S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, I haven’t studied Moonie theology, but I wonder if Wells’ theory that “there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies” reflects some aspect of thinking of the Unification Church.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Rossum, I agree about the water point; I didn’t use it because of the wording of Genesis. But how do we know that there weren’t multiple successful starts that have been incorporated into the common genetic code? How do we know that the genetic code as we know it is not in some way constrained chemically to be the way it is?
If life exists under the icy crust of Europa, would you be surprised to find it utilizes DNA? Or would you be surprised to find DNA utilized on a planet in some other part of the galaxy? Is DNA likely to be accidental rather than somehow necessary given the way chemistry works?
StAnastasia
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
Multiple successful starts that have been incorporated into the common genetic code.Sounds like a reason for diversity. Am I right Rossum and StAnastasia???
B
buffalo
Guest
I have no clue.
R
rossum
Guest
Your post #1241 contained one single link, which I looked at.
Good find. It appears that the date given by the Liverpool team is doubtful. That is the way science works, errors are corrected.
Again I must ask if you read your own links, and in this case if you read your own posts. Look at the quote you posted above and what it says about C-14 dating: Carbon-14 cannot reliably date materials older than about 50,000 years. Did you get that? Perhaps I should repeat it: Carbon-14 cannot reliably date materials older than about 50,000 years.
Stop trying to use C-14 to date material more than 50,000 years old as shown by other methods such as Argon-Argon. Such dating is “not reliable” as stated by your own source. Do you expect to convince us with something your own sources tell us is “not reliable”?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I do not know enough chemistry to be certain but I suspect that there may be other alternatives for the four bases used in DNA, for instance RNA replaces thymine (T) with uracil (U). Probably any replacements would be purines for A or G or pyrimidines for C or U/T but I am not sure that A, C, G and T/U are the only five possibilities. Some life on Earth, such as retroviruses, does not use DNA at all but uses RNA exclusively. DNA, RNA or something very similar is probable. It is a good way to encode information.
I do know that there are a lot more amino acids than the 20 we use, and some organisms do use non-standard amino acids. While I would expect life on Europa to share the simpler amino acids I would be inclined to think that some of the set they used would be different and that there might not be exactly 20 of them. Given that there are 64 possible DNA codons other life with a 3-base code could in theory use up to 63 amino acids, allowing for a single stop codon. In practice I think that would reduce the number of neutral mutations too much and the number will be closer to our 20 giving about the same level of redundancy in the code.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
From Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer:
“As W.-Y. Chung, a bioinformatician at the Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics at Penn State University, has noted, the existence of ‘dual coding’ and overlapping protein-coding reading frames, just one of many cellular innovations for concentrating genomic information, is ‘virtually impossible by chance.’”
“Indeed, the scientists who first reflected upon the discovery of the supposed junk DNA – Susumu Ohno, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, W. Ford Doolittle, Carmen Sapienza – all assumed that junk DNA was an expected by-product of mutational processes and that the presence of junk in the genome confirmed that such processes had played a central role in the origin of genetic information. Yet, as noted in Chapter 18, advocates of intelligent design expected early on that the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome should play a functional role in the cell, because the design logic of an information-processing system precludes carrying a preponderance of useless code, especially in biological settings where such excess would impose a burdensome energy cost on the cell.”
“… we know of systems that direct the retrieval of dispersed data modules in different places and the reassemble them as complete data files. Computer operating systems, undisputed products of intelligent design, perform both these functions.”
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus
“As W.-Y. Chung, a bioinformatician at the Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics at Penn State University, has noted, the existence of ‘dual coding’ and overlapping protein-coding reading frames, just one of many cellular innovations for concentrating genomic information, is ‘virtually impossible by chance.’”
“Indeed, the scientists who first reflected upon the discovery of the supposed junk DNA – Susumu Ohno, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, W. Ford Doolittle, Carmen Sapienza – all assumed that junk DNA was an expected by-product of mutational processes and that the presence of junk in the genome confirmed that such processes had played a central role in the origin of genetic information. Yet, as noted in Chapter 18, advocates of intelligent design expected early on that the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome should play a functional role in the cell, because the design logic of an information-processing system precludes carrying a preponderance of useless code, especially in biological settings where such excess would impose a burdensome energy cost on the cell.”
“… we know of systems that direct the retrieval of dispersed data modules in different places and the reassemble them as complete data files. Computer operating systems, undisputed products of intelligent design, perform both these functions.”
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus
I
itinerant1
Guest
“IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo”
Comment on the foregoing statement:
It is counter-productive to use the biblical “kinds” as a taxonomic category. Also, the statement will never pass scrutiny because it is “creationist”. That is, since the diversity and complexity of organisms represents a later stage in the evolution from simple organisms, the hypothesis of a divine intervention at this later stage implies a second creation; it is a theologically unwarranted assertion of a secondary creatio ex nihilo.
Hence, the hypothesis that God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” is theologically untenable.
Comment on the foregoing statement:
It is counter-productive to use the biblical “kinds” as a taxonomic category. Also, the statement will never pass scrutiny because it is “creationist”. That is, since the diversity and complexity of organisms represents a later stage in the evolution from simple organisms, the hypothesis of a divine intervention at this later stage implies a second creation; it is a theologically unwarranted assertion of a secondary creatio ex nihilo.
Hence, the hypothesis that God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” is theologically untenable.
I
itinerant1
Guest
What might be your source for this statement?
I
itinerant1
Guest
While I give the proponents of Intelligent Design theory credit for at least realizing that the earth is billions of years old, I must fault Michael Behe for committing the fallacy of the personification of nature. This he does in terms of an intelligence acting in all its parts so as to provide all the new forces necessary for the production of new species.
H
Hooding_Trees
Guest
Great then…
Please provide me with one, just ONE, species that violates the nested sets of hierarchies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Nested hiearchies are part of design. We see it all the time. It can be part of design but doesn’t have to be.
G
grannymh
Guest
Pardon my ignorance but what are biblical kinds? And how are they determined?
Side note: back in pre-scientific times when I took biology, creation was classified according to function/ability. Taxonomy is the classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships. (American Heritage College Dictionary) The two different systems do live side by side. Both are still useful for gaining knowledge.
G
grannymh
Guest
How does philosophy explain God keeping the earth in existence? Seriously.
G
grannymh
Guest
Don’t know about “violates the nested sets of hierarchies”. Do know that the current human species is one of a kind.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
As are Gymnogyps californianus, Lysmata californica, and Ralfsiales.
P
Philipp
Guest
Dear Rossum:(1) May I humbly suggest that before the Abiogenesis reserachers spend any more of that good money from foundations and government grants on chasing a ghost, that they spend some of those funds immediately on C-14 dating the fossils that have not been completly mineralized. All the dating of fossils so far reported in the literature contain significant amounts of C-14 content with dinosaur, megafauna, Neanderthal bones and fossil wood in the same mid-range (5-6 half-lives) of the C-14 method from strata allegedly 65 to 240 million yers old.
(2) After main stream science and Academia have reassured themselves by their own research that dinosaur bones and other fossils are indeed 2000 times younger than what evolution theory requires then they should test the less available human-like and ape-like bones from Africa etc. for C-14 content.
(3) As they C-14 date bone fragments and surface scrapings from the Human and dinosaur bones world-wide they should begin an investigation as to whether even the C-14
dating methods give too old ages. Why? Very simple Watson; there are excellent depictions world-wide of dinosaurs interacting with man and other animals within the past 3000 years suggesting that C-14 ages in the 20,000 to 30,000 C-14 year range and up may indeed give wrong ages as do the radiometric dating methods for fossils.
These dinosaur depictions are as good as the ones depicted by modern artists and paleontologists; or, by our ancestors in French caves for bison, horses, deer and wild cows that they must have often observed. These cave dwellers and other early cultures were too busy just surviving in caves etc then to have time to study dinosaur bones and make drawings like Dr. Mayor has implied. View those depictions on www.dinosaurandman.org. They are not fakes and forgeries as some evolutionists must claim to protect their “sacred Cow.”
(4) Of course as I’ve suggested before, test for C-14 of fossil wood etc. in the same environment where volcanic materials have been tested that give million year old ages. For example K/Ar dating of ash or other material in Mexico gave an age of 800,000 years and Ar/Ar gave an age of 1.3 Million years. C-14 dating of materials in this same strata where possible human footprints were discovered in the ash ranged from 27,000 to 40,000 C-14 years. Visit mexicanfootprints.co.uk/research/preserved.htm and many other references.
As you look at the alleged footprints Mexican footprints keep in mind the ones I posted much earlier under tons of cretaceous rocks are far superior to the Mexican or the Laetoli human-like footprints. When the “pristine” ones were first discovered in 1982 both press and TV were invited to view them. They came in from Dallas even by helicoptor Evolutionists were also invited but chose not to come. When one finally did come in later years he refused to participate in an on-going excavation. So much for objective science.
Mea culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima culpa regarding *Visit mexicanfootprints.co.uk/research/preserved.htm and many other references. * I should have provided the other references at the end of item 4 but there were so many and I did make the false assmption that you would go google which you are quite good at doing.
P
Philipp
Guest
CONTINUED
Dear “Artful Dodger”, alias Rossum:
You are indeed an “artful dodger.” (1) You completely ignored the fact that Dr. Renne, a leading chronologist in anthropological studies had indeed provided a date of 1.3 million years using Ar/Ar, when the closer to the truth dates were the C-14 dating ones from 27,000 to 36,000 C-14 years. Here is the reference for Ar/Ar dating. eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php
(2) You then quoted only the statement on C-14 dating that claimed C-14 is not reliable in dating materials older than about 50,000 years which has absolutely nothing to do with the intra-evolutionary squabble between direct carbon dating of the fossils vs. Ar/Ar dating that are separated by a factor of > 50 times, id !,300,000/36,000 years, minimum. You then proceeded to castigate my claims.
(3) Do you get it folks? Ar/Ar gave a date a huge 50 times greater than what C-14 dating gave; not even in the same ball park. Like a major minerologist Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck has stated: ***Ages provided by radiometric dating such as K/Ar etc. give meaningless ages. ***No wonder there is so much confusion over discussions on origins. The search for truth in origins is indeed being badly hampered by faulty assumptions with regards the old age dating methods.
Again let me repeat: (a) The C-14 dates were 27,000 to 40,000 years for the Mexican fossil good prints not over 50,000 years in or above the ash under dispute. (b) Likewise the C-14 ages for the Paluxy River carbonized wood imbedded in Cretaceous clay where fossil dinosaur land human footprints are found together were 12,000 to 37,000 years AND (C) the C-14 ages for dinosaur bone collagen etc. are 23,000 to 33,000 RC whether using large samples for Beta decay or AMS methods.
Is everyone getting the picture? Ok, Now have you ever wondered about how evolutionists arrive at these many old ages for the fossil bones of our alleged ancestors? — Well folks here is the connection right from the original article eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php
“***Paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, is familiar with the “so-called footprints” and knows Renne well, frequently collaborating with him in the dating of million-year-old sediments in an area of Ethiopia where White has excavated numerous fossils of human ancestors. He is not surprised at the new finding. [meaning 1.3 million year old.]” ***
Again refer to my previous post suggesting that scientists should C-14 date the fossils and not the rocks. Also take note that dinosaur bones data using C-14 are 2000 times younger than the long age radiometric dating methods just as the fossils associated with the alleged Mexican footprints give 50 times younger ages than the long age radiometric dating. Thus main stream scientists need to C-14 date the fossils and compare those dates with the long age radiometric dating methods to eliminate the confusion in chronological studies.
Dear “Artful Dodger”, alias Rossum:
You are indeed an “artful dodger.” (1) You completely ignored the fact that Dr. Renne, a leading chronologist in anthropological studies had indeed provided a date of 1.3 million years using Ar/Ar, when the closer to the truth dates were the C-14 dating ones from 27,000 to 36,000 C-14 years. Here is the reference for Ar/Ar dating. eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php
(2) You then quoted only the statement on C-14 dating that claimed C-14 is not reliable in dating materials older than about 50,000 years which has absolutely nothing to do with the intra-evolutionary squabble between direct carbon dating of the fossils vs. Ar/Ar dating that are separated by a factor of > 50 times, id !,300,000/36,000 years, minimum. You then proceeded to castigate my claims.
(3) Do you get it folks? Ar/Ar gave a date a huge 50 times greater than what C-14 dating gave; not even in the same ball park. Like a major minerologist Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck has stated: ***Ages provided by radiometric dating such as K/Ar etc. give meaningless ages. ***No wonder there is so much confusion over discussions on origins. The search for truth in origins is indeed being badly hampered by faulty assumptions with regards the old age dating methods.
Again let me repeat: (a) The C-14 dates were 27,000 to 40,000 years for the Mexican fossil good prints not over 50,000 years in or above the ash under dispute. (b) Likewise the C-14 ages for the Paluxy River carbonized wood imbedded in Cretaceous clay where fossil dinosaur land human footprints are found together were 12,000 to 37,000 years AND (C) the C-14 ages for dinosaur bone collagen etc. are 23,000 to 33,000 RC whether using large samples for Beta decay or AMS methods.
Is everyone getting the picture? Ok, Now have you ever wondered about how evolutionists arrive at these many old ages for the fossil bones of our alleged ancestors? — Well folks here is the connection right from the original article eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc–a4h112805.php
“***Paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, is familiar with the “so-called footprints” and knows Renne well, frequently collaborating with him in the dating of million-year-old sediments in an area of Ethiopia where White has excavated numerous fossils of human ancestors. He is not surprised at the new finding. [meaning 1.3 million year old.]” ***
Again refer to my previous post suggesting that scientists should C-14 date the fossils and not the rocks. Also take note that dinosaur bones data using C-14 are 2000 times younger than the long age radiometric dating methods just as the fossils associated with the alleged Mexican footprints give 50 times younger ages than the long age radiometric dating. Thus main stream scientists need to C-14 date the fossils and compare those dates with the long age radiometric dating methods to eliminate the confusion in chronological studies.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The reference is to the creation of “kinds” in Genesis 1.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Philipp, how are your plans coming to submit these ideas for discussion by professional scientists?
- Status