Sorry, but there are thousands of insertion points. None of them preferred over others.
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]
If you stay tuned you may live to see such a demonstration. If your sources are more than a year old, you need to keep up. this is a thriving field of research.
To say that a protein doesn't convey a message is to betray ignorance of signal transduction pathways of proteins.
Proteins are both the product of information from DNA, and the result of information conveyed to DNA by protein, and is capable of receiving and transmitting information as well.
Hey allmen- how about just sticking to your case instead of launching every comment you make into an attack? You’ve brought up several important points, however, your insults are not called for-
The ‘informaiton’ or message can, by itself, do nothing- it needs catylysts, and it needs a controlling mechanism to ensure that when it ‘does it’s job’ when instructed to do so, that it won’t end in noise, but in a process it was designed to end in.
The message itself is useless, and can NOT brign about hte changes that are required for macroevolution. IF al lwe had were messages that had no instucting, controlling, directing metainfo workign behind hte scences- there woudl be chaos as the ‘message’ would NOT know how it’s own unique effects would affect the whole system. Thati s hte point BB is making.
There really are two distinguishable problems here. One is the origin of the code, which is a very hard problem.
The other is much simpler: how is code modified. There really isn’t any question that modification and selection work. We have numerous examples of new functionality arising by mutation and selection.
Where does the “information” come from? the environment, via the process of selection. Bill Dembski has just authored a paper on the subject, admitting what biologists have argued all along. Selection is a source of information.
Calling something stupid doesn't make it so.
Indeed the first step towards learning is the admission “I do not know”.
The included section on Prions was an embarrassment that did not clearly convey the information intended, conflated the issue with things not germane to the subject, and betrayed an ignorance of the subject matter.
That is not an “attack”. It is a criticism, one that is grounded in my knowing what they are talking about enough to deduce that they have no idea what they are talking about in regards to Prions.
How can one take seriously the “deeper meaning” of someones essay when they state the relevant facts absolutely incorrectly?
[[There is a difference between someone who calculates probabilities and says something can’t be done, and someone who does experiments that demonstrates it can be done.]]
Ah yes- all htose neat nifty little computer programs and lab experiments that violated naturalism by itneoducing intelligent design show that soemthign that can’t be done naturally, can be done unnaturally- or supernaturally- good point-
After all, a correspondent doesn't resort to spitwads when he has ammunition.
[[The best evidence is not the nesting of common coding genes, but the nesting of retrovirus scars in the genome]]
This simply hsows common design and preferred insertion points that are similar in similar common design- nothign more
Saying that your writing on the subject betrays your ignorance of the subject is not a compliment, backhanded or otherwise, neither is it an attack. It is simply a statement of fact from one knowledgeable about the subject to one who obviously is not.
How about you deal with the gaping holes I have shown in the thin canvas of your knowledge of the subject rather than proclaiming that my comments were “spit wads”?
Belligerent ignorance of how science is done does not help your argument.
Science always tries to isolate causes and effects, and it does so through excluding variables. Newton could not manipulate planets, but he could study the trajectories of cannonballs.
[[But we have many examples of genomes designed or modified by humans — plant crops, insulin producing bacteria and so forth — and all of them have an instantly identifiable characteristic: they don’t nest. They can’t be the product of common descent.]]
You’ve brought this up several times i nthe past and I’ve asked you to clarify why you do and what you are tryign to infer- you haven’t done so, but continue to bring it up. inteligently manipulating genetic info has got nothign to do with common design. You say geneticly altered plants are identifiable inthat htey don’t ‘nest’- Yeah? so what? Common design is also instantly identifiable. Not sure what your point is here even after askign several times for more clarification as to hte point your are tryign to make- How would intelligently alterec genetic material counterargue agaisnt common design?
Sorry, but there are thousands of insertion points. None of them preferred over others.
I can’t help you. The argument is phrased as simply as possible.
Eavesdropping on a land line, one would perceive information content in transit. But that information content in transit does not constitute the successful communication of the message from sender to receiver.
Information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver.
Conversely, a land line loaded up with information content accomplishes no successful communication absent the message, sender, encoder, decoder or receiver.
Again, compare the Urey/Miller experiment to Wimmer's.
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.