Draco said:
In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents.
|
Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly
why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.
Quote:
Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...
Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...
|
Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word.
Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.
A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.
Quote:
Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...
|
ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.
Quote:
You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...
|
It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.
Quote:
I will get back to you on all of this... I just need to find some time to be able to sit down for atleast an hour and reply.... If it looks like I forgot about it, tell me...
|
K.
Draco said:
Hey, I found a video about a guy who once believed in evolution but after looking at certain animals he realized they don't fit into the evolutionary process... with this one he was looking at a bug called the bombardier beetle...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M
|
I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the
stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.
Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a
doctor?
THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!
I'll get back to you after I watch the next 30 seconds. Or maybe after I watch the rest.
Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss.
"Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life.
I'll get back to you when I feel like it.
I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet
real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it.
I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over
professors and
doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist.
I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.
I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.
Quote:
Evolution is so unforgiving, isn't it?
|
Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.
Quote:
A system that lets the weak fall to the wayside...
atleast the vast majority was given a warning about eternal suffering and yet people ignore it, and the system allows anyone to be pulled away from the eternal suffering(which is the forgivness)...
|
I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds
them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows
children and
babies to
die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He
allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.
Quote:
Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution? That was the main reason behind his 'perfect race' of blond haired, blue eyed people... he thought they were the closest to Arian so he started to kill anyone that did not fit the discription... too bad he didn't look in the mirror...
|
This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Quote:
All I was saying is that if science had not created the power we woulden't have had the war....
|
The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.
Quote:
I know there were no war casualities, but if it had begun a full scale war, we possibly would not be here posting right now... Also, you are missing the point... the only reason I brought up hitler was to prove that science can lead to war, in this case a world war....
|
Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.
Quote:
Now tell me... after all the scientific proof I have shown you you still believe in evolution?! I mean come on... the bombardier beetle could not have evolved, no matter how fast or slow... it would have killed itself(loud pop, then silence...) or been killed off...
|
Google it.
Quote:
... also, if you think about evolution, it is a perfect system... in order for evolution to work the 'evolved' creature would have to be only survivor in order for the benifit to survive, otherwise the benifit would have been spliced back into the gene pool...
|
For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that.
Quote:
the more you breed the less of a gene pool you have to pull from...
|
That's simply not true. Why do you say that?
Quote:
take a toy poodle(example) it's smaller than a normal poodle, but if you breed two toy poodles together you can only get a toy poodle(of equal or lesser size)...
|
1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents.
2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.
Quote:
his is a loss of information, everytime a dog is breeded to be smaller or longer or whatever the genetic traits from being tall or short are weeded out....
|
Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.
Quote:
so for evolution to work our ancestors must have had similar genetics to our ancestors....
|
Our ancestors have similar
genomes to our ancestors.