Darwin: Molecules and Mythology

[edthecynic]

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

I did.

Why didn't you address your lies and fraud?

Because there aren't any.

I never lie.

You do.

And....if you hadn't failed out of school you'd recognize the validity of the science education that I provide.

That's a lie!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did.

Why didn't you address your lies and fraud?

Because there aren't any.

I never lie.

You do.

And....if you hadn't failed out of school you'd recognize the validity of the science education that I provide.

That's a lie!

Well.....simple enough to adjudicate.....

If I lie, why have you run from post #32?

 

[edthecynic]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?






10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?

Again your complete stupidity is showing!

They are talking about comparing the sequence of the base PAIRS.
Nucleotides are read in groups of 3 by messenger RNA, not DNA. The basic structure of the DNA molecule does not change, what changes is how the base PAIRS are ordered. That order is what contains the info for the cell and it is the order of the base PAIRS that can mutate, not the base PAIRS themselves or the basic structure of the DNA molecule itself.

Get it yet?

From RNA to Protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

An mRNA Sequence Is Decoded in Sets of Three Nucleotides

Once an mRNA has been produced, by transcription and processing the information present in its nucleotide sequence is used to synthesize a protein. Transcription is simple to understand as a means of information transfer: since DNA and RNA are chemically and structurally similar, the DNA can act as a direct template for the synthesis of RNA by complementary base-pairing. As the term transcription signifies, it is as if a message written out by hand is being converted, say, into a typewritten text. The language itself and the form of the message do not change, and the symbols used are closely related.
In contrast, the conversion of the information in RNA into protein represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols. Moreover, since there are only four different nucleotides in mRNA and twenty different types of amino acids in a protein, this translation cannot be accounted for by a direct one-to-one correspondence between a nucleotide in RNA and an amino acid in protein. The nucleotide sequence of a gene, through the medium of mRNA, is translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein by rules that are known as the genetic code. This code was deciphered in the early 1960s.
The sequence of nucleotides in the mRNA molecule is read consecutively in groups of three. RNA is a linear polymer of four different nucleotides, so there are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides: the triplets AAA, AUA, AUG, and so on. However, only 20 different amino acids are commonly found in proteins. Either some nucleotide triplets are never used, or the code is redundant and some amino acids are specified by more than one triplet. The second possibility is, in fact, the correct one, as shown by the completely deciphered genetic code in Figure 6-50. Each group of three consecutive nucleotides in RNA is called a codon, and each codon specifies either one amino acid or a stop to the translation process.

Well....I am truly gratified to see that my posts have forced you to attempt to lean the basics of genetics!
See....it's never too late to learn.
Bravo!


First, note that my posts are linked and documented, and sourced.

Secondly, a carful appraisal of the material that you have provided will indicate that none of it refutes anything I've said.

Yeah, your "source," just like you, was too stupid to know the difference between messenger RNA and DNA. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know when your bullshit has been destroyed!!! In fact, you are too stupid to even use the quote function correctly.

And I won't even stoop to your level and mock your education for misspelling "car[e]ful" like you do when others misspell a word.

 

[Hollie]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

That is not at all what Origin of Species proposed.

You haven't the slightest clue as the science you're hoping to vilify.



You're actually just another cut and paster / Harun Yahya groupie who doesn't understand the first thing about science.




Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about being clueless when you have been shown to be clueless?

"That is not at all what Origin of Species proposed."


You ended any claim to knowledge right there.

Not at all.



It was a demonstration that your cutting and pasting from hack websites leaves you as nothing more than an accomplice to lies and fraud.




How does it feel to be a laughable joke?

 

[edthecynic]

Because there aren't any.

I never lie.

You do.

And....if you hadn't failed out of school you'd recognize the validity of the science education that I provide.

That's a lie!

Well.....simple enough to adjudicate.....

If I lie, why have you run from post #32?

I handed you your lying ass in post 43, correcting your botched effort to edit my post about your lie that DNA nucleotides are read in groups of three.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?







10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?

Again your complete stupidity is showing!

They are talking about comparing the sequence of the base PAIRS.
Nucleotides are read in groups of 3 by messenger RNA, not DNA. The basic structure of the DNA molecule does not change, what changes is how the base PAIRS are ordered. That order is what contains the info for the cell and it is the order of the base PAIRS that can mutate, not the base PAIRS themselves or the basic structure of the DNA molecule itself.

Get it yet?

From RNA to Protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

An mRNA Sequence Is Decoded in Sets of Three Nucleotides

Once an mRNA has been produced, by transcription and processing the information present in its nucleotide sequence is used to synthesize a protein. Transcription is simple to understand as a means of information transfer: since DNA and RNA are chemically and structurally similar, the DNA can act as a direct template for the synthesis of RNA by complementary base-pairing. As the term transcription signifies, it is as if a message written out by hand is being converted, say, into a typewritten text. The language itself and the form of the message do not change, and the symbols used are closely related.
In contrast, the conversion of the information in RNA into protein represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols. Moreover, since there are only four different nucleotides in mRNA and twenty different types of amino acids in a protein, this translation cannot be accounted for by a direct one-to-one correspondence between a nucleotide in RNA and an amino acid in protein. The nucleotide sequence of a gene, through the medium of mRNA, is translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein by rules that are known as the genetic code. This code was deciphered in the early 1960s.
The sequence of nucleotides in the mRNA molecule is read consecutively in groups of three. RNA is a linear polymer of four different nucleotides, so there are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides: the triplets AAA, AUA, AUG, and so on. However, only 20 different amino acids are commonly found in proteins. Either some nucleotide triplets are never used, or the code is redundant and some amino acids are specified by more than one triplet. The second possibility is, in fact, the correct one, as shown by the completely deciphered genetic code in Figure 6-50. Each group of three consecutive nucleotides in RNA is called a codon, and each codon specifies either one amino acid or a stop to the translation process.

Well....I am truly gratified to see that my posts have forced you to attempt to lean the basics of genetics!
See....it's never too late to learn.
Bravo!


First, note that my posts are linked and documented, and sourced.

Secondly, a carful appraisal of the material that you have provided will indicate that none of it refutes anything I've said.

Yeah, your "source," just like you, was too stupid to know the difference between messenger RNA and DNA. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know when your bullshit has been destroyed!!! In fact, you are too stupid to even use the quote function correctly.

And I won't even stoop to your level and mock your education for misspelling "car[e]ful" like you do when others misspell a word.

You are in error.

So....there was now error in anything I posted.....


Darwinism is the error.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's a lie!

Well.....simple enough to adjudicate.....

If I lie, why have you run from post #32?

I handed you your lying ass in post 43, correcting your botched effort to edit my post about your lie that DNA nucleotides are read in groups of three.

DNA is copied by RNA...and the copy is read by ribosomes.


You have failed to confront any of the points made.


These:


a. Attempts at providing DNA support is due to the failure of fossil proof.

b. DNA is an immense molecule and it's specific and exact sequence is essential.

c. In order for Darwin's idea that random changes in the order of nucleotides produces viable organisms, well....experiments have shown that this is almost never true.

This is because organisms that survive are suited for their environment...and any alteration makes them less suited.


d. Now...is it possible for random changes in the DNA to have accomplished the diversity of life we see today?
According to mathematicians.....no. Impossible




You must be admitting that I am correct.....and, therefore, Darwin was wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

Again your complete stupidity is showing!

They are talking about comparing the sequence of the base PAIRS.
Nucleotides are read in groups of 3 by messenger RNA, not DNA. The basic structure of the DNA molecule does not change, what changes is how the base PAIRS are ordered. That order is what contains the info for the cell and it is the order of the base PAIRS that can mutate, not the base PAIRS themselves or the basic structure of the DNA molecule itself.

Get it yet?

From RNA to Protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

An mRNA Sequence Is Decoded in Sets of Three Nucleotides

Once an mRNA has been produced, by transcription and processing the information present in its nucleotide sequence is used to synthesize a protein. Transcription is simple to understand as a means of information transfer: since DNA and RNA are chemically and structurally similar, the DNA can act as a direct template for the synthesis of RNA by complementary base-pairing. As the term transcription signifies, it is as if a message written out by hand is being converted, say, into a typewritten text. The language itself and the form of the message do not change, and the symbols used are closely related.
In contrast, the conversion of the information in RNA into protein represents a translation of the information into another language that uses quite different symbols. Moreover, since there are only four different nucleotides in mRNA and twenty different types of amino acids in a protein, this translation cannot be accounted for by a direct one-to-one correspondence between a nucleotide in RNA and an amino acid in protein. The nucleotide sequence of a gene, through the medium of mRNA, is translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein by rules that are known as the genetic code. This code was deciphered in the early 1960s.
The sequence of nucleotides in the mRNA molecule is read consecutively in groups of three. RNA is a linear polymer of four different nucleotides, so there are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible combinations of three nucleotides: the triplets AAA, AUA, AUG, and so on. However, only 20 different amino acids are commonly found in proteins. Either some nucleotide triplets are never used, or the code is redundant and some amino acids are specified by more than one triplet. The second possibility is, in fact, the correct one, as shown by the completely deciphered genetic code in Figure 6-50. Each group of three consecutive nucleotides in RNA is called a codon, and each codon specifies either one amino acid or a stop to the translation process.

Well....I am truly gratified to see that my posts have forced you to attempt to lean the basics of genetics!
See....it's never too late to learn.
Bravo!


First, note that my posts are linked and documented, and sourced.

Secondly, a carful appraisal of the material that you have provided will indicate that none of it refutes anything I've said.

Yeah, your "source," just like you, was too stupid to know the difference between messenger RNA and DNA. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know when your bullshit has been destroyed!!! In fact, you are too stupid to even use the quote function correctly.

And I won't even stoop to your level and mock your education for misspelling "car[e]ful" like you do when others misspell a word.

You are in error.

So....there was now error in anything I posted.....


Darwinism is the error.

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, your "source," just like you, was too stupid to know the difference between messenger RNA and DNA. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know when your bullshit has been destroyed!!! In fact, you are too stupid to even use the quote function correctly.

And I won't even stoop to your level and mock your education for misspelling "car[e]ful" like you do when others misspell a word.

You are in error.

So....there was now error in anything I posted.....


Darwinism is the error.

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

One can always tell when you know you've lost the argument by how enraged and vulgar you become.


It is the same message, albeit in mirror image, that the RNA brings from the DNA.

The same.....that is the point of transcription.

"Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme RNA polymerase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

 

[Hollie]

Love it when liberal go all purple when someone dares tell the truth that Darwin was full of shit.

Love it when good religious folks will lie to further their agenda.

You do understand the irony of stealing lies and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya, a Moslem, who steals ruthlessly from Christian fundamentalists.

Love it that you religious folk have no issue with fraud.

Why didn't you give any examples of errors in the posts?

I did.






Why do you feel a need to lie and perpetuate your fraud when I showed, again, that you are a dishonest hack?

 

[Hollie]

You are in error.

So....there was now error in anything I posted.....


Darwinism is the error.

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

One can always tell when you know you've lost the argument by how enraged and vulgar you become.


It is the same message, albeit in mirror image, that the RNA brings from the DNA.

The same.....that is the point of transcription.

"Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme RNA polymerase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

Well actually, One can always tell your edited, parsed and phony cut and paste "quotes" from Harun Yahya is an acknowledgement that you are clueless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Review
======

Title: Ask the Beasts
Author: Elizabeth A. Johnson
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Genre: Philosophy of Science
Year Published: 2014
Number of Pages: 352
Binding: Hardback
ISBN10: n/a
ISBN13: 9781472903730
Price: $32.95

Reviewed by Blair Tabor for the Association for Mormon Letters (this an LDS approach)

Elizabeth Johnson sets out an ambitious project of describing Darwin’s theory of evolution and reconciling it with Christian theology. In addition, after attempting to fit “Origin of Species" into Christian dogma, she then tries to warn us humans about the necessity of making different choices about our presence on the planet. She presents many articulate insights about the theory and a host of eclectic supporting thoughts.

Her first chapter describes science and theology as partners in dialogue. Each describes creation from a different, yet equally valid perspectives. Each is a lens created by humans to perceive and interpret the universe.

This is followed by a wonderful personal picture of Darwin. The historical perspective on his gift for observing nature shows how revolutionary and brilliant he was.

The elegant presentation of the logic of Darwin’s book was a joy to read. The reader is introduced to Darwin’s reasoning and his gift for drawing readers into his viewpoint. Darwin even presents possible objections to his theory and resolves these objections by further illumination of his ideas. This chapter, “Endless Forms Most Beautiful,” is worth the effort of reading this book.

In the chapter “Evolution of the Theory,” we delve into the misuses of the theory historically and in the present. There follows a delineation of how advances in scientific understanding primarily support Darwin’s ideas.

One of my favorite ideas is the immanence of God in creation. In my opinion, Ms. Johnson’s rational attempt to articulate mystical images is not very satisfying. She attempts to show “Creator Spirit’s presence pervading creation” (page 153). Her painstaking presentation about first and second cause would have been more convincing with more poetic, mystical support. She posits that God sets the creation process in motion AND is present (as free will) in how species react to and take advantage of variations and mutations to evolve. The pattern of maximizing opportunities is God-given.

“Suffering” of individuals within species is paralleled with the suffering of Jesus. This chapter and the next attempt to reconcile the previous argument that God already being present in creation with the Christian doctrine of the need for Christic redemption. I pastor Unity San Diego, a metaphysically-oriented church, and found this chapter inconsistent with my personal beliefs.

The final two chapters show the coming of humans and their impact on other species. We read a convincing call for changing individual and collective behavior.

I can see the potential for a wide audience for this book. The introduction to, and overview of, Darwin’s insights are powerful; the vision for why Christians should care about our impact on the environment is moving.

I respect the author’s inclusion of wide-ranging diverse sources for her discussion. I plan to re-read the sections of the book that describe Darwin’s evolution of his theory and his understanding of an ongoing evolutionary unfoldment. I am also intrigued to learn more about the writings of some of the Christians mystics that she quotes in various parts of her
book.

With “Ask the Beasts” Elizabeth Johnson gives us a gift of the insights, scope of vision and impact of Darwin’s theory on the way we humans view the history of life on our planet and our responsibility to care for our home.

 

[edthecynic]

You are in error.

So....there was now error in anything I posted.....


Darwinism is the error.

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

One can always tell when you know you've lost the argument by how enraged and vulgar you become.


It is the same message, albeit in mirror image, that the RNA brings from the DNA.

The same.....that is the point of transcription.

"Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme RNA polymerase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

From your own link:
During transcription, a DNA sequence is read by an RNA polymerase, which produces a complementary, antiparallel RNA strand called a primary transcript.

 

[edthecynic]

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!

Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Let me try this again.

It is the messenger RNA that reads the condon, which is one half of the matched base PAIR. Mutations do not alter the individual matched PAIRS with unmatched PAIRS, but just the ORDER of the matched base PAIRS.

Your sentence example is impossible because if you change one half of the PAIR read by the mRNA its valence electrons will no longer match its mate on the DNA strand and therefore will not form a matched base PAIR. Your misspelled triplets will be rejected by the DNA strand. Only the triplet that matches the corresponding bases of the DNA molecule will be accepted.

IOU, A always mates with T and C always mates with G, and if you try to mate A with G or C it will be rejected by the DNA molecule.

Get it now????

 

[PoliticalChic]

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

One can always tell when you know you've lost the argument by how enraged and vulgar you become.


It is the same message, albeit in mirror image, that the RNA brings from the DNA.

The same.....that is the point of transcription.

"Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme RNA polymerase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

From your own link:
During transcription, a DNA sequence is read by an RNA polymerase, which produces a complementary, antiparallel RNA strand called a primary transcript.

Don't you think it time you admit that this subject is well over your head?


DNA is the same message that RNA takes out to the ribosomes.





More significantly, you've run away from this the point of the thread:

a. Attempts at providing DNA support is due to the failure of fossil proof.

b. DNA is an immense molecule and it's specific and exact sequence is essential.

c. In order for Darwin's idea that random changes in the order of nucleotides produces viable organisms, well....experiments have shown that this is almost never true.

This is because organisms that survive are suited for their environment...and any alteration makes them less suited.


d. Now...is it possible for random changes in the DNA to have accomplished the diversity of life we see today?
According to mathematicians.....no. Impossible


These are the death blows to Darwin's theory.....

....and to the idea that you know what you are talking about.





Seems clear that you would be out of your depth in a parking-lot puddle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."

Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?

So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!

Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Let me try this again.

It is the messenger RNA that reads the condon, which is one half of the matched base PAIR. Mutations do not alter the individual matched PAIRS with unmatched PAIRS, but just the ORDER of the matched base PAIRS.

Your sentence example is impossible because if you change one half of the PAIR read by the mRNA its valence electrons will no longer match its mate on the DNA strand and therefore will not form a matched base PAIR. Your misspelled triplets will be rejected by the DNA strand. Only the triplet that matches the corresponding bases of the DNA molecule will be accepted.

Get it now????

".... if you change one half of the PAIR read by the mRNA its valence electrons will no longer match its mate on the DNA strand and therefore will not form a matched base PAIR. ..."



I really, really wish that there was someone on the other side who knew what they were talking about.


Let me prove once and for all that that description doesn't cover a moron like you.....





Watch: "...no longer match its mate...."

There is no mate during replication of the DNA.

The helix opens up, and each strand is single at that time.





Now, in considering why you persist in what is clearly a losing battle for you, one can only come to the conclusion that you have some sort of unfulfilled desire to score points against one who is so very far above you......moi.



Don't get your hopes up.


Only one of us knows what he/she is talking about.....and it isn't you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Review
======

Title: Ask the Beasts
Author: Elizabeth A. Johnson
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Genre: Philosophy of Science
Year Published: 2014
Number of Pages: 352
Binding: Hardback
ISBN10: n/a
ISBN13: 9781472903730
Price: $32.95

Reviewed by Blair Tabor for the Association for Mormon Letters (this an LDS approach)

Elizabeth Johnson sets out an ambitious project of describing Darwin’s theory of evolution and reconciling it with Christian theology. In addition, after attempting to fit “Origin of Species" into Christian dogma, she then tries to warn us humans about the necessity of making different choices about our presence on the planet. She presents many articulate insights about the theory and a host of eclectic supporting thoughts.

Her first chapter describes science and theology as partners in dialogue. Each describes creation from a different, yet equally valid perspectives. Each is a lens created by humans to perceive and interpret the universe.

This is followed by a wonderful personal picture of Darwin. The historical perspective on his gift for observing nature shows how revolutionary and brilliant he was.

The elegant presentation of the logic of Darwin’s book was a joy to read. The reader is introduced to Darwin’s reasoning and his gift for drawing readers into his viewpoint. Darwin even presents possible objections to his theory and resolves these objections by further illumination of his ideas. This chapter, “Endless Forms Most Beautiful,” is worth the effort of reading this book.

In the chapter “Evolution of the Theory,” we delve into the misuses of the theory historically and in the present. There follows a delineation of how advances in scientific understanding primarily support Darwin’s ideas.

One of my favorite ideas is the immanence of God in creation. In my opinion, Ms. Johnson’s rational attempt to articulate mystical images is not very satisfying. She attempts to show “Creator Spirit’s presence pervading creation” (page 153). Her painstaking presentation about first and second cause would have been more convincing with more poetic, mystical support. She posits that God sets the creation process in motion AND is present (as free will) in how species react to and take advantage of variations and mutations to evolve. The pattern of maximizing opportunities is God-given.

“Suffering” of individuals within species is paralleled with the suffering of Jesus. This chapter and the next attempt to reconcile the previous argument that God already being present in creation with the Christian doctrine of the need for Christic redemption. I pastor Unity San Diego, a metaphysically-oriented church, and found this chapter inconsistent with my personal beliefs.

The final two chapters show the coming of humans and their impact on other species. We read a convincing call for changing individual and collective behavior.

I can see the potential for a wide audience for this book. The introduction to, and overview of, Darwin’s insights are powerful; the vision for why Christians should care about our impact on the environment is moving.

I respect the author’s inclusion of wide-ranging diverse sources for her discussion. I plan to re-read the sections of the book that describe Darwin’s evolution of his theory and his understanding of an ongoing evolutionary unfoldment. I am also intrigued to learn more about the writings of some of the Christians mystics that she quotes in various parts of her
book.

With “Ask the Beasts” Elizabeth Johnson gives us a gift of the insights, scope of vision and impact of Darwin’s theory on the way we humans view the history of life on our planet and our responsibility to care for our home.

Now....isn't that post just wonderful.


Of course, it doesn't deal with a single thing in this thread.



Just Jakal being Jakal....trying to appear relevant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No I'm not! It is messenger RNA that reads nucleotides in groups of 3, not DNA, and you are full of shit.

One can always tell when you know you've lost the argument by how enraged and vulgar you become.


It is the same message, albeit in mirror image, that the RNA brings from the DNA.

The same.....that is the point of transcription.

"Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA by the enzyme RNA polymerase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

Well actually, One can always tell your edited, parsed and phony cut and paste "quotes" from Harun Yahya is an acknowledgement that you are clueless.

Moron.

 

[edthecynic]

Well.....simple enough to adjudicate.....

If I lie, why have you run from post #32?

I handed you your lying ass in post 43, correcting your botched effort to edit my post about your lie that DNA nucleotides are read in groups of three.

DNA is copied by RNA...and the copy is read by ribosomes.

No, mRNA copies one half of the DNA PAIRED bases!!!!

Damn you are thick!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I handed you your lying ass in post 43, correcting your botched effort to edit my post about your lie that DNA nucleotides are read in groups of three.

DNA is copied by RNA...and the copy is read by ribosomes.

No, mRNA copies one half of the DNA PAIRED bases!!!!

Damn you are thick!!!

OK....you've proven that you are ineducable.....


And....you've ignored, what....three times now, these four:

a. Attempts at providing DNA support is due to the failure of fossil proof.

b. DNA is an immense molecule and it's specific and exact sequence is essential.

c. In order for Darwin's idea that random changes in the order of nucleotides produces viable organisms, well....experiments have shown that this is almost never true.

This is because organisms that survive are suited for their environment...and any alteration makes them less suited.


d. Now...is it possible for random changes in the DNA to have accomplished the diversity of life we see today?
According to mathematicians.....no. Impossible



I understand you believe....is almost said 'think'....that you have some DNA vs.RNA contest....but you are wrong....no shock.


"codon (ˈkəʊdɒn)
n
1. (Genetics) genetics biochem a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis."
codon - definition of codon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



So....you've been eviscerated at every step.


Now....the real question: why is Darwin accepted by many....including dolts like you....when it is provably incorrect.