Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
There doesn’t seem to be a mind behind the code that we can observe.
Click to expand...
How much have you studied the genetic code? Now we know it can be read forward and backward. It has layers and is also contextual. It has error correction that through several iterations keeps it intact and from deleterious changes. It has grammar, words, sentences, phonetics and semantics.
 
rossum said:
So, you cannot tell us and you cannot even provide a link to where you claim to have told us.

Unless and until you inform me otherwise I shall put you down as a YEC.
Click to expand...
Suit yourself. You know better. I am a younger earther, definitely. IOW not billions but could be many thousands. And I have explained this for all to see several times.

I will add that recent RC dating of dino bones to around 30K years ago gives support to older than 6K.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
There doesn’t seem to be a mind behind the code that we can observe.
Click to expand...
How much have you studied the genetic code?
Click to expand...
2 lab classes freshman bio, 2 lab classes sophomore bio, 1 class in micro.
It has error correction…
Click to expand...
…through natural selection
It has grammar, words, sentences, phonetics and semantics.
Click to expand...
All it has are codes for proteins. It appears amazing because of the gambler’s fallacy. We discuss the marvel of the present form and don’t appreciate the absolute mountain of dead that it took to refine to the present state.

There’s still plenty of junk DNA from your non-human ancestors. While it comprises much less of the total strand than we used to think, you have DNA that codes for absolutely nothing. It’s a vestigial placeholder for a long-dead “you” that was more efficient to keep than delete.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
How is that going to prove macroevolution is true ?
Click to expand...
There you go again. Do not use “prove” in science; that is for mathematics. Science does evidence, and we have a great deal of evidence for macroevolution. See here.

Science can do disproof, but since it works by inductive logic it cannot do proof; there is always the possibility of a Black Swan since knowledge is never complete.

In an axiomatic system, such as Mathematics, we can have complete knowledge of all the axioms.
 
Hume said:
…through natural selection
Click to expand...
Oh my. Show me the exact step wise evo path to get to this. And why fitness increases at every step.

What year did you take these courses? Junk DNA is gone with the tree of life.
 
rossum said:
A question that creationists cannot answer. Think: what was the “first life” before all other life?
Click to expand...
Are you back at the uncaused cause? God created time, space and matter ex-nihilo. Once this was done he created biological life as we know it.
 
buffalo said:
And why fitness increases at every step.
Click to expand...
Easy, the less fit were less prone to successfully reproduce.
What year did you take these courses?
Click to expand...
Sorry, misread.

2002-2006 and 2020 to present (working toward another certification)
Junk DNA is gone with the tree of life.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. The evidence against it a few years ago reduced the number of codons that we considered junk.

There’s still plenty of junk.

Perhaps you may be prone to over-generalizing?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Easy, the less fit were less prone to successfully reproduce.
Click to expand...
Did you read the post in context? We were talking about codes.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter.

The genotype translated into a phenotype - the code became something that could be observed. Because of the difference, the critter was more fit for survival, thus doing a better job passing on that code to more offspring.
 
Hume said:
Doesn’t matter.

The genotype translated into a phenotype - the code became something that could be observed. Because of the difference, the critter was more fit for survival, thus doing a better job passing on that code to more offspring.
Click to expand...
Who made the code?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
There’s still plenty of junk.
Click to expand...
We now understand it is a storage system and retrieved as needed.
Click to expand...
No, we still understand that plenty of it still codes for nothing. This is as of spring 2020.

The most probably reason it endures is that the RNA and polymerases that translate and transcribe this stuff into protein work from specific sequences in the DNA and it would be more difficult to revise the strand and thus revise how the subsequent components work than to just let it stay in place.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Doesn’t matter.

The genotype translated into a phenotype - the code became something that could be observed. Because of the difference, the critter was more fit for survival, thus doing a better job passing on that code to more offspring.
Click to expand...
Who made the code?
Click to expand...
Same source that made the sun. Chance.
 
Hume said:
No, we still understand that plenty of it still codes for nothing. This is as of spring 2020
Click to expand...
Yes, it is very complex and have not discovered specifics. It is not leftover/

The piano has 88 keys and so many musical variations can be played. That is the genome, the hardware. The piano player (epigenetics) picks the combinations.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
No, we still understand that plenty of it still codes for nothing. This is as of spring 2020
Click to expand...
Yes, it is very complex and have not discovered specifics. It is not leftover/

The piano has 88 keys and so many musical variations can be played. That is the genome, the hardware. The piano player (epigenetics) picks the combinations.
Click to expand...
Ok, then i’ll revise to - “On the basis of empirical observation, there is still a substantial portion of the human DNA strand that does not appear to code for anything that can be directly or indirectly observed and attributed to the apparent non-coding codon.”

Cool?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top