The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Stultis]

You even give more credence to the author's argument than he does. He only suggests a possibility. The word is credulous.

No, actually, the word is "irreducible complexity," and the relevant claim is that IC systems cannot have evolved in any stepwise, naturalistic fashion. Therefore even a mere "possibility" (which you acknowledge) of a stepwise path, even by means of a "just so" story, is a refutation of the claim that this system must be attributed to "Intelligent Design" because it is "irreducibly complex".

[AndrewC]

No, actually, the word is "irreducible complexity," and the relevant claim is that IC systems cannot have evolved in any stepwise, naturalistic fashion. Therefore even a mere "possibility" (which you acknowledge) of a stepwise path, even by means of a "just so" story, is a refutation of the claim that this system must be attributed to "Intelligent Design" because it is "irreducibly complex".

Please read post 689 where JediGirl posts the link as "proof" (which I take to mean evidence- believable at least) "of the gradual evolution of the bacterial flagellum." The IC was mentioned in the "just so" story by the author who admits for the motility function it is IC. My comment does not admit to the possibility. It notes his suggestion of a possibility. Now it is "possible" that little elves go into shoemaker's stores and make Nikes™ but I will not accept it without "proof". After all the author writes -- When viewed as a motile stucture, the flagella is IC.

[gore3000]

From the article on post#469: -me-

Post 469 was a reply by Gargantua to Dimensio and had nothing to do with the Pope

You seem to have found the article anyway, it was just a bit further down on post#478 - so why are you nitpicking? Why did you not do the others a favor and just link to the proper post? Is this a discussion about evolution or about my typing?

[Junior]

If you'd actually read my post, I said I never found your post. I had to go to The Ultimate Resource to find the Pope's comments.

[Jeff Gordon]

Indeed, the boy's zeal is not tempered. Not by reason. Not by education.

He has evolved into a ( - / .-. / --- / .-.. / .-.. )

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking, and ever-alert for suicide bombers for Genesis.

[VadeRetro]

Is that like a troll?

[gore3000]

Please note, the Pope specifically lays out what is within the realm of science and what is within the realm of religion.

He sure does. First of all you need to note the title at the top (also repeated later on in the text): TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH. I mentioned that in the post you responded to but it seemingly got past you. In reading it you need to realize that the 'praise' is conditional. He says for example that:
A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

He further recognizes that there are several theories of evolution: "Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations." This of course is in preparation for the blow at Darwinian evolution. He then gives the hammer blow and says:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

In case anyone misunderstood the meaning of the above he starts his conclusion with:
The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. ...
It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us.

So as you can see, the Pope did not come to praise Caesar, he came to bury him. As I said in my previous post: TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH. Therefore it is atheistic/materialistic evolution that is untrue, not the Bible (as if anyone would question that the Pope was Catholic!).

[gore3000]

Do you acknowledge your protests about the mutation between man and chimp were based on ignoring the difference between a protein itself and the gene that codes it?

I certainly do not, and the above statement shows your complete ignorance as to how the cell works. Let me give it to you from an article since you will call me names if I explain it myself:

FUNCTIONS OF DNA
DNA serves two very important functions:

To transmit information from one generation of cells to the next To provide the information for the synthesis of components (proteins) necessary for cellular function Protein Synthesis

To enable protein synthesis, a complementary molecule of Ribonucleic acid (RNA) called messenger RNA (mRNA) is synthesized from DNA. The mRNA takes the information from the nucleus to the cytoplasm of the cell. In the cytoplasm, the mRNA interacts with ribosomes to synthesize specific proteins according to the information relayed from the DNA. A specific triplet of base pairs (codons) in the gene sequence specifies a particular amino acid.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Thus the coded information from DNA passes from the nucleus to the cytoplasm where it is used to assemble amino acids into proteins.

In addition:
PROTEINS
Proteins are polymeric molecules constructed from twenty building blocks called amino acids which are linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins are consequently often referred to as polypeptides. Polypeptide sequences vary in length from tens to hundreds of amino acids. The charge, size, shape and three-dimensional structure of a protein is specified by its amino acid composition and sequence. The three-dimensional structure determines function and biological activity.
From: Functions of DNA and Proteins

So your statement is completely specious. The DNA codes the amino acid sequence of the protein. In fact, what we call a gene is the DNA sequence that encodes the protein. In fact the way we often find what genes do what is by looking at the proteins, what the sequence for it is, and then looking for the gene that makes it. So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein.

Therefore, my statement was correct: the article contradicted itself and you contradicted the article in an attempt to save your nonsensical proof of evolution.

[gore3000]

See my answer to Vade in post#769 above.

[VadeRetro]

So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein.

Proteins contain no DNA. This is worse than your "how many genomes per gene?" of last year.

[VadeRetro]

(gore, to you:) See my answer to Vade in post#769 above.

And try not to cry.

[longshadow]

So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein. [emphasis added]

Priceless.

[Gumlegs]

This is worse than your "how many genomes per gene?" of last year.

Last year? There was a last year? When? Show some proof!

[VadeRetro]

It's almost impossible to tell what you're getting at, but I believe you are not allowing that there are instances of redundancy in the code.

The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons.With three exceptions, each codon encodes for one of the 20 amino acids used in the synthesis of proteins. That produces some redundancy in the code: most of the amino acids being encoded by more than one codon.

From The Genetic Code. Farther down on the same page:

The Genetic Code (DNA)

TTT	Phe		TCT	Ser		TAT	Tyr		TGT	Cys
TTC	Phe		TCC	Ser		TAC	Tyr		TGC	Cys
TTA	Leu		TCA	Ser		TAA	STOP		TGA	STOP
TTG	Leu		TCG	Ser		TAG	STOP		TGG	Trp
CTT	Leu		CCT	Pro		CAT	His		CGT	Arg
CTC	Leu		CCC	Pro		CAC	His		CGC	Arg
CTA	Leu		CCA	Pro		CAA	Gln		CGA	Arg
CTG	Leu		CCG	Pro		CAG	Gln		CGG	Arg
ATT	Ile		ACT	Thr		AAT	Asn		AGT	Ser
ATC	Ile		ACC	Thr		AAC	Asn		AGC	Ser
ATA	Ile		ACA	Thr		AAA	Lys		AGA	Arg
ATG	Met*		ACG	Thr		AAG	Lys		AGG	Arg
GTT	Val		GCT	Ala		GAT	Asp		GGT	Gly
GTC	Val		GCC	Ala		GAC	Asp		GGC	Gly
GTA	Val		GCA	Ala		GAA	Glu		GGA	Gly
GTG	Val		GCG	Ala		GAG	Glu		GGG	Gly

*When within gene; at beginning of gene, ATG signals start of translation.

Note all the redundancies. Lotta ways to skin a cat there.

[gore3000]

Still waiting for your proof that there is no junk DNA.

What an utterly dishonest person you are. I have answered you three times already. The last time I even gave you the numbers of the posts to refer to. If you do not like the answer, I could care less. You are clearly not interested in honest discussion since you do not address what is written to you. Here is my answers to you - like them or not:

g3 still claims he can prove that there is NO junk DNA. - you-

I did not say that. What I did say is that the assumption by evolutionists (made before there was any evidence either way) that non-coding DNA was junk was proven absolutely wrong. I have shown you two articles proving that assumption wrong. Andrew C showed you another one. Therefore the evolutionist assumption is totally wrong and it is up to evolutionists now to show that any of that non-coding DNA is indeed junk. Let me also say, that evolutionists also said for a long time that the appendix and the tonsils were useless leftovers from previous species man descended from. That 'assumption from ignorance' by evolutionists has also been proven wrong. Luckily for us, medical scientists did not listen to the garbage from the evolutionist theologians.

655 posted on 3/31/02 6:27 PM Pacific by gore3000

Since the evolutionist assumption that non-coding DNA was disproven, and since other evolutionist assumptions that "useless" organs were not useless such as the appendix and the tonsils, I think evolutionists have a very big credibility problem when they make such claims. Therefore, it is now up to the evolutionists to prove that non-coding DNA is indeed junk. It is an assumption without any proof to back it. The statement that non-coding DNA is not junk, has been proven. In addition, even with genes, we do not know what all of them do. However, enough have been proven to have a purpose that no one assumes that the rest of them do not have a purpose. Scientific assumptions are only legitimate when they have facts to back them up. The evolutionist assumption that junk DNA is junk is not science, it is total nonsense. As I said about medicine regarding the appendix and the tonsils, I can also say about biologists - lucky they did not listen to the phony theory of the Darwinists otherwise we would have closed up some of the most interesting discoveries yet to be made.

679 posted on 3/31/02 7:44 PM Pacific by gore3000

I already addressed the matter of non-coding DNA in posts 679 and 655 which were addressed to you. If you disagree with my statements there, why don't you address what I say there?

687 posted on 3/31/02 8:19 PM Pacific by gore3000

You want to discuss my answer, go ahead,but if you keep repeating the above lie, I shall repost the above each and every time that you tell that lie again.

[VadeRetro]

The table in 775 should show you how it is possible that there are 10⁴⁹ ways to code just the human-chimp common version of cytochrome c. As I read it, the only non-redundandly coded amino is methionine. Every other has three or four ways to code it.

[gore3000]

the proteins (identical) and the genes (one non-effective difference).

You keep repeating that silly statement, obviously you do not know very much biology (probably comes from reading all that junk at TalkOrigins). See my post#769 as to why the above is absolutely wrong.

[VadeRetro]

You keep repeating that silly statement, obviously you do not know very much biology (probably comes from reading all that junk at TalkOrigins). See my post#769 as to why the above is absolutely wrong.

When you finally catch up on this thread, your cheeks are going to really burn. You'll brazen, of course.

Hey! Maybe you can get the thread pulled!