The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[Foxfyre]

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

. . . I'm not "implying."

YOU are diverting!!!

You can't deny that there are no designer building blocks in life, only natural building blocks, IMPLYING that the "designer" is NATURE, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Great! Wonderful! Perfect!

And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .

I'm diverting? Well perhaps I misunderstood you, but one can hardly claim that it was unreasonable of me to think you were talking about abiogenesis when you wrote: "All life is made up from naturally formed components."

So we're not moving on to the science?

Great!

Okay, that's it. Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?

As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way. And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being. There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process. He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have. And for me, that is a wonderful thing.

 

[konradv]

Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution. You been adding extra sections?!?!

Funny, the Founders and the Framers, being Lockean political theorists, would obviously not recognize the collectivist, Twentieth-Century doctrine of the leftist Warren Court that the State can create a public education system and then declare it to be a social-contract/constitutional free zone.

What does it matter what the Founders thought? For one thing, they were not all of the same mind, so assigning some sort of "original intent", is a fool's errand. Secondly, they made it a short document, open to interpretation because, they, unlike you, recognized that their ideas about how the country should be run wouldn't nessarily hold up over the years. They recognized that it was the people that lived in a time that should decide what the Constitution meant based on their current situation.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

 

[geauxtohell]

No it's not. All life is made up from naturally formed components. You Creationists have never been able to show even one molecule necessary for life made from "designer" components. Until you Creationists can show a molecule that is made up of designer components you have no empirical evidence for your metaphysics.

. . . I'm not "implying."

YOU are diverting!!!

You can't deny that there are no designer building blocks in life, only natural building blocks, IMPLYING that the "designer" is NATURE, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Great! Wonderful! Perfect!

And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .

I'm diverting? Well perhaps I misunderstood you, but one can hardly claim that it was unreasonable of me to think you were talking about abiogenesis when you wrote: "All life is made up from naturally formed components."

So we're not moving on to the science?

Great!

Okay, that's it. Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?

As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way. And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being. There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process. He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have. And for me, that is a wonderful thing.

It's beyond the scope of science to disprove God or Intelligent Design. That has never been the issue. The issue has also never been that "Science has all the answers". We certainly know that is not true.

The issue is: What can reasonably be called a scientific thoery and adequately approached and studied in a scientific manner? On that regard, Intelligent Design is sorely lacking. So sayath not just the overwhelming majority of scientists, but now the federal courts.

 

[geauxtohell]

Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution. You been adding extra sections?!?!

Funny, the Founders and the Framers, being Lockean political theorists, would obviously not recognize the collectivist, Twentieth-Century doctrine of the leftist Warren Court that the State can create a public education system and then declare it to be a social-contract/constitutional free zone.

They weren't true Lockeans. "Life, liberty, and property" were converted to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Couldn't put language in our founding documents that would suggest that women, slaves, and the common man should be able to own property now could we?

 

[geauxtohell]

Great! Wonderful! Perfect!

And for a moment there I thought we were finally moving on to the science, beginning with abiogenesis, given that you're all atheists apparently. . . .

We've been trying to get you to discuss the science of the matter since the onset. You are the one that keeps wanting to digress into philosophical discussions over the metaphysical. No one here is interested in discussing that (as silly as we think your assertions are).

Furthermore: abiogenesis =/= evolution. It's a completely separate and certainly more controversial field.

Just in case you were confused.

Okay, that's it. Are there any honest evolutionists on this board who care to discuss the actual science from first principles in good faith?

Again, you'd do better to show how I.D. meets the standards of the scientific method.

In case you need a refresher:

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this (from the link) refreshing:

Certainty and myth

A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science.[29] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.

In contrast to the always-provisional status of scientific theory, a myth can be enjoyed irrespective of its truth.[30] Imre Lakatos has noted that once a narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe (this is called the narrative fallacy).[31][32] That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified. -- The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. --[citation needed]

For I.D. to be valid, you would first have to be able to show that the existence of your supernatural force du joir can be nullified. As a supernatural force is beyond the natural realms and explanations, that is impossible. Therefore, you are screwed.

But have fun trying to convince us otherwise. Can you do it without evoking the phrase "metaphysical"? I am beginning to wonder if you get royalties every time that term is used.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Funny, but I can't find "worldview" in the Constitution. You been adding extra sections?!?!

Funny, the Founders and the Framers, being Lockean political theorists, would obviously not recognize the collectivist, Twentieth-Century doctrine of the leftist Warren Court that the State can create a public education system and then declare it to be a social-contract/constitutional free zone.

What does it matter what the Founders thought? For one thing, they were not all of the same mind, so assigning some sort of "original intent", is a fool's errand. Secondly, they made it a short document, open to interpretation because, they, unlike you, recognized that their ideas about how the country should be run wouldn't nessarily hold up over the years. They recognized that it was the people that lived in a time that should decide what the Constitution meant based on their current situation.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

There are first principles (or universal imperatives) to which they almost unanimously held. And these first principles, including inalienable rights, do not stand in the way of progress; rather, they are the very essence of its perpetuity.

Jefferson is talking about contingencies; he is not talking about first principles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way. And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being. There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process. He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have. And for me, that is a wonderful thing.

Yes. It's a matter of keeping the mind open to a myriad of possibilities.

On the flip side, stepping outside of science for a moment, some fundamentalist have suggested that I'm a bit of a heretic because I do not hold to the notion that Genesis is a scientific treatise, which is what their complaint amounts to, really, bless their hearts. I tell them it's a theological treatise no less inspired and that God revealed Himself to the ancients in terms that they could understand. In other words, He wasn't giving them a science lesson; He left them to their own devices on that score. That is, God leaves scientific discovery to us.

Besides, I tell them Genesis chronicles an order of speciation generally consistent with what we see and we know for a fact today that the Bible never did hold to a six- to ten-thousand-year-old Earth coupled with persons who lived anywhere from a couple hundred to several hundred years, something biblical scholars have suspected for nearly two centuries, believing that the ancients of biblical tradition actually recorded their genealogies in terms of lineages. In other words, the ancients weren't talking about one person, but many in the name of the patriarch out of whose loins the respective lineage came. Also, there are huge gaps in the genealogy. We know these things for sure today from archeological discoveries. On top of that, there's no way to know what six days of creation means in terms of actual time. The Bible simply doesn't tell us or attempt to tell us how old the universe or the world are.

But tell that to some fundamentalists and they just shake their heads.

Oh, well. LOL!

 

[geauxtohell]

So..................

Are we going to discuss the science behind this thing or not?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So tell us, if we were "intelligently designed", of 64 possible mRNA codons for 20 amino acids, why do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? It seems to me that that shows randomness, NOT design. Design could be implied, if each AA had three codons with two each reserved for stop and start, but that's not what we see.

You've mostly got this all wrong, konradv.

There are 64 different messenger RNA (mRNA) codons coding for 20 amino acids, actually, 61 coding for amino acids and three stops. That merely means that the 20 amino acids are variously coded for by an overlapping system of "synonyms", i.e., 1 to 6 variously "spelled" codons (or "words") that code for the same amino acid(s). This is not the stuff of randomness; it's the stuff of efficiency and versatility. This dynamic allows a small handful of "letters" to be combined into a relatively small number of the same "words" that can be variously combined to code for the production (or translation) of thousands of different proteins of varying mass and complexity . . . out of just 20 amino acids.

The blueprints for the many different proteins are encoded in DNA. mRNA strands are copies of these coded blueprints, which are read by ribosomes. Ribosomes translate the coded blueprints, word-by-word, into the corresponding amino acids and link them into peptide chains with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA).

Amino acids don't have codons of any kind. Strands of mRNA do. Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons. Codons are comprised of nucleic material. Each codon (or "word") consists of three nucleotides (or "letters") coding for one amino acid. There are two known universal start codons (or alternatives) and three known universal stop codons that tell the ribosome how to begin the respective peptide chain and where to cut it loose. Ribosomes don't start and stop with single amino acids; they're the monomers of the polymers.

What you appear to be saying here is that there should only be one mRNA codon for each of the 20 amino acids, with an additional 20 starts and 20 stops if the designer were intelligent. So 60 mRNA codons in all for each of the 20 amino acids, even though RNA is comprised of 4 different types of nucleotides yielding 64 different combinations? That would evince a designer?

I submit to you that the designer of such a clunky and vastly less dynamic system, indeed, a system that wouldn’t produce proteins at all, would have to be retarded.

Whatever you're saying here doesn't make any sense however it's rendered. You don't really understand the nature of the system that is, and you don't understand the utter uselessness of the system you would attribute to an intelligent designer.


This might help you understand things better:

Roughly, proteins are infrastructural, catalytic, metabolic and storage mechanisms. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) store, transmit and decode genetic information; they also perform structural, regulatory, cellular signaling, metabolic and co-catalytic tasks.

Amino acids are composed of an amine group (a nitrogen atom with a lone pair, i.e., a pair of valence electrons), a carboxylic acid group (a carbonyl and a hydroxyl), and a side chain. Their elemental constituents are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.

A nucleic acid forms when two or more nucleotides combine by way of the covalent bond between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate group of the next; hence, nucleic acids are simply macromolecules (polymers) composed of at least two or more nucleotides (monomers).

A nucleotide is composed of a nucleoside, a five-carbon molecule of a ribose sugar and at least one of three phosphate groups. A nucleoside is composed of a nucleobase bound to a five-carbon molecule of ribose sugar. The five nucleosides of living organisms are adenosine, guanosine, uridine, cytidine and thymidine. The five corresponding nucleobases are adenine, guanine, uracil, cytosine and thymine. Hence, nucleotides form when a nucleobase is combined with a ribose sugar and a phosphate group. The sugar of ribonucleotides is ribose; the sugar of deoxyribonucleotides is deoxyribose.

The "skeletal" structure of adenine and guanine is purine (a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring), thus, the purine bases. The "skeletal" structure of cytosine, thymine and uracil is pyrimidine (a heterocyclic ring with two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3), thus, the pyrimidine bases. Nucleotides can contain either a purine or a pyrimidine base. In both DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) the purine bases, of course, are adenine and guanine; however, the pyrimidine bases in DNA are cytosine and thymine, while the pyrimidines in RNA are cytosine and uracil. Hence, RNA uses uracil in place of thymine.

Adenine always pairs with thymine (or uracil in RNA) by way of two hydrogen bonds, and guanine always pairs with cytosine by way of three hydrogen bonds.

. . . There are a total of 22 standard, proteinogenic amino acids. Twenty of them constitute the fundamental building blocks of life, and these are fed into specialized cellular machines (ribosomes) that read (or decipher) encoded bites of information divulged by messenger RNA (mRNA) and then "translate" that information into proteins. The encodements are derived from an organism's genes, which are composed of variously numbered and arranged codons, with each codon consisting of three adjacent nucleotides. In other words, an mRNA molecule is a copy of a gene's sequentially arranged codons and is used by a ribosome as a template for the correct sequence of amino acids in a particular protein. Hence, ribosomes translate codons, one after the other, and, with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA), appropriate the corresponding amino acids, bind them together in the specified order and produce peptide chains (proteins).

An organism's genes are contained in its DNA (or in its RNA for many types of viruses, which, technically, are not organisms, at least not in any sense with respect to their dormant state). An organism's genome is the entirety of its hereditary information, consisting of both the genetic and the structural sequences of its combined DNA. The genome is the master blueprint of an organism's essential design and dynamics.

The assembly of 20 of the 22 standard amino acids are encoded for by the universal genetic code, i.e., the code that is found in all living organisms. Hence, these 20 are used by all living organisms for the creation and maintenance of their essential design and dynamics. The other two standard amino acids—selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—are also assembled proteinogenically, i.e., inside ribosomes via alterations of certain canonical amino acids during the initial stage of protein synthesis. These alterations, encoded by UGA and UAG codons, are incorporated (or inserted) by dissimilar mechanisms involving discrete or highly specialized mRNA and tRNA molecules. In other words, these co-transitional mechanisms and, therefore, these amino acids are not found in all living organisms. Selenocysteine is found in all eukaryotic organisms and in some prokaryotic organisms. Pyrrolysine is found in prokaryotic organisms only (i.e., in the enzymes of some methanogenic archaea and bacteria). Only one organism—an archaea species—is known to have both.

Some routinely confound the distinction between standard and nonstandard amino acids. The distinction between them is based on the phases of protein synthesis, not on the processes/mechanisms associated with the synthesis of amino acids. Accordingly, the standard amino acids are the initial components of the translational phase of protein development, and the transitional phase occurs inside an organism's ribosomes. The nonstandard amino acids are the specialized components of the modification phase of protein development, and the post-transitional, modification phase involves certain metabolic processes that occur outside the organism's ribosomes. Hence, nonstandard amino acids are those that have been chemically modified after they have been incorporated into proteins, as well as those that are found in organisms, but not found in proteins. In addition to these, there exist an unknown number of abiotic amino acids.

The twenty canonical amino acids are alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glutamine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine and valine. These are divided into the essentials and nonessentials: (1) the essentials are those that an organism cannot synthesize inside its own body for itself, so they must be ingested, acquired from an organism's diet; (2) the rest are said to be nonessential because they are already produced by the organism's body. For humans, the essentials are those contained in the proteins that build muscle and organs. Human adults can synthesis 10 of the 20 canonicals via replication or intermediate metabolic processes. The rest are readily acquired from animal flesh. —Michael David Rawlings, Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism​

 

[Foxfyre]

As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way. And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being. There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process. He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have. And for me, that is a wonderful thing.

Yes. It's a matter of keeping the mind open to a myriad of possibilities.

On the flip side, stepping outside of science for a moment, some fundamentalist have suggested that I'm a bit of a heretic because I do not hold to the notion that Genesis is a scientific treatise, which is what their complaint amounts to, really, bless their hearts. I tell them it's a theological treatise no less inspired and that God revealed Himself to the ancients in terms that they could understand. In other words, He wasn't giving them a science lesson; He left them to their own devices on that score. That is, God leaves scientific discovery to us.

Besides, I tell them Genesis chronicles an order of speciation generally consistent with what we see and we know for a fact today that the Bible never did hold to a six- to ten-thousand-year-old Earth coupled with persons who lived anywhere from a couple hundred to several hundred years, something biblical scholars have suspected for nearly two centuries, believing that the ancients of biblical tradition actually recorded their genealogies in terms of lineages. In other words, the ancients weren't talking about one person, but many in the name of the patriarch out of whose loins the respective lineage came. Also, there are huge gaps in the genealogy. We know these things for sure today from archeological discoveries. On top of that, there's no way to know what six days of creation means in terms of actual time. The Bible simply doesn't tell us or attempt to tell us how old the universe or the world are.

But tell that to some fundamentalists and they just shake their heads.

Oh, well. LOL!

Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.

Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature. I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.

And like you, I come under criticism and sometimes attack from the fundamentalists who don't accept what I consider to be much more educated concepts of Bible content. But even those aren't as irrational and sometimes viscious as the science religionists who hate the Bible.

I can easily find no quarrel between most of the Bible and modern science. And I can also consider an intelligent design outside of Bible content.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.

Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature. I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.

And like you, I come under criticism and sometimes attack from the fundamentalists who don't accept what I consider to be much more educated concepts of Bible content. But even those aren't as irrational and sometimes viscious as the science religionists who hate the Bible.

I can easily find no quarrel between most of the Bible and modern science. And I can also consider an intelligent design outside of Bible content.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.

Your mind is very sharp and open. You know plenty about the science, all you need to know to follow the more complex material. That’s been abundantly clear to me. I don't measure people by their store of knowledge. I'd be condemning myself. Ultimately, what do any of us know about reality. What I know is a fart in the wind.

I love my fundamentalist brothers and sisters with every last drop of my blood. I don't speak of them derisively. I don't take it personally, and I don't argue with them, beyond stating my position and the whys of it. I understand the nature of their ultimate devotion, whether their understanding of the science be sound or not.

There is no one more viciously derisive than the atheist.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed. --Foxfyre​

Exactly! So much time is wasted on that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.

Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature. I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.

And like you, I come under criticism and sometimes attack from the fundamentalists who don't accept what I consider to be much more educated concepts of Bible content. But even those aren't as irrational and sometimes viscious as the science religionists who hate the Bible.

I can easily find no quarrel between most of the Bible and modern science. And I can also consider an intelligent design outside of Bible content.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.

Your mind is very sharp and open. You know plenty about the science, all you need to know to follow the more complex material. That’s been abundantly clear to me. I don't measure people by their store of knowledge. I'd be condemning myself. Ultimately, what do any of us know about reality. What I know is a fart in the wind.

I love my fundamentalist brothers and sisters with every last drop of my blood. I don't speak of them derisively. I don't take it personally, and I don't argue with them, beyond stating my position and the whys of it. I understand the nature of their ultimate devotion, whether their understanding of the science be sound or not.

There is no one more viciously derisive than the atheist.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed. --Foxfyre​

Exactly! So much time is wasted on that.

I am with you on loving my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I can't see how it harms me in the least for them to believe differently than I do.

And when I teach a class with newbies who have never attended one of my classes, I give them fair warning. Some will be hearing concepts, theories, opinions, and philosophy that will bother them and they won't want to hear. I do not require that anybody accept or embrace anything. (Which also isn't a bad thing for a science teacher to tell kids he knows to be from fundamentalist congregations or communities.) You need to learn the material. You'll have to know the answers that will be scored correct on the test. You don't have to agree with them.

I do think a skilled teacher will at least plant seeds of possibility in the minds of those willing to learn, but the skilled teacher will always teach concepts and possibilities and rarely in absolutes. A closed mind whether closed re concepts of science or religion will almost always have it wrong with little opportunity to get it right I think.

 

[geauxtohell]

You've mostly got this all wrong, konradv.

There are 64 different messenger RNA (mRNA) codons coding for 20 amino acids, actually, 61 coding for amino acids and three stops. That merely means that the 20 amino acids are variously coded for by an overlapping system of "synonyms", i.e., 1 to 6 variously "spelled" codons (or "words") that code for the same amino acid(s). This is not the stuff of randomness; it's the stuff of efficiency and versatility. This dynamic allows a small handful of "letters" to be combined into a relatively small number of the same "words" that can be variously combined to code for the production (or translation) of thousands of different proteins of varying mass and complexity . . . out of just 20 amino acids.

Efficiency would be a single triplet per amino acid. That is 20 codons with 20 acids. Efficiency and design would further imply that there would be no coding or reading errors either in the translation of mRNA or in the process of splicing mRNA. Therefore, there would be no need for degeneracy in the codon system and pathologies like Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalessemia would not exist.

What makes sense is that there are errors. Lots of them. And the redundancy virtually always is in the wobble position which is more error prone. So the degeneracy of the DNA code allows for a little bit of fudge factor so that a single wrong amino acid (which can cause SCA (valine for glutamic acid)) isn't inserted into a protein.

Amino acids don't have codons of any kind. Strands of mRNA do. Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.

That's not quite right. mRNAs have codons and tRNA have the complimentary anti-codons that match up with those, to include the start codons, and each tRNA has a single specific anti-codon to match up to the mRNA. Attached to that tRNA is the protein that corresponds to the codon, to include start codons which always carry methionine. When the mRNA binds to the small ribosome, the large ribosomal sub-unit binds on top of that complex, and transcription begins, one amino acid/codon at a time.

Whatever you're saying here doesn't make any sense however it's rendered. You don't really understand the nature of the system that is, and you don't understand the utter uselessness of the system you would attribute to an intelligent designer.

Your attempts at lecturing us on Cell Biology aside, you haven't put anything into your thread that any undergrad taking a Cell Biology course doesn't know already. Nor did you really point out any error Konrad had made, you just attempted to sharp shoot him by writing a more complicated explanation. I would submit that your explanation is relatively simple as well. This topic can get infinitely more complicated and we still don't know all the answers.

In that light, you are certainly no expert on this matter. That is, unless you are well researched and published on the matter, in which case I will defer to your expertise.

It still says nothing about the validity of intelligent design.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

First

Efficiency would be a single triplet per amino acid. That is 20 codons with 20 acids.

Though a bit clunky with all those unnecessary starts and stops. The universals would do just fine in either scenario. After reading your post, I'll allow that konrad understands the difference between peptide chains and their monomers after all and did not mean that the starts and stops be incessantly inserted between the latter, a fast track to nowhere. Apparently, this is a common teleological argument among evolutionists, just poorly expressed in this instance by konradv. Your expression of it is legible.

Also, I agree. Efficiency in this instance was a poor choice of words, when all I was really asserting is that the extant system with its overlapping redundancy is more dynamic . . . which brings us to the downside. Errors. I know. So?

Efficiency and design would further imply that there would be no coding or reading errors either in the translation of mRNA or in the process of splicing mRNA. Therefore, there would be no need for degeneracy in the codon system and pathologies like Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalessemia would not exist.

Teleological quandary? I see a more dynamically complex system whereby nothing lives forever. That's arguably a good thing.

What makes sense is that there are errors. Lots of them. And the redundancy virtually always is in the wobble position which is more error prone. So the degeneracy of the DNA code allows for a little bit of fudge factor so that a single wrong amino acid (which can cause SCA (valine for glutamic acid)) isn't inserted into a protein.

Indeed. The upside of the same dynamic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Second


I wrote:

Amino acids don't have codons of any kind. Strands of mRNA do. Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.

You wrote:

That's not quite right. mRNAs have codons and tRNA have the complimentary anti-codons that match up with those, to include the start codons, and each tRNA has a single specific anti-codon to match up to the mRNA. Attached to that tRNA is the protein that corresponds to the codon, to include start codons which always carry methionine. When the mRNA binds to the small ribosome, the large ribosomal sub-unit binds on top of that complex, and transcription begins, one amino acid/codon at a time.

But I don't have problem with this. I agree . . . except with the phrase "not quite right" and calling amino acids codons. Once again, the latter is nonstandard and confusing. What I said was quite right, and what you said is merely another layer of complexity on top of it. I barely touched on tRNA because konradv’s statement focused on mRNA and amino acids. Saying that amino acids do not have codons is not the same thing as saying that they do not correspond to them or are not an aspect of their composition. For this very reason, I repeatedly emphasized the phrase coded for/coding for, a more scientifically accurate expression than that used by konradv.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Third

Your attempts at lecturing us on Cell Biology aside, you haven't put anything into your thread that any undergrad taking a Cell Biology course doesn't know already.

Huh?

I'm not trying to "lecture" anyone. konradv clouded the issue with nonstandard language and a poorly written challenge. It's indicative of a half-ass understanding.

If you knew me better, you would not have thought that. I merely copied and pasted a portion of the footnotes from an article I wrote . . . for purposes of clarity and to save time, ultimately, for the sake of all of those who are not versed in the basics. We're not the only ones reading this thread, you know.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fourth

Nor did you really point out any error Konrad had made, you just attempted to sharp shoot him by writing a more complicated explanation.

Nonsense. I did not merely add a layer of complexity on top of a discernibly compatible statement. With regard to its scientific aspect, his challenge is poorly expressed and confusing. With respect to its philosophical aspect, it is unimaginative, that is to say, dogmatic and presumptuous.

My criticism goes to the very core of his statement, not merely to its incompleteness. It criticizes language that is technically incorrect, albeit, not in an insignificant way, for it confuses the distinction between the components of organic information and the components of organic infrastructure, and the nature of the relationship between them. Further, one-to-one correspondence in this case is not an absolute prerequisite of design, and the sort of randomness that does obtain within the actual system does not suggest the absence of a designer at all. It's not even close in the sense that he means. A certain degree of randomness and overlapping complexity can be a very effective means of producing versatility within the parameters of a designed system.

konradv has been putting this challenge up all over the board, expecting people to decipher it and then declaring victory. Talk about sharp shooting. . . .

 

[AVG-JOE]

This article is a bit dated…

The article isn’t alone.

Uh-huh. Cute. But of course everything in it remains pertinent. Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives. Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him. That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.

Your Avatar tag line says you're a 'Classical Liberal' and your post/thread says you're a creationist who wants his religious view force-fed to the rest of us by government...

Does your left hand have a clue as to what your right hand is playing with?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fifth

I would submit that your explanation is relatively simple as well.

Sure. My explanation is simple, entailing the fundamentals. You're the only one imputing a pretense of profundity allegedly due to a less than reputable motive. I'm not responsible for what you choose to think about me. I can only be me and tell you what I’m actually thinking. The rest is up to you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The article isn’t alone.

Uh-huh. Cute. But of course everything in it remains pertinent. Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives. Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him. That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.

Your Avatar tag line says you're a 'Classical Liberal' and your post/thread says you're a creationist who wants his religious view force-fed to the rest of us by government...

Does your left hand have a clue as to what your right hand is playing with?

Go away troll. You don't know what you're talking about. Come back after you've read the thread, if and when.