What Darwin didn't know.
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 77

Thread: What Darwin didn't know.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675

    What Darwin didn't know.

    What Darwin didn't know.

    In light of the An “Intelligently Designed” Ruling? Thread I suggest that you study all the advances in DNA Research not necessarily my interpretation of what I read, which is provided below. Do it and draw your own conclusions.

    1859 – "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin

    1953 – James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the DNA structure of our cells.

    1953 – Present: the DNA code has been deciphered.

    DNA molecules are the carriers of the DNA Language, the individual assembly instructions for each and every living cell and organism. It has a distinct similarity to a perfect computer program. A multitude of lines of code, perfectly structured and organized. As was the DNA Language of the bacteria which some believe we evolved from.

    To evolve means to change the perfectly structured and organized genetic information of that bacteria. However, any chance mutation or natural selection as Darwin implies, would alter the DNA Language of the original bacteria and would have killed it. Much as a chance mutation in a computer program would cause it to fail. Natural selection in computer language does not exist.


    Sources:

    Dept of Biochemistry, Otago University
    Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
    Connection refused, try again later.
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675

    What Darwin didn't know.

    What Darwin didn't know.

    In light of the An “Intelligently Designed” Ruling? Thread I suggest that you study all the advances in DNA Research not necessarily my interpretation of what I read, which is provided below. Do it and draw your own conclusions.

    1859 – "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin

    1953 – James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the DNA structure of our cells.

    1953 – Present: the DNA code has been deciphered.

    DNA molecules are the carriers of the DNA Language, the individual assembly instructions for each and every living cell and organism. It has a distinct similarity to a perfect computer program. A multitude of lines of code, perfectly structured and organized. As was the DNA Language of the bacteria which some believe we evolved from.

    To evolve means to change the perfectly structured and organized genetic information of that bacteria. However, any chance mutation or natural selection as Darwin implies, would alter the DNA Language of the original bacteria and would have killed it. Much as a chance mutation in a computer program would cause it to fail. Natural selection in computer language does not exist.


    Sources:

    Dept of Biochemistry, Otago University
    Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
    Connection refused, try again later.
    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    I'm pretty sure both Otago University and the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle would smack you around for quoting them as a "source" for that mindless drivel, Relyt...

    To evolve means to change the perfectly structured and organized genetic information of that bacteria.
    Perfectly structured??? Ever look at a bacteria under a microscope?
    A human being, for example, isn't "perfectly structured". Human beings have a black spot in their eyes, which is an imperfection. Nothing is "perfectly structured" - far from. Bacteria and virus strains mutate all the time, as they adopt to more and more hostile environments. Simple examples include the flu and ebola (oh wait... I'm sure you're going to tell me that God himself "manufactured" ebola in a couple of dozen variations)...

    However, any chance mutation or natural selection as Darwin implies, would alter the DNA Language of the original bacteria and would have killed it. Much as a chance mutation in a computer program would cause it to fail.
    What about genetically altered corn? Altering its DNA didn't kill it, did it?

    Darwin got his ideas when witnessing finches on the Galapagos islands: he saw about a dozen different variations, each a finch yet totally different (the finches on islands with cacti, for example, have longer beaks than the ones that live on islands without cacti...).
    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675
    Originally posted here by Negative
    [B]I'm pretty sure both Otago University and the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle would smack you around for quoting them as a "source" for that mindless drivel, Relyt...
    Once again a knee-jerk reaction from Neg. Rather than talk about something you know nothing about:

    "...study the advances in DNA Research..." You will find in fact that it is their information. I listed them as a source of the information I assimulated from them. Once again a knee-jerk reaction from Neg fearing that his precious evolution will be tossed out. Incidently this one has absolutely nothing to do with religion. But once again....

    ..Perfectly structured??? Ever look at a bacteria under a microscope?
    Oh Silly Neg, you can't see the DNA Language through a microscope!

    What about genetically altered corn? Altering its DNA didn't kill it, did it?
    Organism or veggie?

    You always seem to spout out opinions, and as we all know everyone has one.
    Connection refused, try again later.
    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Negative

    I think that you have missed a couple of points.

    1. Sure DNA has been discovered, but we don't know what each bit does, or is there for?

    2. There is a mechanism that is relatively short term that I forget the name of. Basically it is where life forms adapt to current conditions. When those conditions change, they revert back or adapt to the new ones, if they are within range. This should not be confused with "evolution", which I would understand to be both long term and permanent.

    My other problem with the DNA theory is: "If it is so perfect, why can we be identified by it. Isn't it supposed to be unique (apart from identical twins)?

    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675
    Originally posted here by Negative
    I'm pretty sure both Otago University and the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle would smack you around for quoting them as a "source" for that mindless drivel, Relyt...
    Oh, really?


    Dr. Michale Denton, Dept of Biochemistry, Otago University

    "Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

    So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?"


    Dr. Stephen Meyer, the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

    "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information"the detailed instructions for assembling proteins"in the form of a four-character digital code"

    Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language"

    Connection refused, try again later.
    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    You will find in fact that it is their information.
    No, it is not.

    You turn this:
    Denton

    "Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

    So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
    into this:

    Relyt

    To evolve means to change the perfectly structured and organized genetic information of that bacteria. However, any chance mutation or natural selection as Darwin implies, would alter the DNA Language of the original bacteria and would have killed it.
    "when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it" becomes "any chance mutation or natural selection as Darwin implies, would alter the DNA Language of the original bacteria and would have killed it" - that's quite different, don't you think?

    And then you turn this:

    Meyer
    Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language"
    into this:

    Relyt
    [b]It has a distinct similarity to a perfect computer program. A multitude of lines of code, perfectly structured and organized. [b/]
    "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" becomes "a distinct similarity to a perfect computer program"?? The word "properties" in the original didn't matter? And the addition of "perfect" comes from where??

    Oh Silly Neg, you can't see the DNA Language through a microscope!
    I said "Ever look at a bacteria under a microscope?", not "Ever look at a bacteria's DNA language through a microscope"? You should have pointed out that "bacteria" is plural and that I said "a bacteria" (which doesn't make sense, since it's plural), not add some stuff you make up.

    Organism or veggie?
    I hope you're not trying to say that corn is not an organism...
    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Hey, Relyt

    The DNA stuff is pretty complex, and we do not understand it yet. What I am suggesting is that maybe some of the bits in the chains dictate the "operating environment" and reactions to changes in it?

    I just base a lot of ideas on personal observation and lateral extension of events recorded in other spheres.

    For example, I am quite knowledgeable on domestic cats. The lady I sold my first flat in London to had spent about $6,000 on bringing her cat to London. She came from South Africa.

    We kept in communication, and she told me that "Timothy has grown his first winter coat" obviously he did not need to do that in South Africa, but when required, he knew how? I guess that part of our DNA is almost like a back up hard drive ghost/mirror image?

    Just a thought

    EDIT:
    So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being,
    The British parliamentary labour party is living (if you can call it life) proof of that process.

    Share on Google+

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    A couple of other things before it really gets nasty:

    Relyt has been reading "The Good News Magazine". His first post was his own interpretation of one of that magazine's articles, then his "come-back-post" contained some actual quotes from the magazine.

    "The Good News Magazine" is "the biblically based flagship publication of the United Church of God, an International Association"... whoaaaa...
    The gospel is not a limited "religious" message about a historical figure. It is the answer to every human dilemma, because it speaks to a way of living and of God's own plan for humanity.
    WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    Share on Google+

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    And of course, there's even more to it:

    Interview with Denton
    Interviewer: What do you feel are the strengths of Darwinian theory?
    Its major strength is that smaller-scale biological change can be adequately accounted for by Darwinian mechanisms. You have the case of the peppered moth, where it is demonstrated to be true that natural selection has created a biological change.
    Natural selection... a biological change...

    From the same interview:


    There are various forms of teleological theories, extending from Creationist intervention theories to nature mysticism. But these theories are (I don't want to be derogatory) an occultist type of theory.
    Wait... did he just call Creationist intervention occult? Hah! That must be why they started calling it Intelligent Design..

    This is all from promo-tours Denton was doing for his "Evolution: A theory in crisis", btw...

    But wait! In 2002, Mr. Denton wrote a paper called "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law"... whoaaaaa.... support for evolution by natural law?
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •