Darwin: Molecules and Mythology

[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.

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.

I really wish YOU knew what the hell YOU were talking about, but I'm afraid you are hopeless.

The Helix opens up at the base PAIRS, and then mRNA reconstructs each single strand into a double helix by MATCHING the base in each strand with its corresponding mate forming a new PAIR identical to the original PAIR.

 

[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.

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.

Puting you in context: neither mainstream Christian nor mainstream science

 

[edthecynic]

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.

OH! The irony!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

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

Because pinheads like you think they have proven something other than their own ignorance!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Because pinheads like you think they have proven something other than their own ignorance!!!

So....since I just provided proof that DNA is the basis for protein synthesis....the three base question, proving you wrong....

...and for the third time offered the four points that I made,....

...and for all of that.....

you ignored everything.



Seems clear which of us is the pinhead.




Like your partner in stupidity, when I can destroy your posts so easily and definitively.....

...you've simply shown that I am correct.

 

[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.

Puting you in context: neither mainstream Christian nor mainstream science

You've done nothing but confirm that you didn't understand the thread to which you've attempted to post.


....as usual.

 

[hortysir]

PC is still making strawman arguements. But what can one expect of a scientific illiterate?

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

So the very basis of abiogenisis (life only comes from life) is 150 years old and out of date?

Has science been able to replicate life from something not alive?

 

[edthecynic]

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

Because pinheads like you think they have proven something other than their own ignorance!!!

So....since I just provided proof that DNA is the basis for protein synthesis....the three base question, proving you wrong....

...and for the third time offered the four points that I made,....

...and for all of that.....

you ignored everything.



Seems clear which of us is the pinhead.




Like your partner in stupidity, when I can destroy your posts so easily and definitively.....

...you've simply shown that I am correct.

You only proved your complete ignorance of DNA and that you are too stupid to know just how ignorant you are.

You simply ignore the fact that the bases can only pair as A and T or C and G. Therefore the base pairs can never be "misspelled" as you stupidly claimed. When the helix opens up the A on one strand can only be paired with T and the T on the other strand can only be paired with A thanks to those pesky little valence electrons that you have no understanding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

 

[Hollie]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

Let me tell once more.



You're dense.




You recounted no defects (other than you being a Harun Yahya Groupie)



There is no connection between Darwin and Karl Marx. And yes, you cut and pasted articles from fundie Christian websites before which were laughable.




Drink the Kool-aid, sweetie.

 

[Hollie]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

To summarize this thread:


It's a sad, diseased display of your profound ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

Let me tell once more.



You're dense.




You recounted no defects (other than you being a Harun Yahya Groupie)



There is no connection between Darwin and Karl Marx. And yes, you cut and pasted articles from fundie Christian websites before which were laughable.




Drink the Kool-aid, sweetie.

Hard to fathom why you are so deathly afraid of the truth.


Could it be due to how very stupid you are?


Really....you are never able to counter any of the linked, sourced, documented facts.....


...just keep posting the same lies.....


...stupidity?


Is that the reason?

 

[edthecynic]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

 

[Hollie]

DNA.....would changes in this molecule....unknown to Darwin....support Darwinian evolution?
Well....many would like to believe it would.....either tiny changes over time....or perhaps larger changes in a shorter time.

No to both.


11. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

Not possible based on the number of possible combinations and the time required for same.



12. How about if larger changes in the DNA occurred?

"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




To summarize this thread:

Understanding the structure of DNA, and the changes in molecules necessary for successful evolution, well, mathematically, it cannot be done.

Who is to be more trusted....mathematicians, or Darwin's groupies?

And, if the number of permutations and combinations of DNA necessary in order for Darwin to be correct could be done.....well, latest radiometric calculations on the time that actually passed is too short for it to have happened.


Molecular phylogeny results in more questions than answers.



Let me ask once more: why is Darwinian evolution pushed so strongly, considering the defects in the theory recounted in this thread?


BTW.....today is the birthday of a supporter of Darwin.....Karl Marx.
And, yes.....there is a connection.

Let me tell once more.



You're dense.




You recounted no defects (other than you being a Harun Yahya Groupie)



There is no connection between Darwin and Karl Marx. And yes, you cut and pasted articles from fundie Christian websites before which were laughable.




Drink the Kool-aid, sweetie.

Hard to fathom why you are so deathly afraid of the truth.


Could it be due to how very stupid you are?


Really....you are never able to counter any of the linked, sourced, documented facts.....


...just keep posting the same lies.....


...stupidity?


Is that the reason?

You angry, self-hating fundies are a hoot.



I just find it pitiable that you Harun Yahya groupies are not able to recognize your cutting and pasting of edited, parsed and phony "quotes" as dishonest.



I suppose your indoctrination is so complete that you have lost any sense of integrity.


Is that why you are such a liar?

 

[hortysir]

Refute the lie, specifically, please

 

[Hollie]

Refute the lie, specifically, please

Second page, specifically, you're welcome.

 

[Hollie]

PC is still making strawman arguements. But what can one expect of a scientific illiterate?

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

So the very basis of abiogenisis (life only comes from life) is 150 years old and out of date?

Has science been able to replicate life from something not alive?

It helps if you actually read the article. It is creationists who press their anti-science agenda by referencing 150 year old theories.

Have any of the gods been able to replicate life from something not alive? I'm just holding religionists/creationists to the same standards of evidence that science is held to.

 

[thanatos144]

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 dont you point to where I used religion of any sort ?

 

[hortysir]

Refute the lie, specifically, please

Second page, specifically, you're welcome.

this IS my second page

How many posts per page are you set up for?

 

[srlip]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.