If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

[sear]

"Ok, how does one falsify evolution?" #202

Invite god to the cocktail party.
Have him perform a miracle; throw a boat over a hedge for example.

"The fact is that all evolution is based upon errors, some errors are neutral, some are bad and some are beneficial. That said they are still all errors in code, or so the people who laid this theory said." #207

I gather you're referring to genetic mutation here.
You may be mostly right, at least about the amoeba for example.

But your assertion completely overlooks the SPECTACULAR advance in genetic diversity derived from SEXUAL reproduction.

Sexual reproduction naturally promotes genetic diversity *; the reason most siblings are not identical twins. A few are. They're the exception.
It may still seem random. But genetic diversity in sexual reproductees need not necessarily involve genetic mutation.

"This theory was laid long before DNA was even discovered, but people like you refuse to accept this." TD

You're welcome to state you're own position. Please do not attempt to state or predict mine, without quoting my posted words. Thanks.

People like me are called "scientists". If it is a consensus among scientists, I'm likely to accept my peers on it. My field of expertise is computer chip development. So for expertise in other areas, I turn to them, as they do to me in mine.

AND while I know peer-review is not perfect, is likely more factually precise than the reinforcement of millennia old dogma churches extract from ancient texts from pre-literate societies; insisting the "truth", sometimes confessed to be "religious truth" (akin to Kelly Anne Conway's "alternate facts"); different.

“The debate between science and religion ended when churches put lightning rods on their steeples.” shiftless2

* haploid gametes vs diploid body cells
For further information: contrast mitosis and meiosis.

* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I must be in the minority here; because I happen to believe in God and evolution.
As far as I'm concerned, they go hand in hand.

That's the great creationist lie. They present an utterly false dichotomy that a belief in a certain scientific theory is incompatible with Christian faith. You're not alone. The overwhelming majority of Biologist in our nation identify themselves as Christian.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Do you think he is a carbon based life form?



Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

As full of shit as he is? He'd have to be.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually as science decodes DNA, it becomes clearer every year how immensely complex it is. In fact it resembles an operating system in a computer, that before it is that operating system, is also the blueprint for building the computer itself, then it examines the computer and the world and makes changes to the next version of the operating system and computer via the evolutionary process.

That's a weak analogy as DNA coding is not an electronic binary system.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok, how does one falsify evolution?

Discover a nest of fossilized puppies in a Morrisonian geological strata.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There may be no natural selection. See this theory goes that errors in code improve the species. This may be true, but can something that improves a species really be termed an error? Just think, what we see as errors are actually just the code running itself, we do not understand how it works, as the more we learn the more questions there are.

DNA is a blueprint, and a computer with operating system, that reinvents and evolves itself as the environment decides is best with every generation.

Cry all you want, science is proving this, and that computers and operating systems do not grow in ponds from nothing, they are built by engineers, one who wears the badge of God

Oh good lord...so much wrong here. #1. That's not how natural selection works. #2. DNA coding is nothing like a computer or an operating system and #3. science has proven no such thing

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The fact is that all evolution is based upon errors, some errors are neutral, some are bad and some are beneficial. That said they are still all errors in code, or so the people who laid this theory said. This theory was laid long before DNA was even discovered, but people like you refuse to accept this.

Thats rhetorical nonsense. The term "error" is a value judgment. A mutation is a change in the DNA. An error is when you drop an infield fly ball.

 

[Timshel]

Ok, how does one falsify evolution?

It's not as if creationists can't answer that. They have been trying and failed to attack the theory with arguments of irreducible complexity. That would do it, but the argument for irreducible complexity in the eye and the flagella both went down in flames.

That you cannot successfully falsify it does not mean it cannot be falsified.

 

[Darth Omar]

Discover a nest of fossilized puppies in a Morrisonian geological strata.

But then they'd claim the strata was disrupted or whatever lol.

Everyone knows there were no puppies then.

 

[Darth Omar]

It's not as if creationists can't answer that. They have been trying and failed to attack the theory with arguments of irreducible complexity. That would do it, but the argument for irreducible complexity in the eye and the flagella both went down in flames.

That you cannot successfully falsify it does not mean it cannot be falsified.

Darwin himself said how his theory could be falsified---I read the book.

Irreducible complexity, ironically, is derived from the same principle: namely, that if something couldn't have come about via a step by step process, then his theory would fall apart. Or to that effect, I'm too lazy to Google it lol.

I've seen the back and forth arguments for and against the flagellum; I read Behe's book [at least two of them, actually] and seen the objections raised against them.

You know what? I'm not sure what I believe lol. In my own mind I think it's pretty inconclusive. The flagellum could have evolved from a simpler precursor, but it's hardly a slam dunk. The DNA code, IS a code with instructions on how to replicate itself found only within itself and no where else.

It's maddening lol. I give them credit for trying to find a purely natural pathway for its origin but it seems hopeless. Yes, I know science has uncovered countless mysteries but this one is different.

At any rate, evolution requires that one accept so many 'could haves' that I'm convinced the debate will never end.

 

[Timshel]

What is not falsifiable are the claims of cowardly creationists who say that evolution is limited to changes within "kind" or to within some undefined limit. They claim they accept evolution but they obviously reject the "theory of evolution" based on these limits. But they are not offering any kind of coherent alternative explanation of the facts explained by the theory of evolution. It's obvious that your acceptance of evolution is based more on faith than any science.

 

[Timshel]

Darwin himself said how his theory could be falsified---I read the book.

Irreducible complexity, ironically, is derived from the same principle: namely, that if something couldn't have come about via a step by step process, then his theory would fall apart. Or to that effect, I'm too lazy to Google it lol.

I've seen the back and forth arguments for and against the flagellum; I read Behe's book [at least two of them, actually] and seen the objections raised against them.

You know what? I'm not sure what I believe lol. In my own mind I think it's pretty inconclusive. The flagellum could have evolved from a simpler precursor, but it's hardly a slam dunk. The DNA code, IS a code with instructions on how to replicate itself found only within itself and no where else.

It's maddening lol. I give them credit for trying to find a purely natural pathway for its origin but it seems hopeless. Yes, I know science has uncovered countless mysteries but this one is different.

At any rate, evolution requires that one accept so many 'could haves' that I'm convinced the debate will never end.

So then why were you asking the question? You know how it can be falsified.

Well, you are an idiot but don't worry I still see some of these fossils bringing up the eye. Behe's arguments have been destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

In contrast to Behe's claims, many proteins can be deleted or mutated and the flagellum still works, even though sometimes at reduced efficiency.[72] In fact, the composition of flagella is surprisingly diverse across bacteria with many proteins only found in some species but not others.[73] Hence the flagellar apparatus is clearly very flexible in evolutionary terms and perfectly able to lose or gain protein components. Further studies have shown that, contrary to claims of "irreducible complexity", flagella and related protein transport mechanisms show evidence of evolution through Darwinian processes, providing case studies in how complex systems can evolve from simpler components.[74][75] Multiple processes were involved in the evolution of the flagellum, including horizontal gene transfer.[76]

 

[Darth Omar]

What is not falsifiable are the claims of cowardly creationists who say that evolution is limited to changes within "kind" or to within some undefined limit. They claim they accept evolution but they obviously reject the "theory of evolution" based on these limits. But they are not offering any kind of coherent alternative explanation of the facts explained by the theory of evolution. It's obvious that your acceptance of evolution is based more on faith than any science.

What's wrong with being agnostic about it lol?

I wish there was some way to be sure about it---either way, but there's not. Besides, it would no longer be interesting if that happened.

 

[Timshel]

What's wrong with being agnostic about it lol?

I wish there was some way to be sure about it---either way, but there's not. Besides, it would no longer be interesting if that happened.

That's not agnosticism. It's some vague belief based on faith. It's not a scientific position because it is not defined enough to be falsifiable. There is a way to be sure about it, define the limit and then do some tests. But no you can never be sure about some vague bullshit you only use for sowing doubt.

 

[Darth Omar]

That's not agnosticism. It's some vague belief based on faith. It's not a scientific position because it is not defined enough to be falsifiable. There is a way to be sure about it, define the limit and then do some tests. But no you can never be sure about some vague bullshit you only use for sowing doubt.

This is what's amusing about hardcore evolution defenders.

You're no different than the young earth creationists you despise lol! You just accused me of sowing doubt. I'd have about as much luck sowing doubt in your mind as I would talking a turtle out it's shell. So I won't waste my time.

Science is predicated on doubt and skepticism. It's more 'scientific' to be skeptical of evolution than it is to blindly accept every one of its propositions.

The parallels with the global warming debate are striking.

 

[Timshel]

This is what's amusing about hardcore evolution defenders.

You're no different than the young earth creationists you despise lol! You just accused me of sowing doubt. I'd have about as much luck sowing doubt in your mind as I would talking a turtle out it's shell. So I won't waste my time.

Science is predicated on doubt and skepticism. It's more 'scientific' to be skeptical of evolution than it is to blindly accept every one of its propositions.

The parallels with the global warming debate are striking.

Scientific skepticism is not about some vague unstated doubt that is only informed by faith. It's about doubting claims for which there is no scientific support. There is no scientific support for the claim that evolution hits a wall at some point just beyond speciation. You guys can't/won't even articulate what the wall is. But you feel it is there based on your religious beliefs or remnants of those beliefs.

 

[TheDonald]

Thats rhetorical nonsense. The term "error" is a value judgment. A mutation is a change in the DNA. An error is when you drop an infield fly ball.

The current evolutionary theory actually hails that all mutations are errors in code transcription. The theory further says that bad errors will make the organism less likely to produce offspring and good errors will make the organism more successful. The fact is that you do not understand the theory, and are actually arguing with it the same as I am.

 

[TheDonald]

God had in vitro fertilization "FOR ALL WE KNOW"? Man, pal, you are making a stretch! Does your book mention in vitro fertilization or are you just pulling that from your ass? Yeah, my money is on the rectal reach!

You believe in a virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, and accuse me of stupidity? That's just fucking priceless!

There is no stretch at all, 2000 years ago the only way to reproduce was have physical sex. Now this is not the case at all, in fact in some dog breeds they can not have sex at all, and artificial is the only way to go.

It's fact, just like the bible says that we are created in Gods image, which would allow for us to build spacecraft and travel around the Universe.

Face it, it's happening

 

[TheDonald]

That's a weak analogy as DNA coding is not an electronic binary system.

That is not a weak analogy at all, since your brain transmits information using electricity. Take the electricity out of your brain and it has an equal data crunching ability as your computer without electricity as they will both be flatlined.......................you are a computer, one more advanced than we can actually comprehend

 

[iolo]

It must be very odd to live in a society where educated people have to pretend to be living in the mid-Nineteenth Century and argue with long-dead believers. All this creationist nonsense a sort of training-run for Trump's unfacts and tantrums. I suppose you have a sort of duty to keep the Country together, but I do wonder is it worth it.