Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth. FALSE!
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. Nice "JUST SO" Story not based in fact or empirical evidence. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species FALSE! Not Physically by a long shot.
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins. They may be your cousins knuckle dragger.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

-

 

[daws101]

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth. FALSE!
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. Nice "JUST SO" Story not based in fact or empirical evidence. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species FALSE! Not Physically by a long shot.
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins. They may be your cousins knuckle dragger.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

-

your tantrum in red huge font is just more proof you have no evidence to counter the facts presented.

 

[LOki]

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.

You said,

"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​

Which is just hilarious.

Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.

Just because you refuse to consider any rebuttal on the basis that rebuttals of your stupid assertions are defacto invalid, it does not follow that a logical and fully valid rebuttal was not provided.

Case in point:

Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.

If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.

As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.

This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.

This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."

This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for proteins that are "coded" for in DNA.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man.

Do you see what you did here? Everyone else does. So committed to your denial that you could possibly be wrong, you just refused to read and follow the plainly laid out points provided for you, and instead opted to apply an ad-hominem argument, asserting my points to be incomprehensible because they are just "the ramblings of a mad man."

Just like every other instance where you've been confronted by your fatal case of cognitive dissonance, resort to your arsenal of red-herrings: you make some shit up, or ask questions loaded with bullshit premises, or you change the subject, or you just plainly misrepresent the points made.

So what is your point?

DNA does not contain symbols; DNA is not symbolic; DNA is NOT "code" in the equivocating manner you are using the term, because the information and instructions contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

I've got a bonus point for you: You're going to agree with the above point most emphatically ... ONLY for the opportunity to falsely accuse me of building a strawman of your argument. Then you will immediately return to your patently bullshit notions regarding the magical relationship (i.e. independence) between the information in DNA and the chemistry of DNA; because without your magical DNA, your whole notion of the informed "code" in DNA becomes internally self-destructive.

Are you saying dna does not contain code?

"Code" in the manner geneticists use the term? DNA absolutely contains code. "Code" in the equivocating manner you and your retarded tribe use it? DNA does NOT contain code.

Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information?

I'm not even talking about Shannon Information. We all know you're uncomfortable with the way your ass is getting kicked, so nobody is surprised that you wish to change the subject. So to answer your question; I see no reason to assert that with DNA, the uncertainty regarding the expected information transmitted, and the actual information received, equals zero. That assertion however, should not be construed as a denial that DNA contains Shannon Information.

Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell.

I would say that Shannon Information serves a function in DNA, but it does not impart any function to DNA.

You OBVIOUSLY have no ******* clue as to what you're talking about or you wouldn't sincerely ask these vacuous questions. OR, you might THINK you know what you're talking about; in which case you've prepared yourself to leverage ANY answer offered against me, whether the answers are correct or not. OR, you actually DO know what you're talking about, in which case you know just as well as I do that NO answer offered actually matters, since a) there's nothing necessarily meaningful about information according to Shannon, and much more importantly, b) I wasn't making ANY point regarding Shannon Information.

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

You are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.

The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.

Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point.

Neither joking, nor dumb, nor stupid, nor missing your point.

The only way you could possibly support such an accusation is to just make some shit up, and misrepresent what I said.

So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information.

Right on queue!

Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!

The risk you run, when you refuse to even contemplate any rebuttal to your nonsense, is that you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages.

Despite the fact that it is plainly clear that I did not say "that if [you] shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information."

I mean really. It's OBVIOUS! It's just as OBVIOUS that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the DNA will still contain functional information.

What is also OBVIOUS, is that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT systematically substitute the nucleotides that up the molecule and expect the molecule to contain functional information--IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO YOUR EXPLICIT CLAIMS.

If proteins were symbols as you say, ...

Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping.

Let's just review the record then:

The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!! They stand for proteins. Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code.

WOW! Is that just a little embarrassing for you!

It's not as if you said, "Proteins are LIKE the symbols that are transferred within the code." You know, as if you were making a comparison.

No, you put your dick right in there, and insisted like the retard you are that that nucleotides are symbols for proteins, and emphatically that "proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code."

... then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).

If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.

I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better?

I have clearly NOT been repeating any strawman. The evidence is incontrovertible on this point.

In light of the fact that your clearly stated positions are mutually compatible and that they support and reinforce each other each time you repeath them, THERE IS JUST NO ******* WAY you can validly accuse me of creating a strawman version of your claims.

In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.

This of course, is just ludicrous.

It most certainly is.

And as predicted, you fully contradict yourself for one purpose only:

And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming.

Ah! There it is. Drowning in your cognitive dissonance, you agree with ALL the "the ramblings of a mad man" just to take the opportunity to declare I have created a "strawman argument entirely of [my] imagination."

FUKAN LOLSOME!

Let's just se if you turn right back around to deny everything you just agreed with, now that you voiced your bullshit accusation.

The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it.

YEP! BRAVO RETARD!!!!

The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!

Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination???

No! Not at all you retard! I am saying that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the actual manner you say it is--which is that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.

It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you?

You can deny all ******* day long that you have not repeatedly claimed that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

But it is plainly clear that the ONLY time you deny it, is for the purposes of fatuously accusing me of making a strawman even when I quote you directly.

I'm holding you to your actual and unambiguous position that, DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Let's see where you go with that...

1. Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F)

   True.

2. In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F).

   True! lol: Such hilarious irony! )

3. A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F)

   True.

4. A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).

   True.

Regarding question 1) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a specific sequence of "on's" and "off's" can be used to code for the symbol 'A". In fact, you can use any symbols you like because the information "A" is independent of the symbol used to code for it.

Regarding question 2) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L', and regardless of label used, or the code for that label, nothing--no accusations of strawman, no fatuous denials of what you said--changes the reality that you're getting owned right now. This is because reality is independent of the symbols used to represent it. Changing the symbols cannot change the thing symbolized.

Regarding question 3) Do you know what else is true? A specific sequence of W's, X's, Y's and Z's can be used to "code" for a specific amino acid, because the specific amino acid is not determined by the symbols used to represent the nucleotides that code for that amino acid.

Regarding question 4) Do you know what else is true? No combination of blocks of any specific sequences of any letters, numbers or other symbols, placed in a specific order, can ever be used to produce a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin. This is because DNA is not a "code" in the sense you use it. Sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--they cannot be substituted with other symbols. The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.

Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats.

Oh I won't! Don't worry Cupcake, they're taking you to a place where everyone else has imaginary superfriends who made the whole world to be just the way they believe it is.

Your entire post above is quite the joke.

You're the joke.

Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.

Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"

You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.

From Wiki:

"Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/diˌɒksiˌraɪbɵ.njuːˌkleɪ.ɨk ˈæsɪd/; DNA) molecules are informational molecules encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the encoded information."

"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."

So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject?????

There is little chance that I can know what you're talking about, when you have no idea what you're saying.

I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code.

I accept that it's code. Or code even.

I don't accept that it's "code."

You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing.

As I said earlier, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but YOU insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner yuo use the term.

Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.

Sorry about your retarded luck, Cupcake. It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner you use the term.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Speak for yourself Troll.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests. It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?

Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.

Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be the genetic code an animal is born with.

If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.

And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.

Origins is a dirty word for evolutionist

Predictably clueless. Origins, (the origin of life), is not a subject relevant to the TOE. This is an issue that typically causes confusion among Flat-Earthers'.

Prove it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You said,

"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​

Which is just hilarious.

Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.

Just because you refuse to consider any rebuttal on the basis that rebuttals of your stupid assertions are defacto invalid, it does not follow that a logical and fully valid rebuttal was not provided.

Case in point:
Do you see what you did here? Everyone else does. So committed to your denial that you could possibly be wrong, you just refused to read and follow the plainly laid out points provided for you, and instead opted to apply an ad-hominem argument, asserting my points to be incomprehensible because they are just "the ramblings of a mad man."

Just like every other instance where you've been confronted by your fatal case of cognitive dissonance, resort to your arsenal of red-herrings: you make some shit up, or ask questions loaded with bullshit premises, or you change the subject, or you just plainly misrepresent the points made.

DNA does not contain symbols; DNA is not symbolic; DNA is NOT "code" in the equivocating manner you are using the term, because the information and instructions contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

I've got a bonus point for you: You're going to agree with the above point most emphatically ... ONLY for the opportunity to falsely accuse me of building a strawman of your argument. Then you will immediately return to your patently bullshit notions regarding the magical relationship (i.e. independence) between the information in DNA and the chemistry of DNA; because without your magical DNA, your whole notion of the informed "code" in DNA becomes internally self-destructive.

"Code" in the manner geneticists use the term? DNA absolutely contains code. "Code" in the equivocating manner you and your retarded tribe use it? DNA does NOT contain code.

I'm not even talking about Shannon Information. We all know you're uncomfortable with the way your ass is getting kicked, so nobody is surprised that you wish to change the subject. So to answer your question; I see no reason to assert that with DNA, the uncertainty regarding the expected information transmitted, and the actual information received, equals zero. That assertion however, should not be construed as a denial that DNA contains Shannon Information.

I would say that Shannon Information serves a function in DNA, but it does not impart any function to DNA.

You OBVIOUSLY have no ******* clue as to what you're talking about or you wouldn't sincerely ask these vacuous questions. OR, you might THINK you know what you're talking about; in which case you've prepared yourself to leverage ANY answer offered against me, whether the answers are correct or not. OR, you actually DO know what you're talking about, in which case you know just as well as I do that NO answer offered actually matters, since a) there's nothing necessarily meaningful about information according to Shannon, and much more importantly, b) I wasn't making ANY point regarding Shannon Information.

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

Neither joking, nor dumb, nor stupid, nor missing your point.

The only way you could possibly support such an accusation is to just make some shit up, and misrepresent what I said.

Right on queue!

The risk you run, when you refuse to even contemplate any rebuttal to your nonsense, is that you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages.

Despite the fact that it is plainly clear that I did not say "that if [you] shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information."

I mean really. It's OBVIOUS! It's just as OBVIOUS that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the DNA will still contain functional information.

What is also OBVIOUS, is that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT systematically substitute the nucleotides that up the molecule and expect the molecule to contain functional information--IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO YOUR EXPLICIT CLAIMS.

Let's just review the record then:WOW! Is that just a little embarrassing for you!

It's not as if you said, "Proteins are LIKE the symbols that are transferred within the code." You know, as if you were making a comparison.

No, you put your dick right in there, and insisted like the retard you are that that nucleotides are symbols for proteins, and emphatically that "proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code."

I have clearly NOT been repeating any strawman. The evidence is incontrovertible on this point.

In light of the fact that your clearly stated positions are mutually compatible and that they support and reinforce each other each time you repeath them, THERE IS JUST NO ******* WAY you can validly accuse me of creating a strawman version of your claims.

And as predicted, you fully contradict yourself for one purpose only:Ah! There it is. Drowning in your cognitive dissonance, you agree with ALL the "the ramblings of a mad man" just to take the opportunity to declare I have created a "strawman argument entirely of [my] imagination."

FUKAN LOLSOME!

Let's just se if you turn right back around to deny everything you just agreed with, now that you voiced your bullshit accusation.YEP! BRAVO RETARD!!!!

No! Not at all you retard! I am saying that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the actual manner you say it is--which is that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

You can deny all ******* day long that you have not repeatedly claimed that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

But it is plainly clear that the ONLY time you deny it, is for the purposes of fatuously accusing me of making a strawman even when I quote you directly.

I'm holding you to your actual and unambiguous position that, DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Let's see where you go with that...

1. True.
2. True! lol: Such hilarious irony! )
3. True.
4. True.

Regarding question 1) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a specific sequence of "on's" and "off's" can be used to code for the symbol 'A". In fact, you can use any symbols you like because the information "A" is independent of the symbol used to code for it.

Regarding question 2) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L', and regardless of label used, or the code for that label, nothing--no accusations of strawman, no fatuous denials of what you said--changes the reality that you're getting owned right now. This is because reality is independent of the symbols used to represent it. Changing the symbols cannot change the thing symbolized.

Regarding question 3) Do you know what else is true? A specific sequence of W's, X's, Y's and Z's can be used to "code" for a specific amino acid, because the specific amino acid is not determined by the symbols used to represent the nucleotides that code for that amino acid.

Regarding question 4) Do you know what else is true? No combination of blocks of any specific sequences of any letters, numbers or other symbols, placed in a specific order, can ever be used to produce a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin. This is because DNA is not a "code" in the sense you use it. Sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--they cannot be substituted with other symbols. The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Oh I won't! Don't worry Cupcake, they're taking you to a place where everyone else has imaginary superfriends who made the whole world to be just the way they believe it is.

There is little chance that I can know what you're talking about, when you have no idea what you're saying.

I accept that it's code. Or code even.

I don't accept that it's "code."

You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing.

As I said earlier, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but YOU insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner yuo use the term.

Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.

Sorry about your retarded luck, Cupcake. It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner you use the term.

Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.

 

[LOki]

Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.

They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).

 

[UltimateReality]

Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.

They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).

Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made before you took us down the twisted road of your insane tangents and strawman claims for what code I was claiming, which was: DNA contains digital Code just like a computer contains digital code. Your endless rambling nonsense has gotten so far off track you don't even remember what started the whole argument. Let me say it one more time. DNA contains digital code just like a computer contains digital code. For this claim, I present the following evidence:

From Wiki: "A Binary code is a way of representing...computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular...instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 255 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different...instructions."

"An instruction set, or instruction set architecture (ISA), is the part of the computer architecture related to programming, including the native data types, instructions, registers, addressing modes, memory architecture, interrupt and exception handling, and external I/O. An ISA includes a specification of the set of opcodes (machine language), and the native commands implemented by a particular processor."


"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area."

"Enzyme based DNA computers are usually of the form of a simple Turing machine; there is analogous hardware, in the form of an enzyme, and software, in the form of DNA"

The field of DNA computing was established in Leonard M. Adelman’s seminal paper.[1] His work is significant for a number of reasons:

-It shows how one could use the highly parallel nature of computation performed by DNA to solve problems that are difficult or almost impossible to solve using the traditional methods.

-It's an example of computation at a molecular level, on the lines of nanocomputing, and this potentially is a major advantage as far as the information density on storage media is considered, which can never be reached by the semiconductor industry.

-It demonstrates unique aspects of DNA as a data structure.

-This capability for massively parallel computation in DNA computing can be exploited in solving many computational problems on an enormously large scale such as cell-based computational systems for cancer diagnostics and treatment, and ultra-high density storage media.

Quaternary Code:

Quaternary is the base-4 numeral system. It uses the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 to represent any real number.

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

 

[UltimateReality]

"Scientists have for the first time used DNA to encode the contents of a book. At 53,000 words, and including 11 images and a computer program, it is the largest amount of data yet stored artificially using the genetic material.

The researchers claim that the cost of DNA coding is dropping so quickly that within five to 10 years it could be cheaper to store information using this method than in conventional digital devices.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA – the chemical that stores genetic instructions in almost all known organisms – has an impressive data capacity. One gram can store up to 455bn gigabytes: the contents of more than 100bn DVDs, making it the ultimate in compact storage media."

Book written in DNA code | Science | The Guardian

 

[UltimateReality]

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It’s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it’s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it’s incredibly stable — where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage."

http://vimeo.com/47615970

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

It appears that both daws and LOki have taken the threads primary Flat-Earth proponent to task for his utterly ridiculous claims. Your claim to "superior traits" possessed but not passed down to modern humans is ridiculous, unsupported and without substantiation and is thus dismissed as absurd. What we can take away from the comments of ywc is that Creationism / ID should appropriately be re-named to "Christian Theological Objectionism", or possibly "Non-scientific Anti-evolutionism", or better; "The Stupid

At the core of all the anti-evolution and anti-science rhetoric you will find, crouching behind pseudo-scientific sounding terminology is literal adherence to biblical scripture that will tolerate no interpretation.

The Anti-evolution / Anti-science Christian ministries do absolutely rely on mis-characterations, promotion of fear, ignorance and a revulsion for science.

"Scientific Creationism" and ID are two of the biggest anti-science smokescreens. They are nothing more than Christian polemics and present baseless objections to the fact of evolution in desperate attempts to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers. The fitness of a species represents largely the ability of the individuals of the species to efficiently exploit the resources of its environment. This has nothing to do with any one species "evolving into another species". If the environment changes, or if the species relocates to a new environment, or a new species enters the environment and competes, evolution will probably occur in both species - or one or the other species may become extinct.

 

[Hollie]

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.

 

[Hollie]

Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.

They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).

Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made before you took us down the twisted road of your insane tangents and strawman claims for what code I was claiming, which was: DNA contains digital Code just like a computer contains digital code. Your endless rambling nonsense has gotten so far off track you don't even remember what started the whole argument. Let me say it one more time. DNA contains digital code just like a computer contains digital code. For this claim, I present the following evidence:

From Wiki: "A Binary code is a way of representing...computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular...instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 255 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different...instructions."

"An instruction set, or instruction set architecture (ISA), is the part of the computer architecture related to programming, including the native data types, instructions, registers, addressing modes, memory architecture, interrupt and exception handling, and external I/O. An ISA includes a specification of the set of opcodes (machine language), and the native commands implemented by a particular processor."


"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area."

"Enzyme based DNA computers are usually of the form of a simple Turing machine; there is analogous hardware, in the form of an enzyme, and software, in the form of DNA"

The field of DNA computing was established in Leonard M. Adelman’s seminal paper.[1] His work is significant for a number of reasons:

-It shows how one could use the highly parallel nature of computation performed by DNA to solve problems that are difficult or almost impossible to solve using the traditional methods.

-It's an example of computation at a molecular level, on the lines of nanocomputing, and this potentially is a major advantage as far as the information density on storage media is considered, which can never be reached by the semiconductor industry.

-It demonstrates unique aspects of DNA as a data structure.

-This capability for massively parallel computation in DNA computing can be exploited in solving many computational problems on an enormously large scale such as cell-based computational systems for cancer diagnostics and treatment, and ultra-high density storage media.

Quaternary Code:

Quaternary is the base-4 numeral system. It uses the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 to represent any real number.

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

Does the goofy creationst not understand that his claim to "digital code" includes a wiki quote that not once references "digital", but rather, binary?

The goofy creationist seems to have lost track of the earlier reference to creationist claims that DNA is too complex to have evolved and thus must have been from the gods. We're left with the goofy creationist still unable to make any case that DNA is the result of any supernatural intervention - his gods or anyone else's gods.

 

[LOki]

Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.

They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).

Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...

Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons.

You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.

... I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???

Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.

BRAVO RETARD!

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....

---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​

... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.

Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?

 

[LOki]

--DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

 

[LOki]

--YOUR FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EQUIVOCATION SNIPPED--​

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ima]

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

It appears that both daws and LOki have taken the threads primary Flat-Earth proponent to task for his utterly ridiculous claims. Your claim to "superior traits" possessed but not passed down to modern humans is ridiculous, unsupported and without substantiation and is thus dismissed as absurd. What we can take away from the comments of ywc is that Creationism / ID should appropriately be re-named to "Christian Theological Objectionism", or possibly "Non-scientific Anti-evolutionism", or better; "The Stupid

At the core of all the anti-evolution and anti-science rhetoric you will find, crouching behind pseudo-scientific sounding terminology is literal adherence to biblical scripture that will tolerate no interpretation.

The Anti-evolution / Anti-science Christian ministries do absolutely rely on mis-characterations, promotion of fear, ignorance and a revulsion for science.

"Scientific Creationism" and ID are two of the biggest anti-science smokescreens. They are nothing more than Christian polemics and present baseless objections to the fact of evolution in desperate attempts to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers. The fitness of a species represents largely the ability of the individuals of the species to efficiently exploit the resources of its environment. This has nothing to do with any one species "evolving into another species". If the environment changes, or if the species relocates to a new environment, or a new species enters the environment and competes, evolution will probably occur in both species - or one or the other species may become extinct.

It shows their desperate attempt to hold on to a lie. Where did the genes go ? Were they eliminated by Natural selection ?

Evolutionist want everyone to believe that humans came from Africa and humans are still there so what is this enviornment argument ? Do you actually think before you type or are this ignorant of the theory you attempt to defend ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.

This has noting to do with me being a creationist. These are legitimate questions your side still have no way to explain. The reason is they try to make a theory fit the evidence and it doesn't. It never happened the evolutionist claim.