Can thought occur without physical complexity? Does science require faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonstruck888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Your challenge for today is to design and build a better human.
Click to expand...
Okay… Let’s get started.

Remove 25% of the teeth and no longer issue them with nerves.
Get rid of the appendix.
Increase the diameter of the radius bone by 200%
Alter the shape of the lower vertebrae in the spinal column to straighten it out.

Oh, and let’s not have the sewage outlet in the exact same location as the entertainment complex, how about that?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Okay… Let’s get started.

Remove 25% of the teeth and no longer issue them with nerves.
Get rid of the appendix.
Increase the diameter of the radius bone by 200%
Alter the shape of the lower vertebrae in the spinal column to straighten it out.

Oh, and let’s not have the sewage outlet in the exact same location as the entertainment complex, how about that?
Click to expand...
What was the mouth size of your ancestors?

Appendix is needed to store good bacteria to repopulate your gut

Why?

The curve absorbs shock when walking.
 
buffalo said:
What was the mouth size of your ancestors?
Click to expand...
They had large jutting jaw bones.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Appendix is needed to store good bacteria to repopulate your gut
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. People who have appendectomies and subsequently continue to live in defiance of God’s will do not suffer any noticable lack of ability to digest food.
Why?
Click to expand...
Because we have a trait that evolved in our tree dwelling ancestors that allows us to rotate our hands through 360 degrees. Now that we live on the ground and have massively greater body mass than they did, this trait serves no purpose except to make our wrists break two inches from the hand when we fall at horizontal velocity.
The curve absorbs shock when walking.
Click to expand...
The curve is a vestigial characteristic that causes many of us considerable inconvenience in our later years. There are far more efficient ways that the shock of walking could be absorbed.

Let’s put MacPherson Struts in the next model homosapiens to augment our design upgrades.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
They had large jutting jaw bones.

http://www.sculpturegallery.com/three/australopithecus2.jpg

No it isn’t. People who have appendectomies and subsequently continue to live in defiance of God’s will do not suffer any noticable lack of ability to digest food.

Because we have a trait that evolved in our tree dwelling ancestors that allows us to rotate our hands through 360 degrees. Now that we live on the ground and have massively greater body mass than they did, this trait serves no purpose except to make our wrists break two inches from the hand when we fall at horizontal velocity.

The curve is a vestigial characteristic that causes many of us considerable inconvenience in our later years. There are far more efficient ways that the shock of walking could be absorbed.

Let’s put MacPherson Struts in the next model homosapiens to augment our design upgrades.
Click to expand...
Too bad we don’t know much about Adam as we have degenerated since then.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
How long ago did Adam live? Between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago?
Click to expand...
12,000 low end and up.

To your other post - I have answered them so many times - I don’t have the energy today to dig it all up. I should have made a cut and pastable summary, but I didn’t. 😦
 
buffalo said:
12,000 low end and up.
Click to expand...
Okay, so we can say that human kind had two progenitors at most 12,000 years ago, Adam and Eve. Now, the genome of two human beings cannot possibly contain enough information to account for all the racial characteristics and variation seen in the human race today. There is simply to many varient alleles in the genome of the human race to be contained within the genomes of two individuals.

The only way that the variation can be accounted for is by evolutionary mutation occurring, and twelve thousand years is only around five hundred generations. That is not enough time to account for the diversity in mankind, having evolved from only two individuals twelve thousand years ago.

How can this problem be accounted for?
To your other post - I have answered them so many times - I don’t have the energy today to dig it all up. I should have made a cut and pastable summary, but I didn’t. 😦
Click to expand...
No problem. I understand you’ll have other things to do…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Okay, so we can say that human kind had two progenitors at most 12,000 years ago, Adam and Eve. Now, the genome of two human beings cannot possibly contain enough information to account for all the racial characteristics and variation seen in the human race today. There is simply to many varient alleles in the genome of the human race to be contained within the genomes of two individuals.

The only way that the variation can be accounted for is by evolutionary mutation occurring, and twelve thousand years is only around five hundred generations. That is not enough time to account for the diversity in mankind, having evolved from only two individuals twelve thousand years ago.

How can this problem be accounted for?

No problem. I understand you’ll have other things to do…
Click to expand...
It is now understood that all organisms share a basic “core”. All the features we observe in organisms today contain the instruction set and the capability for rapid variation.

The preservation of a “kind” is passed through the cell of the mother. As we learn more about this we can see that adaptation can occur in just a few generations. So yes there is plenty of time.

We also now know DNA works extremely hard to prevent a mutation from taking effect. It works sort of like a parity bit in computer code. Only after several attempts of self-correction has failed does the mutation get passed on.

This is a big blow to the modern synthesis.

Keep your ear open to the latest science. It is starting to come in very fast now.

We also know that the earliest cells were complex.

The paradigm is shifting. The moderns synthesis is being replaced by the EES. Start calculating the odds for this.

One should consider that every generation is devolving.

There is just so much to say in one post.

How can the diversity of life be accounted for?

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
 
buffalo said:
It is now understood that all organisms share a basic “core”. All the features we observe in organisms today contain the instruction set and the capability for rapid variation.

The preservation of a “kind” is passed through the cell of the mother. As we learn more about this we can see that adaptation can occur in just a few generations. So yes there is plenty of time.

We also now know DNA works extremely hard to prevent a mutation from taking effect. It works sort of like a parity bit in computer code. Only after several attempts of self-correction has failed does the mutation get passed on.

This is a big blow to the modern synthesis.

Keep your ear open to the latest science. It is starting to come in very fast now.

We also know that the earliest cells were complex.

The paradigm is shifting. The moderns synthesis is being replaced by the EES. Start calculating the odds for this.

One should consider that every generation is devolving.

There is just so much to say in one post.

How can the diversity of life be accounted for?

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
Click to expand...
I’d like to see the source where you obtained this information. I studied genetics at University, and this is absolutely riddled with assupmtions and outright falsehoods. All organisms were definitely not thought of at the same time, it took billions of years for even simple organisms like Earthworms to emerge. In fact, there is no evidence of thought being involved at all…

While the processes involved in mutation are now clearly understood, for example, the most common SNP is spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine into Thymine and ammonia, but the occurence of genetic mutation is entirely random. You cannot predict when and where a genetic mutation will occur. There is no system or pattern to it. The pattern is in the selection, not in the occurrance of the mutation.
We also now know DNA works extremely hard to prevent a mutation from taking effect. It works sort of like a parity bit in computer code. Only after several attempts of self-correction has failed does the mutation get passed on.
Click to expand...
Utter bunkum. Cytosine has a tendency to deaminate into Uracil. The body gets round this by removal of all Uracil from DNA by uracil-DNA glycosylase. If the mutation I mentioned above occurs where Methylated Cytosine deaminates into Thymine, there is no way to correct the SNP since the abnormally occurring Thymine cannot be distinguished from Thymine that should be there.

Cyclic Redundancy Checking is nothing like the processes used to control mutation in DNA. Since DNA is chemical in nature and not a mathematical construct, CRC simply does not work as an analogy here. Not all DNA damage can be removed.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I’d like to see the source where you obtained this information. I studied genetics at University, and this is absolutely riddled with assupmtions and outright falsehoods. All organisms were definitely not thought of at the same time, it took billions of years for even simple organisms like Earthworms to emerge. In fact, there is no evidence of thought being involved at all…

While the processes involved in mutation are now clearly understood, for example, the most common SNP is spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine into Thymine and ammonia, but the occurence of genetic mutation is entirely random. You cannot predict when and where a genetic mutation will occur. There is no system or pattern to it. The pattern is in the selection, not in the occurrance of the mutation.
Click to expand...
How long ago?

It is well understood the DNA code is a language. Languages, symbols and codes come from a mind.

What information specifically?

I coined the term IDvolution. It came about after studying for many years the intersection of faith and reason. IDvolution takes in account the latest science (mostly the last ten or twenty years) Over the last several thousand of posts I have referenced the science peer reviewed links. If you would have been following along you would have seen the development.

The point is that mutations are not the driver for adaptation. It is built-in, front loaded if you will.

The building blocks of life can be assembled in different ways. We see the re-use of these building blocks in different organisms. Evo’s have a problem explaining how features have evolved several times, because they didn’t. The regulatory circuits switched them on.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I’d like to see the source where you obtained this information. I studied genetics at University, and this is absolutely riddled with assupmtions and outright falsehoods. All organisms were definitely not thought of at the same time, it took billions of years for even simple organisms like Earthworms to emerge. In fact, there is no evidence of thought being involved at all…

While the processes involved in mutation are now clearly understood, for example, the most common SNP is spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine into Thymine and ammonia, but the occurence of genetic mutation is entirely random. You cannot predict when and where a genetic mutation will occur. There is no system or pattern to it. The pattern is in the selection, not in the occurrance of the mutation.

Utter bunkum. Cytosine has a tendency to deaminate into Uracil. The body gets round this by removal of all Uracil from DNA by uracil-DNA glycosylase. If the mutation I mentioned above occurs where Methylated Cytosine deaminates into Thymine, there is no way to correct the SNP since the abnormally occurring Thymine cannot be distinguished from Thymine that should be there.

Cyclic Redundancy Checking is nothing like the processes used to control mutation in DNA. Since DNA is chemical in nature and not a mathematical construct, CRC simply does not work as an analogy here.
Click to expand...
By simply repeating what has been repeated here for years, what are you hoping to gain? If this is just a more elaborate version of “Show me God,” then I suggest you pray to God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you.

God bless,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
How long ago?
Click to expand...
My knowledge is up to date.
It is well understood the DNA code is a language. Languages, symbols and codes come from a mind.
Click to expand...
Is it really? Funnily enough, the articles in “google scholar” don’t mention DNA being a language. The only articles that do are creationist articles. I’ll stick with my fellow biochemists on this one, thank you…

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45KKS99-7R&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1337155706&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5c2da02f7fd980d35947e8b82848fadb
I coined the term IDvolution. It came about after studying for many years the intersection of faith and reason. IDvolution takes in account the latest science (mostly the last ten or twenty years) Over the last several thousand of posts I have referenced the science peer reviewed links. If you would have been following along you would have seen the development.
Click to expand...
IDvolution. I could find no peer reviewed data on that at all in the academic arena. If mutations were being generated by intelligent design, it stands to reason they would not be random. Also, why would God give people deliterious mutations that serve no purpose except to cause suffering, unless you’re saying that God is malevolent psychopath?
The point is that mutations are not the driver for adaptation. It is built-in, front loaded if you will.
Click to expand...
I can assure you they most certainly are the driver for adaptation.
The building blocks of life can be assembled in different ways. We see the re-use of these building blocks in different organisms. Evo’s have a problem explaining how features have evolved several times, because they didn’t. The regulatory circuits switched them on.
Click to expand...
Arrant Nonsense.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I’d like to see the source where you obtained this information. I studied genetics at University, and this is absolutely riddled with assupmtions and outright falsehoods. All organisms were definitely not thought of at the same time, it took billions of years for even simple organisms like Earthworms to emerge. In fact, there is no evidence of thought being involved at all…

While the processes involved in mutation are now clearly understood, for example, the most common SNP is spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine into Thymine and ammonia, but the occurence of genetic mutation is entirely random. You cannot predict when and where a genetic mutation will occur. There is no system or pattern to it. The pattern is in the selection, not in the occurrance of the mutation.

Utter bunkum. Cytosine has a tendency to deaminate into Uracil. The body gets round this by removal of all Uracil from DNA by uracil-DNA glycosylase. If the mutation I mentioned above occurs where Methylated Cytosine deaminates into Thymine, there is no way to correct the SNP since the abnormally occurring Thymine cannot be distinguished from Thymine that should be there.

Cyclic Redundancy Checking is nothing like the processes used to control mutation in DNA. Since DNA is chemical in nature and not a mathematical construct, CRC simply does not work as an analogy here.
Click to expand...
DNA Damage Response
 
Moonstruck888 said:
My knowledge is up to date.

Is it really? Funnily enough, the articles in “google scholar” don’t mention DNA being a language. The only articles that do are creationist articles. I’ll stick with my fellow biochemists on this one, thank you…

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45KKS99-7R&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1337155706&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5c2da02f7fd980d35947e8b82848fadb

IDvolution. I could find no peer reviewed data on that at all in the academic arena. If mutations were being generated by intelligent design, it stands to reason they would not be random. Also, why would God give people deliterious mutations that serve no purpose except to cause suffering, unless you’re saying that God is malevolent psychopath?

I can assure you they most certainly are the driver for adaptation.

Arrant Nonsense.
Click to expand...
The DNA language is being studied using lingusitics. It is a language and a code. I wonder why they named it the DNA code? The shouldn’t confuse us like this?
 
buffalo said:
The DNA language is being studied using lingusitics. It is a language and a code. I wonder why they named it the DNA code? The shouldn’t confuse us like this?
Click to expand...
DNA is not a language. To be a language it would obey Zipf’s law… It doesn’t. It actually has nothing in common with language, except that it can contain information.
 
edwest2 said:
Why do you deny the language of DNA?
Click to expand...
define:language - a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What kinds of sounds does DNA communicate with? Does it talk to you? What conventions does it operate under?

There might be things about DNA that appear superficially analogus to language, but it is not a language. It is not used in communincation. It does not communicate information using sounds or symbols.

Your article says that DNA base pairs “represent” a language. It does not say that DNA is a language.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
DNA is not a language. To be a language it would obey Zipf’s law… It doesn’t. It actually has nothing in common with language, except that it can contain information.
Click to expand...
Codes -

Need a sender and receiver. Also need a key.

Quantitative linguistic study of DNA sequences

A new family of compound Poisson distribution functions from quantitative linguistics is used to study the linguistic features of DNA sequences that go beyond the Zipf’s law. The relative frequency distribution of n-tuples and the compositional segmentation study can be fit reasonably well using this new family of distribution functions. On the other hand, the absolute values of the relative frequency come out naturally from the linguistic model without ambiguity. It is suggesting that DNA sequences have features that resemble natural language and it may be modeled by linguistic methodology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top