oops. The third method disagrees with the first and second methods. But notice that all methods come up with a value that is considerably higher than the 1 (one) that you start with.

The direct method is not very reliable since the quality of the genome sequences is low and only a faction of the genomes is actually sequenced. Typically about 60-80% of the genome sequence is reliable. The number of potential sequencing errors overwhelms the number of possible mutations so a lot of "adjusting" is necessary in order to weed out false positives and false negatives. Nevertheless, it's satisfying that the results are in the right ballpark.

There is, however, something to your concern. The higher mutation rates calculated by methods 1 and 2 are known as the 'fast clock', while the 3rd method is called the 'slow clock'.

A slower molecular clock worked well to harmonize genetic and archaeological estimates for dates of key events in human evolution, such as migrations out of Africa and around the rest of the world. But calculations using the slow clock gave nonsensical results when extended further back in time — positing, for example, that the most recent common ancestor of apes and monkeys could have encountered dinosaurs.

The problem is that there are so many points for error to creep into the calculations, especially using the direct measurement method (method 3). The most reasonable estimate is that the mutation rate will converge to an average somewhere around 100 per generation as the calculation methods are improved.

With approximately 3,200,000,000 nucleotides in the human genome,

There are actually 6.4 billion base pairs (64,000,000,000) in the human genome.

it seems unfathomable that even 1,000,000,000 years could have allowed so many beneficial mutations to occur -

And just think, Noah's Flood was only about 5,000 years ago. Imagine all that diversity in just 5,000 years!

especially when no known beneficial mutation has graced humanity in our written history.

Say what? The human race has only known about mutations for about 4 generations - what has 'written history' to do with anything?. There has been maybe 130 generations or so since writing started.

Your assertion is wrong in any case. One important example of a beneficial mutation is CCR5Δ32 which has 'arrived' in the last 700-2000 years.

From Wikipedia:CCR5

C-C chemokine receptor type 5, also known as CCR5 or CD195, is a protein on the surface of white blood cells that is involved in the immune system as it acts as a receptor for chemokines. This is the process by which T cells are attracted to specific tissue and organ targets. Many forms of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, initially use CCR5 to enter and infect host cells. Certain individuals carry a mutation known as CCR5-Δ32 in the CCR5 gene, protecting them against these strains of HIV.

In humans, the CCR5 gene that encodes the CCR5 protein is located on the short (p) arm at position 21 on chromosome 3. Certain populations have inherited the Delta 32 mutation resulting in the genetic deletion of a portion of the CCR5 gene. Homozygous carriers of this mutation are resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV-1 infection.
...
The CCR5 Δ32 allele is notable for its recent origin, unexpectedly high frequency, and distinct geographic distribution,[30] which together suggest that (a) it arose from a single mutation, and (b) it was historically subject to positive selection.

Two studies have used linkage analysis to estimate the age of the CCR5 Δ32 deletion, assuming that the amount of recombination and mutation observed on genomic regions surrounding the CCR5 Δ32 deletion would be proportional to the age of the deletion.[23][31] Using a sample of 4000 individuals from 38 ethnic populations, Stephens et al. estimated that the CCR5-Δ32 deletion occurred 700 years ago (275-1875, 95% confidence interval). Another group, Libert et al. (1998), estimated the age of the CCR5 Δ32 mutation is based on the microsatellite mutations to be 2100 years (700-4800, 95% confidence interval).

originally posted by: rnaa
What other view is there? DNA is made up of chemicals. Those chemicals obey the 'laws' of physics.

Codons are biological data, meaning they are a base for a chemical reaction to take place. They are not information and cannot be identified with data or information in computer science. As I said above even calling them data is a stretched metaphor.

A gene is a set of related codons which could be compared to a dataset in our stretched analogy. It is not information either.

A DNA strand is a set of of genes which could be compared to a database containing many datasets. It is not information either.

Can you define what a gene is.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
There are actually 6.4 billion base pairs (64,000,000,000) in the human genome.

There are how many base pairs in a human genome?

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion of these base pairs, which reside in the 23 pairs of chromosomes within the nucleus of all our cells. Each chromosome contains hundreds to thousands of genes, which carry the instructions for making proteins. Each of the estimated 30,000 genes in the human genome makes an average of three proteins.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Given that the human genome is 3.2 × 109 bp, this means that there are on average 0.32 new substitutions every time the complete genome is replicated.

OOPSIES.

The article I posted gave two different numbers, I picked the incorrect one. I need to find out how the author made that mistake.

First number

Given that the human genome is 3.2 × 10**9 bp, this means that there are on average 0.32 new substitutions every time the complete genome is replicated.

Second number

The human genome consists of 6.4 × 10**9 base pairs (6.4 billion). That works out to 6.4 mutations per year.

Not sure how he got made that mistake. Unless he is talking about two different things, which is doesn't sound likely, he stuffed up. I notice that the correct number talks about generations (each time the complete genome is replicated) and the wrong one is talking about year which doesn't seem to make sense in context.

I'll see if the Benghazi Committee has any extra time to look into this.

Mea Culpa.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Can you define what a gene is.

Look, I had to explain to you how sexual reproduction worked the other day. There is a lot of introductory biology stuff before you get to genes.

If you have been going on this long in these fora and haven't figured out what a gene is by now, then there is simply nothing I could add that would improve your education.

So... NO.

I will recommend that you ask your Mom and Dad about the 'birds and bees', then enroll in a beginning biology class at your local community college. Maybe they can help.

a reply to: rnaa

Larry stuffs up quite a bit on his blog.

a reply to: rnaa

Who put you on your high horse? Are you being serious with that reply?

You explained to me how sexual reproduction works? In what universe? If you did, then this has nothing to do with my question... right right, a unit of heredity.. bla bla

I'm not asking you to define a gene to teach me something. No no... I'm asking you for a specific reason, within the context of our discussion. You claim there is no other way to look at DNA other than chemically... right? And you say it's not information. I respectfully disagree, regardless of your background.

I'm asking you to define a gene because I want to see what you're going to say it is.

You and others don't think it's information for unscientific reasons I suspect. So forgive for not taking your word for it when you just come out and say genetic information is not really information. If it's not that then what is it?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You explained to me how sexual reproduction works? In what universe?

Sorry my reply was to Phantom423 apparently. That stuff up is mine and mine alone, no one else to blame. I apologize.

I'm asking you to define a gene because I want to see what you're going to say it is.

And I already told you. NO.

I am NOT going to engage in your childish games. This is not a biology class, and if you don't know what a gene is, then go find a biology class and learn. While you are at it find an organic chemistry class and learn what a chemical reaction is.

This is ridiculous. You are trying to argue about stuff that is so far over your head that you are going to end up in traction from looking up so much.

When you find out what a gene is and what it does and how it works, then come back and discuss how the chemistry involved performs tasks that could be described using metaphor that resembles that of a computer system. You will still lose your argument, but at least you might have a grounding that helps you avoid insulting peoples intelligence while you are at it.

a reply to: rnaa

A bit better of an analogy. I just wish people would NOT try to over simplify what DNA is. It is a fecking complex molecule (Sugar, Nucleic acid, and all the fun that that entails), which does something we'd not seen before. Imagine if your asprin could self replicate.