Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Show me....you dolt.
[[References?]]
google.com
There’s lots of breeding programs that show you casn’t violate hte parameters without seriously affectign hte species- As well miller’s experiments and many others- knock tyourself out.
js is literally all over the map betty boop, it appears to me he's rattled, because I recall hearing from him when it came to abiogenesis it was all about biology.
Proteins convey messages. No Proteins (not just Prions) are made of RNA or DNA. Prion misfolding IS the source of their pathology.
I’ve read it and his recent statements on the issue, and he’s grasping, looking for a natural explanation for metainfo - not impressed with his claims- and neither are scientists whom you claim are leaning towards naturalistic explainations that ‘are recently emerging’ in the exiting field of informaiton research.
DNA also cannot convey the message until acted upon by an outside influence. Often that “outside influence” is the message conveyed by a signal transduction pathway involving proteins CONVEYING A MESSAGE, that leads to the activation of a protein transcription factor that allows for a particular DNA gene to be able to convey its message.
So your “point”, to grant it more credibility than it deserves as it is rather obtuse to be called a ‘point’, is completely off base.
DNA doesn’t, in and of itself, contain any information. It needs to exist and be acted upon within a context of proteins that contain and convey messages in order for its information to have any value.
SourceIn evolutionary search, a large number offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search giving rise to active information. As with the child’s game of finding a hidden object, we are being told with respect to the solution whether we are getting ”colder” or ”warmer” to the target.
[[Proteins not only have information content, they are also able to alter and pass along a molecular “message” in Signal Transduction.]]
Yes, when acted upon.
[[To deny that proteins convey messages is once again, to betray your ignorance of the subject.]]
On their own, they do not convey anything- if htere is nothign else present to convey that message to, then it is simply a static message without puropose in relation to a system whole. Why you insist on this symatic line of attack is beyond me- apparently you don’t wish to discuss the problem of hte rise of info in a stepwise manner that hte article is talkign about because it presents a HUGE problem for macroeovlutionary claims about life from non life?
Which reminds me of why big bang doesn't require all kinds of steps to be understood while ID does and multiverse theory isn't "observed" like trajectories of cannon balls, nevertheless is considered "science".
More empirical evidence of scientific double-standards imposed by those with endless God hang-ups. VERY weak.
Thanks for posting.
[[In other words you are unable or unwilling to learn from your mistakes or accept or modify your thesis based upon new knowledge.]]
That’s not hte case at all- you’re unwilling to admit message is nothign unless acted upon- which is hte central issue of htis whole article. What was it acted upon by? Higher info- what directs that higher info? Metainfo- would higher info be able to sustain the species without metainfo already present anticipating changes? NO! it certianly would not.
[[DNA also cannot convey the message until acted upon by an outside influence. Often that “outside influence” is the message conveyed by a signal transduction pathway involving proteins CONVEYING A MESSAGE, that leads to the activation of a protein transcription factor that allows for a particular DNA gene to be able to convey its message.]]
you again apparently are missing hte point- The protein, once again, can NOT convey any message unless acted uponm in the first place- arguing in circles Allmen isn’t a valid argument tactic- the proteien can NOT get that message to activate ANYTHING UNTIL it too is acted upon. The message lies stagnant UNTIL acted upon.
[[It needs to exist and be acted upon within a context of proteins that contain and convey messages in order for its information to have any value.]]
so now your argument has evovled from ‘contain’ to ‘convey’, but ignores hte fact that contained info is useless unless it is acted upon?
[[In evolutionary search, a large number offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search giving rise to active information. As with the child’s game of finding a hidden object, we are being told with respect to the solution whether we are getting ”colder” or ”warmer” to the target.]]
Good golly- you aren’t serious? Communication does NOT add anythign genetically, biologically, or information wise to cells or genes.
Wow!
Proteins do not contain DNA or RNA. They do have information content in that they are necessarily part of the channel, much like a land line would be to a phone conversation. But they are not the message, nor the successful communication of the message.
Prions, which are proteins - albeit misfolded proteins - are in effect "noise" in the channel element of Shannon's mathematical model of communications.
The conveyance of a message - the channel - is not the successful communication of it. The land line is not the conversation. The computer is just potential until communications occur.
Successful communication (Shannon) consists of message, sender, encoding, channel, noise, decoding and receiver.
Information is an action, it is not the information content itself much less the message.
Information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.
Jeepers. I can't believe I actually said it all over again.
Science and things arrived at scientifically are objective.
That’s where you went off the rails.
If 50 doctors pick drug A to be the best drug for hypertension while 50 other docs pick drug B to be the best drug for hypertension and write papers supporting their findings, science is very much, in the end, subjective when it comes to my decision deciding how to lower my blood pressure.
The interpretation of science very much is subjective and scientists are influenced by politics, ideology and yes money, just like anyone else.
Global warming immediately comes to mind.
You asserted I was misrepresenting Bill Dembski, and I give you quote from and a link to his latest publication. Take it or leave it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.